What do you think of Sam Harris?

Chomsky is an old tired man who, after sifting through his curmudgeon grumbles for hours, never manages to actually say anything productive. Everything he says just amounts to "hmm mmm hrmmm they're wrong, they're doing it all wrong"

yeah no shit dude, we knew that already

Hitch was the best orator because he was brilliant, charming and FUNNY. I do however admit, it took me a long time to warm up to his train of thought and dialogue. Once I did though, I still find he was saying the right stuff, and in the best way.

Watch this speech of his about free speech. It's perfect for today's world.

youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM

Idk why they wouldn't, they work for me. Just google "Sam Harris Soundcloud" and they're the two most recent episodes.

youtube.com/watch?v=W77iAQyioM8

youtube.com/watch?v=yMKOV2zA9Wc

samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy

Nah

>Islamophobic
>using this unironcally

Where do you think you are? Are you going to accuse someone of racism too?

Didn't he endorse Hillary?

racism is against the rules of this specific board tho

by Veeky Forums standards "no racism on the board" means no /pol/-tier pathological rants.

Harris is not good at "dismantling" arguments. He is very good at misrepresenting them in such a way as to convince an unalert reader that they have been dismantled. There is no substance to a single word the man has wrote. He is a pseudo-intellectual rhetorician, nothing more.

the other poster is maybe considering Sam Harris's harping on Islam as "/pol/-tier pathological rants".

This is Veeky Forums you nigger

He embarrassed himself pretty badly when he was invited to Dan Carlins podcast.

I think its a running gag at this point, he also endorses it frequently, for the little i've seen from him.

Racism ≠ Being critical of Muslims for their batshit crazy religion and their widespread religious violence, misogyny, and homophobia, and having the opinion that America and the West are not solely responsible for Jihadism, that Isamic culture is not just a pawn, our monster that was merely created by the West, incapable of independent action or any role in the shaping of their culture and religion.

It's not because Muslims are brown. It's about holding them to the same standard and criticisms we hold Christianity to. Yes, the West fucked up really bad in the Middle East in the last hundred years, but it's the Muslim world itself that needs to get their shit together on their own and join the 21st century. Just because they were wronged does not mean they are absolved of all responsibility, to do so would be to patronize them by implying that they're so weak, easily manipulated and subjugated by the West enough to not be their own group of people, but lab rats who are only running around with no self awareness, acting only on instinct, responding to stimuli created by a cruel scientist with complete control over them.

How so?

So are you a Christian, a Muslim, or a SJW?

Is he wrong because he doesn't treat Muslims like naughty children or because he doesn't "get" the argument for Christianity that's basically, "u just gotta believe, man" and "muh tradition, muh, culture, muh degeneracy" that just highlights problems that the modern world has and does nothing to actually support their religion not being just another random ancient Middle Eastern cult that people liked enough to become populat, wrapped up in endless well written paragraphs of bullshit that values feels over reals.

I'm calling rotten apples here. Most of the Muslim word outright despise ISIS even more than Westerners. Agreeing with their "beliefs" don't make them hate them any less. ISIS fucks more brown people than they do whiteys. It just don't get much more coverage cause >mudslimes lol only whiteys matter

>le smart atheist man

And here's a >le smart Christian man, proves nothing either way

Even if they despise ISIS, it doesn't automatically mean they don't support a lot of the Sharia system that's runs contrary to Western values.

Islam needs to go through a reformation/enlightenment, just like Christianity did, or their religion will remain barbaric and we have the right to call it as such.

Maybe you should read one of his blog posts, books, or listen to a podcast or youtube video of him presenting his views.

Very fun to see him deconstruct his opponent's arguments and calmly bypass typical debate tactics. I love seeing how he interacts with more 'slimy' debaters such as Dinesh d'Souza, Reza Aslan or Dennis Prager.

I think he could do with a bit more historical knowledge and more specific philosophical terminology though. It would definitely improve his arguments.

>Most of the Muslim word outright despise ISIS even more than Westerners. Agreeing with their "beliefs" don't make them hate them any less.

Mainstream Islam is one notch past as Fundie Evangelicals like the Duggars towards in the direction of in terms of tolerance and lack of secularism. Have you seen the opinion polls about things like women being property of her husband/father, penalties for homosexuality, literal interpretation of the Bible/Quran, and penalties for leaving Islam, as well as many other things modern, secular society finds totally unacceptable? It's differences like opposing gay marriage versus executing gays by stoning that are troublesome. Why do women have almost no rights in wealthy Saudi Arabia? How is that not true Islam? Look at what they actually DO in Muslim countries, just because some handpicked Western Imam denounces these things on CNN, even if he truly believes what he is saying, it does not mean that the vast majority of the Muslim world agree with him at all. Even if a more moderate Muslim only associates with ISIS out of fear for his family, this does not mean he doesn't have religious values that the average Westerner would find indefensible.

Harris is the only redeemable one of the four, actually respectable at least. He actually cares about strictly following logic and making foundationally good arguments, even though I still disagree with him half the time at least.

Hitch was a public masturbater. Literally "posturing: the man".

Dawkins is just plain over his head when it comes to literally anything that isn't biology. He's a hack. Can't even handle the cosmological argument without bumbling like a spaz.

Dennett is almost ok, he's like Harris but with shittier arguments.

What do you disagree with Harris about?

religion =/= race.
except when talking about jews for some reason

I don't agree with him that Islam is intrinsically worse than Christianity or that it would matter politically anyway (that it would justify any kind of discrimination), plus a few other related ideas that get labeled 'regressive leftism' in regard to Islam and foreign policy.

