So proud of Sam. Talking about the bullshit of BLM. He's touched on race before with Charles Murray, that whiny bitch Hannibal buress that turned into a shitshow coz he was an emotional idiot, so he chilled out a little because he knows the uber progressives, shitlibs who are C@NTS might cancel him, now he can't be cancelled.. well, he really never could. He always had money.. and finally he doesn't give one single fuck. He's so godamn complete now. He really is arguably the greatest thinker we will ever see. Criminally underrated. Bravo, sir. Bravo. We should all extra celebrate for this brilliant man.
I always laugh at Christians who think north korea is an atheist country. The leader thinks of himself as god, and the people all play along, or maybe even believe it. How the fuck is this atheism? Just cause its not about jesus?
Alky -- so they are behaving just like christians/catholics did back when they had Power. Back then, if you did or even just said anything that they didn't like, they'd KILL you. They did alot of that. If you were a famous person, you got put on trial first. Remember someone named Galileo? Remember why he was put on trial and by who??
Master Spade Galileo wasn't executed he was put on house arrest and died of old age. Also your premise is incorrect here is how: First, it was not the religious leaders who originally opposed Galileo. It was actually the secular philosophers who were committed to a philosophical view called Aristotelianism. This is a school of thought going all the way back to Aristotle. Aristotle believed the heavens were made of immutable, perfect spheres. Galileo’s observations challenged this belief. Instead of starting with a prior commitment to Aristotelianism, Galileo started by looking at the evidence.Through his telescope, he observed sunspots that seemed to fly in the face of Aristotle’s perfect Sun. He also detected supernova-the explosion of a star-that strongly opposed the notion of Aristotle’s ‘immutable heavens.’ Consequently, Galileo wasn’t principally attacking the Church. His observations challenged the reigning philosophy, which was believed by virtually everyone of his day. As a result, he received criticism from all fronts, not merely the Church. Second, one must remember the historical context. This was all happening during the Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church already thought they were losing their authority. Since the Church was committed to Aristotelianism, they understood an attack on Aristotelianism to be an attack on the Church. And to make matters even worse, Galileo published his findings in Italian-the language of the common man-rather than in Latin, the language of the elites. Third, this story is often portrayed as the innocent Galileo being attacked by the Church. However, Galileo wasn’t so innocent. He was an instigator. He wrote a book called Dialogue Concerning the Two Principal Systems of the World in which he put the ideas of the Pope on the lips of a character he called Simplicio, which means simpleton or buffoon. Fourth, Galileo was a Bible-believing Christian, who believed that he was studying the works of God’s hand. He said, “The laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics.” This doesn’t fit the narrative that Christianity is against science. Let me be clear, I’m not defending what the Roman Catholic Church did to silence Galileo. What they did was wrong. But they weren’t silencing Galileo merely because they were anti-science. In fact, the Church (along with the secular academy) thought they were defending science by silencing Galileo.
Arguing with Right-Wing Christian Fundamentalists is like talking to a radio. Noise comes out but depending on what channel your listening to it just could not get any dumber or less likely to understand what your saying.
@@thegnomechaun1194 Evolution is a bullshit lie but magic sky daddy creating women from ribs is the truth. The OP was right, you Christian fundamentalists are like a broken record who dislike facts. Facts are still facts whether you accept them or not
I'd say religion is natural in teh sense of it being the default. Our tendency to some logical mistakes makes religion likely to happen and spread. I don't think classifying whether it's natural or not is very useful. But if I ha dto I'd say it's natural (and not a good thing).
Humans are born spiritual for all babies meditate (no ideology or ideas) - religiousness, not religion, on the other hand is concerned with what comes after conciousness (apeirophobia comes to mind).
I've never heard of this man before, but I like the way he speaks so calmly and respectfully while still making powerful points. I wish I were as adept at conveying these ideas with my words.
@@simpleguy38 You are not that sure then, how can you follow the main religious element which is submit to the imaginary bugaboo and yet not follow the word of bugaboo? You either are a deist which is a very outdated denomination in these times of technology and great discoveries or you are ignorant in the surface of reason and logic and science.
@@MerkurioBua So It is either islam that command you to pray 5 times a day and clean yourself and mandates seeking learning Or Atheism and materialism where you worship your twisted desires and don't care about improvement unless something suits you to attack theists
I have only just discovered Sam Harris, and I'm so glad I did. He seems to have a way of putting my own thoughts into words that I could not have come up with myself, while at the same time introducing me to new concepts and new ways of thinking that I also could not have come up with myself. Listening to him is like watching a door open. He's opening doors for free thinkers everywhere.
@The Great SteveO Richard is a great guy but he never claims to have founded Atheism, it's been around as long as religion, there have always been rational thinkers who don't believe in magic. If you believe in the christian god you are an atheist regarding all the thousands of other gods people worship. People like Richard only believe in one god less than you.
Imagine being a new kid at a high school, and on your first day you discover that 85% percent of the kids going there still think Santa Clause brings them presents at Christmas. This, sadly, is what being an atheist feels like to me. If it wasn't for you other "kids" posting on the message board with me, I would probably drop out. I'm almost 30 by the way, so this is strictly an analogy for me, lol.
"it wasn't necessary to throw out the baby with the polluted bathwater." My mother used that excuse when I told her I was an atheist. 6 months later ,she is one too. Will have a look tonight.
0:52 As a human atheist -LOL- I must say I am extremely impressed by all of the holy books. Religion is, by far, the most successful scam/con/grift of all time! That's impressive. Horrible, but impressive.
No one knows how life originated but all plausable answers suggest that it was not from some imaginary 'god'. You are going to tell me that there was nothing anywhere just a blank slate so to speak? Then where in the hell did a 'god' come from? Was he just hanging out with nothing, just a total void? Please give people credit for using their thought powers to decide that this scenario just could not have happed. Sin is an imaginary disease invented to give the people an imaginary cure. You may repectfully have your opinion, just keep your delusional ideas to yourself.
@@thegnomechaun1194 ok buddy. You definitely have no proof to evolution being wrong, and all your brainwashed beliefs and "evidence" are in an ancient book of fiction. Think for once.
to believe means not to know.. because if you KNEW there would be no need to believe.. you can believe as much as you want... it doesn't mean that you KNOW it is true..... believing equals assuming and does not equal knowing
He is actually right in almost everything he said, except for one little subtlety: it is true that the regimes of Mao and Stalin did not do the atrocities they did as a direct consequence of atheism, they did it as a direct consequence of other dogmatic systems, as Dr Harris rightly pointed out. However, the fact they were atheists enabled them to do this atrocities. What I mean by this is the following: if atheism is true, one can plausibly infer that morality is subjective, and we just have to find a morality that works and benefits society. The problem is that these people thought that morality included putting people in concentration camps, and since they were atheists, there was no moral authority they could consult and prove them wrong.
