@david wolf Meditations is good, anything by Seneca is good, and if you want a modern book that gives a good summary and interpretation with modern examples, The Obstacle is the Way by Ryan Holiday is a good read.
The intellectual dark web is part of what Americans and the allies fought for in WW2. Now we have BOTH the alt-right nationalists and ANTIFA standing against this
@@adin4545 Why? He just pointed one funny thing out, he doesn't say that's all the conversation had to offer. You can talk about a part of a conversation without analyzing the whole debate you know.
Phate, the Thing is that he is not stupid. Of course he sais "you will sorry when you will be older" and you will see inevitable the importance to have had an insurance. More, he sais indirectly to be inteligent and think about that right now. But Albeit_Jordan and you dont think about that posibility of explanation, isnt it? A joke is not a joke if is not a reason and intelligent behind it. This is just an etalation of the contrary. Ps: sorry for my english but i think was acceptable.
Ben Shapiro: "Today I am announcing that I am officially running for president of the United States! ...But first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Policy Genius!
This really hits something profound; I laughed so hard. I think this IDW movement is gonna stumble against the pressures of the market. After hearing Ben try to convince me to buy something kinda makes the things he says afterwards seem less honest ...
Jesse Prevallet I think he's just staying consistent. Same number of spots for sponsors, placed at the same time. Gotta pay the bills, he keeps it overall neutral and consistent
Uh, yeah... So I guess you didn't actually watch the interview then, right? This could have been Sam Harris talking to Jon Lovitz' liar character from SNL and it wouldn't have had any bearing on the content of the conversation. I stand by my comment - conversations like this don't happen in the mainstream media, whether MSNBC or FOX. Shapiro freely admits to being biased to the right, which is why he's never claimed to be a journalist. He's also said on multiple occasions that his biggest problem is confirmation bias, a level of honesty that is rare on either side of the political aisle. I'm also a fan of Dave Pakman, Kyle Kulinski and Jimmy Dore on the left - but of course THEY aren't biased at all, right? That was pretty funny quoting Snopes as a legit fact-checking source though, I have to admit.
01) I'm now POSITIVE you haven't watched the video you're commenting on. 02) You don't know what the mainstream media is? I'm afraid that's more of a comment on you than me. I can assure you it's definition is readily understood by all, not least those in the mainstream itself. 03) Shapiro's "lies" have nothing to do with his conversation with Harris, the depth of which, again, is missing from the mainstream media that you seem to not know exists. 04) You misused the word "quantify," which means "to determine, express, or measure the quantity of" multiple times. "Elaborate," "elucidate," "expound" - all better words. 05) I'm genuinely curious as to what it was about my comment, as opposed to the many below it, that set you off on the world's most embarrassing hissy-fit. Since it seems to revolve around my use of the term "mainstream media" (which you evidently think I invented out of whole cloth) I can only assume that you're around 22, 23, college student, in communications or journalism or something like that - in other words you're hoping to one day land a job in the ("thought terminating") media, probably Snopes, and therefor have an increasingly desperate need to defend it. Anyway, I look forward to your next rambling and unhinged screed. PS - I don't mind you calling me "cupcake." I like cupcakes. Cupcakes are delicious.
I finally had to google "thought terminating cliche," and while I'm not sure you're using that correctly either, its derivation has at least confirmed for me that you _are_ , as I suspected, a college student in his early twenties studying media. Anyway, as amusing as this has been, and as perversely entertaining as I've found your Strasbergian commitment to making a fool of yourself to be, I'm afraid I'm going to have to end this. When things devolve to the point of my providing you with dictionary definitions, and you fact-checking them, it's safe to say things have run their course. Last comment is yours; don't forget to include lots of randomly capitalized words, followed by accusations of cowardice and emotional fragility. PS - you really should check out the interview; Sam Harris is an interesting guy.
I usually lay in bed about an hour just listening to the Ben Shapiro show on the AM station before finally rolling over and falling asleep. I try to follow closely to Ben Shapiro's thought process but its hard sometimes...…..he talks so fast and his thoughts are often layered with examples. Last week he was talking about the new accusations against Kavenaugh. The guy is very intelligent and even redefines issues I might be on the fence on.
Try old Christopher Hitchens c spam videos or debates... his old c span with Brian lamb is great because most the topics (Middle East, health care, religion, Dems and reps, populism) it's all the same discussion, so you can understand how he thinks on present situations
Adam Carroll and he doesn’t get personal. That’s one issue I have with Richard Dawkins for example. He makes his case then insults those who disagree. Sam is calm, cool and collected. Then after smiles makes a friend
Cool. Just ignore the career he's built by essentially calling Christians irredeemable monsters because he thinks they believe the strawman he created of the religion. Yeah. Good dude.
well to say that they agree on 95% of values is true, I believe Ben referenced this; on the application of those values in politics and through analysis of culture however, they are on completely different sides. A person can agree with another that an issue exists, but disagree on its solution. This does not inherently mean they are in agreement.
Both are true. In the same way that despite the enormous differences in what food we like, in truth we 99% agree - nobody eats bricks, trees, motortorpedoboats or sanitary napkins, and I've heard of only one person who eats aeroplanes. Thing is, we're so used to all the things we agree on and it never comes up... so we're permanently zoomed in on the tiny fragment where we disagree. Even in "massive disagreements" like abortion. Almost any conservative would agree you are allowed to kill in self-defense, and they would also agree that if it's not a human/person, we're allowed to kill it at will. What we mainly seem to disagree on, is when personhood actually starts and where the bar lies for self-defense (especially when there's no non-lethal option).
The real problem is that people like Ben and Sam who claim they are having a “civil conversation between people who disagree” define the bounds of acceptability regarding what is ok to disagree on and what is not. Example; topics such as religion, Trump, Brexit, etc. are all fair game amongst the IDW. You hold a contrary opinion about Israel however and Ben brands you as a terrorist sympathiser. Funny how the most passionate subjects for Ben are the ones he rarely allows himself to be challenged on.
name me a specific instance in which Ben shied away from talking about Israel by simply dismissing the other side. Ben was quite vocal about Hamas and the tactics it uses to propagate the Palestinians against the israelis just a couple months ago when the US embassy opened in Jerusalem.
@@yodishtrajagatheson3154 it doesn't really work that way. Reading books will increase your vocabulary and your verbal intelligence, reading comprehension, etc. but it won't necessarily increase your articulation and verbal fluency. Vocabulary is just about knowing what words mean. Verbal fluency is how fast / how well you can think of the right words to use in the heat of the moment, which is a different thing. And reading really doesn't help that very much. I'm not sure if anything does. While a better vocabulary means you have more words to choose from, it doesn't make you faster or better at choosing them at a moment's notice. This is especially obvious if you happen to have a great vocabulary but still aren't as articulate as you want to be. In this case, you can listen to someone like Sam make a really intelligent, articulate point, and honestly say to yourself "I could never come up with a sentence like that on the spot even though every single word he used is in my vocabulary." This happens all the time, where you read something or hear someone say something about a complicated, abstract concept and it's so perfectly phrased, so articulate, so intelligent and crystal clear that you know you could've never come up with it off the top of your head. But it won't contain any words you don't know, so your vocabulary isn't the limiting factor. It's just how the words are arranged, the clarity of thought behind them, and the fact the speaker thought of them so perfectly in the moment. It's not a matter of knowing more words most of the time.
@@m74d3 Yeah i agree with that. Confidence and fluidity really make an expression well. Go sign up for the Dale Carnegie public speaking course as done by Warren Buffet
@@m74d3 Sam Harris has more experience putting words together so that the ideas expressed are sexy. We don't have enough time in our life so to make our words sexy.
Ben isn’t? Lol no I’m joking both men are great additions and assets to the human race. Now if we can get rid of the “libtard” mentality we might be alright!
No, he doesn't. He used to. If you go back and look at his arguments from years ago he was much better and clearer and braver in his arguments. He's lost something over the years. Also, his research and points against Christianity is extremely biased and incomplete and his understanding of the Bible is vague and generalized at best.
I appreciate it as well, but most youtube videos from the daily wire aren't like this. They're usually conservative news monologues. You might or might not like that type of content, but just thought I'd let you know.
Nathanael 100%, it is cool to see the effect that this movement has had on Shapiro imo. I beleive I've judged him a little too harshly and I kinda understand it now. I do not necessarily disagree with the way Maher interviewed him for instance but I can also see how the tone changed the way he responds.
Dennis....Yes, quite refreshing to hear this productive dialogue. It's so fruitless when people raise voices and let emotions compromise what could be a productive conversation. After listening to 2 people argue...I feel stressed and irritable. Not with these guys...very good.
People should follow the example of Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro and employ the same kind of civility, manners, and expertise these two demonstrate. But the comments indicate people are refusing to internalize this lesson.
i agree. i think the main reason is the, "us or them," mentality. now granted, i have no problem for people being in a particular camp. but, you need to be able to shake hands across that line.
What's funny is that some people on the Internet have said that they talk the same way in real life as they do on the Net. They're obviously lying, because, otherwise, nobody would want anything to do with them.
Thing is, all of Sam's discussions are like this. While for Ben, it's typically "Shapiro destroys college freshman". 99% of times Ben argues to score points, not actually get at the truth, hence his rapid word salad delivery with little actual arguments, which Sam casually and patiently corrects throughout this video. So yeah, people should internalize this style of debating, including Ben.
Left wing atheist and a right wing Jew. Talking, discussing agreeing and disagreeing on a range of topics civilly. This is possible because neither of them are arse holes.
Sam Harris is not so much a left-wing person. He is a liberal with no real modern 'leftist' tendencies. Also both bright and incredibly well spoken. I have never heard anyone challenge Ben Shapiro (a phenomenal thinker and debater) so well. Thank you Sam and Ben.
@@davefx7949 I don't agree with Ben on a lot of things but he is more well read and his arguments are better posed than most. Nobody is an expert on everything obviously. I ascribe this to Sam personally not based on his self-description which likely falls outside of the common notion of what is on the American "left." Personally I think "Left" is a bad thing and "liberal" is a good thing. These days The label "Left" is applied to "liberal" just like "right" is applied to "conservative" but Thomas Sowell is not right-wing like Rush Limbaugh and Sam Harris is not left like, say, Malcom Nance - to use a pair of overrated pundits who could not hold a candle to either of the former, intellectually.. So in the classical sense yes but there is a wide disparity between them and modern evolutions of these labels. And stacking Sam against the political philosophy of the (stereo)typical university professor in the USA these days makes it clear
@@BenetbenetLive "Hes a progressive, hes not a classical liberal." Sam is a self-identified liberal, and has explicitly called himself a liberal in the more 'classical' sense of the word. Oddly enough, you couldn't be more wrong. That's truly ridiculous. I mean, unless you know Sam better than he knows himself. Your response seems arrogant enough to think so, or you're just mentally deficient. It also begs the question of what you know about classical liberalism, because Sam is a textbook liberal, in that respect.
This is a great conversation. Kudos to both Sam and Ben for remaining civilized and just calmy talking it out while disagreeing on so many things. I'm more in Sam's camp on most issues but I applaud the way Ben conducts himself here.
LOL! I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees their resemblances to each other. If you really pretend that it's Ben Stiller, it's almost like he's doing an impression of an intellectual. When Sam Harris sometimes raises his eyebrow, it looks like Zoolander doing one of his famous modeling "looks."
Retro Workshop I don't know if we have enough information from our history books for me to agree.. I don't think you can base the sentiments of an entire population on what they say about its leader. When I was in the military they made a point of eliminating racism because you have to depend on each other. There were still racist people. If you are referring to institutional racism and you might be right I honestly haven't studied that much world history and I'm sure the history of many cultures was not written down for us to know about. I think that it was common to enslave those you conquered. American Indians used to enslave each other but I doubt it was based on racism since they were all Indian. I do however believe that in-group out-group Behavior has always been around and it's usually based on something superficial like skin color so to say that localized racism was caused by Christianity is probably not true.
Hey, Ben is really really nice to Sam, and Sam is really really nice to Ben. Wish more atheists and more religious people would take lessons from BOTH men here.
Dialogue? Are you sure? Trying to explain to Ben anything that isn't his obsession and canonic truth would be like a person trying to explain to a bacteria... the same thing. It's would be entertaining if I could stand his voice for more than 2 seconds (in which he throws about 200 hundred words on average, 99% of which dispensable). The epitome of Idiocracy.
