Sam Harris is definitely one of the smartest intellectuals of our time

OLO
LMAO!!

They would debate about religion.

In the same way my dog is technically one of the smartest intellectuals our time

Realize that all religion is just confirmation bias. Sorry for ruining your fragile little faith. Sorrynotsorry.

no hes not
also, his critics on Christianity doesn't apply to the eastern orthodox nor the catholic church

Actually religion is the conceptual embodiment of primordial archetypes that structure our consciousness and determine the way we act. This stuff is in our genes, and we can't avoid it.

I'm pretty sure that atheists critique all religion as being bad, but sam harris in particular talks about certain doctrines being worse than others, so yeah it would make sense if he was saying that some sects of christianity are worse than others, or if islam is worse than christianity, he openly says stuff like that, but he is also against all religion.

This is a logical fallacy of appeal to nature, saying that because religion is "in our genes" (which btw what the fuck does that even mean? feynman test failed), and since there's so many people who aren't religious, it's obviously not "in our genes" to be religion. your whole argument doesn't even make sense human beings aren't "religious by nature". what is it about our nature and religion that coincide so deeply? I suppose it's just a one size fits all answer for everything with you people, it really makes me depressed.

>and we can't avoid it.

We can, we just stop and say "Wait this is bullshit"

>this is your brain on Jungianism

Peterson criticizes Dawkins extensively in this interview.

youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis

Might actually be a pretty good debate.

come on guys, please stop, we only have one board, let's take care of it

Until you realize he lost an easy debate with David Wolpe and is a hack writer who just rewords philosophical arguments that are thousands of years old

Hold this L

>moral utilitarianism at its worst
>morality is filled with peaks and valleys and we can use le science to find these peaks and valleys, wow

Only some of his ideas are respectable. Sam is part of a growing trend of intellectuals who are absolutely convinced we can objectively relate all experiences using le science. Why cant they see that all their facts are better defined as opinions?

Also my fucking god is he butthurt over trump, sam what makes you think hillary would have been better? Do you not see that the american political system has been a shitshow for over half a decade and this is just the latest round of the great shitstorm of our time?

...

>Utilitarians

Hilarious. Deleuze a Jungian...

>I don't want to give you any help but Kant raised some good objections maybe you should start there...

That's pretty funny

...

No, you only think that because he hates muslims

this

I don't think you understand reaction images friend

not all people have the same genes, some are prediposed, some aren't. So, IF religion was genetic then theoretically some would be predisposed to it, and others wouldn't.

Whenever Sam Harris has an idea it always boils down to "muh Materialism, muh Utilitarianism".
On the other extreme, Zizek's ideas start off strong and then turn into bullshit pretty quickly.
Jordan Peterson is a happy medium.

America must make world safe for freedom and our greatest ally Isreal, which is of course the most rational country on earth. the regressive left and the alt right are exactly the same thing btw

Beware he who calls himself a 'rationalist', 'skeptic', 'reality based' a 'classical liberal' or what else. Those people are invariably smug pedants and self-righteous neurotics. Harris and Hitchens shilled real hard for the Iraq invasion, how did that turn out?

When did Harris do that? Did anyone even know who he was at the time?

This is such a great interview, thanks for posting user

And Hitchens was right. Execution was poor, not the thought. Place would've become the current shithole regardless with the amount of uprisings against Hussein.

>Until you realize there's Jordan Peterson.

Fucking this. The guy is a true intellectual.

I don't think Harris would have so much of an issue with Peterson's take on religion (which I'm still not very secure on). Harris is soft on nondual mysticism, and he recently he seems to be more about criticizing Islam than religion in general. I would love to see Peterson on the Waking Up podcast but I would be surprised if it was anything like a debate. I could be wrong though.

youtube.com/watch?v=dFb88lyCf84

I sincerely doubt that Harris would have a lot of patience with JP's phenomenological approach to Being. People who are scientifically inclined tend to think that you can extract modes of being from pure materialistic facts.

I might be wrong though, because I have heard Harris criticize the is-ought gap by essentially using an argument from intentionality, which is pretty phenomenological.

"you can take a newtonian perspective or a darwinian perspective, but you can't do both at the same time"

>that
>fucking
>face
>when

neo-Ba'athist arab nationalism>Islamism>>>>>muh librul values Zio-fellating Neoconservativism

What's funny is that Newton was extremely religious, while Darwin was an atheist.

He's right though, if you actually listen to why.

no doubt!

but holy moses do i need to think about this shit for a moment. positivism was fun while it lasted. how come the frothing sciencecucks who shit up the philosophy threads never fucking pointed this out? that newton and darwin - the hardest of hard fucking sciences - may not have been on the same page?

i'm not making any sense but w/e. i fucking love peterson so much

i'm not disagreeing in the slightest. my tfw was just getting blown away by how much i agreed with that statement, not disagreeing in the slightest. not in the slightest

>that newton and darwin - the hardest of hard fucking sciences
Newton and Darwin are considered luminaries but calling them hard scientists is a bit of a stretch.

