What exactly is wrong with him again?
What exactly is wrong with him again?
Nolan Walker
Other urls found in this thread:
edwardfeser.blogspot.fr
twitter.com
Leo Collins
...
Hudson Foster
...
Xavier Gomez
...
Bentley Robinson
Chomsky doesn't like him therefore he's bad.
Owen Stewart
not a huge fan of harris but "It's ok to murder" is literally the opposite of what he exposes.
See
Luke Davis
Well, it says 'sometimes', ie. nuking the middle east is justified if you feel that scared by the irrational anti-neoliberal brutes and think maybe they'll do something to you.
Bentley Bailey
When 100,000 innocent people are dead but it's okay because you had good intentions
Samuel Gutierrez
In his "philosophical works" or the books I'm supposed to respect him for and think he is more important than Chomsky for writing (laughs). He basically just reiterates positions with no new argumentation or basis for believing those things like deontological morality and free will. The problem is when an argument has existed for thousands of years counter arguments also exist against them for almost as long and Sam Doesn't really address any of those or give us any new reasons to believe them.
The problem with basing our morality on evolution is we could have evolved to do some terrible things. Simply ignoring those things is not the start of a good basis for morality. Part of the problem with moral discourse in general is we have to assume it exists before we even start trying to "prove" it. Richard Joyce's book the Evolution of Morality predated Sam Harris's work and debunked most of the philosophical claims of the "new atheists" before they even put them in writing.
Even just his works on atheism are inferior to people like George Smith and Victor Stenger.
Politically he said the statement "I believe George W Bush would want Iraq to look like Nebraska if all went as planned." He completely dismisses the idea that western political leaders have monetary or power related motives for wanting things. Meaning he might be the most naive political pundit to exist in the American discourse. But he is willing to state the obvious "Muslim ideology is bad" so I guess we are supposed to think him and Bill Maher are geniuses on par with the greatest of political theorists.
He also uses "thought experiments" as a shield for his stupidity. Well a thought experiment is still an experiment and they can disprove the claim you're testing.
Nathaniel Long
is that bad?
Mason Collins
Doesn't agree with my ideology.
Andrew Rogers
He hasn't really been in any good films lately and his shtick as the straight man in romcoms has gotten kind of stale. The only time I really like him was when he broke out of that mold, like in Dodgeball.
Lincoln Cruz
Can we all agree that Islam is fascist though, and that any leftist, or especially feminist, that defends Islam is a counter-revolutionary?
Hudson Wright
this tbh
he's been pretty much just resting on his laurels since he created the "image for ants" meme
Jeremiah Brooks
Autism
Leo Gomez
No. Like every religion there are progressive elements within that we should be helping to amplify their voice.
Grayson Flores
autism. many such cases!
Parker Martin
aka liberals?
Bentley Green
He's still alive.
Parker Rodriguez
Does this absolve the commies for Harris? Or the Nazis for that matter? Who didn't have good intentions? What do good intentions mean?
Colton Howard
It's okay as long as you're a liberal conservative basically
Jordan Wright
Wew lad
Matthew Garcia
WEW
Tyler Flores
But seriously though, the dogma of the faith is fucked. We can't be afraid to say that. If someone who doesn't follow hardly any of the practices of the religion wants to call them self a Muslim, that's fine, but we're obviously not talking about those people when we call out Islam as woman hateric and autocratic.
David Allen
lmao you think we care what you pussyholes think? i hit men even harder
Caleb Anderson
Get fucked, fascist scum.
Adrian Gray
Both Positivism and Atheism are undefensible logically unprovable positions that lead to psychotic dogmatic frameworks of thought that are totalitarian in nature and require utmost faith in their presuppositions to prevent cognitive dissonance from taking hold
the most obvious is that much of the existing matter and energy in existence is immaterial. it exists in a mathematical sense and can be vaguely (very very vaguely) detected via inference. however it does not exist as an empirical observation and is almost always deduced to exist from mathematical constructs (which is exactly how theology and metaphysics function)
now if atheists were honest and just said: we're pantheistic naturalist gnostics
i would not make fun of them
but as such between the hard problem (which only Dennett and his small coterie thinks isn't a problem, in all cog psyche classes it is discussed as a huge problem), the question of why the universe is expanding faster than it should, the black hole problem between relativity and quantum mechanics, the copenhagen interpretation of the double slit experiment and godel's incompleteness theorem along with the problem of abiogenesis and the lack of physical evidence of most of the universe's mass; there are absolutely massive gaps in evidence to support the widely accepted theories of physics and models of the universe.
no measuring devices have entered any other solar systems. no physics experiments have been conducted outside the gravitational field of our sun. much less experiments involving abiogenesis. we aren't sure what the strong or weak forces are and as it stands can't even fathom how consciousness and image binds to neurons (binding problem)
for anyone to have this dick waving confidence in science being the vehicle for governance, morality and social organization is no less absurd than for someone to have the same kind of *faith* in theology to do the same
this additionally can be seen as a problem if we look at how the scientific method has changed in definition over time and how engineering feats have been achieved that go beyond the scope of what is considered science. you can have a system that makes accurate predictions, allows useful inventions. but, does not actually reflect the dynamics of nature. ptolemy's astronomy is such a case as is Newtonian mechanics
no one is of course saying we should not teach or fund science. the issue is with ignoring Hume's problem of induction and Kant/Nietzsche's warnings about relying on empirical data to shape our understanding of reality.
so yes being an atheist positivist is a very ill advised position to take
Bentley James
he is just a Holla Forums faggot false flagging
Ian Howard
Not everything that upsets you is fascism.
Yes, I was just about to say this.
When will you accept Nigeria will conquer the earth?
Ayden Thomas
He is a filthy kike.
Alexander Young
...
Brayden Reed
bourgeois