@@TiagoCavalcanti-ji6hu You’re so ignorant, to judge a man based on the way he speaks. It’s not hard to understand what Ben says, you’re just slow af. They were both trying to explain things to each other, that argument can be used for Harris as well.
Ben Shapiro doesn't look quite as intelligent when he doesn't control how long students are talking, allot interlocutors mere seconds to state their position, rebut with a fallacy, and refuse to afford his interlocutors fair time to debunk and criticize his dishonesty. Shocker. The only ones impressed by Ben Shapiro are the ones too daft to meaningful distinguish rhetoric from reason.
All of you guys are so dumb. First off, this is an interview. But that's not that important. What matters is that they both agree on A LOT of things. Ben shapiro has said that there is a reasonable and decent argument on the questionability of the existence of God.
You, and boy Wonder think that conversation, and debate are the same? lol leave it to the inherently stupid to willingly display their lack of intelligence
It doesn't make much sense, it's a RUclips video. Sam and Ben both have nothing better to do than talk about things. I mean this is how both of them make money right?
This conversation was so made with such an intent to be intellectually honest and genuine to the point that i'm almost crying. How rare is to see such thing.
Arm with enough knowledge, people will not be angry or agitated if their belief and perception are being chanllenged and questioned, because they can back up their position, with all the knowledge they got from extensive reading. It is those who got the knowledge from someone else, defend that secondary knowledge without individual thinking, when chanllenged, lacks the information to defend their position, those people tend to resort to violence, as they can no longer defend their believe and blames it on the other people who have different opinions, they view it as insult, where as most of the time, it is just rational questions. Frankly it is quite stupid, but it is still happening in todays world, like the fight between Liberal and Republican.
You should try and listen to what Sam says and realize he should probably stay at 1 speed. Ben talks faster but says less. Also have some fucking respect for Sam Harris. He's at least twice as smart as Ben
unfortunately, fear and emotions are quick and easy, logic and reason and reflection are very, very, hard. Most people could care less about the detail...remember, this is a country where more people believe in bigfoot and putting all the animals on earth on one boat than believe in global warming or evolution.
@@7788Sambaboy no need to worry about global warming its a hoax. Evolution is just atheist trying to convert you to their cult.Jesus is the way. Atheist have polluted science. Creationist are the way.
32:40 "The fact that you and I could improve the Bible with very little thought just by taking out ... if we just took out the worst passages which have no possible redeemable content this year, or I would argue any other year - the Bible is already improved. So the fact that we can edit it to anyone's advantage is a problem for the idea that this was written by an omniscient being..."
Rama Gitananda it’s a matter of studying several different translations and understanding the history of how the Bible was put together. Also if you believe in modern day revelation continuing the truths found in the Bible things become much clearer.
Justin Rees, raising the subject of "different translations" seems like a red herring since my question was about the original scriptures which were not written in English. My question was rhetorical - of course you need knowledge of the original scriptures to know if they were "later changed".
I think we forget that history didn't start yesterday or even 300 years ago. The bible is written for people over 2000 years ago and is still pertinent for us today. Jesus completed the old testament and gave us a new covenant of grace. So when you say verses that could be taken out..you forget that people didn't have certain medicine 4000 years ago and it was best for them not to eat certain foods or practice certain things..
Jesus, Sam Harris is just endlessly knowledgeable and unstoppable. Great, thoughtful answers to every question. Blows my mind how all that can fit in one head.
Well, he did rehash some twenty-year experience with the topic of religion. A lot of the arguments Sam made here were mentioned in The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. Not that this makes these arguments any less valid.
@@xxxmmm3812 I realize that his ideas are not neccessairly purely his own but a mixture of all that he's read on the subject which is more than you or I can say I reckon. I like how he calmly articulates his points in his responses though. Also not quite as eloquent and original as this might be from John Stuart Mill on religion: "He (Mill’s father) regarded it with the feelings due not to a mere mental delusion, but to a great moral evil. He looked upon it as the greatest enemy of morality: first, by setting up fictitious excellences, --belief in creeds, devotional feelings, and ceremonies, not connected with the good of human kind, --and causing these to be accepted as substitutes for genuine virtues: but above all, by radically vitiating the standard of morals; making it consist in doing the will of a being, on whom it lavishes indeed all the phrases of adulation, but whom in sober truth it depicts as eminently hateful....Think of a being who would make a Hell --who would create the human race with the infallible foreknowledge, and therefore with the intention, that the great majority of them were to be consigned to horrible and everlasting torment. The time, I believe, is drawing near when this dreadful conception of an object of worship will be no longer identified with Christianity...The same slovenliness of thought, and subjection of the reason to fears, wishes and affections, which enable them to accept a theory involving a contradiction in terms, prevents them from perceiving the logical consequences of the theory…The evil is, that such a belief keeps the ideal wretchedly low; and opposes the most obstinate resistance to all thought which has a tendency to raise it higher. Believers shrink from every train of ideas which would lead the mind to a clear conception and an elevated standard of excellence, because they feel (even when they do not distinctly see) that such a standard would conflict with many of the dispensations of nature, and with much of what they are accustomed to consider as the Christian creed. And thus morality continues a matter of blind tradition, with no consistent principle, nor even any consistent feeling, to guide it. " - John Stuart Mill
He's a philosophical thinker who experimented with drugs. If you want to expand your thinking, deeper more complex thinking then listen to him; Or you can work towards self improvement through faith like many people do.
"intelligence" is subjective....just like "attractive women and men" is subjective...just because there's a human majority consensus of what "intelligence might be" doesn't make it objectively intelligent.
@@mattgaebel7341 There are very objective tests for intelligence. You may have preference for certain aspect of intelligence just like the preference for certain aspects of beauty, though. Trust me, cavemen, if there was ever anything like that, had definitive sense of beauty and intelligence. They may not had scientific definitions and measurements. But, they definitely knew these qualities.
@@NavaidSyed hey navaid, great points man :). But also, there are objective tests, but who created the word "intelligence" is what I'm saying to define it as such.
Thank you for sponsoring a conversation that is truly a respectful and free exchange of ideas with the intent to understand. It is so refreshing to see this and I want more of it. Both of you have been in so many debates; and while that has its place, it is always so clear that no real meeting of the minds is happening, and the debate rules force a competitive style that is the antithesis of understanding. I, too, wanted this conversation to continue for four hours.
The second half of this conversation was really great. Ben pushed on Sam's view of morality in some interesting ways and I think Sam defended his points as reasonably and eloquently as he always does.
One cares about delivering an audible explanation, the other has an insecurity problem and thinks overwhelming others with loads of information makes them win debates.
@@gastontvyoutube no not really. Really think about your own existence and the world around you. Nothing can't pass on something it doesn't have, such as an intelligent life. I can't pass on consciousness, rationality , and a moral compass if if I don't possess it... it even violates evolution's nonsense claims. You need to have traits to pass em right ? This is readily visible, And no delusional person who gets a labcoat or a degree obtained from other delusional people can change reality. They say dumb things very eloquently, but they are still dumb. And historically, scientists are known for continually getting things wrong, especially when they think they got it figured out. We havent even seen the entire ocean, how much less do we know about the universe but want to pretend that we do because of our labs. Not of that accounts for the origin of life nor is consistently logical with the reality we do have. It's all vanity and arrogance. And that blinds.
What ? No , c'mon , I love that old school ad pitching . The old black and white sitcoms used to work them into the show . I like it , a little more give-a-fuck and it seems much less annoying that ads on tv.
Something I've noticed is that on whatever channel, 80% of ad reads are 30 or 60 seconds long so they are very easy to skip with the 10 second skip key on pc and mobile, totally does ruin the flow of conversation though yeah.
Ah , I get what you're saying now . It's not the direct pitches , like he does on his regular show , that bothers you - it's that he's doing it while with a guest . I take your point . I supposed I'd prefer if we got a full hour of interview .
Agreed. Do it like they do in the H3H3 podcasts. Also, if you watch from 18:00-18:05 you can tell there's no cut there so his ads, or at least that one, aren't pre-recorded.
I don't understand why I always see this comment. It should be normal that two people should just have a normal debate and it not be anything other than civil. We really are rejoicing in the bare minimum these days
@@MilesStoner it's not the bare minimum a******. So tired of people like you acting like being able to have a civil conversation is normal. This is parody.
Excellent conversation. I disagree with Ben Shapiro on most topics he talks about but you have to admit that he does try to be an honest player, which is incredibly refreshing for someone on the right.
He's been good in conversations with people he views as intellectuals. But his monologued talking points are usually about some strawman and are hardly intellectually honest. It's easy to be "I'm all fact and no one cares about your feelings" when you don't address any facts that are counter to whatever you're trying to sell.
@@willrobbins2550 why do you insult somebody instead of answering their question and providing dialogue, which you should be in favor of as you watched this video.
Sandmanuel that’s because he is a reasonable person. Not every religious person hates homosexuals just because they view the act of homosexuality a sin. We all sin, if we hate everyone bc they sin, we will hate everyone and ourselves.
He is a moralist and bases his position on The Moral Law Giver. Shapiro’s knowledge goes beyond thoughts of men. Sam’s “facts” are subjective, he relies only on limited ideas of other men - and formulates his opinions from those observations. They both articulate ideas with ease, however Ben is a realist and Sam a relativist: there is no truth if it is relative to your existential reality. Sam has no foundation. Ben stands on stone.
It takes a significant amount of energy, intellect, and research to pull off a coherent debate regardless of the topic. People genuinely don't care enough, are too busy, or are too dumb to devote the mental resources. But hell, they'll shout a mantra, post a regurgitated facebook meme, and hold a sign for hours on end just as long as they don't have to think and articulate their argument, if they even have one...
Well, sadly the number of individual thinker who consider every opinions and reasoning out there before arriving at a conclusion is too few. It is much easier for most people to form an opinon base on what they are being fed, much easier to post facebook and hold signs for hours. Because to be able to be a individual thinker, you need to read a lot to learn, be able to question your own belief to strenghthen it, most people simply dont have time or the will to do it, they would rather made up their mind base on information someone else fed them, then defend these opinion base on information that doesn't show every element of the discussion. Thats why when their argument become rather weak, they get angry and agigtated, because these opinions are not from themselves, and they lack the information to back up what they said. So they either start cursing or ignoring other sides opinions or even start fights. Individual thinking that can be back up by tons of informations needs a lot of work to achieve, i am sure these guys read tons of book and research, and most people are lasy and just want a quick answer they can stick to, unforunately.
I find nothing more satisfying than using Daniel Dennett's approach of steelmanning your opponent and then having a fruitful conversation. This was just an incredible conversation. Two men that disagree on some of their core/fundamental beliefs and able to have a cordial, civil, genuine chat. I still get the occasional pang of loss when I think of what Hitchens would have contributed to this current rabid culture of identity politics.
@Boredguy112 he never said he did just that he used it ill probably be sick of the sight of it soon all these philosophy for beginners readers love straw man and ad hominem attacks and if that fails they attack your grammar spelling or just abuse you
Ben please have Sam back on again soon. Both of you show genuine respect for each others’ views and the disagreements are super useful. Needless to say I think this one conversation was more instructive than the 6-7 hours Sam and Jordan spoke on for their events. Great stuff.
"Needless to say I think this one conversation was more instructive than the 6-7 hours Sam and Jordan spoke on for their events." Sam's and Jordan's discussions where in the form of a debate, slightly different to this more friendly discussion type. Nevertheless, I find the Harris/Peterson debates equally instructive and interesting, albeit more exhausting.
@@CostasAnYou are right, my mistake for not recognizing that. However, Jordan was on Sam's podcast almost 2 years ago and the conversation wasn't as smooth as it might have been. I'd still love to hear Sam and Jordan a third and fourth time on podcast, away from the crowds, in conversation rather than debate.
Love Harris, Love Shapiro, Love Peterson, Love the Weinstein brothers, Love Pinker, and I could go on with the list, all for different reasons and one similar crucial reason....they all have the sack to engage people that don't agree with them and keep it civil and productive.
They’re all also actually interested in others perspectives. These conversations are a means to coming to mutual understandings. Many other people (eg. mainstream media) are merely trying to impose their perspectives on others while assuming their own beliefs to be the “right” ones. So thankful for this technology that allows us to listen in on true good faith conversations.
to add to this, I find it childish how many comments are whining over the commercial breaks, you're listening to one of the most intriguing 1 hour conversations out there for free, people have forgotten how amazing such accessibility is.
