What did he mean by this?

what did he mean by this?

What's hilarious is that Thomas Aquinas says very nearly the exact same thing, but about heretics.

And it even manages to make more sense coming from Aquinas, because Aquinas is worried that heretics will lead people into incorrect beliefs and practices, and thereby endanger their immortal souls after death. Aquinas is worried that heretical ideas, and the people who espouse them, will cause people to be damned to Hell for all eternity.

Meanwhile, Harris is just upset that "dangerous beliefs" will make people miserable only for this life.

Memes are cancer and bullets are chemo.

Harris always based his arguement on the idea that these things lead to suffering.

So they are the same even there. Between the idiots Harris is a little smarter in that he is concerned with suffering in the real world while the world Thomas cares about only seems real to people with their head up their ass.

The reason both are nenderthals and ultimatly cowards is that what they are really saying is "I want to kill people that disagree with me". There isn't any more profound statement going on. All the moral meandering is just a way for them to hide their true intentions from others and ultimately them-self.

ding ding ding

>real world
No such thing exists

Aquinas' heaven is no less real than Harris' vision of a utopian world.

Lets say that a group like ISIS got hold of nuclear weapons. This is worse than if Russians got them or China. Why? Because of the difference in beliefs. In general, Russians and Chinese are rational actors who don't want to die and will avoid having the world end in a nuclear apocalypse if there is any way to avoid it, thus the doctrine of MAD let us survive the cold war. What makes groups like ISIS different? Their beliefs. For a jihadi, dying as a martyr while fighting infidels is the ultimate goal. Also, ISIS do not care about collateral damage, eg the death of innocent muslims, because according to their beliefs good muslims will be rewarded in the afterlife anyway, so being destroyed in a nuclear blast just sends them on the express lift to paradise.

So groups like ISIS hold beliefs that are so dangerous, that if we thought they were about to acquire WMDs then it would be ethical for us to do everything in our power to kill them.

/thread

>[T]he very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.
-Same Harris

He means we should genocide muslims before they kill us

Nothing wrong with that

He wants to die, and he wants the killer to be someone else.

>"I want to kill people that promote the idea of killing others"
>n-no what he really means is that he wants to kill others for disagreeing with himself!

I think the real Neanderthal is you

It makes more sense coming from Aquinas if you are foolish enough to believe in a god. Even the most ardent religious follower can not deny that the beliefs of religious types is one of the biggest blood stains on humanity. The idea of Aquinas worrying about heretical ideas only factors if there were such a place as hell. The inexplicable existence of which only occurs in one religious book of all the thousands that have existed. Mainly because the idea that these two forces being the very antithesis of each other coming to an agreement over who gets sent where after death is obscenely stupid. Unfortunately, heaven and hell are as likely to exist as fairies and Santa Claus which makes the worrying of Aquinas irrelevant.

>Harris is 'smarter' because he cares about suffering

You can't raise IQ points through compassion idiot

Except, however unlikely, a utopian world is always a possibility. It won't happen, but it's not impossible. Heaven, seriously. Come on now.

Believing in a religion is the very definition of not thinking for ones self. Any person, not brainwashed from childhood, looking objectively at religion with an open mind would come to the same conclusion. To be a follower of a religion in this day and age, one must be completely closed off to reason and logic.

>Lets say that a group like ISIS got hold of nuclear weapons. This is worse than if Russians got them or China. Why? Because of the difference in beliefs.

Nope, because of the difference in biology. Religiosity or spiritual belief system etc., takes a back seat to race, though in the case of islam it likely exacerbates an already existing problem, which is that semites in general are highly inbred and murderous people. Europeans and east Asians are more reflective, peaceful races that are capable of advanced emotions like empathy and shame, and are therefore less likely to want to destroy the world for stupid reasons.

He's talking about pedos and waifufags

>ACKTHCUALLLYY *bees racist*

so arab christians are just as crazy?

Groups like Assyrians are genetically mixed rape babies, partly ancient Indo-European holdovers from the tribes that used to inhabit the region, partly arab from later muslim invasions. So they are less violent and retarded because they still have some Aryan DNA, which is the case among the upper classes of India and Iran as well since Indo-Europeans used to inhabit what is today the middle east, but even going as far east as China.

Neanderthals were stronger and smarter than Homo sapiens.

This shows that 'liberalism' is an empty shell. It purports to allow a multiplicity of worldviews in society, but in order to reach this goal, sacrifices have to be made. In this, it is no different from other ideologies. The difference is just who you sacrifice and how severely you punish.

