Why doesn't Veeky Forums like Sam Harris?

Why doesn't Veeky Forums like Sam Harris?

I've only seen him talk about islam and neurology. Please enlighten me.

it's the same reason why Veeky Forums was jizzing its pants over name of the wind and it all sorta came to a standstill once it really started gaining momentum. sam's with reddit, Veeky Forums hates reddit, Veeky Forums hates sam.

you might think wow that's really silly and childish what kind of grown adult would get into some petty tribalist contrarian shitwar but i mean we're here so

Sam Harris is a pseudo-scientist, who blatantly supports US imperialism and is cancer along with "le four horxemen xD". This is also a board which can read deeper into a religious text than "hurrdurr, it says here you can kill people for wearing linen".

yikes

Fuck off, /pol/

Mimicking retarded pseudo-leftists is a great response, btw

>Sam Harris is a pseudo-scientist
How so?

>This is also a board which can read deeper into a religious text than "hurrdurr, it says here you can kill people for wearing linen"

But user, considering the bible is full of similar decrees, isn't that as good a reason as any to dismiss its claims of representing any absolute truth? It may seem banal, but that's just the point. There's a clear discrepancy that poses a real problem for anyone who wishes to defend it.

hahaha too true faam, too true

You know that there are religious sects that don't take every single detail in the bible as fact or absolute ethical imperatives right? Like this memelord has built his brand on criticizing the lowest hanging, most brain dead, autistic and loud subsection of the religious population. He's not exactly doing anything difficult or worth shit. I'm irreligious myself but you're a retard if you're reading a religious text and fact checking it.

He doesn't do any scientific research and doesn't publish on any peer reviewed work. He did his phd dissertation and then stopped working in science. Now he's just a shitty polemicist.

Good post.
It's very easy to construct these strawmen ideas of religion in your head that they literally believe the texts, and then set the strawman on fire.
I've listened to Jordan Peterson talk about this somewhat
Bashing religion doesn't make you smart, it certainly doesn't make you wise. I have a friend who sounds like Sam Harris who just wants to leave all religion in the dust, without really offering a replacement for it(I honestly think we need one, humans have a need for religion)

I really like Jordan Petersons Insights into Christianity, i think in May he's starting this thing in a theatre he rented out, going through all the major stories in the bible and breaking down the meaning and archetypes.

He triggers the delusional christian cucks on here, shatters their fragile worldview

hes so dumb even Veeky Forums understands hes a pseud

ironic use of a prodigal son narrative

>It's very easy to construct these strawmen ideas of religion in your head that they literally believe the texts, and then set the strawman on fire.
Pretty ironic considering your criticism of the new atheists is just as egregious a strawman

>You know that there are religious sects that don't take every single detail in the bible as fact or absolute ethical imperatives right?
So what? He doesn't claim that and is in full acknowledgement of it, that's why he doesn't shit talk Christianity or Judaism that often, since they generally tend to dismiss larger parts of their book than Islam.

BTW Op, the answer can be found above. A bunch of Christians who don't can't cope with reality and don't want to abandon the idea of eternal life.

modern technological development is a consequence of reason and it has caused declining levels of happiness in developed societies which is considered suffering by many

take the Ted pill

Reality doesn't exist.

And this here, "we can't know everything to 100% certainty so the things we can know to 99.99% certainty are irrelevant and just as valid as those that with 0.0001% probability of manifesting in reality."

Ben Stiller?

This.

I find it trying, annoying, etc., with how many delusional christian pseuds are on this board. And anytime anyone criticizes one they reflexively lash out about "fedoras, nu-atheists, etc."

>the things we can know to 99.99% certainty
There is no such thing as certainty when it comes to the external world.

So if I gather 100000 people, have them all take cyanide capsules and check how many of them die, and woe and behold 99.9% do. Does that say nothing about reality? Assume this is replicated by 1000 other organisations/people for the sake of argument and is easily detected by fatalities of people consuming them. Oh wait no we can't use that data because "muh special reality"

Nothing can be known to any degree of certainty, you idiot.
>99.99%
What are you basing these numbers on? We are blind, that number could just as well be -99.99% or anything else. One would have to know something with 100% certainty to then even attempt to make a statement regarding it with 99.99% certainty.

The diver in the abyss thinks he's ascending until a spooky fish or something passes him, then he realized how far down he really is.

t. ~20 year old loser who recently got into "Philosophy", considers themselves smarter than all their peers, and reflexively drags every argument he gets in to ergo cogito sum level skepticism

>So if I gather 100000 people, have them all take cyanide capsules and check how many of them die, and woe and behold 99.9% do. Does that say nothing about reality?
No.

do you know that nothing can be known with any certainty?