YES! This type of intellectual honesty makes me want to cry for joy. When I see these people walk away with an actual friendship despite their potently contrasted differences it gives me hope for society.
Ben's family watched this and collectively got a massive headache from the sub-300 IQ conversation which to them sounded like two retarded chicken cackling
@@ArchLordXarnor Nope there is awesome philosophical, logical and historical evidence for existence of God :) funny how you say "The facts certainly don't show there is one." but don't present any facts.. interesting.. and why are you telling me your opinion though ??
@@rethinkingfornow7553 Please share your philosophical, logical, and historical evidence. You could have a Nobel Prize on your hands, sir. Because no one has made a valid argument for roughly 6,000 years.
@@ArchLordXarnor lol.. since you don't have any arguments on your side to disprove the existence of god.. I present to you... The Kalam cosmological argument.. you can tell me its stupid but since in a Vacuum the smallest force is the strongest force, I think I should be able rest my case but out of curiosity why do you ask me ??
90schildnostalgia respect would be great, but the irony of this movement is their incessant ‘it’s ok to disagree’ or ‘intellectual tolerance’ message, yet their audience being the most intolerant bunch imaginable.
Death for apostasy is up for debate in the Quran. Yes, it's a horrible concept but not one that all Muslims subscribe to. My problem with you is that you want to tar all Muslims with the same brush. He did nothing but complement the conversation so for you to go for the jugular is unwarranted, and only likely to antagonise moderate Muslims. You are actually preventing a reasonable discussion which is precisely what Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris value. I'd suggest you 1) get to know the wide range of Muslim beliefs and practices held across the world, much like Christianity it is not homogeneous, 2) have a little empathy for other human beings who may have been born into such ideologies and 3) think about a solution to the problem
Mr Harris is the Greatest most eloquent Exponent in rationalism, Critical thinking and reasoning in scientific thought and understanding the development of zeitgeist morality through the ages..I am most grateful for opening up my mind...Thank you Sir ❤❤❤❤
SquareRootOf2 No I don't think so. I worked for an Israeli company and they where practicing Jew's who always closed Sunday for the Sabbath. The reason Christianity uses Sunday for Sabbath is because of ancient Judaism. Though I have heard you can take the Sabbath any day. As long as you set one day aside for rest, and contemplation. I believe most people use the 7th day of the week, because that is the day YHWH rest's after the creation of the world in the old testament.
You have to up those standards. They were both pretty bad at this. Ben is such a smart guy but when it comes to this he's no good. The evidence for theism is pretty overwhelming but on this topic he randomly decides "you can't use evidence on this". Well, yes you can. Sam is almost as equally low quality in his arguments. Especially where the historical record is concerned. He just buys into the grade school textbook account of medieval Europe, for instance (and Ben doesn't even know how to counter those basic errors). No serious historian really thinks the "dark ages" were a real thing anymore, even if the term still gets used. It was an era remarkable for its low amounts of violence and steady technological and political progress. If Sam debated someone like a Norman Geisler he'd be out of his league. I have no idea how this guy got famous for arguing for atheism except choosing ignorant opponents to make himself look good?
Seraph O. Storms so when you say there's evidence for theism, what are you talking about specifically? I agree with you, im just curious to know your point of view. What should Ben have referenced that he didn't?
24:25 "What we have, historically, is a real war of ideas, crystallized in the moment where Galileo was shown the instruments of torture and put under house arrest by people who refused to look through his telescope".
I've listened to him for years . I think listening to someone you 100% agree with is useless . In the end sam has a well grounded vision on reality and morality
@@mhia4 yea sorry I actually hadn't noticed how old the post was till after I replied ( I appreciate the follow-up) . I think for good reason with the Trump thing . Honestly we haven't seen such a corrupt actor in power in such a long time there is so much to talk about when it comes to Trump and it just kept coming especially after he was fairly Voted out of office . And I agree the record player can get a bit frustrating after a while
@@danielgilbert3537 no apology necessary. I was actually surprised because I remember leaving that comment. I am a Trump guy but policy, no so much personality. I get why some don't like him. Sam was a guy who frankly is so much fucking smarter than me that I just enjoy listening to him talk.
"Some day you're going to die and when that happens if you don't have life insurance you're going to be sorry." Say that again, slowly, and think about it.
I like Sam. He knows the audience consists of all sorts of people, so he speaks at a speed and uses language that everyone can understand. People like Shapiro should learn from him.
I love Ben's show, but the baked-in ads just feel....weird. Can't he do a banner at the bottom or something else? Not one time have I ever once been tempted to buy or visit website or product he pitches. Super intellectual conversation interrupted by interviewer stopping to sell a product. Come on man, I know you gotta make money, but isn't there another way?
S Bludger It really doesn’t work in this format. On his daily show, it’s not a big deal, but for these weekly conversations, it brings everything to a halt and feels kind of slimy.
His videos likely get regularly demonetized simply because of who he is and who he has on, which is why he has to resort to promoting ads within the video itself. Many youtubers have had to start doing this. Blame Goolag.
He could do the commercials prior or after taping, edit it in at a later time. I think the reason I find it so jarring is because he has the guest right in front of him and is choosing to bring the conversation to a dead stop just for the commercial. If it was a cut away i think it would work better. Keep it free to me though, i dont mind commercials just the execution.
Or we could all just pay to watch him, ad-free, like the BBC in the UK? Alternatively, he could launch a range of health supplements to sell to his followers (i believe this been tried with some success by others). Just a thought...
@@lj3507 *GASP* What do you think he'll say when he reads this? Do you expect he shall be judgemental? Our use of slang was an attempt at humor that completely backfired! Now we shall never be invited to his home for rousing debates and finger sandwiches! Oh, wait, he will never read this, he was never the intended audience, and your attempt at appearing randomly smug belies a deficit in self-worth that must be compensated for by implying the inferiority of others. Or something. Never mind. You're totally dope.
Ben asked a lot of good questions here, if I were to play devils advocate against the general outlook I share with Sam, these were exactly what I would ask and like to hear answered and explained. Glad I found this video, both great people.
I love Ben. But i must give it to Sam he is just brilliant and hes showing Ben a level of argument that Shapiro cant rly handle. Still huge fan of Ben!
@Heath Sims Check out the Dunning-Kruger effect. In general, stupid people cannot conceptualize how stupid or ignorant they are. Sure there are actions that even the stupidest among us would not claim to be competent at. But there are many actions or tasks where people routinely believe that they are far better at them then they actually are. One easy example would be those talent shows on television where there are people that obviously think that they are a good enough singer to hold there own, but everyone that is listening to them comes to quite a different conclusion. It is not like they are pretty good but maybe not up to the level where they can compete, but instead they are horrible singers but just can't seem to understand this.
Nor do they proselytize at all nor have very theologically-compelling arguments that are actually philosophically-relevant. Also, the religion is very particularly embedded in one particular ethnic culture and history and isn't very universal. Just because a religion preaches one aspect of non-violence to the extreme does not necessarily make it compelling.
The message of Jainism is rather universal but because of its not so evangelical nature it remained accepted and followed by a relatively small number of people. And also Jainism is not only about nonviolence but that is just one of the many aspects of it.
WOMANpukumaru it comes down to the necessity of a radical internal revelation, you accept Jesus as He reveals himself spiritually (and through personal signs and demonstrations of God’s providence) to you when you are at a point in life where you can honestly give up your pride against God, and He lifts the veil that blinds you. You realize that evolution of species is not fact, nor is it even a feasible explanation of origins. You realize how blinded you’ve been accepting that our consciousness, these intricate processes, the relationship within ourselves and in nature, and even the universe as a whole, just simply doesn’t make sense as a byproduct of chaos, no matter how many trillions of years given. To be sincere, there’s no way I can expect, nor would have I expected myself, to see things this way before Jesus... aliens, or any “god” could easily assume the same characteristics we give to Jesus, but it’s not until we have our veil lifted that we can really see it’s Jesus. Sounds like nonsense? It should sound like nonsense to someone who hasn’t been born again in Christ. As odd as this may seem, this is your answer.
Hence not compelling enough to join or better yet capable enough of joining for future generations, and they will go extinct along with their so-called perfect morals and ethics. Jainism equals no real impact on civilization whatsoever
Forced conversions are kind of necessary to get a religion into the major leagues. If you try to do it without force, it takes too long and some shiny new religion will come along and splinter the original religion. Violence is a feature not a bug.
I have school tomorrow, but I am enjoying this so much. Decisions, decisions. Regardless, thank you Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, and The Daily Wire crew for setting this up. This was an extremely entertaining, and high quality discussion.
I have to ask, is it not absolutely the very opposite of Ben and Sam's foundational tenant of 'dont participate in Identity Politics and have reasoned conversations' to say what you're revealing here? And please don't read in a negative tone, bc I do not intend one, but you label Sam as a liberal, and pejoratively so bc he is a rare exception to the very tribalistic confession that you go into an exchange NORMALLY with "the bad guys" armored up and thus closed off partially bc of they're leanings.
@ D.J. C Cham - While I don't at all agree with the statement Tommy gave, I do think there's a distinction between a blanket judgment of "liberals" and identity politics. While blanket judgments do tend to be bad things, identity politics is particularly egregious because it is a system predicated on blanket judgments rendered entirely on immutable and random characteristics. It's bad to say "all liberals" or "all conservatives" or even "all leftists/right-wingers" are BLANK. It's an order of magnitude worse to say "all ETHNIC GROUP" or "all BIOLOGICAL SEX" are BLANK. A conservative or liberal can switch positions. They are not born into that identity. Identity politics lays out a claim that the conditions of your birth are collectivist battle lines that you must conform to, or you will be thrown out of your group. It's cancer.
Joseph People throw around the word "identity politics" way too much. It just starts to sound like a bunch of reactionary nonsense. Many times in society, identity politics is absolutely needed. For example: Imagine some town in the Midwest with a small Muslim population where some contingent is trying to ban all head coverings in public schools. It would be "identity politics" on some level for the Muslim community to band together to oppose this head-covering measure, as they would be organizing on tribal grounds (their religion). However, I think most people would see this as a legitimate use of identity politics because the issue has a special impact on that particular group. Now just broaden this concept out to other groups and issues like aggressive/corrupt policing in black communities and you may start to understand the utility and logic to identity politics.
Speaking as a Christian I have the upmost respect for Sam Harris. I can always count on him to have a respectful conversation regardless of any agreement
Filip Piłat To find someone to think that I'm an idiot or a lunatic, a line would form and likely go around the block. My goal is being able to have a respectful one on one conversation with someone I don't necessarily feel that I have to change their mind or opinion but just merely have a exchange of our ideas and viewpoints. A tree begins by first planting a seed then watering it
@@filippiat9151 no source on that and I’m a strict atheist, Sam, unlike many leftists, does not view the opposition and irredeemable monsters or lesser than him.
I give Ben a thumbs up, he was polite, articulate, and perhaps most importantly interested and listened to what his guest had to say. Other podcast/youtube hosts should take a lesson here.
Definitely. Check out his first Sunday special if you haven't seen it. It's a similar example of Shapiro stretching out intellectually and it recapitulates a fair bit of the Harris/Peterson discussions for those of us who can't manage 6 hours...
CANNOT THANK YOU TWO BEAUTIFUL MEN WITH YOUR BEAUTIFUL OPEN MINDS ENOUGH!!!!! I’M SO ATTRACTED TO REASONABLE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE WHO PRESENT THEMSELVES EXACTLY AS WHO THEY ARE, VERY DIFFERENT IDEAS IN SOME AREAS AND ALWAYS BEING CERTAIN TO RESPECT AND BE OPEN AND LOVING TO ONE ANOTHER!!!!! ITS OBVIOUS THAT THEY EACH PUT TRULY LISTENING TO ONE ANOTHER IN A MORE IMPORTANT VEIN THAN TRULY ATTEMPTING TO BE HEARD OVER THE OTHER!!!!! SO REFRESHING TO KNOW THAT PEOPLE REALLY ARE STILL CAPABLE OF THIS!!!!!! THOROUGHLY ENJOYED AND CANNOT WAIT FOR THE FOUR HOUR CONVO!!!!! THANK YOU BOTH FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART!!!!!💜🙋♀️💜🙋♀️💜🙋♀️
Ben does it with civility and arguments. If you have the arguments, the civility can flow from that. When you don't have arguments, derision and sarcasm take its place, which are the lowest forms of disagreement. You'll see it on both sides, and it's a good signal to avoid attempting a discussion with that person because they are unwilling and/or incapable of having one.
