*Derives an aught from an is*

For real man, how can anyone take him seriously? He really thinks he is an intellectual. Does he just disagree with Hume? Hes had to have read him--right?

Nicee

would be funnier without le glowing eyes meme

>implying philosophy hasn't been dominated by this way of thinking for the last 60+ years

>philosophy

wtffffffffff

Also Bill Gates is giving a thousand bucks to everyone that shares this status. Retard.

wow, chill.

>you are mistaken desu. I wasnt impkying that, though, there have been some good philosophers in the past 100 years. Heidegger, Foucalt is ok, and Yung if youll permit him

Typical male """ally""" always downplaying the womens issues they claim to support. Not my comrade

The psychopath actually said it. thesunmagazine.org/issues/369/the-temple-of-reason

thesunmagazine.org/issues/369/the-temple-of-reason
He did say that.

Oh well.

...

Sam is trash

>believes in an objective deterministic world
>everything you do isnt your choice, no free will
>but sam then why should we punish criminals if they cant control anything they do?
>because science has determined what our moral values should be

I actually admire him a little. The entirety of the western moral philosophical canon since like 1715 has been trying to finagle a way to derive oughts, because we've pretty much agreed that an is isn't a sufficient source, and he just said "no wait it actually is".

>the-temple-of-reason
holy kek - ain't we self-righteous fucks

oh shit

good post, made me chuckle

Are you saying he OUGHT not to?

Chomsky isn't a nu-atheist tho. He's just an agnostic who doesn't really think about the subject.

...

can someone explain what he means please, i've read the philonous and hylas tthing and the way it's describaed seems to me to say that we'd have a distinction between hotter and colder even on only a hot planet, but either way why he presumes to know an objedtive truth aout the definiton of hot when it isn't his word and he has no control over it's meaning?

He has some of the most coherent writing on free will and consciousness out there, knowledge that can only be gleaned if you've meditated as much as he has. It really doesn't surprise me people don't understand him, people barely understand themselves and are reluctant to even try.

Imagine being that much of an insane Kermit cult worshiper that you start to unironically make meme pictures about some third-rate fake-PhD literally who Ben Stiller lookalike merely because he BTFO'd your shining idol and his babby pragmatist conception of truth.

Isn't he one of those fags who claims Christ didn't actually exist?

>Which is objectively worse, rape or religion?

Morally? Objectively neither are worse in terms of morals, given morals are subjective. In terms of impact on society, rape is much more damaging to an individual but is isolated to few cases. Religion is widespread amongst the majority of the population, and in many cases discourages education. In that sense, religion is perhaps more damaging on society.

>Which would you rid the world of first and why?

Rape. As it's a violation of freedom. People are free to believe what they want, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have ill effects on society. But in practical applications, it's probably easier to get rid of religion, as it's a matter of education and removing bias. Rather than trying to catch a criminal in a game of he said she said.

>Religion is widespread amongst the majority of the population, and in many cases discourages education. In that sense, religion is perhaps more damaging on society.
Feel free to return to reddit at any time dude

This is one of the worst posts I've read on Veeky Forums in years. If you're being serious and not baiting, that is.

I copy/pasted it from r/atheism

>mfw
Christ, that place is worse than I thought, and I already thought it was terrible.

>Obviously this comes from the Sam Harris quote in which he thought women who had experienced being raped were being overly dramatic.

Nowhere does the quotes you added state, suggest, or even imply this.

Harris argues that religion is responsible for more suffering than rape.

In some ways I'd agree with him, in others I wouldn't. On the individual scale, suffering cannot be quantized sufficiently to determine which causes "more" suffering.

However, the institution of religion is more pervasive than institutionalized rape, and affects a much greater population.

He doesn't argue that rape is good, nor that rape victims are being "overly dramatic," nor that all religious people are worse than rape.

Also; rape is not directly synonymous with violence against women. Rape is subset of violence which can be directed both at men and women

>makes up baseless rules about reality to prove certain things wrong or right

this unironically

this but ironically

What a half rate intellectual. THAT WAS THE ENTIRE POINT OF OBJECTIVE MORALITY,

When I start to become cynical about Sam Harris, I just tune into some of the other "New atheists" and realize how reasonable he is.

there's no such thing as cold scientifically speaking. Shit is just less hot. Coldness is just a lack of energy in matter; so basically fuck Sammy boy.

kek

that fucking file name
i am decreased

>objectively neither are worse in terms of morals, given morals are subjective
no way can somebody unironically think rape is justified if you just happen to be in a society where they deem it so

im in awe

Why desu

>no way can somebody unironically think rape is justified if you just happen to be in a society where they deem it so
You should have been in my upper level applied ethics course with my Catholic professor who loved to push buttons. I've seen him walk relativists into giving that very sentiment on more than one occasion.

