>spends his entire career bashing Christianity and religion as being "immoral"
>best moral system he can come up with is "do good and avoid evil"
>spends his entire career bashing Christianity and religion as being "immoral"
>spends his entire career bashing Christianity and religion as being "immoral"
>best moral system he can come up with is "do good and avoid evil"
he's a israelite
>rants about gawd for 20 years
>accolades, book deals, millions of dollars in crumb's fall off the elite's table and into Sam's doggy bowl
>"buuuuuut...im a israelite"
Every single time, pic related
>"do good and avoid evil"
Is that what he said and why he is viewed as such?
Ok, technically he said "increase wellbeing" and "decrease unwellbeing", to distinguish his position from "happiness" vs "unhappiness", but he failed to distinguish these terms from "good" and "evil". I can't imagine any way that you could define "wellbeing" other than that which is good for a being.
No.
He said "DEAD CHILDREN I WOULDNT HAVE CARED." That is where he expected the "most good decision" to be. The interviewers made him review his answer, he doubled down.
Now he has egg on jis face, he mixed politics and theology...theyre not 100% overlapping for a reason (the whole Church and State debate).
But Dawkins, like many others, are noticing that, Harris didnt and seems to not be able to. One of those "invisbile lines of perspective/logic/many things".
>I can't imagine any way that you could define "wellbeing" other than that which is good for a being.
Exactly, neither could Harris, he could only see from his own perspective, and not where his was no longer morally coherent.
Because "wellbeing" is a nebulous term that doesn't actually convey meaning. Taliban would say that they are improving wellbeing by keeping women out of higher education. Americans would say they are improving wellbeing by allowing women to get higher education. Who is actually right? It's merely a matter of opinion.
>It's merely a matter of opinion.
Yes, and his morallity and opinion mixed, a kind of Tyrant.
The very thing he cautioned against.
Or in otherwords, his certainty was laid in himself alone and he used his emotions as Judge.
Which...I do too, we all do, but I try to "go there and see for myself" before coming to any kind of verdict, and even then I know its never the full story.
>used his emotions
Because his "moral logic" crumbled...his own intellect was psy-op'd by his own....Passions.
His "Buddhist background" was supposed to prepare him for that...
>His "Buddhist background" was supposed to prepare him for that...
In fact, him subconsciously mixing Buddhist and Christian morality could have caused this, a kind of faustian possession.
Christianity and Buddhism overlap in a way and why many in the US choose it for a "new religion".
He does the exact same rhetorical trick that Matt Dillahunty did for decades on his fake TV show.
>I want to believe true things and disbelieve false things
>What is true? It's self evident
>I want to maximize well-being and minimize not well-being
>What is well-being? It's self evident
I think "wellbeing" is a crap metric, but there is a reason to use it over "happiness". Imo the distinction is basically that wellbeing is some weighed average of all the good stuff people care about (happiness, fulfilment, intellectual stimulation etc.) and the bad stuff (unhappiness, aimlessness, pain, boredom etc.). When viewed like this, I'd say there were times in my life when I was happy, but my wellbeing was low.
Whereas 'good', is a term with easily stated necessary and sufficient conditions
lol
>>best moral system he can come up with is "do good and avoid evil
what's wrong with that?
>noooo you also have to believe that snakes can talk
>what's wrong with that?
He forgot about that...because he was convinced the talking snake (bird/tweet/.gov) was a fren. Its not.
I listened to my talking snake (beetle). You need a magic talking animal to live a magical life with.
PS: I intentionally killed the beetle over a disagreement. Felt bad but it was cathartic, besides...he was just...Judged.
[throttles my hog and takes off]
his entire career bashing Christianity and religion as being "immoral"
>>best moral system he can come up with is "do good and avoid evil"
So he should be fricking kids and praying for forgiveness after? Because he is guaranteed heaven just for believing in Jesus and the Holy trinity?
It's better than fricking kids and not asking for forgiveness after. At least he would be moving in the objectively correct direction from where he is now.
If you were actually sorry for fricking kids, you'd probably not do it again.
Sounds good to me, whats the problem?
The problem is that the solution that he proposes is exactly what he criticized as the problem.
Religion didn't create morality
Actually it did, your beliefs and opinions have correlation to your physiology, different tribes view relity a bit dofferently and universal morality is the goal.
Not "your" morality.
no it was God, religions just organice it pretty well
God isn't real
>The fool says “There is no God.” psalms 14:1
checks out
How convenient; almost as if they wanted to shut down criticism
>the book that preaches the existence of a dety discredits people that don't believe in such a deity
Did you really think it would have any weight?
Otherwise LAWS and MORALS change with winds (of Psy-Ops and his own delusions).
If laws can change on political winds theyre not laws, theyre borders you use against other people with their help, which is where this "moral" thing is.
>LAWS and MORALS change with winds
They do change though
Hierarchy, if your politics must violate morals then is it "moral"?
Also, he is confusing his emotions and logic, he doesnt seem to have his "brain/heart" connection figured ot, he is a high functioning Autist, he does NOT have Apsergers (who do have a coherent brain/heart connection).
His logic ignored the worst of crimes for political wins, is his logic based morality moral?
My Judicial overview is Logic based as well, but it is not just intellect I am measuring. Not emotions, but...is a part, as the Judge isnt supposed to be too emotionally invested in two parties when making a decision for both.
He is fighting for himself, not the ideas, and using "the right combinations of words" to be in that position.
Because he doesnt live by these words....he is just playing a position, LARPing.
Ive listened to a bunch of his stuff back in 2010 during the war, listening to it between shifts.
He had a purpose for me, now I teach him.
ITT: chuds getting the anger out.
Anyway, if you guys are interested in Sam Harris, you should check out his recent appearance on the Alex O'Connor (a.k.a. Cosmic Skeptic) podcast. I really enjoyed the interview.
>ITT: chuds getting the anger out.
He is academically discredited, stop.
He said lots of good things in his career, but he himself doesnt live by those things...
I think Scam Harris is a midwit and Alex Oh'Brother is his wannabe minion who pretends to be the next Sam Harris.
Did he ever criticize the old testament tho?
I think he made an argument against sacrificing children, but that could be the chemicals in my brain lying to me.
Anyone feel alienated from both Christians and atheists? One are simple and culty and the other are braindead turbo liberal homosexuals. I don’t fit in with either camp. The fundamentalist wounds haven’t healed either and that drives my resentment for religion but I don’t know, reality isn’t fun.
Anyway Sam is a moron
no i like Catholic Christians
I want to explore Catholicism and maybe Orthodox. Both are dramatically better than the garbage I grew up with.
Probably the one with funny hats is true
>One are simple and culty
I try to be.
It isnt easy being cheesy.
You don't have to be a fundamentalist moron or an edgy atheist goon, you can have a reasonable position.
>you can have
Yes. Yes, its a Right, really, if not God given! Sin, and sin boldly!
t.Satan =:^}
What?
>do good and avoid evil
How is this worse than Islam?
What is "Good"? What is "evil"? You still have cannibalistic cultures where it is "good" to still eat people.