*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by gwiz665.

Oh, and *promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, March 15th, 2009 2:01pm PDT - promote requested by gwiz665.

Brings up a good point. Why exactly is it so important to call a spade a spade? Since there's no proof for God, and also no proof of God's absence, why would nuclear arms control be more important than religious exercise. Since religion has existed for thousands of years, and nuclear arms control has existed for mere decades, society as a whole has no essential attachment to it, and therefore no inclination to expend significant resources into its management. Also, since religion, unlike astrology, exists in an active way, guiding the beliefs, feelings, and actions of most of the world, then any culture would be expected to utilize its resources in defining, over and over again if need be, just how its own developing nuances can and should be viewed through the prism of the scaffolding upon which it is based.
Indeed, it is the religious' moral obligation to argue against what it considers ignorance. In this case, it would be the atheist. The atheist is never thwarted because his own denunciation is based upon the religious' ability to disprove the atheist in the atheist's terms. The religious argues that God exists because I believe he exists. The atheist argues that he isn't satisfied because he doesn't believe that belief as sufficient. His argument is circular, as is the religious'. Circular and parallel and non-intersecting.
So then, why is it a moral and intellectual necessity for Sam Harris to continue an activity which he by definition cannot succeed in? And HE'S commenting about how to expend and prioritize resources. A good example of why he could never ascend to high office.

Agreed. These guys are getting as annoying as televangelists.

What an arrogant prick, he admits he doesn't know what HE believes, but he knows what YOU believe is Dangerous and as a "Big Thinker" it's his right, no, his Duty to get in your face about it.

Fuckoff. Don't tell me what to believe or disbelieve.

>> ^Memorare:
Agreed. These guys are getting as annoying as televangelists.
What an arrogant prick, he admits he doesn't know what HE believes, but he knows what YOU believe is Dangerous and as a "Big Thinker" it's his right, no, his Duty to get in your face about it.
Fuckoff. Don't tell me what to believe or disbelieve.


Way to miss the point.
Arrogant the one who claims absolutes based on nothing but dogma and faith. We are all ignorant about most of reality, and admitting that ignorance is not being arrogant at all. Any kind of dogmatism alters our way of looking at things; sometimes to the point of causing danger to others. ANY kind of dogma, be it rational dogma, emotional dogma, faith based dogma, you name it. He is not telling you what to believe or disbelieve, if you get upset whenever someone criticizes your worldview, then you cannot possibly have evaluated your worldview well enough. For if what he is saying were unsound, it can be simply ignored, or countered, which is the opposite of your response. Believe what you want, but don't let that belief handicap your way of interpreting comments from the other side of the coin.

Besides, presumably your parents and your clergymen have been telling you what to believe all of your life.

The religious argues that God exists because I believe he exists. The atheist argues that he isn't satisfied because he doesn't believe that belief as sufficient.

No. part of the atheist's argument is that belief itself is not sufficient grounds for believing something. That is an argument against circular reasoning. the atheist equalent would be to say "I doubt so strongly that there is a god, that simply based on my doubt alone, God cant exist" I have never heard an atheist use that kind of reasoning, and certainly not Sam Harris.

But the whole theist "argument" usually boils down to arguments like that. Really basic fallacies like :
"I believe it because I really, really believe it"
"I believe it because millions believe it"
"I believe it because its in the book, and the book says its true"
"I believe it because its personally consoling to me"

Where as the atheist viewpoint is simply:
"None of these seems like good enough reasons to believe anything."

Which is by far the LEAST arrogant position. Like the religious, we are prepared to believe just about anything, we just need better reasons. We tend to accept scientific conclusions, and sometimes they easily outdo religious fairytales in being the most wild and wacky claims (such as quantum physics) but we accept it based on these claims ability to withstand constant scientific scrutiny, like peer-reviewing, competition, testing, new observations, predictions etc.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
part of the atheist's argument is that belief itself is not sufficient grounds for believing something.

the atheist viewpoint is simply:
"None of these seems like good enough reasons to believe anything."

we just need better reasons. We tend to accept scientific conclusions, and sometimes they easily outdo religious fairytales in being the most wild and wacky claims

What does the atheist do when confronted with contradictory evidence? What does the atheist do when confronted with anecdotal evidence that explicitly invalidates known conclusions.

I assume you are aware of your own belief system, i.e., there are certain assumptions in your knowledge tree. What does an atheist do when the root of that tree is ripped from its foundation?

In the case of contradictory evidence, I think an admission of uncertainty would be reasonable, followed by a "best guess" if some temporary conclusion was needed immediately.