The race is far too tribal overall (and the country lines were too haphazardly drawn out) to ever suggest (imo) that we wouldn't still be in the exact same situation had we not attempted what we did.

yeah...

...

...okay. fair enough user

It was a colossal fuck up of massive proportions.
Saddam was a secularist, no al Qaeda ties, meanwhile America is still bros with the Saudis who bankrolled the wahabbis in the first place and Israel, which has been destabilising the whole region for the past 60 years. And this are the same people going after Assad. It's not even about 'being soft on muslims/terrorism'. it's about the military industrial complex and literal shills for israel and saudi exploiting dumb burgers for their own agenda and screwing everyone else in the process.

>and Israel, which has been destabilising the whole region for the past 60 years.

lol

saged hidden reported

Well, just by looking at his face you can say hes not....

Realize that all beliefs are subject to motivated reasoning. Sorrynotsorry.

>implying we won't all be better off if the Illegal Zionist Entity where to be wiped off the face of the earth

No, I don't think so Muhammad.

Nice Kol Nidre, Schlomo

We should just sit back and let the Jews and the Muslims destroy each other, IMO.

Fuck off /pol/tard. This thread isn't even about Israel, but you just have to infuse and shit up every single thread with your fucking inane anti-semite babble.

Kill yourself.

True anti-Semites hate Jews and Muslims equally.

>Theist
>Intellectual
Pick one

Where did he claim to be a theist?

The Joe Rogan Podcast, he argues for a belief in God. He's also seems real butt hurt about atheism here: youtube.com/watch?v=48V0m2lia5U

Sounds like you're an autist incapable of nuance.

He didn't say he was a theist in that podcast, nor did he argue for a belief in God specifically.

Yeah okay, and ad hominem is nuanced.

Either way, JP has a very idiosyncratic take on religion. It can't be reduced to simple theism and then summarily dismissed simply because you lack the brainpower to listen to what the man is actually saying.

Peterson had perfeclty good points in this, and it's nice to know he's been saying exactly the same thing for years. That retard who called Obama a Marxist, though: LOL. I did, however, appreciate that atheist guy calling out male genital mutilation, even if it was a non sequitur and misinterpretation of Peterson's point.

Peterson has come closer than anyone to convincing me to doff my fedora. Should I do it, lads?

What Sam Harris is, is good at expressing himself succinctly and framing his thoughts very well. His thoughts are "common sense" and rationality. I wouldn't put him at the top, if not as a testament to our culture.

>Biology
>hardest of fucking sciences
>Implying this isn't the sort of thing writers from the Frankfurt School talked about
>but you were too busy memeing cultural marxism to listen

I'm at the same point, I'm not sure how taking the leap of faith will help me much, I need some more convincing arguments as to why believing will help me in my day to day life.

To me at least, and I think many others would agree that Sam Harris lost most of the credibility he had left after his arguments on artificial intelligence.

AI being in these days and mathematics not so much, everything he has said on the matter sounds more like mental gymnastics in order to garner the respectful nod of the reddit community or "the grand fedora" as I call it.

How is Obama not a Marxist, or at the very least a puppet for globalist interests?

He's never gonna seize the means of production for the proletariat, for one. Obama is your standard issue corporate friendly neoliberal, deep in the pocket of transnational capital. That's reason it's so easy to scam right wingers- for them it's only 'our side' and 'muh Sjw marxest' so when Trump staffs his administration with Goldman Sachs and military industrial shills they don't even notice

I would literally take an entire Goldman Sachs administration over SJW Marxists.

>2016
>Not hating Muslims

>He's never gonna seize the means of production for the proletariat

That's not what people are accusing him of when they call him a Marxist. He operates under the regulation theory where instead of direct central planning of business, business are indirectly controlled through very tight regulations. In his 8 years there have been 20,642 new regulations placed on businesses and he oversaw various bailouts on the auto industry, the bank industry, the airport industry, and I'm sure there's more that I'm forgetting. That is literally economic fascism which itself is a form of socialism because it is the government picking and choosing winners from the free market.

>That's not what people are accusing him of when they call him a Marxist.

Well, then people should shut the fuck up and not use words where they don't apply.

Well he can't prop up a hammer and sickle flag overnight but he has certainly made efforts to move our country in that direction. I see it from more of a cultural perspective in how he fuels the fire whenever there's black kids getting shot by cops (If I had a son he would look like Trayvon) and in the way he put so much time into transgender bathrooms. He's encouraging the revolution through an oppressor/oppressed dichotomy, not necessarily proletariat/bourgeoisie

it is correct usage because the regulation theory is Marxist.