I didn't say that you literal child.

How certain are you a cyanide capsule will kill you? I'd bet you're certain enough not to take one, we don't need to quantify certainty more beyond things such as the example given here as it has real life application and can be proven time and time again.

This really says it all. Do I even need to comment on this? The test(s) clearly show that 99999 out of 100000 people die, repeatedly, when taking cyanide capsules. How is this not saying something about reality? Do you want to elaborate on that?

>How certain are you a cyanide capsule will kill you? I'd bet you're certain enough not to take one
Non-argument.
>as it has real life application and can be proven time and time again.
You're presupposing reality, good job you fucking dip.

>presupper
oh my

>Non-argument.
You didn't quote my argument, just an example of the degree to which we care about being certain about things and that we do hold things true to a certain ENOUGH degree, which is what I'm saying. We could all be living in the matrix but until there's any good reason to believe in that there's no reason to entertain the idea.

>You're presupposing reality, good job you fucking dip.
No I'm not, this is an example of a test that could be run and produce a similar result time and time again. Similar things have been done in reality, you know? We know on average how much iron you're gonna lose when you donate blood (ps: it won't be 0 mg), we know what will happen if you stay underwater for 10 hours and so on and so forth. None of this is presupposing anything, these are actual, tested things that can be replicated. Feel free to stay under water for 10 hours and see what happens.

he hasnt made a good movie since meet the fockers

>reality exists
This is required for tests to happen.
So, you have to presuppose that to say that reality then exists because consistency occurs.
>reality exists because reality exists

God I fell so hard for the Harris/Dawkins/Hitchens meme that I gnash my teeth and try not to hit myself whenever I think about it.

Did you not read my post, you illiterate? I just said there are a decent number of groups that don't consider the bible to be absolute fact. He literally only goes after (or assumes that all religious are) fundamentalist dorks.

Babby's first encounter with the infinite regress problem? Didn't you know it's taken for a given that things exist?

>it's taken for a given
This is unacceptable.

You can't have any beliefs without taking something for a given, bucko.

This is actually wrong.

Elaborate please.

Okay so let's back up. By reality I mean what's happening, observable and otherwise and what we can experience. Me typing here is reality, you typing on your keyboard is reality. Or what do you think that is?

IF we're living in a matrix, then I'm still talking about the reality inside the matrix.

Also, what do you think the alternative to reality is? If everything is an illusion, I'm still just talking about that illusion and how things work within it, predictably.

Reality doesn't exist.
I'm not arguing a Matrix exists, I'm arguing reality doesn't exist.
>I'm still just talking about that illusion and how things work within it, predictably.
Nothing is predictable, you're memed by Enlightenment philosophy.

You anti-materialist fags never have any arguments or talk about your own point of view. It's always "hurr durr u fell for the ____ meme retard".

So what's the alternative and what reason do you have to believe you could(n't) stay underwater for 10 hours without dying? Is that something you'd be willing to try out if given 100 mil on success, or something of a similar nature? (Please don't dodge the question by "nah 10 hours of my time is too much worth")

>Reality doesn't exist.
My reading your post is real. I just read it and comprehended it, I can observe this directly, as can you when reading my posts.

The answer isn't to oscillate all the way to the pseudy Christian side of the scale.

Upset
>alternative
le 'an alternative needz 2 exist' meme
>observe this directly
No you can't, you aren't a rock.

>Nothing can be known to any degree of certainty, you idiot.

>tfw a person uses words like child and idiot to augment his poor argument

>Upset
You're right; my jimmies are actually fucking rustled. I want to hear the opposing side but it's always ad hom.

upset

>le 'an alternative needz 2 exist' meme
I didn't say this, I asked if you had one or could think of one.

>No you can't, you aren't a rock.
Yes I can, how about you, can't you? I know for a fact that I can and that I am, and you ought to know this for yourself as well unless you have something similar to severely deficient autobiographical memory syndrome.

You're just trolling right?

Also, don't dodge
>So what's the alternative and what reason do you have to believe you could(n't) stay underwater for 10 hours without dying? Is that something you'd be willing to try out if given 100 mil on success, or something of a similar nature? (Please don't dodge the question by "nah 10 hours of my time is too much worth")

Facts don't exist.
read huem

>Facts don't exist.
Is that a fact?

Is the proposition that "facts don't exist" itself a fact? You're misunderstanding Hume

Btw, I'm not the guy you've been arguing with.

And by fact you mean 100% certainty? I'm fine with good enough certainty, certainty >90%, if you made me a bet to roll a dice and I'd win if it hit 1-5 and you if it hit 6, I'd be willing to take that bet. Would you? If not, why not? Are we both equally likely to win in that bet?