Seemingly contradictory evidence is not a particularly rare occurence in the history of science - in fact scores of examples exist (e.g. the wave/particle nature of light to use an overused example). Generally this indicates the need for a better understanding of the phenomena in question.

Anecdotal evidence is just that - anecdotal. Not scientific, not verifiable (in that particular instance), not controlled. That doesn't reduce it to nothing, but it does mitigate the weight such 'evidence' brings to the argument.

Objectively viewing the worldview of ourselves and the worldview of others or of an "Objective Worldview" as an ideal, should permit us to refrain from using terms like:
"arrogant" The ego assures that we are all "confident" in our own belief, and we should assume that all others are too. No need to cast judgment labels here.

An atheist dosn't "doubt" or "doubt so strongly" that God exists. He believes that God does not exist. He is not convinced by the "proof" that is sufficient to others.

[Where as the atheist viewpoint is simply:
"None of these seems like good enough reasons to believe anything."]

Sam Harris takes that statement one step further.
For him it is his moral imperative to propose that "none of these ARE good enough reasons to believe anything." and he feels compelled to confront those for whom they are good enough reasons.

Regarding "Dogma"
Much like "stereotypes", Dogma is simply an extension of the human intellectual structure. We learn to associate, like many animals, but the ability to infer yet unconfirmed associations is what makes human intelligence unique. "Stereotypes" and "dogma" are terms used to described inferred associations that have been historically responsible for significant social structuring throughout humanity. Only in recent centuries, has man become empowered to survive the type of social "cleansing" that has always occurred, and thereby live to name and decry stereotyping, and its associated Dogma.
To decry religious dogma is to portend rational dogma. Neither can be proven or proven false. So since we live in a religious world, the greater threat comes from the rational dogmatic faction.

This is why Sam Harris is his own best argument.
If he rallies against theism, and therefore, religion because of the ills, that so often following its practice, then he must accept the ills that would come to pass if the theist world were to become atheist, and its entire social and moral structure were to fail.
Surely, the result would be disastrous. And if you doubt the assumption I made just there, then your doubt proves its validity.

>> ^jonny:
What does the atheist do when confronted with contradictory evidence? What does the atheist do when confronted with anecdotal evidence that explicitly invalidates known conclusions.
I assume you are aware of your own belief system, i.e., there are certain assumptions in your knowledge tree. What does an atheist do when the root of that tree is ripped from its foundation?


I simply change my mind.

However, it also depends, as ObsidianStorm point out, on the circumstances. it depends on how firmly I hold a certain belief. I am, for instance, pretty damn sure the earth is spherical, Thus it would take a great deal to convince me otherwise. anecdotal evidence, for instance, even if it came from an astronaut, wouldnt be near enough to convince me otherwise.

It also depends on what kind of claim that it is. Say if you told me , for instance, that you happen to have a blue car, it would be something I'd be prepared to believe, simply because you said so. I wouldnt require several witnesses, papers, and other evidence etc to confirm it for me.

If, on the other hand, you tell me that there is an invisible, all-powerful creator and ruler of the universe, and despite the fact that there are many books making the same claim, you Book is actually the right book, and it just happens to be the one you were taught as a child was the right one, then, you might understand, someone like me is much more skeptical.

For me to nail down a specific, detailed belief about the nature of the universe, I'm afraid I'll have to need a little more to go on. The same goes with scientific claims. When biologists, for instance, tell me that I am related to every species of plant and animal on this planet thats ever been examined, and that we have a history of evolution dating back some 4 billion years, it seems -on the surface- to be every bit as unbelievable and wild as the previous claim. But its based on absolutely MASSIVE amounts of evidence. So massive, that one would have to be either a complete fool, or complete ignorant, not to accept this as a fact. If any similar amount of real evidence for the biblical view of life was presented to me, you sir, would be talking to a born-again Christian, and not an atheist.

>> ^cindercone:
And if you doubt the assumption I made just there, then your doubt proves its validity.


This is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

>> ^cindercone:
And if you doubt the assumption I made just there, then your doubt proves its validity.


I think that says it all, really. When I used the words "Seems like" in that sentence, I used them as purely rhetorical. You seem to seriously believe that some or all of my "reasons" are sufficient reasons to believe something. Well, they are fallacies. which means that you could confirm or deny ANYTHING using this to simply work around the absurdity of your claim. Think about it:

1)I believe strongly in God, therefore God must be real
2)I believe strongly in Pink elephants, therefore Pink elephants must be real

Somehow 1) seems like good reasoning to you, while 2) probably seems like a stupid example. But there is no difference in the logical structure of these sentences. Even if i replaced "pink elephants" with "grey elephants" this argument wouldnt make any sense. it would be a NON-ARGUMENT in favour of grey elephants. of course, elephants ARE grey, but thats beside the point. IF there is a god, there simply would be no need to make that argument, and thus it still wouldnt make any sense.

