Been reading a bunch of this dudes books and watching interviews/speeches with him. Dude is a great speaker, and always very well reasoned, calm and rational.

Real smart guy who in addition to his degree in philosophy and PHD in neuroscience is also pretty knowledgeable about psychadelics and Brazillian Jiu-jitsu.

Letter to a Christian Nation is a fantastic, short read. Appreciate this dude.

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/t6b4Vy0aGSU?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t6b4Vy0aGSU?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AcO4TnrskE0?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AcO4TnrskE0?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LfKLV6rmLxE?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LfKLV6rmLxE?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Sam is that dude, his books are great. This is my favorite clip, shit is

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WwG9pDNSAXA?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WwG9pDNSAXA?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Why bother with a guy who doesn't challenge you in any way?

No offense, but dude seems like a waste of time unless you're religious or an atheist of the asshole variety.

Never read his books but I always enjoy hearing him speak. I'm a fan of anyone who has their own thoughts and doesn't follow some tired, predetermined template.

appreciated

Well for starters he knows a lot about neuroscience and psychadelics/meditation, which is not an area I know a great deal about, so I find that side interesting. No atheist reads athiest authors in order to justify their own atheism. The issues Sam talks on are mostly to do with the negative effects of religion on the global population, the direction the planet is headed, the dangers of "moderate" religion, the problems with tolerance of false ideas etc. etc. These are all relevant issues to anyone. The fact that he isn't challenging some non-existant religious beliefs of mine is moot.

Really not sure why atheism always seems to bring with it the "asshole" connotations. Sam is always a rational, well reasoned and polite speaker.

He sure is calm. He's an asshole because he criticizes religion on his own terms and ignores what it's about. For starters do not talk to the faithful about evidence. Faith by definition does not demand evidence.

As an outsider it seems he doesn't understand religion. As he concedes there are countless reports of miracles now as there were back then. Jesus's miracles are completely irrelevant to the claim of his divinity.

So faith is the belief in something in the absence of sufficient evidence? Why does everyone agree that this is a really poor reason for believing in anything EXCEPT when it comes to religion? There is absolutely no reason why religious arguments/propositions shouldn't come under the same logical and experimental scrutiny that every single other aspect of life does.


I have no idea what point you're trying to make here, but I can assure you he understands and is knowledgeable about a wide variety of religions. He's much more knowledgeable on the subject than most, religious or not.

As for miracles, they are such a flawed concept that it's almost not worth commenting on, but a few obvious points...

If God is capable of miracles, why are they so infrequent and random. It's extremely egocentric to think that your cancer remission is a miracle when somewhere in the vicinity of 15,000 children under 5 years old die every day, underserving of miracles I suppose.

Their has never been a miracle cure of something that doesn't naturally get better itself. Salamanders can regenerate their own limbs without divine intervention, yet apparently God can't do this for humans (or chooses not to?). But maybe if you have a form of cancer with a reasonable mortality rate you might get better if you pray (or don't) and that's considered a miracle?

As for Jesus's divinity, again their is no evidence to support this claim, and their exists numerous examples throughout history of immortals, divine births, miracle workers etc. It is highly unlikely that these accounts are true.

This is just bogus criticism. The asshole atheist like Harris, Hutchins, and Dawkins critize the actual religion as practice by the well everyone not in an Ivy League Divinity department.

Its the general religious person that treats religion as fact. They are the ones claiming that science is wrong in areas such as evolution and now global warming.

From what I've watched he takes the most absurd parts of religion and uses that as his basis. Nothing profound to me.

Surely pointing out the absurd in anything is a valid way to criticise, is it not? The fact that their is so much absurdity in religion should be troubling to anyone who believes in it.

Just out curiousity, what are the absurd things you are talking about? He is vocal about the Church's blocking of stem cell research, and their anti-contraception stance. Are these absurd aspects?

That's catholicism. They have pretty much perverted Christianity for its own purposes.

The things you brought up are application issues not necessarily issues with the religion itself. To me, every religion is about finding a peace within self and with others. Because some have distorted that does not make the religion invalid.

That is fine, that appears to be your personal belief system, but in reality religion of one does not exist, it is by definition a group practice. I like when Sam refers to Religion as being infinitely elastic when it has to defend itself, like everyones broad definitions of what should and shouldn't count. If you consider yourself and Christian but believe less than half of the stuff in the bible, a stance a large percentage of American Christians might take, how am I supposed to take you seriously? To me that disconnect or disbelief invalidates all of it. You don't believe in Adam and Eve or walking on water or that every non-Christian will burn in hell for not accepting Jesus as their lord and savior but praying to him makes you feel better somtimes? Cool, but you're not a Christian.

Positing 'Infinite Elasticity' is nothing to write home about. You can apply that to any set of beliefs (including Harris' own positions). That being said, the neuroscience interests me. His religious blather is water long-swam and other people do it better.

_________________
SYFFAL.COM/@EmpLolo

Very true. Nearly every church organization does this. To me the only loyalty that makes sense is to your local church group/priests who you've heard talk and make sense.