P Lindsay Hate is such a strong word. To the word’s misfortune, it is misused, abused, and folks are quick to use it when they just cannot or refuse to go into detail as to why they disagree or dislike with something, someone, or action or all three. They, SJW’s, have inflated the value and power of the word.
P Lindsay maybe the last 8 hrs have changed that. I see nothing but love for Sam. Except from me maybe. Just disagree whole heartedly with him on several things but I think he's possibly interested in finding a way to connect with those who disagree
Can't speak for Ben (as a Jew), but myself as a Christian, I would ironically smile as well, because for true Christians death is a sweet release. And it means we get to go be with Jesus/God in heaven. Something infinitely better than this life on earth...….in a nut shell. That's why Paul (in the Bible) says that "to live is Christ, and to die is gain". You gain much more when you die (as a true Christian).
One of the fundamental problems with this conversation is that aside from a brief mention of Gandhi and Jainism, it effectively ignored any religion outside the Abrahamic ones. It ignores the fact that religion and law evolved independent of the Judeo-Christian influence in China and Japan. As early as 1600 BC, the Shang Dynasty had developed writing meaning that laws could be codified. The fact that Asian cultures had well-developed morality and ethical thought outside of the influence of Abrahamic mythology demonstrates that Shapiro is not just wrong but demonstrably wrong.
I would say the same about Thirukkural, a book of ethics which co-existed with the Manu Smriti in India. One showing no inclination to any religion and the latter that emphasizes casteism.
A reasonable argument is that God has inspired people in all cultures to reveal morality to their followers, whether it be Gandhi, Buddha, Mohammed, Moses, etc.
@Killuah Zoldyc Agreed. And even in the 21st century, those "peace loving" you know what, bribe poor non Christians into converting to their barbaric cult for food, otherwise, they are left to starve. Christianity has done so much harm and should be banned not only in Europe, but all over the world.
![Eminem - Fuel (feat. JID) [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/t5H_CewqpKA/mqdefault.jpg)
The stoicism that Sam displays in not bursting in laughter every time Ben reads the ads is admirable
I laughed every damn time and I just finished a book on stoicism.
I believe Marcus Aurelius advocated the philosophy of Stoicism. If so, you could try Meditations.
@david wolf Meditations is good, anything by Seneca is good, and if you want a modern book that gives a good summary and interpretation with modern examples, The Obstacle is the Way by Ryan Holiday is a good read.
Lots of meditation
@david wolf Start with Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. Really good book!
This is what our presidential debates should be like, not the trash we witnessed in 2016
Sadly, at least, 75% of Americans are either too stupid or disinterested to follow such conversations/debates.
Wow one could only hope.
The intellectual dark web is part of what Americans and the allies fought for in WW2. Now we have BOTH the alt-right nationalists and ANTIFA standing against this
Indie Music Minute the people who run for president arent smart enough for these debates nor care to have them even if they are smart.
Tyler Durden sounds like a shortcut to thinking
If Jordan Peterson were reading an ad about life insurance: “Well what the hell does life and insurance really mean man?”
Ben “well the Secular response to that” Shapiro
Depends on what you mean by premiums
It's no joke man.
Glitter Maiden 😂😂❤️
@@stephanieniedermayer8092 XD
"You're going to die - and when that happens and you don't have life insurance, you're going to be really sorry."
No I won't, I'll be dead.
😂
That's all what you get from all of discussion?
@@adin4545 Why? He just pointed one funny thing out, he doesn't say that's all the conversation had to offer. You can talk about a part of a conversation without analyzing the whole debate you know.
😆😆😆
Phate,
the Thing is that he is not stupid. Of course he sais "you will sorry when you will be older" and you will see inevitable the importance to have had an insurance. More, he sais indirectly to be inteligent and think about that right now. But Albeit_Jordan and you dont think about that posibility of explanation, isnt it?
A joke is not a joke if is not a reason and intelligent behind it. This is just an etalation of the contrary.
Ps: sorry for my english but i think was acceptable.
Ben Shapiro: "Today I am announcing that I am officially running for president of the United States!
...But first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Policy Genius!
Michael McCarty I could see trump doing it.
😂😂😂
Oh man, I love this!
This really hits something profound; I laughed so hard. I think this IDW movement is gonna stumble against the pressures of the market. After hearing Ben try to convince me to buy something kinda makes the things he says afterwards seem less honest ...
Jesse Prevallet I think he's just staying consistent. Same number of spots for sponsors, placed at the same time. Gotta pay the bills, he keeps it overall neutral and consistent
I'm literally incapable of imagining a conversation like this in the mainstream media.
Benjamin .Heneberry
Fact
Even though it happens daily.
Uh, yeah... So I guess you didn't actually watch the interview then, right? This could have been Sam Harris talking to Jon Lovitz' liar character from SNL and it wouldn't have had any bearing on the content of the conversation. I stand by my comment - conversations like this don't happen in the mainstream media, whether MSNBC or FOX.
Shapiro freely admits to being biased to the right, which is why he's never claimed to be a journalist. He's also said on multiple occasions that his biggest problem is confirmation bias, a level of honesty that is rare on either side of the political aisle.
I'm also a fan of Dave Pakman, Kyle Kulinski and Jimmy Dore on the left - but of course THEY aren't biased at all, right? That was pretty funny quoting Snopes as a legit fact-checking source though, I have to admit.
01) I'm now POSITIVE you haven't watched the video you're commenting on.
02) You don't know what the mainstream media is? I'm afraid that's more of a comment on you than me. I can assure you it's definition is readily understood by all, not least those in the mainstream itself.
03) Shapiro's "lies" have nothing to do with his conversation with Harris, the depth of which, again, is missing from the mainstream media that you seem to not know exists.
04) You misused the word "quantify," which means "to determine, express, or measure the quantity of" multiple times. "Elaborate," "elucidate," "expound" - all better words.
05) I'm genuinely curious as to what it was about my comment, as opposed to the many below it, that set you off on the world's most embarrassing hissy-fit. Since it seems to revolve around my use of the term "mainstream media" (which you evidently think I invented out of whole cloth) I can only assume that you're around 22, 23, college student, in communications or journalism or something like that - in other words you're hoping to one day land a job in the ("thought terminating") media, probably Snopes, and therefor have an increasingly desperate need to defend it. Anyway, I look forward to your next rambling and unhinged screed.
PS - I don't mind you calling me "cupcake." I like cupcakes. Cupcakes are delicious.
I finally had to google "thought terminating cliche," and while I'm not sure you're using that correctly either, its derivation has at least confirmed for me that you _are_ , as I suspected, a college student in his early twenties studying media. Anyway, as amusing as this has been, and as perversely entertaining as I've found your Strasbergian commitment to making a fool of yourself to be, I'm afraid I'm going to have to end this. When things devolve to the point of my providing you with dictionary definitions, and you fact-checking them, it's safe to say things have run their course.
Last comment is yours; don't forget to include lots of randomly capitalized words, followed by accusations of cowardice and emotional fragility.
PS - you really should check out the interview; Sam Harris is an interesting guy.
the slowest talking person alive vs the fastest talking person alive
I was looking for exactly this comment! This is all I could think about. Imagine having to fast mo for Sam and slow mo for Ben! Nightmare!
Nikolo lol! 😂
I usually lay in bed about an hour just listening to the Ben Shapiro show on the AM station before finally rolling over and falling asleep. I try to follow closely to Ben Shapiro's thought process but its hard sometimes...…..he talks so fast and his thoughts are often layered with examples. Last week he was talking about the new accusations against Kavenaugh. The guy is very intelligent and even redefines issues I might be on the fence on.
Weed vs coke
DMT vs ritalin
Haha
Sam this whole interview: 🤨
This is fucking brilliant!!!!
That's Sam's whole life.
@Vip Foundation damn what a waste of my time
@Vip Foundation I’m just not as easily amused as you
@Vip Foundation thanks you too
I am watching so much less news and tv choosing these talks and also religious debates online instead. So much more satisfying
Alexis Nash
You have chosen........wisely.
Tv and "the news" is garbage.
Me too lol
You know that Sam Harris tells outright lies in his religious debates, right? - ruclips.net/video/ENtlW-LEqu8/видео.html
Alexis Nash I reach retirement age soon, grew up msm , new to internet kinda, am finding myself doing same
Try old Christopher Hitchens c spam videos or debates... his old c span with Brian lamb is great because most the topics (Middle East, health care, religion, Dems and reps, populism) it's all the same discussion, so you can understand how he thinks on present situations
Harris is at least willing to engage the opposition and does not view them as irredeemable monsters. I respect it.
Adam Carroll and he doesn’t get personal. That’s one issue I have with Richard Dawkins for example. He makes his case then insults those who disagree. Sam is calm, cool and collected. Then after smiles makes a friend
It's because Harris is a liberal, not a leftist.
Adam Carroll unless you're Trump, then you're an impulsive liar who can not be trusted with the power of the presidency lol
Cool. Just ignore the career he's built by essentially calling Christians irredeemable monsters because he thinks they believe the strawman he created of the religion. Yeah. Good dude.
He literally said the left is irredeemable
Its amazing how free speech can unite two people who disagree on nearly 100% of issues.
Ben says in the discussion that they agree on 95% of the issues they hold dear. So yeah no.
well to say that they agree on 95% of values is true, I believe Ben referenced this; on the application of those values in politics and through analysis of culture however, they are on completely different sides. A person can agree with another that an issue exists, but disagree on its solution. This does not inherently mean they are in agreement.
Both are true. In the same way that despite the enormous differences in what food we like, in truth we 99% agree - nobody eats bricks, trees, motortorpedoboats or sanitary napkins, and I've heard of only one person who eats aeroplanes.
Thing is, we're so used to all the things we agree on and it never comes up... so we're permanently zoomed in on the tiny fragment where we disagree. Even in "massive disagreements" like abortion. Almost any conservative would agree you are allowed to kill in self-defense, and they would also agree that if it's not a human/person, we're allowed to kill it at will.
What we mainly seem to disagree on, is when personhood actually starts and where the bar lies for self-defense (especially when there's no non-lethal option).
The real problem is that people like Ben and Sam who claim they are having a “civil conversation between people who disagree” define the bounds of acceptability regarding what is ok to disagree on and what is not. Example; topics such as religion, Trump, Brexit, etc. are all fair game amongst the IDW. You hold a contrary opinion about Israel however and Ben brands you as a terrorist sympathiser. Funny how the most passionate subjects for Ben are the ones he rarely allows himself to be challenged on.
name me a specific instance in which Ben shied away from talking about Israel by simply dismissing the other side. Ben was quite vocal about Hamas and the tactics it uses to propagate the Palestinians against the israelis just a couple months ago when the US embassy opened in Jerusalem.
If only I had 1% of Sam’s articulation skills ... smh
Just read books bruh
@@yodishtrajagatheson3154 it doesn't really work that way. Reading books will increase your vocabulary and your verbal intelligence, reading comprehension, etc. but it won't necessarily increase your articulation and verbal fluency. Vocabulary is just about knowing what words mean. Verbal fluency is how fast / how well you can think of the right words to use in the heat of the moment, which is a different thing. And reading really doesn't help that very much. I'm not sure if anything does. While a better vocabulary means you have more words to choose from, it doesn't make you faster or better at choosing them at a moment's notice.
This is especially obvious if you happen to have a great vocabulary but still aren't as articulate as you want to be. In this case, you can listen to someone like Sam make a really intelligent, articulate point, and honestly say to yourself "I could never come up with a sentence like that on the spot even though every single word he used is in my vocabulary."
This happens all the time, where you read something or hear someone say something about a complicated, abstract concept and it's so perfectly phrased, so articulate, so intelligent and crystal clear that you know you could've never come up with it off the top of your head. But it won't contain any words you don't know, so your vocabulary isn't the limiting factor. It's just how the words are arranged, the clarity of thought behind them, and the fact the speaker thought of them so perfectly in the moment. It's not a matter of knowing more words most of the time.