So what you need, is some non-fallacious arguments and evidence, not just pile on more fallacy.

MaxWilder should probably listen to some more things if that’s the dumbest thing you’ve heard. I’ve said dumber things than that since my last comment!

You’re arguing atheism. I’m arguing Sam Harris notion that he is compelled to fight against “ascendant ignorance”. That theological ignorance is hindering the better use of society’s energy to solve greater problems.

Harris:“It seems to be a moral and intellectual necessity for me to…argue against ascendant ignorance.”

Harris:“we don’t spend the same kind of emotional energy on nuclear proliferation that we spend on abortion and gay marriage.

Obviously, HE doesn’t spend the emotional energy arguing nuclear proliferation and abortion. For him to imply that gay marriage and abortion are issues that are only emotionally contested because of the presence of theology is ridiculous.

If society stopped using Theological reasoning to determine social issues and began using rational reasoning, there’s no guarantee that the world would be a better place. Historically, society has resisted rational reasoning. So giving up theology would not necessarily lead to an ascendance in rational reasoning. Arguing against theism and for rational reasoning is not the same thing. Sam Harris claims that the use of “emotional energy” could be better allocated, but doesn’t present how a loss of theism would produce this outcome.

>> ^cindercone:
And if you doubt the assumption I made just there, then your doubt proves its validity.


The point I was making is this: I propose that since our current society is Theologically based, the conversion to rational reasoning would be disastrous. Society would fail. If I proposed this, you might argue my proposal. You would argue that the new ascendant rationale could not be determined in advance, or you would argue that rational reasoning would ascend. So either an unknown reasoning would emerge, or we would be dependent upon a historically flawed human assumption of rational reasoning for anything short of total anarchy. THAT is the proof.

...The argument is that there are multiple opinions about what rationale would emerge. That fact there there is debate proves that point. The only point that is proven by debate is that there are multiple opinions.

>> ^cindercone:
The point I was making is this: I propose that since our current society is Theologically based, the conversion to rational reasoning would be disastrous. Society would fail. If I proposed this, you might argue my proposal. You would argue that the new ascendant rationale could not be determined in advance, or you would argue that rational reasoning would ascend. So either an unknown reasoning would emerge, or we would be dependent upon a historically flawed human assumption of rational reasoning for anything short of total anarchy. THAT is the proof.


First of all, "society" has frequently changed the structure on which it is based throughout history, and though it has gone through some tough times as a result, it doesn't simply "fail". Furthermore, the fear of the outcome of such a change has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of religion in the first place.

Because of the nature of theological indoctrination, even in ideal circumstances it would take generations to remove religion from society. During that time, people will develop other moral codes, whether it is "enlightened self-interest" or something else. Those ethics will be hotly debated, but at least they won't be founded on irrational fairy tales, and therefor will not be available for use as justification for war.

>> ^cindercone:
Obviously, HE doesn’t spend the emotional energy arguing nuclear proliferation and abortion. For him to imply that gay marriage and abortion are issues that are only emotionally contested because of the presence of theology is ridiculous.

How can you say that? It is patently obvious that abortion and gay marriage are only contested on theological grounds. Even if you could find examples of non-religious people who are anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage (which I doubt), those would be so few in number as to be laughable.

The point is that these issues are stupid fights that are distracting people from the real threats to society. In order to move attention from a distraction to a real issue, you have to attack the distraction.

good point.
I'm not arguing that religion is valid at all.
Only that it is necessary.
I don't think "society" has ever shifted from a theologically-based structure. Only WITHIN the theological structure.

therefor will not be available for use as justification for war.
--- There are plenty of rational explanations (yellowcake) than can be available for use as justification for war. Loss of Theology would not be an end to war; not even an end to unjust war.

It is patently obvious that abortion and gay marriage are only contested on theological grounds.
--If abortion is only contested on based of "value of life" in and of itself, and if that is only Theological in origin, then what's the problem with war. If loss of Theology brings a loss of unquestioned value of life, then there's no need to contend against war, is there?

>> ^cindercone:
good point.
--If abortion is only contested on based of "value of life" in and of itself, and if that is only Theological in origin, then what's the problem with war. If loss of Theology brings a loss of unquestioned value of life, then there's no need to contend against war, is there?