So tired of people thinking the perspective that one should do whatever he or she wants if there is no god. You can have a basis for morality without a god as Sam Harris has demonstrated before. Is it an objective morality well the level of objectivity you require is impossible. We can never be objectively sure about anything and everything requires assumptions or some type of starting point. Science has to assume that the knowledge and observation of the universe can be done because the universe operates in a logical and discoverable manner. There is evidence to support this, but it can never be proven. How about medicine can you really tell someone one that being healthy should be measured by the proximity one is to death based on one's age group? Do you see how ridiculous complaining about a lack of "objectiveness". An "objective basis for morality": All conscious life have values. One value conscious life all have is the furthering the well being of oneself or and others. Humans as a part of conscious life are inseparable from some form of human inter-connectivity. By merely recognizing this you accept the value of "well-being" and why it is important to oneself and others. This can be applied on a larger scale than oneself and your immediate circle. Empathy also works quite well. How is this basis for morality not "objective" enough. One must value the "well being" of oneself and or others. Unnecessary pain decreases this well being. As such the unnecessary causing of pain to others should be avoided. Now this does not mean there are definitely "objective" moral solutions to problems, but it does provide a basis. Even from merely a selfish perspective setting up a system that maximizes freedom, equality, prosperity, etc. for everyone is beneficial for oneself. There is always a possibility you will end up in an unfavorable position, but this can be minimized by creating such a system. etc.
SoldierGeneral64 "So tired of people thinking the perspective that one *should* do whatever he or she wants if there is no god." - The point is this: if there is no God, there is no *should*... In science you can evaluate your hypothesis with experiments (like smoking causes cancer), but in morality you cannot set an experiment in a lab to show that maximizing welfare is *good*. Suppose I come here and tell you that actually since the majority of the world lives in the North Hemisphere, we should consider *good* what makes the welfare of the North Hemisphere greater. How can you show me I am wrong? I am not even asking a proof, but just give one piece of evidence that I am wrong. You can't. Of course, if there is a God who has revealed Himself, the story is different.
Kyrios Iesous Your post is illogical. You act as if life only has meaning if there is a god. We give our own meaning to life. We have developed definitions of things such as health based on our understanding of things from science and value for "well being". If someone says well why can't health be defined as vomiting as much as you can do you see how stupid that is. We behave in a manner befitting the limitations of the environment we live in. If morality is defined as striving towards the greatest possible "good" for everyone then what your saying is nonsense. You are choosing to define good in a different way, which does not make it true. What is your basis for the well being of only the northern hemisphere? The valuing of "well being" and avoidance of pain. The value has not changed even if you wish to apply it within certain parameters such as northern hemisphere. You have no logical basis for setting those parameters either as people residing in the southern hemisphere fall under the same value system. Another perspective: Is the worst possible universe where everyone suffers as much as possible bad? Can you honestly say it is "subjectively" bad. Based on our knowledge of pain we know it to be bad. Merely playing word games of defining "bad" is nonsense. What is wrong with creating a logical basis for morality instead of divine mandates? Why is it the case that only a god can create a proper moral system?
Kyrios Iesous Another way of thinking about it is this: "Objectively" True: Unnecessary pain is always bad. "Objectively" True: The avoidance of unnecessary pain is good. "Objectively" True: I want to avoid unnecessary pain. "Objectively" True: avoiding unnecessary pain applies to any creature that can feel pain. "Objectively True: Decreasing unnecessary pain should be valued to all creatures that feel pain if the value holds true for myself. Obviously what I posted needs to be reworded a bit as this line of thinking, if based purely on unnecessary pain and not potential future well being etc as well, could lead to bad outcomes. I hope this helps you understand what I'm talking about from a different perspective. If you hold a value to be true then simply denying that value when it applies to other cases is merely hypocrisy.
Kyrios Iesous You are making an assumption that objective morality must exist and that its existence necessitates a god. Are you denying the possibility that there is no objective morality and there is a god? Since there is no evidence related to what we are talking about you can not deny all other possibilities either. As such you can only assert that objective morality= god exists. I can just as easily assert consciousness= objective morality basis. One can not have consciousness without valuing certain basic moral principals no matter how minimal. When one person values certain basic moral principals then that value is applicable to all such people. Furthermore even if a god had a moral code it does not mean that the god's moral code is actually the best moral code to live ones life by. Even if morality is not objective a moral system and rules logically thought out and created based on multiple factors such as what we know is better than a moral system based on mindless obedience and the assumption any action by god must be moral. Other issues: People would think it was good to kill the Jews because they would think they were evil. You can lie and cause people to believe different thinks, but people's value for "well-being" is always present in some shape or form. Finally what do you mean by "objective" morality. Such phrasing is actually rather worthless honestly. Is such a moral system based on the maximization of well-being and equality? The god depicted in religious texts such as the bible can not maximize well-being and equality completely when holding values such as obedience and an inability to "forgive" the sins he pretty much gave mankind. The bible often reminds worshipers to both fear and love god. Where is the morality in that? Even if an omniscient and all-knowing god somehow existed you would still have to demonstrate that such a being actually was indeed omni-benevolent. Examining the bible itself mocks that very premise.
Why would an intelligent man not, right from the start, deal with the statement that Hitler was an atheist, by quoting the numerous times Hitler quoted the will of god, his love of god and the idea that he was doing god's work. Hitler clearly wasn't an atheist - he was a theist, and the first pact he made was with the religion he was born into.
Hitler had priests and nuns executed, hardly the will of God. His god was Darwin, which he used his teaching on inferior races to justify his ethnic cleansing. His many references to evolution in his book Mein Kampf are notorious. It is noteworthy that the full title of Origin of Species, which is now hid is: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle For Life"
I like how he acknowledges the fact that atheists too can have what can be described as spiritual experiences. I think it's important to be open to that, since science can't disprove the existence of those experiences. In my opinion, the right thing to do is to use the scientific method to understand what exactly is going on here
I am not impressed with anyone who "saves" me from himself at the low, low price of my freedom, dignity, and intellectual integrity. If this god were real, the only reason for anyone to go to hell is to satisfy it's bloodthirsty desire for eternal vengeance upon all who do not bow to him. This is the sort of "mercy" shown by Stalin and Hitler.
The truth sounds arrogant sometimes. Would you prefer we be "humble" like Christians who claim they know the source of everything and have a personal relationship with him? Who say that those who don't are, "Blind, foolish, immoral, of the devil, arrogant, aggressive (just for speaking our minds I guess), evil, lying, love sin, etc., etc., etc."? Yes, we could sure learn a lesson from our Christian brothers and sisters in how to be "humble".
i'm so atheist i don't even believe in jedi-ism, but i think a kind of jedi-ism is more likely than any religion we have on earth. if there is a god he is a creator, not someone who worries over where we stick our willies.
@The Great SteveO the first world war was a thoroughly religious event, in the sense that overwhelmingly Christian nations fought each other, name me a secular country involved?
Life is the pinnacle of natural accomplishments! self-awareness is the next natural step of existence, and as a free human you must first and foremost understand the value of life and embrace it. Lift the veil that obscures your vision. That, which has been engendered by other men to deny and keep you from your inalienable freedoms. Life, is grander than your relationships with other humans. It is your relationship with the universe and your understanding of it. Free your mind! -Evelio Perez-
And we all know that Wikipedia, a site which can be changed by literally everyone, including people with bad intentions, is a very reliable source of information. Absolutely. /Sarcasm
Let me try to make an analogy. Apologies if I get some facts wrong. 'Socialism' began as an egalitarian ideal around the 17th century. The thesis of Karl Marx became the predominant form. Lenin then considerably adapted it and finally we ended up with Stalin's death-camps etc. This does not mean that socialism is, by definition, a murderous doctrine.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life came to be. It only describes how life evolved from its primordial form to the myriad of species we see today. There are some theories about how life first appeared. Actually i think you could view the primordial earth as a "box with all necessary ingredients" which was being shook for 1 billion years.