@@m74d3 Yeah i agree with that. Confidence and fluidity really make an expression well. Go sign up for the Dale Carnegie public speaking course as done by Warren Buffet
@@m74d3 Thats very true. I think writing would increase verbal fluency. I believe JP talked about this as well.
@@m74d3 Sam Harris has more experience putting words together so that the ideas expressed are sexy. We don't have enough time in our life so to make our words sexy.
These guys should switch meds with each other.
Tommy Neal Sam Xanax Harris and Ben Adderal Shapiro hahahahaha
Lmaoooo
I don’t think they TAKE the meds; I think they ARE the meds.
You made my day!
Tommy - dude, if you came up with that joke, you're a genius. HAHAHAHAH!
I wonder what was going through Sam's mind when Ben was reading those ads.
erik shure I was thinking the same thing. He had to be laughing on the inside!
Lols
He runs out to take a piss.
This guys mouth is a machine....
Me too. Awkward.
Sam is an asset to the human race and all of civilisation. A class act in intellect, temperament and articulation.
I totally agree. I aspire to have that sort of temperament and articulation.
@@PaddyAztec Yeah same, what a role model!
Ben isn’t? Lol no I’m joking both men are great additions and assets to the human race. Now if we can get rid of the “libtard” mentality we might be alright!
I don’t get his argument tho. So believing in a Big Bang “theory” is more plausible then believing in god?
Hahahahahaha!! what a joke! He is just an ignorant who believe he knows something.
Sam is insanely intelligent and presents the most cogent ideas
Just mostly wrong though
@@TheOlzee name the one thing he gets most wrong?
@@cmhardin37 he thinks humans don’t need religion they will just get it all right because they’re human
No, he doesn't. He used to. If you go back and look at his arguments from years ago he was much better and clearer and braver in his arguments. He's lost something over the years.
Also, his research and points against Christianity is extremely biased and incomplete and his understanding of the Bible is vague and generalized at best.
@@TheOlzee by "mostly" you must mean "never"
The degree of mutual respect & intellectual honesty demonstrated here almost restores my faith in humanity. -Sub earned.
I appreciate it as well, but most youtube videos from the daily wire aren't like this. They're usually conservative news monologues. You might or might not like that type of content, but just thought I'd let you know.
Nathanael 100%, it is cool to see the effect that this movement has had on Shapiro imo. I beleive I've judged him a little too harshly and I kinda understand it now. I do not necessarily disagree with the way Maher interviewed him for instance but I can also see how the tone changed the way he responds.
For a second I thought you were saying “degree of mutant respect”, which arguably they both are.
Dennis....Yes, quite refreshing to hear this productive dialogue. It's so fruitless when people raise voices and let emotions compromise what could be a productive conversation. After listening to 2 people argue...I feel stressed and irritable. Not with these guys...very good.
The look on Sam's face was that of a gazelle about to be eaten by a lion...
People should follow the example of Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro and employ the same kind of civility, manners, and expertise these two demonstrate. But the comments indicate people are refusing to internalize this lesson.
i agree. i think the main reason is the, "us or them," mentality. now granted, i have no problem for people being in a particular camp. but, you need to be able to shake hands across that line.
What's funny is that some people on the Internet have said that they talk the same way in real life as they do on the Net. They're obviously lying, because, otherwise, nobody would want anything to do with them.
@Liberal Nation Agreed, but given the state of being, I think we should take a win when it gets handed to us.
Thing is, all of Sam's discussions are like this. While for Ben, it's typically "Shapiro destroys college freshman". 99% of times Ben argues to score points, not actually get at the truth, hence his rapid word salad delivery with little actual arguments, which Sam casually and patiently corrects throughout this video. So yeah, people should internalize this style of debating, including Ben.
@@cristianrusu2529 Just because you disagree with Ben doesn't mean he's wrong. He's right about everything, except foreign policy.
Left wing atheist and a right wing Jew.
Talking, discussing agreeing and disagreeing on a range of topics civilly.
This is possible because neither of them are arse holes.
It's beautiful.
Sam Harris is not so much a left-wing person. He is a liberal with no real modern 'leftist' tendencies.
Also both bright and incredibly well spoken. I have never heard anyone challenge Ben Shapiro (a phenomenal thinker and debater) so well. Thank you Sam and Ben.
@@danmccarron0 You think too highly of Ben, he's not bad. But he's no expert. Also, doesn't Sam Harris describe himself as left in this very video?
@@davefx7949 I don't agree with Ben on a lot of things but he is more well read and his arguments are better posed than most. Nobody is an expert on everything obviously.
I ascribe this to Sam personally not based on his self-description which likely falls outside of the common notion of what is on the American "left." Personally I think "Left" is a bad thing and "liberal" is a good thing.
These days The label "Left" is applied to "liberal" just like "right" is applied to "conservative" but Thomas Sowell is not right-wing like Rush Limbaugh and Sam Harris is not left like, say, Malcom Nance - to use a pair of overrated pundits who could not hold a candle to either of the former, intellectually.. So in the classical sense yes but there is a wide disparity between them and modern evolutions of these labels.
And stacking Sam against the political philosophy of the (stereo)typical university professor in the USA these days makes it clear
Lol more like ben was lectured to.
Sam is a true classical liberal, sometimes it's just so refreshing to be able to disagree with no hard feelings
What do you disagree with and why do you disagree with him?
Hes a progressive, hes not a classical liberal. That's ridiculous
@A to me its self evident, what would make you belive hes a progressive?
lol he definitely isnt. he seems more like a social liberal (not to be confused with modern liberalism)
@@BenetbenetLive "Hes a progressive, hes not a classical liberal."
Sam is a self-identified liberal, and has explicitly called himself a liberal in the more 'classical' sense of the word.
Oddly enough, you couldn't be more wrong. That's truly ridiculous. I mean, unless you know Sam better than he knows himself. Your response seems arrogant enough to think so, or you're just mentally deficient.
It also begs the question of what you know about classical liberalism, because Sam is a textbook liberal, in that respect.
This is a great conversation. Kudos to both Sam and Ben for remaining civilized and just calmy talking it out while disagreeing on so many things. I'm more in Sam's camp on most issues but I applaud the way Ben conducts himself here.
I find it fascinating seeing Ben study up and move from his political playground to intellectual conversations . . . not easily done.
It is impossible to make Sam Harris angry, he uses Spock like logic to defeat all.
Sam represents most liberals but the media focuses on the sjw minority
Had no idea Ben Stiller was this smart.
He graduated harvard law at 23. I love this conversation
LOL! I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees their resemblances to each other. If you really pretend that it's Ben Stiller, it's almost like he's doing an impression of an intellectual. When Sam Harris sometimes raises his eyebrow, it looks like Zoolander doing one of his famous modeling "looks."
Well, he is Batman after all
m.ruclips.net/video/Wrw-duaJZBA/видео.html
@Richard Dixon With a blue steel.
If Sam read ads on his podcast it would be 4 hours long.
This comment made my week
Sam audience is more refined that shit wouldn’t hold
@@SimonFaur94 has he contributed to neuroscience?(i mean he clearly has) or any job that he has i don't know about, just curious
@Smallie Biggs His mother created the TV show "Golden Girls".
I remember when sam had jack from Twitter on his podcast. That sounded like audio chloroform
Hey Ben, it's past time to have Sam Harris on again!
" if we get to Mars and we are still worried about skin color we've done something wrong"
Love it. LOL
Thanks for the quote Sam
4browsing LOL that makes me think of the MOS Eisley Cantina in Star Wars. "We don't serve their kind here." Poor 3PO
Retro Workshop I don't know if we have enough information from our history books for me to agree.. I don't think you can base the sentiments of an entire population on what they say about its leader. When I was in the military they made a point of eliminating racism because you have to depend on each other. There were still racist people. If you are referring to institutional racism and you might be right I honestly haven't studied that much world history and I'm sure the history of many cultures was not written down for us to know about. I think that it was common to enslave those you conquered. American Indians used to enslave each other but I doubt it was based on racism since they were all Indian. I do however believe that in-group out-group Behavior has always been around and it's usually based on something superficial like skin color so to say that localized racism was caused by Christianity is probably not true.
We will worry about Martian cross breeding and whatever their skin colour is
In mars they won't have to worry about skin colour since they will all be white
@4browsing Reminds me of Martian Gothic
Hey, Ben is really really nice to Sam, and Sam is really really nice to Ben.
Wish more atheists and more religious people would take lessons from BOTH men here.
sidewaysfcs0718 a big part of it is actually being in physical contact. Anonymity of the internet makes it easy to create a bubble.
Smo Cloud - Bingo.
Yeah, but religion needs to die, and disappear....
They grew up in the same arrogant town so they have a sweet spot for one another.
@And Violate Now that confuses me. Why would an atheist hate my comment?
Great Guest Ben! Love the fact that political disagreements don't stop you two from having dialogue.
BlossomyLion there is no real disagreement. Both are Zionists and anti-semitic-Muslims.
It's not political disagreement.....it's a theological disagreement. Sam is a hard core atheist
Booff
Dialogue? Are you sure? Trying to explain to Ben anything that isn't his obsession and canonic truth would be like a person trying to explain to a bacteria... the same thing. It's would be entertaining if I could stand his voice for more than 2 seconds (in which he throws about 200 hundred words on average, 99% of which dispensable). The epitome of Idiocracy.
@@TiagoCavalcanti-ji6hu You’re so ignorant, to judge a man based on the way he speaks. It’s not hard to understand what Ben says, you’re just slow af. They were both trying to explain things to each other, that argument can be used for Harris as well.
Ben Shapiro doesn’t look quite as intelligent when he isn’t “destroying” students.
Well, it was an interview and not a debate so...
Ben Shapiro doesn't look quite as intelligent when he doesn't control how long students are talking, allot interlocutors mere seconds to state their position, rebut with a fallacy, and refuse to afford his interlocutors fair time to debunk and criticize his dishonesty.
Shocker. The only ones impressed by Ben Shapiro are the ones too daft to meaningful distinguish rhetoric from reason.
All of you guys are so dumb. First off, this is an interview. But that's not that important. What matters is that they both agree on A LOT of things. Ben shapiro has said that there is a reasonable and decent argument on the questionability of the existence of God.
@@RashidMBey enjoyed the conversation, neither looks like an idiot to me. Shapiro still seems highly intelligent.
You, and boy Wonder think that conversation, and debate are the same? lol leave it to the inherently stupid to willingly display their lack of intelligence
Two things that could make this better:
1. Prerecorded Ads
2. Rogan-esque time limit
Not Sure I concur
It doesn't make much sense, it's a RUclips video. Sam and Ben both have nothing better to do than talk about things. I mean this is how both of them make money right?
It makes a lot of difference because you don't have to "rush" your argument when there is no time limit e.g
I agree. I really wish there was no time limit, or at least more time.
I want 4 hours of Sam and Ben talking about the big questions
Why did Ben stop? Surely he could have sold more mattresses
sulljoh1 😂😂😂😂😂👏🏻
I died from this comment 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Seems appropriate to start the Sam Harris episode by reminding us of our impending death.
Roy what happens after we die: ruclips.net/video/VB9ssthiisA/видео.html
Very cool. I really appreciated Shapiro's handling of the interview even though I find my own philosophy to be more in line with Sam's.
This conversation was so made with such an intent to be intellectually honest and genuine to the point that i'm almost crying. How rare is to see such thing.
Sam Harris is the best.
Arm with enough knowledge, people will not be angry or agitated if their belief and perception are being chanllenged and questioned, because they can back up their position, with all the knowledge they got from extensive reading.
It is those who got the knowledge from someone else, defend that secondary knowledge without individual thinking, when chanllenged, lacks the information to defend their position, those people tend to resort to violence, as they can no longer defend their believe and blames it on the other people who have different opinions, they view it as insult, where as most of the time, it is just rational questions.
Frankly it is quite stupid, but it is still happening in todays world, like the fight between Liberal and Republican.
my problem with Ben Shaprio is that he is too smart to actually believe the bullshit he is saying, which mean he is intentionally lying
This is the type of conversation we should all aspire to
You can get hold of handkerchiefs during Shapiro's disturbing promotional hijackings.
Suggestion to youtube: Add a shapiro level to the speed button that alternates between 0.75 and 1.25 for shapiro and the other guy respectively
That's so true, I usually listen at 1.25 speed, but that's just too fast when it's Shapiro speaking.