Also

E M P I R I C A L
M
P
I
R
I
C
A
L

I'm not speaking of hoom, the two lines are not connected.

Hume and any modern understanding of observation, read both.
Read the fucking thread, one needs 100% certainty to ascertain any degree of certainty. It's all or nothing.

Good job. This pic would be more appropriate though.

>Did you not read my post, you illiterate?

It seems you're the one who didn't. Religious texts need to be judged on their own merits. In any case, often times a literal interpretation is the only one that makes sense.

>there are no degrees of certainty
>what is a confidence interval?

Also please answer this, you've been dodging it like crazy

I don't care about your autistic hypotheticals.
>confidence interval?
What is ones confidence based upon?

You just didn't answer the criticism that three people simultaneously raised.

You come across like a douche user.

>"Facts don't exist"
>"Is that proposition itself a fact?"
>[hand waving] "I am not talking about Hume"

>I don't care about your autistic hypotheticals.
It's a really simple question and would get to the bottom of this. I feel like you don't actually have an answer to it and it'd break you so you just dodge it to stay on "safe territory" of small, vague answers which leaves you room to maneuver without actually getting to the bottom of our disagreement.

>What is ones confidence based upon?
In the case of confidence intervals and similar, observable reality, data gathered and how useful it is at predicting future outcomes.

Also please don't dodge the hypothetical, I wouldn't dodge any you threw at me and the fact that it's a hypothetical doesn't make it null in any way. Really just a cheap way out "I don't like this argument so I'm going to ignore it"

>observable reality,
Presupposing reality
>useful
Presupposing pragmatism

>Ignoring arguments

I really just wanted to get to the bottom of our disagreement, but I didn't think it'd take this long. You've got some nice mind games you're playing there, hopefully you'll put them to use in the future by proving the world and me wrong by staying underwater for 10 hours (what, it's worked for nobody ever? There are millions of examples of drownings? Well, that says nothing about reality). I'm triggered and don't have more time to waste, it's 01:43 here in Sweden. Also this conversation exists just as little as your arguments so why continue.

Peace.

best post ITT.

Peter Jordanson seems like the cool uncle who seems to have meaningful answers, but they will all collapse and the adolescents will run into daddy Sam's arms.

The answer OP, is fedora Christians. Yes, he has made it acceptable for Christian apologetics to accept cultural Christians, but since immature people will be immature, you will always have fedora-Christians as reactionaries. Just like you had fedora atheists. It's sickening. Veeky Forums should be ashamed.

You don't NEED to come up with a replacement, but if it's a net positive to society, then it's smart to come up with something else before you tear it down. Our Democratic Republic is far from perfect, but is the solution Anarchy?

if only I had the power of conjuring equivalences which such effortless grace. thank you for showing me the way.

Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell because it's the internet.

zoolander is OP

this is like "why does Veeky Forums haet walking dead"

>tips papal fedora

???
is there a zombie pope in walking dead or some shit?

>Religious texts need to be judged on their own merits.
Do you even know what you're saying?

wew lad.

A meaningless hypothetical isn't an argument.
muuuhhhh socieetyyyyy
Fuck off.

post the fucking walking dead pope pics you fuckin tease, it's too late for easter memes

Anyone who considers the Bible, dozens of books in different genres written over thousands of years, to be a whole is autistic

Scott Parris killed my dog

It means a religion is about more than what any of its followers happen to believe at any one time.

A Christian may not believe in the great flood, but it's in there, so it needs to be taken into consideration when asking whether the bible's claim to absolute truth makes sense. Even if you posit that it was only a figurative flood and not a literal one.

Why? It's all meant to be divinely inspired.

>half the thread is people feeding the autistic contrarian "nothing exists" ebin trolle teenager
This is why """"philosophy"""" threads should be purged or contained to a general where you all can be gassed efficiently at any time should the need arise.

Stiller is annoying because objective morality is a shitty meme.

Objective morality is the social structure every successful civilization tries to build.

He seems like a smart guy but I've never heard him saying anything profound or philosophical
I only ever see him shit on religion

Christians dislike him for obvious reasons and his stance towards islam triggers the left and the pawns of the establishment.

i think lit hates Sam Harris because his texts are easily penetrable and simple to understand

Why is Sam Harris sending Veeky Forums texts? Has he sent nudes?

>his texts are easily penetrable and simple
Just like your mother.

lit will even support christianity if it allows a mystic ambiguity which they could use as a hole to feel superior to others. what lit hates is simplicity and clarity