I completely agree. You will note that I did mention that logic and intuition alone fail in their own way, its only when used together that we have a chance of understanding. Its a small first step, but a step in the right direction.
It can be, sometimes. There can be a hypothesis that is simply made on observation, which is essentially a guess. But a hypothesis formed after the guessing stages are over, that is built on observed evidence, is much more solid and it would most definitely be outside of the realm of "guessing." The same argument is had for the word "theory." Many religious-types misunderstand exactly what theory means when we're discussing things like evolution. They think it means a guess.
"Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe."
It is most definitely stronger than a guess. I was only stating that a hypothesis is made *from* observation, but the actual hypothesis itself, in its early stages, is basically an educated guess. I'm not arguing against the value of a hypothesis here, so please don't get me wrong. But I feel it would be wrong to say a hypothesis is *never* a guess, because sometimes it sort of is. But again, we have two definitions for hypothesis, and you are talking about the substantiated kind.
actually there is a catholic magazine that says we are child abusers because we don't teach our children about heaven and god. I found it in my local post office.
Evolution is not the idea that we are a bunch of atoms that randomly assembled into a human. In fact, it is nearly the opposite. Instead picture this: Two sons are split at birth. One lives in Antarctica and the other lives in the Amazon. They each have families. Fast forward 500 years: The family from Antarctica has a resistance to cold whereas the family in the Amazon has faster reflexes. This is a simplistic version of evolution. Genuinely hopes this helps you understand. :)
I'm glad you feel that certainty isn't part of the equation. When it is, I have to strongly disagree. As for evidence for being incredibly week, I would argue that the evidence against is incredibly weak, but that is why I'm a theist and you're the atheist. After watching several days worth of debates, I have noticed that both sides use the exactly same arguments for the starting point, but reach completely opposite solutions. Have you noticed this? I find it intriguing. Like √64 is 8 and -8.
The penalty is death, and it's actively practiced in many Muslim countries. And what I was getting at was: You as a Muslim have to kill an apostate if you take your holy book to be the infallible word of god. As an atheist, I have no problem with not harming anyone who doesn't agree with me, and who may have renounced the religion or belief system that they were born in to.
There's a big difference between religious books and science books. If it is found that a scientific thesis is incorrect, then it is replaced by one that does work, Similiarly, if we find physical evidence that contradicts something in history books, research is done to find out which one of the two is false. Contrast religious scripture, which tends to view the conflicting evidence as false without even considering the possibility that the scripture is wrong.
And who's more likely to find out about what actually happened, the guy who makes something up and calls it eternal truth or the guy who realizes that he doesn't know and keeps looking for answers ?
the problem is theists cannot seem to differentiate between themselves and their theistic beliefs. If your friend said that he believed the moon landing was a hoax, you may think the belief is ridiculous (obviously) but that does not mean you think your friend is ridiculous as a person. We recognise we were LIKE theists in the past (many of us were theists) and find their mistaken beliefs a reminder of our own past credulity, so when we meet theists, its like looking back in time and cringing.
The term militant has multiple meanings. Atheists are described as militant if they are outspoken about religion, or defend atheism. I see nothing wrong with either of those aspects. Religious organisations certainly are not shy about attacking us. Note that all religions attack the absurdities of each others beliefs ALL the time, but if an atheist does it, suddenly WE are intolerant.
It's not confusing, your argument is very simple. But if you can say that something that doesn't exist inside our universe is not subject to our laws then anyone can use the same argument to refute it. I can now say that a speck of dust residing outside of our universe created our universe. Any argument you pose can be refuted by your own opinion that outside our universe is not bound by the laws inside the universe.
or less positive way. I have seen people stating that the Koran legitimises rape, but Muslims saying it doesn't. The fact that the latter group exists suggests hope. One of my most important points, again, is I don't think it matters too much what Westerners think of Islam unless it impinges on our lives.
e.g. the left in Egypt and people like Tariq Ramadan who recognise that Islamic societies should reform and 'modernise' but they should be allowed to do it on their own terms and not have it imposed, in the same way that democracy should not be imposed, in my humble view.
@MrTubetown A valid point, I fear I don't represent Sam Harris' idea as well as he does. The concept encompasses the full spectrum from potential suffering to potential happiness. Killing all sentient life would eliminate any possible happiness. Medical science is the most informative tool in determining physical well being, and the science of psychology is useful in the same sense in regard to mental well being. Your finishing statement emphasizes close mindedness on your part.
I don't think a few of these comments on this video are from people who make it obvious that they didn't actually watch the video. Or bother to cross-reference any of what Sam Harris says.
What would not be true is to claim science was created within the religious thought system. In fact, one of the features that distinguishes science is precisely the separation of it from religion and from phylosophical systems. Science was created by 'people that were religious' not 'by religion'. That is very true.
The problem with intuition is the same as philosophy. Both can be very useful ways to come up with ideas, but too many people stop there, and treat those ideas as knowledge. Einstein's theories were, to a huge extent, the product of intuition, but were not knowledge until tested with math, logic, and empirical evidence.
I don't need to have religion eradicated, just modernised to reduce the dogmatic dangers of it. I am a secularist, I don't mind people having different beliefs as long as those beliefs are not damaging to the society I live in. I live in Ireland, I have the catholics constantly attacking atheism and secularism in local papers, magazines, from the pews, on tv, etc. If we object to being maligned, we are suddenly militant. If we object to being indoctrinated, we are stringent. How is that fair?
8. Athiests acknowledge that Christians created physics( although he may have meant discovered not created) 9. Athiests believe muslims created algebra 10. Athiests admit that fear of persons (without studying these individual person for other possible motives or causes for their cations) who are willing to die for what they believe in , is a motivating force in athiesm 11. atheits motivate people to not vote their conscience (example: support Stem cell research no matter what your conscience
I don't have to be in an abusive relationship myself to know it is wrong. While those victims may say "You don't know him he's a good guy" their reports of his actions say otherwise. Someone who says love me or I torture you forever, no matter how you try and justify it, is abusive. Many of us atheists are no more evil than the counselors who help battered spouses or children and intend to help with the best of intentions.
@Oldtinear - glad you had a look & thanks for commenting. Clearly, I would strongly disagree with your assessment of what Lear is arguing; there is also no evidence of any bias or personal animus against Harris merely because he offers several sound criticisms of Harris' positions. Fortunately, in light of the nature of this topic and the subject matter at hand, most viewers of this vid are more then capable of reading the article at reaching their own conclusions w/o outside interpolation.
Barring the mentally damaged like psychopaths we can use empathy (feeling or imagining the pain of another) and reason (stealing leads to mistrust, and we need to trust people), and logic (if I kill someone, someone can kill me, so lets not allow killing in general without a REALLY good cause, like self defence).
The problem with Islam is that its not JUST a religion, its entwined with politics, economics and social reform. Its designed as a total solution for the masses. While I have zero interest in Israel and think there is no 'good' guy in that mess, you cannot seriously say that religion has no political impact and leave it out of a discussion when the theists bring it up themselves most of the time.
Even Richard Dawkins say no atheists can say 100% that there is no god or gods or something else. I will give it to you that there is an unknown force but you still have all the work ahead to prove its the god in the christian myth or any other myth for that matter.
"Dawkins say atheists must "mock and ridicule" religious people." Actually he says mock and ridicule religious BELIEFS, NOT people. He has stated that quite clearly in atheist debates and lectures. He focuses on the beliefs. IF you met someone that thinks Obama is a alien reptile, you might think his belief is absurd and worthy of ridicule, "thats ridiculous" for instance, without saying that the person is worthless as a person.