Practically though liberalism is more permissive (for now, at least). Try walking around with a sign saying something like "Xi Jinping go to hell!" in China, it wouldn't stay up long. Broadly people still have the right to protest in Western countries which purport to be 'liberal' in ideology.

Yet they're extinct and we're not.

Checkmate, evolutionists.

How about Pakistan or India then, should they be stopped from having nuclear weapons by force?

he meant we need to gas all whitebois now, you know, for diversity

If we're related to Neanderthals, why are there still Neanderthals?

Christians 1
Atheists 0

the interbred with whites, they didn't go extinct

>'let's stop freedom of religion on the U.S.' - Sam Harris
>but before we do that let's all democratically vote on what should be the state religion, so we can stop the others
>protestantism
>'things weren't supposed to go like this' - Sam Harris, leader of Atheist American Revolutionary Movement

"kill the infidels"

Hm.

absolute devotion to a totalitarian confucian father figure sounds patrician af to be completely honest with you guys.

>Russia
>Europeans

Every sentence in that worthless post reminded of how insufferable I sounded in my teenage years. This one stood out, however:
>The idea of Aquinas worrying about heretical ideas only factors if there were such a place as hell.

Repent.

>heh, I used to be an atheist like you kid. *unsheathes bible* but now that I have mastered the art of reading a few New Testament verses and the wikipedia article on Aquinas, I am truly enlightened by my own salvation

I know you thought that altering that meme was clever, but it's less about feeling 'saved' or "enlightened" and more about acquiring a basic post-teenager level of understanding of the role of the spiritual in an individual's moral development, and of the overwhelmingly positive role that Christianity played in the development of the most successful league of societies on the planet.

>Leave Veeky Forums for about a year adjusting to new job/family/kids.
>Come back and see it infiltrated by r/atheism

What the hell happened, Veeky Forums?

it's a bait thread, and/or viral marketing for sam harris

your wife and her kids would probably be upset to learn you're such a cuck

Nothing. He meant nothing because he has nothing to offer .He is a pseudo that got his ass obliterated by Craig.

And what about Jews with their vicious, elitist Talmudic beliefs? Why should Israeli kikes have nukes? Off yourself, Schlomo. I agree radical muzzies shouldn't have, but I wouldn't called Israel rational by any means.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. PCA autosomal DNA plots show that ancient Persians and Indians relate more closely to their modern counterparts than Europeans. The Proto-Indo-Iranians of Sintashta culture never displaced indigenous populations -- they marginally mixed to a point that didn't shift genome that much.

D-did someone say NEANDERTHAL???

Christianity is a stupid religion, especially in its non-Gnostic forms, and Europe made more scientific progress in the 17th century when Christianity started becoming defanged. Before then there wasn't progress being made at an unprecedented rate.

(you)

Ancient Persia and India were inhabited by Indo-European tribes, there is no disputing this. Genetic data confirms it and both Iranians and Indians to this day speak Indo-European language. The word Iran literally comes from "Aryan." So it's you who doesn't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Are you under the impression that Is
jews and ISIS members are that different? They are very closely biologically related people.

I think that liberal governments can be permissive, but it is not a result of liberalism itself, more of other conditions, like affluence and peace. In troubled times, liberalism will be oppressive as well.

Both of you are off. Liberalism is what is now eroding the foundations you think are or used to be permissive at an alarming rate. It doesn't have anything to do with affluence or peace, it has to do with who is in charge. If it's starting to resemble Soviet style rule, well, that's because the same people who ran the Soviet system are in charge of America now. Again, this is and always will be fundamentally about *people* not abstract things like ideology or peace, etc. When different people are in charge you get different results, within a spectrum but generally consistently.

Yes, of course, the Jews. It's just that simple.

Is this some kind of excuse for a counter-argument?

Hahaha, great b8. Delusional beliefs about needing to destroy heretics are exactly the kind that Harris is declaring dangerous. You know, the same kind of beliefs encouraging ISIS.

Bad bait

But to be a follower of Twitter and IG accounts, now THAT'S civilised!

dirty sapes get out of my thread

Benevolent dictatorships are obviously the superior system of government.

I doesn't matter what you call it. Offer some evidence that the Israeli government is not a rational actor.

THIS
>tfw no comfy death camp to polpot some "intellectuals"

So you're telling me that you became a Christian not because you actually believe in God, but because of the role pf the Church. This, no means to offens, seems to me like going with the stronger faction.
Believing or not doesn't come from looking at what the people that believed that ideology did, but from believing in the core principles of that ideology. The same way that people who say communism is wrong shouldn't say "yea but Stalin and Mao killed millions of people", but disagree with its principles. Ideology =/= followers

kill all the Veeky Forums users because they've stumbled onto the truth, you know?