Haha if you put Shapiro on 0.75 speed. He actually speaks in a good speed there, haha.
You should try and listen to what Sam says and realize he should probably stay at 1 speed. Ben talks faster but says less. Also have some fucking respect for Sam Harris. He's at least twice as smart as Ben
Imagine a world where this is what the United States presidential debate looked like.
RudgerBlake
Wouldnt that be fascinating? Id love that.
Two Zionist Jews who are Israel first-ers?
We would be at war with Iran and Syria within the hour.
unfortunately, fear and emotions are quick and easy, logic and reason and reflection are very, very, hard. Most people could care less about the detail...remember, this is a country where more people believe in bigfoot and putting all the animals on earth on one boat than believe in global warming or evolution.
Obama was capable of speech like this.
@@7788Sambaboy no need to worry about global warming its a hoax. Evolution is just atheist trying to convert you to their cult.Jesus is the way. Atheist have polluted science. Creationist are the way.
You can tell that Ben has a great deal of respect for Sam. Very cool.
That's because Ben is a mental midget compared to Sam
lol
Sam is a logical philosopher. Ben is a spoiled brat and a con.
@@TiagoCavalcanti-ji6hu lol
Haha no he doesn't
32:40
"The fact that you and I could improve the Bible with very little thought just by taking out ... if we just took out the worst passages which have no possible redeemable content this year, or I would argue any other year - the Bible is already improved. So the fact that we can edit it to anyone's advantage is a problem for the idea that this was written by an omniscient being..."
Rama Gitananda the Bible was written by men inspired by god and later changed by men who were not
Justin Rees wouldn't you have to see the original to know that?
Rama Gitananda it’s a matter of studying several different translations and understanding the history of how the Bible was put together. Also if you believe in modern day revelation continuing the truths found in the Bible things become much clearer.
Justin Rees, raising the subject of "different translations" seems like a red herring since my question was about the original scriptures which were not written in English. My question was rhetorical - of course you need knowledge of the original scriptures to know if they were "later changed".
I think we forget that history didn't start yesterday or even 300 years ago. The bible is written for people over 2000 years ago and is still pertinent for us today. Jesus completed the old testament and gave us a new covenant of grace. So when you say verses that could be taken out..you forget that people didn't have certain medicine 4000 years ago and it was best for them not to eat certain foods or practice certain things..
Jesus, Sam Harris is just endlessly knowledgeable and unstoppable. Great, thoughtful answers to every question. Blows my mind how all that can fit in one head.
Well, he did rehash some twenty-year experience with the topic of religion. A lot of the arguments Sam made here were mentioned in The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. Not that this makes these arguments any less valid.
if sam impresses you, you havent read much well written atheist literature and i say that as a christian...
@@xxxmmm3812 I realize that his ideas are not neccessairly purely his own but a mixture of all that he's read on the subject which is more than you or I can say I reckon. I like how he calmly articulates his points in his responses though. Also not quite as eloquent and original as this might be from John Stuart Mill on religion:
"He (Mill’s father) regarded it with the feelings due not to a mere mental delusion, but to a great moral evil. He looked upon it as the greatest enemy of morality:
first, by setting up fictitious excellences, --belief in creeds, devotional feelings, and ceremonies, not connected with the good of human kind, --and causing these to be accepted as substitutes for genuine virtues: but above all, by radically vitiating the standard of morals; making it consist in doing the will of a being, on whom it lavishes indeed all the phrases of adulation, but whom in sober truth it depicts as eminently hateful....Think of a being who would make a Hell --who would create the human race with the infallible foreknowledge, and therefore with the intention, that the great majority of them were to be consigned to horrible and everlasting torment. The time, I believe, is drawing near when this dreadful conception of an object of worship will be no longer identified with Christianity...The same slovenliness of thought, and subjection of the reason to fears, wishes and affections, which enable them to accept a theory involving a contradiction in terms, prevents them from perceiving the logical consequences of the theory…The evil is, that such a belief keeps the ideal wretchedly low; and opposes the most obstinate resistance to all thought which has a tendency to raise it higher. Believers shrink from every train of ideas which would lead the mind to a clear conception and an elevated standard of excellence, because they feel (even when they do not distinctly see) that such a standard would conflict with many of the dispensations of nature, and with much of what they are accustomed to consider as the Christian creed. And thus morality continues a matter of blind tradition, with no consistent principle, nor even any consistent feeling, to guide it. " - John Stuart Mill
He's a philosophical thinker who experimented with drugs. If you want to expand your thinking, deeper more complex thinking then listen to him; Or you can work towards self improvement through faith like many people do.
@@kadenhepner9767 Ha ha. No. Just. No
Regardless of my differences with both of them, this is how intelligent people talk.
Mah man!
"intelligence" is subjective....just like "attractive women and men" is subjective...just because there's a human majority consensus of what "intelligence might be" doesn't make it objectively intelligent.
also...who created the objective term for intelligence? the cave men who had no concept of such according to historical textbooks...
@@mattgaebel7341 There are very objective tests for intelligence. You may have preference for certain aspect of intelligence just like the preference for certain aspects of beauty, though. Trust me, cavemen, if there was ever anything like that, had definitive sense of beauty and intelligence. They may not had scientific definitions and measurements. But, they definitely knew these qualities.
@@NavaidSyed hey navaid, great points man :). But also, there are objective tests, but who created the word "intelligence" is what I'm saying to define it as such.
Thank you for sponsoring a conversation that is truly a respectful and free exchange of ideas with the intent to understand. It is so refreshing to see this and I want more of it. Both of you have been in so many debates; and while that has its place, it is always so clear that no real meeting of the minds is happening, and the debate rules force a competitive style that is the antithesis of understanding. I, too, wanted this conversation to continue for four hours.
The second half of this conversation was really great. Ben pushed on Sam's view of morality in some interesting ways and I think Sam defended his points as reasonably and eloquently as he always does.
Me: Finally, Sam Harris on the Sunday special
Ben: *starts off with *Well, you're all gonna die
😂😂
Steve Moses ~ The most used phrase by life insurance salesmen 😎😎😎
My thoughts exactly lol
Steve Moses What happens when we die (an atheistic perspective)
ruclips.net/video/VB9ssthiisA/видео.html
LOL
Ted Bolha Atheism Philosophy Science you linked us to your own video... I ain’t watching that crap
One emphasizes his pauses
One emphasizes his speed
I, for one, emphasize lenght and girth.
DoubleUpOnBob you misspelled 'length' boy-chick!
@@doubleuponbob3397 everyone emphasizes on the assets they have, not the ones they don't.
One cares about delivering an audible explanation, the other has an insecurity problem and thinks overwhelming others with loads of information makes them win debates.
Or maybe Ben Shapiro talks fast? Literally these 2 guys are friendly with each other, stop being a hater
Sam is on another level.
Another level of delusional
@@Johnny.G.u mean ur religion
@@gastontvyoutube no not really. Really think about your own existence and the world around you.
Nothing can't pass on something it doesn't have, such as an intelligent life. I can't pass on consciousness, rationality , and a moral compass if if I don't possess it... it even violates evolution's nonsense claims. You need to have traits to pass em right ?
This is readily visible,
And no delusional person who gets a labcoat or a degree obtained from other delusional people can change reality.
They say dumb things very eloquently, but they are still dumb. And historically, scientists are known for continually getting things wrong, especially when they think they got it figured out.
We havent even seen the entire ocean, how much less do we know about the universe but want to pretend that we do because of our labs. Not of that accounts for the origin of life nor is consistently logical with the reality we do have.
It's all vanity and arrogance. And that blinds.
@@Johnny.G.imagine calling Sam Harris delusional 😂 L
@@HolyHuskyoh Great. You L. I guess that's where everything ends for me.
Sorry to call it like it is on your false prophet/hero
Ben Stiller + Hugh Laurie = Sam Harris
So true.
yes
@@anthonyreed480 I don't agree with this equation. Henry Cavil's manliness is too much even with a 0.5 multiply handicap
Lmfao
I would add a bit of Bradley Cooper too actually.
Ben bruh, just prerecord the ad reads and insert them in post
What ? No , c'mon , I love that old school ad pitching . The old black and white sitcoms used to work them into the show . I like it , a little more give-a-fuck and it seems much less annoying that ads on tv.
Something I've noticed is that on whatever channel, 80% of ad reads are 30 or 60 seconds long so they are very easy to skip with the 10 second skip key on pc and mobile, totally does ruin the flow of conversation though yeah.
He could still make direct pitches that way, just without interrupting the guest.
Ah , I get what you're saying now . It's not the direct pitches , like he does on his regular show , that bothers you - it's that he's doing it while with a guest . I take your point . I supposed I'd prefer if we got a full hour of interview .
Pre-roll and mid-roll live reads are just the way podcasts are monetized in the current market.
I think you should pre record your ads so that it doesn’t interrupt your guests
Will E they are.
Agreed. Do it like they do in the H3H3 podcasts. Also, if you watch from 18:00-18:05 you can tell there's no cut there so his ads, or at least that one, aren't pre-recorded.
Get pay less for pre records😂
I love the fact that these two can have both a civil and fun debate/conversation despite having completely different views regarding religion.
you might have not noticed it, but Sam laid into the other dude at times
@@mohsenbari1083because Ben was making bad points
I don't understand why I always see this comment. It should be normal that two people should just have a normal debate and it not be anything other than civil. We really are rejoicing in the bare minimum these days
@@MilesStonerthe real legacy of Donald Trump- the destruction of intelligent public discourse
@@MilesStoner it's not the bare minimum a******. So tired of people like you acting like being able to have a civil conversation is normal.
This is parody.
They are having a civilized conversation, but people in the yt comment section are killing eachother...
Батрић Гарић ~ Typical 😎😎😎
Just through some naughty words.
There is a bias in that the viewers who comment are not representative of all viewers.
Isn’t that par for course
It's just the common rabble.
Worlds are colliding...
These two could go back-and-forth for hours.
HOW DOES THIS NOT HAVE MORE LIKES
I agree with that.
I Uhgaree
GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS
Excellent conversation. I disagree with Ben Shapiro on most topics he talks about but you have to admit that he does try to be an honest player, which is incredibly refreshing for someone on the right.
he's always on point and never interrupts even though he could. Great to see these discussions!
Bullshít comment
You really articulated your point well there crazy3d
He's been good in conversations with people he views as intellectuals. But his monologued talking points are usually about some strawman and are hardly intellectually honest. It's easy to be "I'm all fact and no one cares about your feelings" when you don't address any facts that are counter to whatever you're trying to sell.
Another vapid comment. The projection is real.
This is Ben and Sam at their best! I could listen to them talk all day
I can see how Sam is at his best, but what did Ben say that was of any value?
@@zatchidzbipartisanship has you by the balls buddy…
@@willrobbins2550 why do you insult somebody instead of answering their question and providing dialogue, which you should be in favor of as you watched this video.
Thank you Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro for listening to eachothers' arguments and staying civilized through the entirety of this. Great conversation
How is it that Sam Harris manages not to burst out laughing hysterically every time Shapiro reads those ridiculous ads ??! 😂😂😂
Nice Ben, the actor from Meet the parents, finally!!!
Shinkansen touché
Sandmanuel that’s because he is a reasonable person. Not every religious person hates homosexuals just because they view the act of homosexuality a sin. We all sin, if we hate everyone bc they sin, we will hate everyone and ourselves.
Shinkansen xddd
Mrs Press I think you missed the joke...
Bardorp just because there is a joke in the comment doesn’t make the whole comment a joke.
I have no idea how someone as educated and smart as Ben Shapiro could have so much cognitive dissonance when it comes to certain topics.
I second that. 😂😂😂
He is a moralist and bases his position on The Moral Law Giver. Shapiro’s knowledge goes beyond thoughts of men. Sam’s “facts” are subjective, he relies only on limited ideas of other men - and formulates his opinions from those observations. They both articulate ideas with ease, however Ben is a realist and Sam a relativist: there is no truth if it is relative to your existential reality. Sam has no foundation. Ben stands on stone.
@@patrickstephens1203you have your analysis of them completely backwards.