@AMomentOfClarity2011 Yes I'm aware that dawkins has "clarified" what he meant by "mock them, ridicule them". But it makes no difference. If you "mock and ridicule" someone's mind, you mock and ridicule them. It shows how clueless dawkins is that he would say "oh I wasn't insulting you, I was merely insulting your brain, your mind, your beliefs"
@YesYou123333 You can always tell when someone doesn't know what they are talking about, because they will talk about Stalin, Hitler or Mao. (The unwritten rule of the internet) Stalin killed the church because he wanted to be god. So it is still religion.
@incomprehensible14, I agree that logical reasoning should be taught at least as early as high school, and not only in the formal non-applied context of proofs. But I'm not confident that will counter the natural impulse people have towards belief in a higher power. I know lots of people with advanced powers of reason who still feel compelled to believe.
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secularist social perspective
@incomprehensible14 If you have a point to make & it's a good point please make it and not simply refer me elsewhere to search for your point. I take the time to write out all my points here because God has given me both the free-will and ability to do so I am asking that you do the same. I have debated Thunderf00t personally many times refuting much of what he claims but now I am debating you and others here. Please answer the questions I asked if you have the answers, if not just state ?.
I agree, but the Church of England, for what it's worth, has stated that Genesis is a myth and that the church should have no problem with the theory of evolution. Believe me, I'm not waving the flag, just trying to give an example of the 'moderates' who it might be worth supporting rather than vilifying, at least on this issue - not that it should be an issue.
If you believe in a "self-transcending love," then you're not really an atheist. Because this "self-transcending love" is exactly what theists believe to be God. In fact, it's biblical. "God is love." 1 John 4:8
If one asserts that there are no objective moral values, and that we're free to form our own goals subject to our own wants and desires, then that is moral skepticism/nihilism. It's a respectable moral position of course. But most atheist seem to take the self-contradictory approach of "there are no absolute morals, except it's absolutely forbidden to harm people, to teach untruth, etc etc".
@Induktio1984 Agnosticism is an epistemic position that the answer to the "god question" is inherently unknowable with any certainty. Theism vs. atheism, on the other hand, are positions of personal belief. Agnosticism isn't some midway point between them or anything like that. Most, or at least many, atheists are also agnostics, btw. -Both atheist and agnostic
I never said they did. However dogmatic beliefs are always found in religions. They are also the hardest to break people free of, as they source those beliefs in supernatural deities, and deny reason and science when they can. Hard to reason with someone who hates reason in the first place.
@JungleJargon 'The preexisting word always exists before every life form' Words are a human construct: yes, oui, ya, si etc in various languages. So words could not have preceded the life forms who constructed them. So what is 'the pre-existing word', since it is not really a word? Do you begin to see why nobody can attach any meaning to what you say?
The Ancient Greeks dabbled in Natural Philosophy, which is not strictly physics in the form that we know it today. Sam Harris refers to modern physics which was 'invented' or greatly advanced by the Christian's Galileo and Newton.
unfortunately most people think in extremes... this can apply to a lot of subjects... they dont like one thing so they go to the exact opposite and dont consider anything in between unless pressured by some outside force... that allows christian and islamic apologists to seem relevant when they basically do away with the 500 or more years of scientific discovery and say "all you need is in this book"
Atheism isn't "against" anything. It's only the rejection of claims made about god(s). Every chrisian is an atheist in regards to every god other than their own.
The thing is, why would the parts of the watch want to piece together? You are not getting a form that is more advantageous for their existence (only we manipulated them in that unnatural way so it would be useful for us). What I think you'd get is fine metallic dust out of it. Which no matter how long you'd shook, would remain that. (in a way, a more stable form).
I suspect that if I were to make the following statement, you would call me "too lazy or dumb to make any attempt to understand it." "The place of consciousness in the natural world is very much an open question. The idea that brains produce consciousness is little more than an article of faith among scientists at present, and there are many reasons to believe that the methods of science will be insufficient to either prove or disprove it." (pg. 208, "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris)
Well there are ex-muslims that praise being shocked out of their old belief system. Most never heard of a frank depiction of their beliefs in one go and it can crack the exterior of a hardened mindset. It can also make moderates remember how dangerous their beliefs can be. I was blissfully unaware of how dangerous creationism was when I was a christian. I was shocked when I realised what was going on.
Misconceptions About Atheism
We don't eat babies.
We eat Kittens.Get your facts right people.
NO! WE ATHEISTS ONLY EAT PUPPIES!!!
So proud of Sam. Talking about the bullshit of BLM. He's touched on race before with Charles Murray, that whiny bitch Hannibal buress that turned into a shitshow coz he was an emotional idiot, so he chilled out a little because he knows the uber progressives, shitlibs who are C@NTS might cancel him, now he can't be cancelled.. well, he really never could. He always had money.. and finally he doesn't give one single fuck. He's so godamn complete now. He really is arguably the greatest thinker we will ever see. Criminally underrated. Bravo, sir. Bravo. We should all extra celebrate for this brilliant man.
+TheCommunistDragon: Eating kittens is just as awful...
Correction: We don’t eat babies...we wait until they are toddlers!
@@losttribe3001 I like my toddlers to be non-GMO, vegan and free range.
I always laugh at Christians who think north korea is an atheist country. The leader thinks of himself as god, and the people all play along, or maybe even believe it. How the fuck is this atheism? Just cause its not about jesus?
You're dead right mate..... sounds like the North Koreans have the same blind faith as Christians ........
+Graham Bishop the difference is that north koreans are executed in the town square if they refuse the indoctrination
Alky -- so they are behaving just like christians/catholics did back when they had Power. Back then, if you did or even just said anything that they didn't like, they'd KILL you. They did alot of that.
If you were a famous person, you got put on trial first. Remember someone named Galileo? Remember why he was put on trial and by who??
Master Spade I do remember that indeed. I was thinking about drawing a parallel to Islam when I wrote that, I don't disagree with that statement
Master Spade Galileo wasn't executed he was put on house arrest and died of old age.
Also your premise is incorrect here is how:
First, it was not the religious leaders who originally opposed Galileo. It was actually the secular philosophers who were committed to a philosophical view called Aristotelianism. This is a school of thought going all the way back to Aristotle. Aristotle believed the heavens were made of immutable, perfect spheres. Galileo’s observations challenged this belief.
Instead of starting with a prior commitment to Aristotelianism, Galileo started by looking at the evidence.Through his telescope, he observed sunspots that seemed to fly in the face of Aristotle’s perfect Sun. He also detected supernova-the explosion of a star-that strongly opposed the notion of Aristotle’s ‘immutable heavens.’
Consequently, Galileo wasn’t principally attacking the Church. His observations challenged the reigning philosophy, which was believed by virtually everyone of his day. As a result, he received criticism from all fronts, not merely the Church.
Second, one must remember the historical context. This was all happening during the Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church already thought they were losing their authority. Since the Church was committed to Aristotelianism, they understood an attack on Aristotelianism to be an attack on the Church. And to make matters even worse, Galileo published his findings in Italian-the language of the common man-rather than in Latin, the language of the elites.
