Considering he has solved all areas of thought, is there any use in reading outside samharris.org and his books?

4 pls

Man I'd be a psycho dad. Just sitting on a porch with a shotgun tll she is 40.

eh it was the 2nd best

lel

Can someone explain to me what is OBJECTIVELY wrong with Harris?

I've read his books on Lying and Freewill, both were alright, nothing amazing, but nothing warranting the amount of shit he gets online.

I've also listened to his audiobook/podcast re: jihadi muslims/islamism and I found it pretty hard to disagree with him on most points - especially regarding foreign policy and the flat out rejection that ISIS is a product of blowback

Is there any instance where he's actually been objectively wrong? Or do people just hate him because he's a poor man's Hitchens, who was also subject to hatred online.

nothing, he is a mensch, an uber one at that.

dunno about daughter but i'll take 3 or 5 as my daughter's best friend who comes for sleepovers and comes down for breakfast barefoot and wearing a shortie nightie that casually slips off one shoulder as she sips her apple juice and giggles adorably

Let's get a qt in here

>and the flat out rejection that ISIS is a product of blowback

That's patently wrong though. So go on, post whatever stupid biking metaphor he uses to explain it.

I'm actually not sure what metaphor you're referring to, but I'm also not sure I need one to dispute it.

Jihad has been a component of Islamism essentially since inception - to dismiss the centuries of violence preceding any of the West's intervening in the Middle East is idiotic.

I agree that the removal of Saddam caused a political vacuum in the region, and sectarian tensions to escalate, but to claim that violent Jihadism is CAUSED by the West just doesn't compute. Sunni's have been murdering Shiites as long as they were able to - along with apostates and immiserating gays and women - how is ANY of that the fault of the West?

Because the West exploited that sectarian divide again and again, pitting one against the other, to secure it's geopolitical interests. The same way it did in Africa.

Also the bike metaphor is the cringe worthy centerpiece of Harris moronic apologetic book on libertarian economics.

>the west pitted one against the other

Are you actually retarded? Read any account of Muslim history and you'll have no trouble finding thousands of instances where sectarian violence occurred without any input from the west.

>the same way it did in Africa
massive false equivalency

>bike metaphor
Yeah not ringing a bell, doesn't matter I guess

>Are you actually retarded?
No, but clearly you are.

>Read any account of Muslim history and you'll have no trouble finding thousands of instances where sectarian violence occurred without any input from the west.
Completely irrelevant. ISIS was formed directly in response to the rise of Shia Islamic militias in post-Saddam Iraq. The Sunnis banded together and created a counter-militia that pulled from the current vogue Wahhabi Islam (which is in ascendance DIRECTLY because of US support for Saudi Arabia) and became the new Al-Queda.

Harris is a moron who has no inkling of geopolitics or history beyond self-affirming critiques of religions he only knows about from outside sources commenting on them. You, I'm guessing, are similarly ignorant and confident in your ignorance.

Any examples of this in Africa? I thought it was mostly tribal warfare going on down there unrelated to western imperialism.

rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/sam-harris-science-of-morality-case.html?m=1

The Sudan immediately comes to mind, where Western support for the Janjaweed has allowed them to basically ethnic cleanse the black Africans for years. You see this a lot on the border countries between the Arabic-influenced North Africa and black sub-Saharan. We're basically letting the Saudis enjoy a theme-park version of imperialism in Africa because we're on their dick.

except he cannot into pragmatism and is doing humanity a tremendous disservice by disabusing people of free will just because "muh truth"

How is years of behavior which mirrors ISIS in the exact same region stemming from the exact same beliefs "completely irrelevant"?

I'm not going to defend Shiites beliefs, especally not militant Shiites, but if you honestly think ISIS was formed solely as a politcal response to Shiites, you're completely delusional. While I disagree with Harris that politics plays a larger role than he wants it to (Digression: Harris is pretty weak at talking about politics, I find he'll remove the political aspect of an argument and pin it all on religion, which is what he does in his stance on this.) I don't think it can even be argued that ISIS fundamentally has a problem with the Shiites interpretation of the Qu'ran, regardless of the states supporting Saudi Arabia or not.

Do you genuinely think that if the USA hadn't backed Saudi Arabia (I'm assuming you mean the Soviet-Afghan War) that we wouldn't have religious fanatics tossing homosexuals from roofs or burning Shiite Mosques?

I agree it can be argued that the state's involvement accelerated the rise of the ISIL movement as a response, but Chomsky puts forward the idea that it's entirely due to the west, which I can't find any reason to subscribe to. I'm honestly all ears, I posted above asking what's wrong with Harris because I'm genuinely curious - but if you claim that the only causation of ISIS' existence is blowback from the States (in which their hand was essentially forced IMO), I don't really see your argument since that's objectively wrong and can be proven by listening to ISIS released propaganda.

Are you saying that you have a better understanding of why they are burning Shiites than they do?

I actually like listening to him talk about current events and agree with him pretty much all the time, but I'm opposed to the ideas of new atheism.

Harris is fine when he isn't debating the existence of God.

>Do you genuinely think that if the USA hadn't backed Saudi Arabia (I'm assuming you mean the Soviet-Afghan War) that we wouldn't have religious fanatics tossing homosexuals from roofs or burning Shiite Mosques?

Show me where this was happening in Iran or Iraq in the 60s and 70s. Show me any incidents of extreme sectarian violence that isn't either in the distant past or post-colonial interference in the region.

Show me the religious killings and Sharia law in Turkey pre-2003.

>Are you saying that you have a better understanding of why they are burning Shiites than they do?

I'm saying I have an honest understanding that they would agree with if asked rather than being told what it is that's motivating them by ivory tower Western intellectuals who're all too quick to divorce themselves of any responsibility they may have in creating the situation.

Please God give me 0

This

What makes you say that the western world supports the Janjaweed? I'm not very familiar with the conflict in Darfur, but I can't really see any evidence for your claims. Seems more like just some tribes fighting over land.

Objectivity is an illusion

You should watch his films

My favorite has to be "Tropic Thunder"

Jesus christ I need to get a fucking 0