LMAO true.@@skthenovelist9501
@@patrickstephens1203Ben stands on the Bible. As far away from stone as you can get lol
It takes a significant amount of energy, intellect, and research to pull off a coherent debate regardless of the topic. People genuinely don't care enough, are too busy, or are too dumb to devote the mental resources. But hell, they'll shout a mantra, post a regurgitated facebook meme, and hold a sign for hours on end just as long as they don't have to think and articulate their argument, if they even have one...
Well, sadly the number of individual thinker who consider every opinions and reasoning out there before arriving at a conclusion is too few.
It is much easier for most people to form an opinon base on what they are being fed, much easier to post facebook and hold signs for hours.
Because to be able to be a individual thinker, you need to read a lot to learn, be able to question your own belief to strenghthen it, most people simply dont have time or the will to do it, they would rather made up their mind base on information someone else fed them, then defend these opinion base on information that doesn't show every element of the discussion.
Thats why when their argument become rather weak, they get angry and agigtated, because these opinions are not from themselves, and they lack the information to back up what they said. So they either start cursing or ignoring other sides opinions or even start fights.
Individual thinking that can be back up by tons of informations needs a lot of work to achieve, i am sure these guys read tons of book and research, and most people are lasy and just want a quick answer they can stick to, unforunately.
Great comment couldn't agree more
spot on
I really want social policies that discourage idiots from breeding for this reason
I find nothing more satisfying than using Daniel Dennett's approach of steelmanning your opponent and then having a fruitful conversation.
This was just an incredible conversation. Two men that disagree on some of their core/fundamental beliefs and able to have a cordial, civil, genuine chat.
I still get the occasional pang of loss when I think of what Hitchens would have contributed to this current rabid culture of identity politics.
GeneralZodd99 especially with the PC brigade
Daniel Dennett didn't coin the term steel manning
@Boredguy112 he never said he did just that he used it ill probably be sick of the sight of it soon all these philosophy for beginners readers love straw man and ad hominem attacks and if that fails they attack your grammar spelling or just abuse you
steelmanning comes from eric weinstein justs fyi
R.I.P Hitchens
Ben please have Sam back on again soon. Both of you show genuine respect for each others’ views and the disagreements are super useful.
Needless to say I think this one conversation was more instructive than the 6-7 hours Sam and Jordan spoke on for their events.
Great stuff.
Ben doesn't beat around the bush.
"Needless to say I think this one conversation was more instructive than the 6-7 hours Sam and Jordan spoke on for their events."
Sam's and Jordan's discussions where in the form of a debate, slightly different to this more friendly discussion type. Nevertheless, I find the Harris/Peterson debates equally instructive and interesting, albeit more exhausting.
@@CostasAnYou are right, my mistake for not recognizing that. However, Jordan was on Sam's podcast almost 2 years ago and the conversation wasn't as smooth as it might have been. I'd still love to hear Sam and Jordan a third and fourth time on podcast, away from the crowds, in conversation rather than debate.
This is what our political debates should look and sound like.
Fuck no, you can't listen to shit heads like Shapiro
Unfortunately the wise and the power hungry don't often sit at the same table.
Love Harris, Love Shapiro, Love Peterson, Love the Weinstein brothers, Love Pinker, and I could go on with the list, all for different reasons and one similar crucial reason....they all have the sack to engage people that don't agree with them and keep it civil and productive.
also they're all incredibly intelligent, even if their conclusions differ.
They’re all also actually interested in others perspectives. These conversations are a means to coming to mutual understandings. Many other people (eg. mainstream media) are merely trying to impose their perspectives on others while assuming their own beliefs to be the “right” ones.
So thankful for this technology that allows us to listen in on true good faith conversations.
to add to this, I find it childish how many comments are whining over the commercial breaks, you're listening to one of the most intriguing 1 hour conversations out there for free, people have forgotten how amazing such accessibility is.
YES! This type of intellectual honesty makes me want to cry for joy. When I see these people walk away with an actual friendship despite their potently contrasted differences it gives me hope for society.
Replace pinker with taleb and I'm with you
I really enjoyed this talk. Very respectful and deep. I wish it was 7 hours longer. Props to both sides.
I can't watch this without thinking about "Freedom Toons" XD
lol
Ben's family watched this and collectively got a massive headache from the sub-300 IQ conversation which to them sounded like two retarded chicken cackling
I uh-gah-reeee with that.
This needs to be a regular podcast... the world is SO divided, it would be amazing to see two minds like this parse these important topics regularly
"Facts doesn't care about your beliefs, Ben."
Okay... :) so is it proven now that God doesn't exist.. :D :D
@@rethinkingfornow7553 Perhaps it's the utter lack of evidence for a god. The facts certainly don't show there is one. Not yet, probably never.
@@ArchLordXarnor Nope there is awesome philosophical, logical and historical evidence for existence of God :) funny how you say "The facts certainly don't show there is one." but don't present any facts.. interesting.. and why are you telling me your opinion though ??
@@rethinkingfornow7553 Please share your philosophical, logical, and historical evidence. You could have a Nobel Prize on your hands, sir. Because no one has made a valid argument for roughly 6,000 years.
@@ArchLordXarnor lol.. since you don't have any arguments on your side to disprove the existence of god.. I present to you... The Kalam cosmological argument.. you can tell me its stupid but since in a Vacuum the smallest force is the strongest force, I think I should be able rest my case but out of curiosity why do you ask me ??
I liked him in Tropic Thunder!
juniorgod321 DIET COKE!!!!!!
Original
juniorgod321 huh?
codycast Ben Stiler starts in Tropic Thunder, him and Sam Harris are almost twins.
😂😂
I loves this discussion, very insightful. Love from a Muslim viewer Ben.
Ayub Sharif apostatise
I think you guys should be more respectful of this guy. Regardless of his ideology, I doubt he advocates killing apostates if he liked Sam Harris
90schildnostalgia respect would be great, but the irony of this movement is their incessant ‘it’s ok to disagree’ or ‘intellectual tolerance’ message, yet their audience being the most intolerant bunch imaginable.
Alex Lewis I think it's just the loudest ones mate... at least I hope so!
Death for apostasy is up for debate in the Quran. Yes, it's a horrible concept but not one that all Muslims subscribe to. My problem with you is that you want to tar all Muslims with the same brush. He did nothing but complement the conversation so for you to go for the jugular is unwarranted, and only likely to antagonise moderate Muslims. You are actually preventing a reasonable discussion which is precisely what Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris value. I'd suggest you 1) get to know the wide range of Muslim beliefs and practices held across the world, much like Christianity it is not homogeneous, 2) have a little empathy for other human beings who may have been born into such ideologies and 3) think about a solution to the problem
Mr Harris is the Greatest most eloquent Exponent in rationalism, Critical thinking and reasoning in scientific thought and understanding the development of zeitgeist morality through the ages..I am most grateful for opening up my mind...Thank you Sir ❤❤❤❤
Man! You joined the fastest talking person in USA (Ben Shapiro) with the slowest talking person in USA (Sam Harris)? That was highly contrasting.
Lol do people really think Sam talks slow? I've never really thought so
Beeeeeeeeen, to distill it down for you
Religion: people willing to trade truth for comfort
Rationality: people unwilling to trade truth for comfort
Ben talks fast. Milo seems to talk a tad faster.
It was interesting seeing Shapiro have to slow down and seriously listen to arguments.
Ever heard of Noam Chomsky?
I'm not sold on Policy Genius yet.
What about the mattresses?
How about free real estate.
Ben's arguments on religion can be really weak.
To be fair there are no good arguments for religion.
or there just arnt
Argument for which religion, and which flavor of that religion? That stuff is just silly.
*all arguments on religion can be really weak
They're embarrassingly weak, tbh.
Regardless of who or what you believe, this truly is the type of conversation that people should strive to have.
Believe? You think it is about believing? Srsly?
@@TiagoCavalcanti-ji6hu thanks for the review, lord of pedantics
Ben pulled a really good move by doing Sunday specials. They're fantastic.
needs to work on the ads. Doesn't everyone have a patreon now?
phuse99 What about the Sabbath? Does no one care about the Sabbath?
Well, if its a day if rest, i'd interpret that as do what you want on that day. and they're pre-recorded.
The Sabbath is Saturday, I think. Sunday for Christians.
SquareRootOf2 No I don't think so. I worked for an Israeli company and they where practicing Jew's who always closed Sunday for the Sabbath. The reason Christianity uses Sunday for Sabbath is because of ancient Judaism. Though I have heard you can take the Sabbath any day. As long as you set one day aside for rest, and contemplation. I believe most people use the 7th day of the week, because that is the day YHWH rest's after the creation of the world in the old testament.
Ok NOW i want to see a D&D session with Sam, Ben, Jordan, Bret, Joe and Steven.
Der Jannynator and Eric Weinstein 👌
Just San, Ben, Peterson, and Neil
If you're from the 70s/80s then you know D&D is of the devil. Fact. 🤣
All while high af
Sam:warlock, Shapiro:sorcerer, Peterson:cleric, Joe:monk/ranger, Bret:Paladin, Crowder:barbarian.
It's like watching Magneto play chess with Professor X.
Nah, that would be Harris and Peterson in a discussion. Ben is slightly over matched here.
LawofCinema no ben is wrong Sam is right.
You have to up those standards. They were both pretty bad at this. Ben is such a smart guy but when it comes to this he's no good. The evidence for theism is pretty overwhelming but on this topic he randomly decides "you can't use evidence on this". Well, yes you can.
Sam is almost as equally low quality in his arguments. Especially where the historical record is concerned. He just buys into the grade school textbook account of medieval Europe, for instance (and Ben doesn't even know how to counter those basic errors). No serious historian really thinks the "dark ages" were a real thing anymore, even if the term still gets used. It was an era remarkable for its low amounts of violence and steady technological and political progress.
If Sam debated someone like a Norman Geisler he'd be out of his league. I have no idea how this guy got famous for arguing for atheism except choosing ignorant opponents to make himself look good?
jlopez47 Harris argues religion all the time. Ben analyzes politics. Sam would be a bit out of his element going down the political rabbit hole too.
Seraph O. Storms so when you say there's evidence for theism, what are you talking about specifically? I agree with you, im just curious to know your point of view. What should Ben have referenced that he didn't?
24:25
"What we have, historically, is a real war of ideas, crystallized in the moment where Galileo was shown the instruments of torture and put under house arrest by people who refused to look through his telescope".
Recently became a big fan of Sam. Not sure how much I agree with everything he says but he's definitely an intelligent dude.
I've listened to him for years . I think listening to someone you 100% agree with is useless . In the end sam has a well grounded vision on reality and morality
@@danielgilbert3537 my op was 2 years ago. He lost me with his tds. Now you don't have to be a Trump fan but he just couldn't stop talking about it.
@@mhia4 yea sorry I actually hadn't noticed how old the post was till after I replied ( I appreciate the follow-up) . I think for good reason with the Trump thing . Honestly we haven't seen such a corrupt actor in power in such a long time there is so much to talk about when it comes to Trump and it just kept coming especially after he was fairly Voted out of office . And I agree the record player can get a bit frustrating after a while
@@danielgilbert3537 no apology necessary. I was actually surprised because I remember leaving that comment. I am a Trump guy but policy, no so much personality. I get why some don't like him. Sam was a guy who frankly is so much fucking smarter than me that I just enjoy listening to him talk.
@@danielgilbert3537 especially his thoughts on determinism. I don't buy it but it's interesting to think about. It's gotta play a part right?
"Some day you're going to die and when that happens if you don't have life insurance you're going to be sorry."
Say that again, slowly, and think about it.
Clearly he believes in heaven/hell and that somehow magically you can look back at the living after one’s death.
@@rambantu229 No, he's implying that you'll be sorry that you weren't able to provide some financial respite for whatever family you leave behind.
@@DS-lq3dr How would you be sorry after your death? You either believe in heaven/hell or do not understand logic.
No body left me any life insurance. Have to make a living or a pension.
Kind of like "one of these days, you're going to wake up dead".
The best sort of debate is one where people have a degree of respect for others.
I like Sam. He knows the audience consists of all sorts of people, so he speaks at a speed and uses language that everyone can understand. People like Shapiro should learn from him.
🥱you just yapping
Except Sam’s “wide audience” Is far smaller than Ben’s
@@willrobbins2550unfortunately
By learn from him, you mean agree with you and join you on the voyage of futility and stupidity.