Third, this story is often portrayed as the innocent Galileo being attacked by the Church. However, Galileo wasn’t so innocent. He was an instigator. He wrote a book called Dialogue Concerning the Two Principal Systems of the World in which he put the ideas of the Pope on the lips of a character he called Simplicio, which means simpleton or buffoon.
Fourth, Galileo was a Bible-believing Christian, who believed that he was studying the works of God’s hand. He said, “The laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics.” This doesn’t fit the narrative that Christianity is against science.
Let me be clear, I’m not defending what the Roman Catholic Church did to silence Galileo. What they did was wrong. But they weren’t silencing Galileo merely because they were anti-science. In fact, the Church (along with the secular academy) thought they were defending science by silencing Galileo.
Why is ben stiller being so serious?
Ben stiller is always serious
Robert Gallo I know. He needs to lighten up and let go.
Underrated comment 😂
Yep. It's right in front of me and I never saw it. Twins separated at birth.
Ben Stiller is serious in the Focker movies. The problem is they are supposed to be comedies.
Arguing with Right-Wing Christian Fundamentalists is like talking to a radio. Noise comes out but depending on what channel your listening to it just could not get any dumber or less likely to understand what your saying.
love that analogy! lol I think I'm guilty of screaming at that very same radio
and getting absolutely no intelligent response(s).
cheers
We understand what you people who believe in evolution are saying we just don't believe your bullshit lie
@@thegnomechaun1194 Evolution is a bullshit lie but magic sky daddy creating women from ribs is the truth. The OP was right, you Christian fundamentalists are like a broken record who dislike facts. Facts are still facts whether you accept them or not
You stole my words
@@thegnomechaun1194 Yes, never let evidence and science keep you from believing in your invisible friend...
What do you have to lose by believing? Reason, Questions, Exploration, Humility.
Religion stifles thought and breeds arrogance.
I agree being ignorant is shitty, thats why we need god
A Bagas M. Lol You’re about seven years too late. I’m sure he’s moved on. Just look at his name.
@@chadelliottyler damn, lol
@@a.bagasm.7253 that makes you ignorant haha moron
@@jwstorey173 ha yeahhhh
i guess ive been watching too much Richard Hawkins, but i cant help notice how soft spoken and polite Sam Harris is
D*
@@averagesauceenjoyer7209 I love how you corrected this comment ... 9 years later😂
@@michaelleppan9960 He'll answer you in 9 year's
@@garyskinner2422 It will make my decade ... just about
@@michaelleppan9960 Haha yes
he has a point
Humans are born agnostic (maybe even atheist) with respect to a deity.
***** We are born with the need to eat, breathe, etc. But we are not born with the need to worship a god.
***** Humans are born without even the slightest idea of any god(s). Religion is not natural.
***** did you really not understand his point? facepalm...
I'd say religion is natural in teh sense of it being the default. Our tendency to some logical mistakes makes religion likely to happen and spread. I don't think classifying whether it's natural or not is very useful. But if I ha dto I'd say it's natural (and not a good thing).
Humans are born spiritual for all babies meditate (no ideology or ideas) - religiousness, not religion, on the other hand is concerned with what comes after conciousness (apeirophobia comes to mind).
I've never heard of this man before, but I like the way he speaks so calmly and respectfully while still making powerful points. I wish I were as adept at conveying these ideas with my words.
Religion in its present form doesn't deserve to exist
Sujay Rao Mandavilli
Atheism ia a lie and one day will cease to be and die
I don't believe in Religions but I certainly believe in God
@@simpleguy38 You are not that sure then, how can you follow the main religious element which is submit to the imaginary bugaboo and yet not follow the word of bugaboo? You either are a deist which is a very outdated denomination in these times of technology and great discoveries or you are ignorant in the surface of reason and logic and science.
@@MerkurioBua
So
It is either islam that command you to pray 5 times a day and clean yourself and mandates seeking learning
Or
Atheism and materialism where you worship your twisted desires and don't care about improvement unless something suits you to attack theists
@NANI
That guy insulted my religion
An eye for an eye
I have only just discovered Sam Harris, and I'm so glad I did. He seems to have a way of putting my own thoughts into words that I could not have come up with myself, while at the same time introducing me to new concepts and new ways of thinking that I also could not have come up with myself. Listening to him is like watching a door open. He's opening doors for free thinkers everywhere.
How are things 9 years later?
@The Great SteveO Richard is a great guy but he never claims to have founded Atheism, it's been around as long as religion, there have always been rational thinkers who don't believe in magic. If you believe in the christian god you are an atheist regarding all the thousands of other gods people worship. People like Richard only believe in one god less than you.
@@radl3nt Just as relevant as it was 9 years ago, there is still no god.
Harris, as an atheist, experienced ecstasy himself in early days, albeit in a tangible, powdered form...
lol
love this guy! we need so many more like him!
No!
i'm one.
@@intalmdr4627 why not? because it goes against your blind religious beliefs?
@@jpbart1390
There is nothing extraordinary going on with him. But God’s creation, is beyond anything any human can comprehend!
@@intalmdr4627 i rest my case. say hi to your imaginary friend for me. 🤣
Imagine being a new kid at a high school, and on your first day you discover that 85% percent of the kids going there still think Santa Clause brings them presents at Christmas. This, sadly, is what being an atheist feels like to me. If it wasn't for you other "kids" posting on the message board with me, I would probably drop out. I'm almost 30 by the way, so this is strictly an analogy for me, lol.
Sam Harris is the best philosopher of our age in my mind.
"it wasn't necessary to throw out the baby with the polluted bathwater."
My mother used that excuse when I told her I was an atheist. 6 months later ,she is one too.
Will have a look tonight.
Somewhat subdued and laid back but always on topic. Peace be with you my brother.
0:52 As a human atheist -LOL- I must say I am extremely impressed by all of the holy books. Religion is, by far, the most successful scam/con/grift of all time! That's impressive. Horrible, but impressive.
Love this guy. I just got one of his books. He is awesome!
So imaginary friend doesn't need a creator, but you think that the universe is only possible with a creator. Superior logic you have there.
Beautifully expressed.
Voice of reason.
No one knows how life originated but all plausable answers suggest that it was not from some imaginary 'god'. You are going to tell me that there was nothing anywhere just a blank slate so to speak? Then where in the hell did a 'god' come from? Was he just hanging out with nothing, just a total void? Please give people credit for using their thought powers to decide that this scenario just could not have happed. Sin is an imaginary disease invented to give the people an imaginary cure. You may repectfully have your opinion, just keep your delusional ideas to yourself.
@Reece B It's not even a theory. Theories have workable ideas grounded in reality. Ideas of God/gods are pure conjecture.
You may have a respectful opinion that Evolution created us and not God but you can keep that delusional belief to yourself
@@thegnomechaun1194 ok buddy. You definitely have no proof to evolution being wrong, and all your brainwashed beliefs and "evidence" are in an ancient book of fiction. Think for once.
I believe in pantheism
@@thegnomechaun1194 evolution is nothing to do with who created us it's about how life evolved lol, don't conflate a biogenesis with evolution
to believe means not to know.. because if you KNEW there would be no need to believe.. you can believe as much as you want... it doesn't mean that you KNOW it is true..... believing equals assuming and does not equal knowing
The contradiction is that "transcendental love" is just a euphemism for God.