I don't agree that science can establish moral or ethical values.

I don't agree with the sort of secular new age philosophy he seems to be advocating in his latest book, and I disagree with his assessment of Trump vs Hillary. I don't think either of them are good choices.

I also don't quite agree 100% with some of the conclusions that he has made about Christianity and Islam in the West.

Still think he is the best "public intellectual" by leaps and bounds, though.

I like Harris because he seems to be willing to change his views and opinions based on new evidence or arguments, he doesn't just latch onto an opinion and then be more concerned about being right than about the truth like others do. He'll admit he was wrong, explain why he changed his mind, and does not seem to have a huge ego about being right all the time. He is good about not arguing emotionally, he tries very hard to stick to logic instead of feels. I like how he steel mans arguments he that he believes someone of the opposite opinion would hold, and does a good job explaining his logic step by step when he expressing his opinion on something. He is good at making the reader or listener uncomfortable and genuinely wants to have a rational discussion with people he disagrees with, instead of yelling, getting emotional, and talking over opponents like so many people on all sides do. He will genuinely listen to other points of view, and even if he doesn't end up changing his position, he did not have his mind made up 100% before the conversation even started. I like how he recognizes that two things can both be true and that things aren't always black and white. He seems to be trying to find the truth in all things, whatever that might be, even if it is uncomfortable for him, not bending the truth to fit his narrative.

he's vague and one of his logical deductions was basically "ill just declare utilitarianism correct and handwave the rest with brain scans to look like i have a quantifiable and usable argument"

What about the issue of truly rigerous screening of refugees and immigrants from Muslim countries? Mainstream liberal leaders such as Obama and Merkel, as well as much of the media, say things that simply aren't true, such as "None of the refugees are in ISIS.", "Refugees commit crimes at lower rates than native populations.", and "Islamic terrorism is an equal or lesser threat than domestic Christian or white supremicist terrorism".

How much of a role the West had in creating violent jihadism does not really matter, the only questions should be "How much of a security risk is it for us to take in Muslim refugees?" and "How can we make sure the Muslim refugees we do take in are not ISIS members posing as peaceful refugees fleeing ISIS?"

There are many, many people on the left who would disagree with the statement that there is a single ISIS fighter among the refugees, that there could be even the possibility that someone could misrepresent themselves as a refugee in order to carry out terrorism in Western countires, even though ISIS brags about doing this exact thing in their own videos. Or if they do think it's a possibility, they think it's "wrong" to consider the probability that Muslim refugees could have higher rates of terrorists in their ranks than people already living here who are not Muslim.

One can recognize that the Iraq war, American imperialism, and European colonialism was wrong and is still wrong, but also not want innocent Americans and Europeans enjoying a day at a sporting event or festival to be punished for the sins of their ancestors and their gocernments by being blown up in terrorist attacks carried out by Jihadists who were allowed into the country essentially because of white guilt. We need to find real solutions to the problems in the Muslim world that were party caused by us, not stick our fingers in our ears and pretend that there is nothing wrong with Islam at all.

samharris.org/podcast/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel

>I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state organized around a religion. So I don’t celebrate the idea that there’s a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. I certainly don’t support any Jewish claims to real estate based on the Bible.

>Though I just said that I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state, the justification for such a state is rather easy to find. We need look no further than the fact that the rest of the world has shown itself eager to murder the Jews at almost every opportunity. So, if there were going to be a state organized around protecting members of a single religion, it certainly should be a Jewish state. Now, friends of Israel might consider this a rather tepid defense, but it’s the strongest one I’ve got. I think the idea of a religious state is ultimately untenable. [Note- It is worth observing, however, that Israel isn’t “Jewish” in the sense that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are “Muslim.” As my friend Jerry Coyne points out, Israel is actually less religious than the U.S., and it guarantees freedom of religion to its citizens. Israel is not a theocracy, and one could easily argue that its Jewish identity is more cultural than religious. However, if we ask why the Jews wouldn’t move to British Columbia if offered a home there, we can see the role that religion still plays in their thinking.]

Thoughts, everyone?

>Thoughts, everyone?
Zionism started as a totally secular (if not atheistic) political movement desu

>There shouldn't be a Jewish state but there should be a state exclusively meant to house people of a particular religion

He wot? Also. "Literally everyone is trying to kill the Jews because one regime that no longer exists killed a bunch of them once. Gibs me dat palestine now white boi".

>He wot?
He doesn't want Jews, as a religious people, to actually have the ownership and self-respect of having their own land. We (Sam Harris) should graciously house them somewhere for their safety though, because one regime that no longer exists killed a bunch of them once.

Tell me more about this.

Chomsky is lame and usually wrong.

>think he is the best "public intellectual" by leaps and bounds, though.

CHALMERS

YOU NIGGER

He endorsed Hillary because he sees her not as good, but as better than Trump.

HOMELESS

does that mean if Satan runs for president literally any other choice is acceptable to vote for?

There are more than two people running you know.

>does that mean if Satan runs for president literally any other choice is acceptable to vote for?

Presumably yes

There are only two serious candidates, Trump and Clinton. Johnson and Stein are both memes, especially Stein.

>Presumably yes

well better vote Hitler 2016, can't have literally Satan as president. There isn't a single person better than Hitler who could beat literally Satan in a free election.

>only two serious candidates

untrue, it's just that the American voter is almost irreversibly cucked. I blame Democrats more than Republicans for this mess, they tend to toe party line no matter what happens for whatever reason.

>implying Hitler wouldn't be a first choice anyway