Ctrl + f "jew" = 0 results.

define "rape", it's quite an abstract concept for me
just because someone can't consent doesn't mean they don't crave some loving and deserve it

>no way can somebody unironically think rape is justified if you just happen to be in a society where they deem it so
he hasn't read the iliad lmfao

Gotta be b8

>not believing in rape being justifiable is such an alien thought to some anons that they assume anyone with this view is baiting

You're an incredulous little faggot. It's not just whatever belief you're trying to defend that's stupid, it's your limp attention-seeking thought process. "Noooo waayyy!!! I'm in awweee omggg" Are you 12? I hope you get raped by a pack of niggers

It's kind of amazing, how broad that brush you paint with is.

nvm

...

He's like the Anti-(((Ben Shapiro))). Both suck, but one talks really fast, has a nasally voice, is insecure and religious. The other talks at four words a minute, has nothing to say, and hates all religion because religion bad.

Not allowing someone to rape can also be considered a violation of freedom.

Why echo ben shapiro

Shapiro is a jew, obviously.

Learn how to write!!!

yeah, is this supposed to be a criticism?

Are you say that unbridled selfishness is in the same class as selflessness? Is that even relevant?

Really, user?

*creates something from nothing*

For some reason I read your greentext in Sam's voice. No idea why. Was it intended?

This is actually a legitimate question that monotheists have no answer for.

It's called philosophia perennia

That's stupid.

*ignores anything that might disagree with my worldview*

I can see why you like Sam Harris

yeh think youre confusing Ol Noam with Christopher hitchens maybe? If I had to name three atheists itd be Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris, in that order.

Harris is playing a character for internet clicks...Dawkins was touched by a Vicar as a child or something, hes fuckin insane

What the hell happened to this guy after How the Universe Works?

>Dawkins was touched by a Vicar as a child or something, hes fuckin insane
Source?

yeh, citation needed please.

I have one. When I capitalize god, like God, I'm writing about the god of the Holy Bible. When referring to Him specifically, instead of just gods of Norse mythology, gods of Greek mythology, god of craftsmanship/metalwork(Hephaestus), god of whatever, I capitalize the first letter. He does have other names/nicknames, but I don't have to use those. Any questions?

You ever hear of a fella by the name of John Locke?

...

in full context it makes perfect sense. but i'm sure you knew that

Has Harris been busted for jacking off in a plant or dry humping women or groping them in creepy ways like so many of his fellow tribesmen have yet?

why would he when he has prime at home?

>we aught to nuke Iran for Israel, because there is definitely a 100% chance Iran is evil and Israel is our ally guys

I feel like not knowing who Sam Harris is, apart from his name and face, makes me a better person than those who do.

Wiser, maybe, for not wasting your time. BTW get off this thread, stop wasting time.

He has talked about it time and again my dude.
theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/
his retraction
richarddawkins.net/2013/09/child-abuse-a-misunderstanding-w-polish-translation/

> Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”

>He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

That's it? I thought he got fucked in the ass or something.

He doesn't advocate punishing criminals, he advocates imprisoning/rehabilitating them based on what threat they pose to society.

Dude 'put his hand inside my shorts' is old British guy way of saying the old boy jerked him off and finger blasted his asshole.

maybe the teacher was just trying to be nice and help the boys grow into their sexuality?

lol wtf is mild pedophilia

To say that you can't derive an ought from an is is not to say that it isn't legitimate to have oughts at all. Why should we use medicine to make people healthier instead of sicker? Where are we getting the "ought" of health from? We also can't get facts (is's) without starting with oughts. How could we learn things if we didn't value truth, and reason and evidence. Nobody bats an eye in these cases, but when Sam Harris says we should value wellbeing and avoid suffering everyone thinks Hume is an automatic defeater.

Harris is a blogger with a pHD in 'The Neuroscience of Belief', ie he put some electrodes on religious peoples noggins and theorized that faith causes genocide. He's not qualified or credentialed in any of the fields he blathers about. This 'democratization' of opinion is really the internet at its worst. He's more presentable than the likes of Alex Jones or the Young Turks but he's more in their league than fucking David Hume or John Locke, good Lord

meme minimalists should be hanged

>ie he put some electrodes on religious peoples noggins and theorized

achtually Harris himself never conducted the experiment and he essentially bought his PhD. to legitimize his career

shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/neuroscientist-sam-harris/

>1. Since getting his PhD, he has conducted no scientific research.
>2. Since getting his PhD, he has taught no university/college courses in neuroscience.
>3. Since getting his PhD, he has devoted his efforts to his anti-religious think tank and publishing books, such as the one on using drugs and meditation to discover truths about our reality.
>4. He received his PhD through partial funding from his own atheist organization.
>5. He didn’t do any of the experiments for his own thesis work.
>6. His PhD thesis was about how science can determine what is right and wrong and he turned it into a book for sale.
>7. Since publishing his thesis/book, Harris has yet to use science to resolve a single moral dispute.

this, but sincerely:

>Saltman: What about someone who, say, identifies as Jewish and wants to preserve that tradition, but isn’t really worried about what other religions are doing?

>Harris: Well, that’s easier in Judaism than in most religions, because Judaism does not tend to be particularly concerned about what happens after death and focuses more on living well in this life.