He is actually right in almost everything he said, except for one little subtlety: it is true that the regimes of Mao and Stalin did not do the atrocities they did as a direct consequence of atheism, they did it as a direct consequence of other dogmatic systems, as Dr Harris rightly pointed out. However, the fact they were atheists enabled them to do this atrocities. What I mean by this is the following: if atheism is true, one can plausibly infer that morality is subjective, and we just have to find a morality that works and benefits society. The problem is that these people thought that morality included putting people in concentration camps, and since they were atheists, there was no moral authority they could consult and prove them wrong.
So tired of people thinking the perspective that one should do whatever he or she wants if there is no god. You can have a basis for morality without a god as Sam Harris has demonstrated before. Is it an objective morality well the level of objectivity you require is impossible. We can never be objectively sure about anything and everything requires assumptions or some type of starting point. Science has to assume that the knowledge and observation of the universe can be done because the universe operates in a logical and discoverable manner. There is evidence to support this, but it can never be proven. How about medicine can you really tell someone one that being healthy should be measured by the proximity one is to death based on one's age group? Do you see how ridiculous complaining about a lack of "objectiveness".
An "objective basis for morality": All conscious life have values. One value conscious life all have is the furthering the well being of oneself or and others. Humans as a part of conscious life are inseparable from some form of human inter-connectivity. By merely recognizing this you accept the value of "well-being" and why it is important to oneself and others. This can be applied on a larger scale than oneself and your immediate circle. Empathy also works quite well. How is this basis for morality not "objective" enough. One must value the "well being" of oneself and or others. Unnecessary pain decreases this well being. As such the unnecessary causing of pain to others should be avoided. Now this does not mean there are definitely "objective" moral solutions to problems, but it does provide a basis. Even from merely a selfish perspective setting up a system that maximizes freedom, equality, prosperity, etc. for everyone is beneficial for oneself. There is always a possibility you will end up in an unfavorable position, but this can be minimized by creating such a system. etc.
SoldierGeneral64 "So tired of people thinking the perspective that one *should* do whatever he or she wants if there is no god." - The point is this: if there is no God, there is no *should*...
In science you can evaluate your hypothesis with experiments (like smoking causes cancer), but in morality you cannot set an experiment in a lab to show that maximizing welfare is *good*. Suppose I come here and tell you that actually since the majority of the world lives in the North Hemisphere, we should consider *good* what makes the welfare of the North Hemisphere greater. How can you show me I am wrong? I am not even asking a proof, but just give one piece of evidence that I am wrong. You can't. Of course, if there is a God who has revealed Himself, the story is different.
Kyrios Iesous Your post is illogical. You act as if life only has meaning if there is a god. We give our own meaning to life. We have developed definitions of things such as health based on our understanding of things from science and value for "well being". If someone says well why can't health be defined as vomiting as much as you can do you see how stupid that is. We behave in a manner befitting the limitations of the environment we live in. If morality is defined as striving towards the greatest possible "good" for everyone then what your saying is nonsense. You are choosing to define good in a different way, which does not make it true. What is your basis for the well being of only the northern hemisphere? The valuing of "well being" and avoidance of pain. The value has not changed even if you wish to apply it within certain parameters such as northern hemisphere. You have no logical basis for setting those parameters either as people residing in the southern hemisphere fall under the same value system.
Another perspective: Is the worst possible universe where everyone suffers as much as possible bad? Can you honestly say it is "subjectively" bad. Based on our knowledge of pain we know it to be bad. Merely playing word games of defining "bad" is nonsense. What is wrong with creating a logical basis for morality instead of divine mandates? Why is it the case that only a god can create a proper moral system?
Kyrios Iesous Another way of thinking about it is this:
"Objectively" True: Unnecessary pain is always bad.
"Objectively" True: The avoidance of unnecessary pain is good.
"Objectively" True: I want to avoid unnecessary pain.
"Objectively" True: avoiding unnecessary pain applies to any creature that can feel pain.
"Objectively True: Decreasing unnecessary pain should be valued to all creatures that feel pain if the value holds true for myself.
Obviously what I posted needs to be reworded a bit as this line of thinking, if based purely on unnecessary pain and not potential future well being etc as well, could lead to bad outcomes. I hope this helps you understand what I'm talking about from a different perspective. If you hold a value to be true then simply denying that value when it applies to other cases is merely hypocrisy.
Kyrios Iesous You are making an assumption that objective morality must exist and that its existence necessitates a god. Are you denying the possibility that there is no objective morality and there is a god? Since there is no evidence related to what we are talking about you can not deny all other possibilities either. As such you can only assert that objective morality= god exists. I can just as easily assert consciousness= objective morality basis. One can not have consciousness without valuing certain basic moral principals no matter how minimal. When one person values certain basic moral principals then that value is applicable to all such people. Furthermore even if a god had a moral code it does not mean that the god's moral code is actually the best moral code to live ones life by. Even if morality is not objective a moral system and rules logically thought out and created based on multiple factors such as what we know is better than a moral system based on mindless obedience and the assumption any action by god must be moral.
Other issues: People would think it was good to kill the Jews because they would think they were evil. You can lie and cause people to believe different thinks, but people's value for "well-being" is always present in some shape or form.
Finally what do you mean by "objective" morality. Such phrasing is actually rather worthless honestly. Is such a moral system based on the maximization of well-being and equality? The god depicted in religious texts such as the bible can not maximize well-being and equality completely when holding values such as obedience and an inability to "forgive" the sins he pretty much gave mankind. The bible often reminds worshipers to both fear and love god. Where is the morality in that? Even if an omniscient and all-knowing god somehow existed you would still have to demonstrate that such a being actually was indeed omni-benevolent. Examining the bible itself mocks that very premise.
Why would an intelligent man not, right from the start, deal with the statement that Hitler was an atheist, by quoting the numerous times Hitler quoted the will of god, his love of god and the idea that he was doing god's work.
Hitler clearly wasn't an atheist - he was a theist, and the first pact he made was with the religion he was born into.
Hitler had priests and nuns executed, hardly the will of God. His god was Darwin, which he used his teaching on inferior races to justify his ethnic cleansing. His many references to evolution in his book Mein Kampf are notorious. It is noteworthy that the full title of Origin of Species, which is now hid is: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle For Life"
I like how he acknowledges the fact that atheists too can have what can be described as spiritual experiences. I think it's important to be open to that, since science can't disprove the existence of those experiences. In my opinion, the right thing to do is to use the scientific method to understand what exactly is going on here
I am not impressed with anyone who "saves" me from himself at the low, low price of my freedom, dignity, and intellectual integrity. If this god were real, the only reason for anyone to go to hell is to satisfy it's bloodthirsty desire for eternal vengeance upon all who do not bow to him. This is the sort of "mercy" shown by Stalin and Hitler.
The truth sounds arrogant sometimes. Would you prefer we be "humble" like Christians who claim they know the source of everything and have a personal relationship with him? Who say that those who don't are, "Blind, foolish, immoral, of the devil, arrogant, aggressive (just for speaking our minds I guess), evil, lying, love sin, etc., etc., etc."? Yes, we could sure learn a lesson from our Christian brothers and sisters in how to be "humble".
Love listening to Harris. He's just as eloquent as Hitchens but a lot more earnest.
what do you have to lose by believing? Nothing. Everything to lose if you don't.
i'm so atheist i don't even believe in jedi-ism, but i think a kind of jedi-ism is more likely than any religion we have on earth. if there is a god he is a creator, not someone who worries over where we stick our willies.