There are some questions that science doesn't answer, can't answer, and shouldn't attempt to. Surely every aspect of your life isn't scientific.



I take the story of adam and eve for what it is: a multi thousand year old hebrew folk tale predating the organization of christianity by hundreds of years. I get that there are evangelical churches in amerikkka who have adopted a strict literal interpretation but that doesn't mean shit to me. If you believe in christ you're a christian.

lol


long live malek

_________________
Hey, by the way who's Curt?

That's not my personal belief system, that's generally at its core what most religion is about. Because the practitioners interpret things for their own needs doesn't change the core. Its like not selling cool whip anymore because some kids use it to get high.

Religion is a "belief system" not a "fact-based system". The problem is non-religious people have a hard time understanding this. And like it was stated believing in Christ makes you a Christian. The daily rituals, dogma and doctrines are where you get the different sects, but the core is still the same. If it makes someone "feel better sometimes" to follow it then who is anyone to judge.

Ok. Just curious, does this mean you believe in everything the gospel says about Jesus? If so, why is "a multi thousand year old hebrew folk tale" like Adam and Eve more absurd then a dude raising people from the dead and walking on water? Or do you just follow the teachings? Like the be nice to others stuff and you just choose to ignore all the magical shit.

You asking me personally or am I speaking for every Christian?

I kinda thought I was being clear with that statement. There really isn't a follow up. Its that simple. If you say that you follow Christ's teachings then you're a Christian. Christian literally means Christ-like.

Now if you want to break down the specifics because you want to dissect Biblical theories and stories then I can only go but so far. Remember I am no longer a Christian, so I can only answer from the perspective of what I studied and defend certain ideas of the Bible. What I do know is that its more important to follow his teachings than to believe that he committed miracles. The belief in the "magical shit" is just to help solidify their beliefs which I can understand. But its not necessary and still does not detract from his or the Bible's overall message.

I think I understand your point, but we'll have to just agree to disagree. If you strip away all the "magical" aka divine elements attributed to Jesus, then you are just left with some teachings I could just as well have picked up from Sesame Street.

they didn't have sesame street back then bro

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA

As a still recovering Catholic I cannot abide by you throwing that our way.

Baptists and Pentacostals are JUST as much to blame when it comes to the systematic attacks on science and our current reality.

In fact I think the other two demnominations I named are WAY more anti science, where as Catholics are more about stopping poor people from using condoms/hiding known pedophiles.

if catholics/baptists were around in jesus's time they would have been pharisees

Beliefs on how you should live your life, morals, and things that make you feel better sometimes can come from non-religious sources. In the case of morals, they must. You can cherry pick the good parts from religion, sure, but you are using your own moral judgement derived from other sources to decide "do unto others is good, don't steal is good" but "stoning people to death, slavery and human sacrifice" is bad.

There is nothing wrong with something that makes "someone feel better sometimes", but that effect of things can just as easily be acheived with out invoking the higher power and beliefs that come along with it. Unfortunately part of the stuff that "comes along with it" is some legitimately horrible stuff that has and continues to cause serious harm in numerous ways. Opposition of stem cell research, anti-abortion, anti-contraceptive, suicide bombing, honor killings, oppression of women etc. etc. are products of religion that do legitimate harm to millions of people to this day. This is why religion must be judged in the same that any other idea is judged.

I would like to believe in general most individuals are moral to a degree. I believe religion provides more of a foundation for alot of people's morality. And alot of that morality is not covered by Big Bird.

Not saying its impossible for people to live moral lives without religion. Just defining it for those that do.

True, sorry. :)

Religion is supposed to be a personal thing. Alot of what you're describing is when it becomes a community issue. Who I believe in should have no bearing on how others are governed in society. However, alot of countries are started theocratically and on the prevailing religions principles.

Those principles getting distorted is because of people's selfish intentions and not so much ignorant religious principles. For example, Jesus didn't own slaves and neither did any of the disciples. Nor did he teach that it was ok to own slaves. So those people afterward that claimed to be Christian and had slaves just distorted scripture for their own purpose. Doesn't mean the scripture was wrong tho'. It means the person was. There is no scripture against science, so I cannot understand why there are those against it and can't defend that portion of this discussion. I can only defend scripture to the extent that I understand it and to me its not as contradictory as people believe. What has been contradictory is how people have applied it.

Cash, your concept of religion seems entirely different to what you would find preached at any church in America, let alone a mosque in Afghanistan. Atheists in general do not have an issue with this "it helps me personally" notion that you are talking about (although we would still see it as unnecessary and illogical), but you have to understand that religion has political and social implications that go far, far beyond what you are talking about and that these things cause serious harm and problems in the world.

Religion is a tool. The political and social implications that it has is a result of the misuse of that tool. I'd prefer to see it properly used than abolished.

From what I've seen, there is no "ideal" situation. Whether it be theocracy or no religious system at all, people will eventually fuck it up because that's what we do in large groups over time.