So basically you want to get even more cucked by oligarchs than you already are? The state and the market have always been closely linked. Think about the massacres of striking workers by cops at the turn of the century. The market is not really free, since it needs men with guns nearby. 'Libertarians' typically have a naive view of Law as something that really exists and is equivalent with morality, rather than an instrument of class/state power. Since WWII, the U.S. has had a planned economy run for the profits and benefits of oligarchs.

>'Libertarians' typically have a naive view of Law

Whereas you guys typically have a naive view of State.

There can be no oligarch without the help of the state and when that happens it is no longer free market capitalism. It is crony capitalism which is just a fashionable word for socialism. You can see all throughout history you'll see that the most powerful corporations are the ones that this promote socialist regulation in order to snuff out any sort of competition. It increases the barrier of entry for new entrepreneurs until we eventually get state sanctioned monopolies like we have with every major utility in the US. This simply wouldn't happen in a free market.

>globalism
>Marxism

Wtf, are you guys butfuck retarded?

What's the problem? Marxism is literally international communism.

Is that Ben Stiller?

call your father

I'm anti state tho. Wouldn't a private property regime just be a state by another name. They can still starve you to death and unleash the cops (ahem private security agencies) on you if you dare complain. They will still tax you (ahem service fees) and it's likely you'll have even less of a say in any of it than you do in our sham electoral democracy. It's basically a moral worldview that assumes private peoperty is the ultimate good. Serves you well if you are part of the renting aristocracy, not much good for anyone else. Anyhow, how exactly are you going to get people to adhere to your arbitrary absolutist moral economic system which has never actually been implemented in human history?

Poor man's Hitchens

>Wouldn't a private property regime just be a state by another name.

No, because it's not a regime but rather self-enforced. According to you there's no such thing as anarchy.

>It's basically a moral worldview that assumes private peoperty is the ultimate good.

As opposed to "muh equality"/"muh Human Rights" and the various other spooky muh's of Western Liberal Democracy.

>Anyhow, how exactly are you going to get people to adhere to your arbitrary absolutist moral economic system which has never actually been implemented in human history?

You've built yourself a nice and easy to tear down strawman here. Libertarians merely hold the position the less regulation and government interference in business is for the best and that is what we should pursue. History has shown time and time again that prosperity follows freedom while poverty follows regulation. A great example of this is Sweden. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries the relatively free economy gave rise to all sorts of great inventors and entrepreneurs like Nobel, Wingquistm Dalen, and Platen and it allowed Sweden to have the highest per capital income growth in the world between 1870 to 1950. Starting in the 1930's Swedish politicians began moving towards a fascist style socialist "planning." With an ever growing welfare state, high taxes and new regulations, government spending and the number government employees rose, and while they were able to live off the hard work and innovation of the previous generation for a while, they couldn't avoid economic reality. By the 1980's economic growth collapsed and the real estate and stock market bubbles burst. Interest rates at the Swedish central bank rose 500 percent by 1990. Sweden fell from 4 to 20 in international income comparisons. This thankfully led to a revolt against the socialist regime that led to a more conservative government that abolished currency controls, reduced marginal income tax rates, deregulated bank lending, privatized central government enterprises among other things. Sweden's national debt went from 80% of GDP in 1992 to 40% by 2008. This is just one of many examples of countries that are slowing being restored from destructive socialist policies. An even easier example of prosperity following freedom would be Britain before and after Margaret Thatcher began deregulating their economy.

Not who you are responding to but this has to be bait.
Under tripartite corporatist rule [there are parallels to fascism but it was hardily in anyway really socialistic] Sweden saw some of the most impressive development worldwide. After conservatives took over it became a total mess, Sweden today is a prime case study of the failure of neoliberalism. Thatcher had to completely destroy British industry to create the illusion of "prosperity".
Liberalism has only ever caused noting but chaos for the grand majority of populations worldwide.

Stupidest shit I've heard. Globalism favours corporations, Marxism (is supposed to) favours the state.

>Thatcher had to completely destroy British industry to create the illusion of "prosperity".

How exactly would destroying industry create the illusion of prosperity? Would you rather live in Britain 5 years before Thatcher or 5 years after Thatcher?

What Thatcher brought was mostly short term. Upon leaving office unemployment was at a high, debt was rising, etc.

Why d'yall think she got ousted?

Arguing for a belief does not necessarily mean he is a believer in God. His studies on the nature of divinity in the context of shaping the human mind is much needed and wondrous work. Also, that youtube video you point out shows to me that Atheists are the butt-hurt ones and spout the same non-arguments they have for decades and betray their anti-intellectualism. Peterson was amused and in control that entire time, and the old man and the grease-slicked reject for the new Star Wars film were fumbling.