I love how he spoke 'nature of the universe' at 3:02 min. Almost divine, makes one wanna convert to pantheism
Also, Hitler claimed to be doing gods work, Hirohito was a "god". In Stalin's Russia, the state was god.
I've never seen a war where the cause was not believing in God.
@The Great SteveO the first world war was a thoroughly religious event, in the sense that overwhelmingly Christian nations fought each other, name me a secular country involved?
@The Great SteveO it certainly wasn't because people didn't believe in God that's my point
@The Great SteveO Also many would argue it was a religious war if you dig deeper
@The Great SteveO I said I've never seen a war where not believing in God was the cause, you then replied saying ww1 ww2 the civil war?
Life is the pinnacle of natural accomplishments! self-awareness is the next natural step of existence, and as a free human you must first and foremost understand the value of life and embrace it.
Lift the veil that obscures your vision. That, which has been engendered by other men to deny and keep you from your inalienable freedoms.
Life, is grander than your relationships with other humans. It is your relationship with the universe and your understanding of it. Free your mind!
-Evelio Perez-
And we all know that Wikipedia, a site which can be changed by literally everyone, including people with bad intentions, is a very reliable source of information. Absolutely. /Sarcasm
Let me try to make an analogy. Apologies if I get some facts wrong.
'Socialism' began as an egalitarian ideal around the 17th century. The thesis of Karl Marx became the predominant form. Lenin then considerably adapted it and finally we ended up with Stalin's death-camps etc. This does not mean that socialism is, by definition, a murderous doctrine.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life came to be. It only describes how life evolved from its primordial form to the myriad of species we see today.
There are some theories about how life first appeared. Actually i think you could view the primordial earth as a "box with all necessary ingredients" which was being shook for 1 billion years.
I completely agree. You will note that I did mention that logic and intuition alone fail in their own way, its only when used together that we have a chance of understanding.
Its a small first step, but a step in the right direction.
It can be, sometimes. There can be a hypothesis that is simply made on observation, which is essentially a guess. But a hypothesis formed after the guessing stages are over, that is built on observed evidence, is much more solid and it would most definitely be outside of the realm of "guessing." The same argument is had for the word "theory." Many religious-types misunderstand exactly what theory means when we're discussing things like evolution. They think it means a guess.
"Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe."
It is most definitely stronger than a guess. I was only stating that a hypothesis is made *from* observation, but the actual hypothesis itself, in its early stages, is basically an educated guess. I'm not arguing against the value of a hypothesis here, so please don't get me wrong. But I feel it would be wrong to say a hypothesis is *never* a guess, because sometimes it sort of is. But again, we have two definitions for hypothesis, and you are talking about the substantiated kind.
His comments on Hitler, North Korea and their dogma are really important and people should pay attention to them.
actually there is a catholic magazine that says we are child abusers because we don't teach our children about heaven and god. I found it in my local post office.
Evolution is not the idea that we are a bunch of atoms that randomly assembled into a human. In fact, it is nearly the opposite. Instead picture this: Two sons are split at birth. One lives in Antarctica and the other lives in the Amazon. They each have families. Fast forward 500 years: The family from Antarctica has a resistance to cold whereas the family in the Amazon has faster reflexes. This is a simplistic version of evolution.
Genuinely hopes this helps you understand. :)
I'm glad you feel that certainty isn't part of the equation. When it is, I have to strongly disagree.
As for evidence for being incredibly week, I would argue that the evidence against is incredibly weak, but that is why I'm a theist and you're the atheist.
After watching several days worth of debates, I have noticed that both sides use the exactly same arguments for the starting point, but reach completely opposite solutions.
Have you noticed this? I find it intriguing. Like √64 is 8 and -8.
The penalty is death, and it's actively practiced in many Muslim countries. And what I was getting at was: You as a Muslim have to kill an apostate if you take your holy book to be the infallible word of god. As an atheist, I have no problem with not harming anyone who doesn't agree with me, and who may have renounced the religion or belief system that they were born in to.
There's a big difference between religious books and science books. If it is found that a scientific thesis is incorrect, then it is replaced by one that does work, Similiarly, if we find physical evidence that contradicts something in history books, research is done to find out which one of the two is false. Contrast religious scripture, which tends to view the conflicting evidence as false without even considering the possibility that the scripture is wrong.
this guy just makes plain sense! If I were to venture below would I see a bunch of upset religious comments?
And who's more likely to find out about what actually happened,
the guy who makes something up and calls it eternal truth or
the guy who realizes that he doesn't know and keeps looking for answers ?
the problem is theists cannot seem to differentiate between themselves and their theistic beliefs. If your friend said that he believed the moon landing was a hoax, you may think the belief is ridiculous (obviously) but that does not mean you think your friend is ridiculous as a person.
We recognise we were LIKE theists in the past (many of us were theists) and find their mistaken beliefs a reminder of our own past credulity, so when we meet theists, its like looking back in time and cringing.
The term militant has multiple meanings. Atheists are described as militant if they are outspoken about religion, or defend atheism. I see nothing wrong with either of those aspects. Religious organisations certainly are not shy about attacking us. Note that all religions attack the absurdities of each others beliefs ALL the time, but if an atheist does it, suddenly WE are intolerant.
It's not confusing, your argument is very simple. But if you can say that something that doesn't exist inside our universe is not subject to our laws then anyone can use the same argument to refute it. I can now say that a speck of dust residing outside of our universe created our universe. Any argument you pose can be refuted by your own opinion that outside our universe is not bound by the laws inside the universe.
or less positive way.
I have seen people stating that the Koran legitimises rape, but Muslims saying it doesn't. The fact that the latter group exists suggests hope.
One of my most important points, again, is I don't think it matters too much what Westerners think of Islam unless it impinges on our lives.
The best video I've watched in the history of RUclips.
e.g. the left in Egypt and people like Tariq Ramadan who recognise that Islamic societies should reform and 'modernise' but they should be allowed to do it on their own terms and not have it imposed, in the same way that democracy should not be imposed, in my humble view.
@MrTubetown A valid point, I fear I don't represent Sam Harris' idea as well as he does. The concept encompasses the full spectrum from potential suffering to potential happiness. Killing all sentient life would eliminate any possible happiness.
Medical science is the most informative tool in determining physical well being, and the science of psychology is useful in the same sense in regard to mental well being. Your finishing statement emphasizes close mindedness on your part.
@Oldtinear Not counting the fact that Glen Beck is obviously more influential, who do you think is worst? Glen Beck or @MrTubetown?
I don't think a few of these comments on this video are from people who make it obvious that they didn't actually watch the video. Or bother to cross-reference any of what Sam Harris says.
What would not be true is to claim science was created within the religious thought system. In fact, one of the features that distinguishes science is precisely the separation of it from religion and from phylosophical systems. Science was created by 'people that were religious' not 'by religion'. That is very true.
The problem with intuition is the same as philosophy. Both can be very useful ways to come up with ideas, but too many people stop there, and treat those ideas as knowledge. Einstein's theories were, to a huge extent, the product of intuition, but were not knowledge until tested with math, logic, and empirical evidence.
I don't need to have religion eradicated, just modernised to reduce the dogmatic dangers of it. I am a secularist, I don't mind people having different beliefs as long as those beliefs are not damaging to the society I live in.
I live in Ireland, I have the catholics constantly attacking atheism and secularism in local papers, magazines, from the pews, on tv, etc.
If we object to being maligned, we are suddenly militant. If we object to being indoctrinated, we are stringent. How is that fair?