I love Ben's show, but the baked-in ads just feel....weird. Can't he do a banner at the bottom or something else? Not one time have I ever once been tempted to buy or visit website or product he pitches. Super intellectual conversation interrupted by interviewer stopping to sell a product. Come on man, I know you gotta make money, but isn't there another way?
S Bludger
The advertisers probably want Ben to announce them the way he does.
S Bludger It really doesn’t work in this format. On his daily show, it’s not a big deal, but for these weekly conversations, it brings everything to a halt and feels kind of slimy.
His videos likely get regularly demonetized simply because of who he is and who he has on, which is why he has to resort to promoting ads within the video itself. Many youtubers have had to start doing this. Blame Goolag.
He could do the commercials prior or after taping, edit it in at a later time. I think the reason I find it so jarring is because he has the guest right in front of him and is choosing to bring the conversation to a dead stop just for the commercial. If it was a cut away i think it would work better. Keep it free to me though, i dont mind commercials just the execution.
Or we could all just pay to watch him, ad-free, like the BBC in the UK? Alternatively, he could launch a range of health supplements to sell to his followers (i believe this been tried with some success by others). Just a thought...
Ben Stiller is looking thin
LOL ... and wise, too!
and i didnt realize the girl from true grit is jewish
I love Sam Harris, he’s dope
The D in PhD stands for Dope.
I’m sure he’s thrilled knowing that you think he’s “dope”.
@@lj3507 *GASP* What do you think he'll say when he reads this? Do you expect he shall be judgemental? Our use of slang was an attempt at humor that completely backfired! Now we shall never be invited to his home for rousing debates and finger sandwiches!
Oh, wait, he will never read this, he was never the intended audience, and your attempt at appearing randomly smug belies a deficit in self-worth that must be compensated for by implying the inferiority of others.
Or something. Never mind. You're totally dope.
He’s hella woke
@@kinocchio His analysis is on fleek.
Ben asked a lot of good questions here, if I were to play devils advocate against the general outlook I share with Sam, these were exactly what I would ask and like to hear answered and explained. Glad I found this video, both great people.
I love Ben. But i must give it to Sam he is just brilliant and hes showing Ben a level of argument that Shapiro cant rly handle.
Still huge fan of Ben!
It's a million times more difficult to defend religion than to pick it apart.
Chance Masters Because the burden of proof lies on a positive statement rather than a negative one.
You got a fan 2 👍
He only looks woke debating sophomores in some art colleges.
True Fear He does in every Change my mind.
I'm way too dumb for this conversation
Jesse Eby Sam Harris just puts me right to sleep
At least you're not delusional
Actually it takes a certain amount of intelligence to realize that you don't understand something or that you don't have the answers.
@Heath Sims Check out the Dunning-Kruger effect. In general, stupid people cannot conceptualize how stupid or ignorant they are. Sure there are actions that even the stupidest among us would not claim to be competent at. But there are many actions or tasks where people routinely believe that they are far better at them then they actually are. One easy example would be those talent shows on television where there are people that obviously think that they are a good enough singer to hold there own, but everyone that is listening to them comes to quite a different conclusion. It is not like they are pretty good but maybe not up to the level where they can compete, but instead they are horrible singers but just can't seem to understand this.
i can summarise it for you : there is no god
How many converts does Jainism have? Not many, I guess, considering they don't force people by the sword to submit or die.
Nor do they proselytize at all nor have very theologically-compelling arguments that are actually philosophically-relevant. Also, the religion is very particularly embedded in one particular ethnic culture and history and isn't very universal. Just because a religion preaches one aspect of non-violence to the extreme does not necessarily make it compelling.
The message of Jainism is rather universal but because of its not so evangelical nature it remained accepted and followed by a relatively small number of people. And also Jainism is not only about nonviolence but that is just one of the many aspects of it.
WOMANpukumaru it comes down to the necessity of a radical internal revelation, you accept Jesus as He reveals himself spiritually (and through personal signs and demonstrations of God’s providence) to you when you are at a point in life where you can honestly give up your pride against God, and He lifts the veil that blinds you. You realize that evolution of species is not fact, nor is it even a feasible explanation of origins. You realize how blinded you’ve been accepting that our consciousness, these intricate processes, the relationship within ourselves and in nature, and even the universe as a whole, just simply doesn’t make sense as a byproduct of chaos, no matter how many trillions of years given. To be sincere, there’s no way I can expect, nor would have I expected myself, to see things this way before Jesus... aliens, or any “god” could easily assume the same characteristics we give to Jesus, but it’s not until we have our veil lifted that we can really see it’s Jesus. Sounds like nonsense? It should sound like nonsense to someone who hasn’t been born again in Christ. As odd as this may seem, this is your answer.
Hence not compelling enough to join or better yet capable enough of joining for future generations, and they will go extinct along with their so-called perfect morals and ethics. Jainism equals no real impact on civilization whatsoever
Forced conversions are kind of necessary to get a religion into the major leagues. If you try to do it without force, it takes too long and some shiny new religion will come along and splinter the original religion. Violence is a feature not a bug.
I have school tomorrow, but I am enjoying this so much. Decisions, decisions.
Regardless, thank you Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, and The Daily Wire crew for setting this up. This was an extremely entertaining, and high quality discussion.
Harris is one of those few liberal people to engage in a dialogue without going in with the intent of being offended. Love him
I have to ask, is it not absolutely the very opposite of Ben and Sam's foundational tenant of 'dont participate in Identity Politics and have reasoned conversations' to say what you're revealing here? And please don't read in a negative tone, bc I do not intend one, but you label Sam as a liberal, and pejoratively so bc he is a rare exception to the very tribalistic confession that you go into an exchange NORMALLY with "the bad guys" armored up and thus closed off partially bc of they're leanings.
Specifically,"...going in with the intent on being offended".
Tommy Wells How about you not go in with the intent to offend?
@ D.J. C Cham - While I don't at all agree with the statement Tommy gave, I do think there's a distinction between a blanket judgment of "liberals" and identity politics. While blanket judgments do tend to be bad things, identity politics is particularly egregious because it is a system predicated on blanket judgments rendered entirely on immutable and random characteristics. It's bad to say "all liberals" or "all conservatives" or even "all leftists/right-wingers" are BLANK. It's an order of magnitude worse to say "all ETHNIC GROUP" or "all BIOLOGICAL SEX" are BLANK. A conservative or liberal can switch positions. They are not born into that identity. Identity politics lays out a claim that the conditions of your birth are collectivist battle lines that you must conform to, or you will be thrown out of your group.
It's cancer.
Joseph People throw around the word "identity politics" way too much. It just starts to sound like a bunch of reactionary nonsense. Many times in society, identity politics is absolutely needed.
For example: Imagine some town in the Midwest with a small Muslim population where some contingent is trying to ban all head coverings in public schools. It would be "identity politics" on some level for the Muslim community to band together to oppose this head-covering measure, as they would be organizing on tribal grounds (their religion).
However, I think most people would see this as a legitimate use of identity politics because the issue has a special impact on that particular group.
Now just broaden this concept out to other groups and issues like aggressive/corrupt policing in black communities and you may start to understand the utility and logic to identity politics.
Love sam. These two need to have more of these conversations.
Speaking as a Christian I have the upmost respect for Sam Harris.
I can always count on him to have a respectful conversation regardless of any agreement
Russ Pottenger "To believe in religion you have to either be an idiot or a lunatic" - Sam Harris. Here is your respect.
Filip Piłat
To find someone to think that I'm an idiot or a lunatic, a line would form and likely go around the block.
My goal is being able to have a respectful one on one conversation with someone I don't necessarily feel that I have to change their mind or opinion but just merely have a exchange of our ideas and viewpoints.
A tree begins by first planting a seed then watering it
@@filippiat9151 Where did he say that? Source?
@@filippiat9151 no source on that and I’m a strict atheist, Sam, unlike many leftists, does not view the opposition and irredeemable monsters or lesser than him.
I give Ben a thumbs up, he was polite, articulate, and perhaps most importantly interested and listened to what his guest had to say. Other podcast/youtube hosts should take a lesson here.
I thought it was really great of Ben to let him talk through his points so much without feeling the need to jump in too often. That's a good host.
Things you'll never see in late night shows
I like Shapiro in conversations like this over his usual commentary persona
Definitely. Check out his first Sunday special if you haven't seen it. It's a similar example of Shapiro stretching out intellectually and it recapitulates a fair bit of the Harris/Peterson discussions for those of us who can't manage 6 hours...
CANNOT THANK YOU TWO BEAUTIFUL MEN WITH YOUR BEAUTIFUL OPEN MINDS ENOUGH!!!!! I’M SO ATTRACTED TO REASONABLE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE WHO PRESENT THEMSELVES EXACTLY AS WHO THEY ARE, VERY DIFFERENT IDEAS IN SOME AREAS AND ALWAYS BEING CERTAIN TO RESPECT AND BE OPEN AND LOVING TO ONE ANOTHER!!!!! ITS OBVIOUS THAT THEY EACH PUT TRULY LISTENING TO ONE ANOTHER IN A MORE IMPORTANT VEIN THAN TRULY ATTEMPTING TO BE HEARD OVER THE OTHER!!!!!
SO REFRESHING TO KNOW THAT PEOPLE REALLY ARE STILL CAPABLE OF THIS!!!!!!
THOROUGHLY ENJOYED AND CANNOT WAIT FOR THE FOUR HOUR CONVO!!!!!
THANK YOU BOTH FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART!!!!!💜🙋♀️💜🙋♀️💜🙋♀️
You need to get Mike Rowe on, I love these deep conversations!!!
The cure to all this crayzness is path and Rowe can help direct!!!
Mike Cochran
Strongly Agree.
All the hate for Harris in the comments SMH. C'mon, you can disagree with civility, as Ben does. Be like Ben.
Ben does it with civility and arguments. If you have the arguments, the civility can flow from that. When you don't have arguments, derision and sarcasm take its place, which are the lowest forms of disagreement. You'll see it on both sides, and it's a good signal to avoid attempting a discussion with that person because they are unwilling and/or incapable of having one.
Be like Mike
Roi 🤣
P Lindsay Hate is such a strong word. To the word’s misfortune, it is misused, abused, and folks are quick to use it when they just cannot or refuse to go into detail as to why they disagree or dislike with something, someone, or action or all three. They, SJW’s, have inflated the value and power of the word.
P Lindsay maybe the last 8 hrs have changed that. I see nothing but love for Sam. Except from me maybe. Just disagree whole heartedly with him on several things but I think he's possibly interested in finding a way to connect with those who disagree
Why does Ben always smile when he promotes policy genius and says " you're going to die!"
Lol such a savage
2012NWFF The fact that we are going to die is the gateway drug to western religion
That's why he smiles
NICK W Not really, it can also be the gateway to hedonism. "YOLO" for instance is not the making of religious people.
Can't speak for Ben (as a Jew), but myself as a Christian, I would ironically smile as well, because for true Christians death is a sweet release. And it means we get to go be with Jesus/God in heaven. Something infinitely better than this life on earth...….in a nut shell. That's why Paul (in the Bible) says that "to live is Christ, and to die is gain". You gain much more when you die (as a true Christian).
2012NWFF Why are you still using "lol" in 2018?
One of the fundamental problems with this conversation is that aside from a brief mention of Gandhi and Jainism, it effectively ignored any religion outside the Abrahamic ones. It ignores the fact that religion and law evolved independent of the Judeo-Christian influence in China and Japan. As early as 1600 BC, the Shang Dynasty had developed writing meaning that laws could be codified.
The fact that Asian cultures had well-developed morality and ethical thought outside of the influence of Abrahamic mythology demonstrates that Shapiro is not just wrong but demonstrably wrong.
Just read this exact comment on reddit. I was thinking of including it here but you beat me to it. good job
I would say the same about Thirukkural, a book of ethics which co-existed with the Manu Smriti in India. One showing no inclination to any religion and the latter that emphasizes casteism.
sam did mention along those lines several times.
40:39 sam talks about how it predates even human civilizations.
A reasonable argument is that God has inspired people in all cultures to reveal morality to their followers, whether it be Gandhi, Buddha, Mohammed, Moses, etc.
@Killuah Zoldyc Agreed. And even in the 21st century, those "peace loving" you know what, bribe poor non Christians into converting to their barbaric cult for food, otherwise, they are left to starve. Christianity has done so much harm and should be banned not only in Europe, but all over the world.