I'm not an atheist like I'm not an aeasterbunnist.
@Helptheherd That doesn't have good logic. If I tell children that murders are bad because I'm against murder, does that make me evil too?
8. Athiests acknowledge that Christians created physics( although he may have meant discovered not created)
9. Athiests believe muslims created algebra
10. Athiests admit that fear of persons (without studying these individual person for other possible motives or causes for their cations) who are willing to die for what they believe in , is a motivating force in athiesm
11. atheits motivate people to not vote their conscience (example: support Stem cell research no matter what your conscience
I don't have to be in an abusive relationship myself to know it is wrong. While those victims may say "You don't know him he's a good guy" their reports of his actions say otherwise.
Someone who says love me or I torture you forever, no matter how you try and justify it, is abusive.
Many of us atheists are no more evil than the counselors who help battered spouses or children and intend to help with the best of intentions.
@Oldtinear - glad you had a look & thanks for commenting. Clearly, I would strongly disagree with your assessment of what Lear is arguing; there is also no evidence of any bias or personal animus against Harris merely because he offers several sound criticisms of Harris' positions. Fortunately, in light of the nature of this topic and the subject matter at hand, most viewers of this vid are more then capable of reading the article at reaching their own conclusions w/o outside interpolation.
Barring the mentally damaged like psychopaths we can use empathy (feeling or imagining the pain of another) and reason (stealing leads to mistrust, and we need to trust people), and logic (if I kill someone, someone can kill me, so lets not allow killing in general without a REALLY good cause, like self defence).
The most important gift: The absense of conflict. What could religion offer of greater worth?
fora.tv no longer exists as an internet domain
Unless you find out you've been believing in the wrong god all along and Zues smites you.
The problem with Islam is that its not JUST a religion, its entwined with politics, economics and social reform. Its designed as a total solution for the masses. While I have zero interest in Israel and think there is no 'good' guy in that mess, you cannot seriously say that religion has no political impact and leave it out of a discussion when the theists bring it up themselves most of the time.
Even Richard Dawkins say no atheists can say 100% that there is no god or gods or something else. I will give it to you that there is an unknown force but you still have all the work ahead to prove its the god in the christian myth or any other myth for that matter.
Religion does a pretty good job of giving itself a bad name without the benefit of the crazies.
"Dawkins say atheists must "mock and ridicule" religious people."
Actually he says mock and ridicule religious BELIEFS, NOT people. He has stated that quite clearly in atheist debates and lectures. He focuses on the beliefs. IF you met someone that thinks Obama is a alien reptile, you might think his belief is absurd and worthy of ridicule, "thats ridiculous" for instance, without saying that the person is worthless as a person.
@AMomentOfClarity2011 Yes I'm aware that dawkins has "clarified" what he meant by "mock them, ridicule them". But it makes no difference. If you "mock and ridicule" someone's mind, you mock and ridicule them. It shows how clueless dawkins is that he would say "oh I wasn't insulting you, I was merely insulting your brain, your mind, your beliefs"
@YesYou123333 You can always tell when someone doesn't know what they are talking about, because they will talk about Stalin, Hitler or Mao. (The unwritten rule of the internet)
Stalin killed the church because he wanted to be god. So it is still religion.
A funny thing science is.
The funniest part is, it's true. Whether you like it or not.
@incomprehensible14, I agree that logical reasoning should be taught at least as early as high school, and not only in the formal non-applied context of proofs. But I'm not confident that will counter the natural impulse people have towards belief in a higher power. I know lots of people with advanced powers of reason who still feel compelled to believe.
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secularist social perspective
At least they're actually trying to figure out what happened, instead of claiming to know the answers with no evidence or logic.
@incomprehensible14
If you have a point to make & it's a good point please make it and not simply refer me elsewhere to search for your point. I take the time to write out all my points here because God has given me both the free-will and ability to do so I am asking that you do the same. I have debated Thunderf00t personally many times refuting much of what he claims but now I am debating you and others here. Please answer the questions I asked if you have the answers, if not just state ?.
I agree, but the Church of England, for what it's worth, has stated that Genesis is a myth and that the church should have no problem with the theory of evolution.
Believe me, I'm not waving the flag, just trying to give an example of the 'moderates' who it might be worth supporting rather than vilifying, at least on this issue - not that it should be an issue.
@Oldtinear I certainly concur, but saying Communism is a religion is like saying Democracy is also a religion, because they're both political views.
If you believe in a "self-transcending love," then you're not really an atheist. Because this "self-transcending love" is exactly what theists believe to be God. In fact, it's biblical. "God is love." 1 John 4:8
Well put! Sensible and reasonably.
If one asserts that there are no objective moral values, and that we're free to form our own goals subject to our own wants and desires, then that is moral skepticism/nihilism. It's a respectable moral position of course. But most atheist seem to take the self-contradictory approach of "there are no absolute morals, except it's absolutely forbidden to harm people, to teach untruth, etc etc".
@Induktio1984
Agnosticism is an epistemic position that the answer to the "god question" is inherently unknowable with any certainty.
Theism vs. atheism, on the other hand, are positions of personal belief. Agnosticism isn't some midway point between them or anything like that. Most, or at least many, atheists are also agnostics, btw.
-Both atheist and agnostic
I never said they did. However dogmatic beliefs are always found in religions.
They are also the hardest to break people free of, as they source those beliefs in supernatural deities, and deny reason and science when they can. Hard to reason with someone who hates reason in the first place.
I've never heard an atheist talk like that before.
Both Communism and religion are types of ideologies. The problem isn't religion, it's extreme ideologies.
@JungleJargon 'The preexisting word always exists before every life form'
Words are a human construct: yes, oui, ya, si etc in various languages. So words could not have preceded the life forms who constructed them. So what is 'the pre-existing word', since it is not really a word? Do you begin to see why nobody can attach any meaning to what you say?
The Ancient Greeks dabbled in Natural Philosophy, which is not strictly physics in the form that we know it today. Sam Harris refers to modern physics which was 'invented' or greatly advanced by the Christian's Galileo and Newton.
unfortunately most people think in extremes... this can apply to a lot of subjects... they dont like one thing so they go to the exact opposite and dont consider anything in between unless pressured by some outside force... that allows christian and islamic apologists to seem relevant when they basically do away with the 500 or more years of scientific discovery and say "all you need is in this book"
Atheism isn't "against" anything. It's only the rejection of claims made about god(s). Every chrisian is an atheist in regards to every god other than their own.
The thing is, why would the parts of the watch want to piece together?
You are not getting a form that is more advantageous for their existence (only we manipulated them in that unnatural way so it would be useful for us).
What I think you'd get is fine metallic dust out of it. Which no matter how long you'd shook, would remain that. (in a way, a more stable form).
I suspect that if I were to make the following statement, you would call me "too lazy or dumb to make any attempt to understand it."
"The place of consciousness in the natural world is very much an open question. The idea that brains produce consciousness is little more than an article of faith among scientists at present, and there are many reasons to believe that the methods of science will be insufficient to either prove or disprove it." (pg. 208, "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris)
Well there are ex-muslims that praise being shocked out of their old belief system. Most never heard of a frank depiction of their beliefs in one go and it can crack the exterior of a hardened mindset. It can also make moderates remember how dangerous their beliefs can be.
I was blissfully unaware of how dangerous creationism was when I was a christian. I was shocked when I realised what was going on.
@epicdeed - Why would we sign up to any theory?