That is you confusing "Life" with "fertilized egg". On secular grounds, abortion is not entirely uncontroversial, but its not black and white either. It has to do with the prevention of suffering and death, not with some silly black and white rule that anything fertilized is "human" from day one. Life is something that grows and develops, its not something that simply appears once an egg has been fertilized. The point is that when Mother Theresa describe abortion as "the biggest threat to world peace" the truth is that she was simply talking out of her ass. The obsession with fertilized eggs are part of the theistic delusional thinking that also thinks "god" cares whether men have sex with other men.

These things are hysterical distractions from real, imminent problems in our society, and the only reason we discuss them, is because one side is delusional about these issues. They've lost track of reality, and fail to make rational judgments in these matters, and spends and waste an enormous amount of time fighting for "family values" and "protecting the unborn" The first of which have no meaning at all and the last of which they are grossly oversimplifying.

Can we get an option to automatically upvote every comment BRM makes? Maybe Campioni can make a greasemonkey script to do it.

some family values are instinctive. i.e. "no incest"
getting rid of religion won't get rid of family unit priorities (values). To say family values have no reason at all just because it is a term that has been hijacked by the religious right flies in the face of social anthropology.

As for ABORTION:
There definitely ARE non-religious arguments against abortion. I agree that true, worth life is developed over time.
I personally advocate aborting "fertilized eggs" up to 25 years of age. That's really how long it takes to determine whether or not an "egg" is going to turn out to be a productive member of "society" or not.
also... fertilized eggs are much harder to scramble, and make terrible omelets.

As for HOMOSEXUALITY:
in a rational world there would BE no homosexuals because homosexuality has not been proven to exist. There are simply people who really really believe that they are homosexual. And then there are lesbians, who have simply figured out that boys are gross, which IS rational.

These guys are getting as annoying as televangelists.

What an arrogant prick, he admits he doesn't know what HE believes, but he knows what YOU believe is Dangerous and as a "Big Thinker" it's his right, no, his Duty to get in your face about it.

Fuck off. Don't tell me what to believe or disbelieve.

^ This didn't deserve -6 or more votes so here it is again.

I've really got to stop trying to write koans when I'm drunk. My comment was just supposed to be a bit of rhetorical sophistry. Me = fail.


On the other hand, BRM, your response invites a closer look. So you reject the concept of the Abrahamic God based on a lack of evidence. Well, that's not really saying much. I do too. I find it disturbing, though, that most atheists extend that rejection to the notion of any kind of divine existence, based on little more than "guilt by association". Since the Judeo-Christian god doesn't exist, then there can't be any other kind of divine presence. You demand evidence for such? Contemplate your own consciousness. From whence does it arise? Can you see it? Can you touch it? What evidence do you have that it exists all? You certainly can't offer me any evidence that it exists. But I believe it does anyway.

As you mentioned, the amount of evidence required to sustain a belief is partially dependent upon the nature of the belief. So, for instance, how much evidence do you require to believe that a painting is beautiful? Do you trust your own eyes when everyone else is telling you different?

Not everything can be subjected to scientific analysis. Evidence for or against such things has to be examined differently. Could you prove to me that you love your mother? You might offer numerous anecdotal examples of things you did for her, but I could easily interpret your actions as little more than a result of societal control.

Part of what I'm getting at here is that there are not just some things in the world that we don't understand, but that there are some that we cannot understand. The kind of divine existence I'm talking about above is one of those things. We can see examples of it everywhere we look, but those examples are hardly evidence for someone else.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Absence of proof should be a stimuli for critical thinking rather than one-liners.

In addition, I would urge all who remained convinced that there is reason for "faith" to self-evaluate their influences throughout life. I am confident you will find you've been slowly but surely led down this path of deceit since birth, and to question it is to put yourself in a truly uncomfortable place since if you are a critical thinker you may realize there is no reason to believe what you've been told all your life is true. I think the more pertinent debate here isn't proof vs. lack thereof, but more so the psych of why people feel the need to "believe" and what the ramifications of giving into those emotions are.

Unfortunately it seems to me that organized religion globally causes far more destruction (not just in violent terms, but that of progress) than it prevents or addresses.

>> ^cindercone:
I propose that since our current society is Theologically based...


Your whole argument rests upon this assumption, and I reject it outright as patently silly.

Humans created religion and deities to try to explain their world, and their place in it. This happened over millenia in the absence of science and our modern tools of science. Humans have always investigated and tried to understand their surroundings and the way things work. Our intellectual evolution through an Agricultural Revolution, the Bronze Age, the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, etc., shows this and has brought concurrent and deeper understanding of our physical world. As a species, we understand things we once didn't, and constantly replace bad knowledge and inferences with new understanding based upon investigation and experimentation, something we've been doing since we first banged two rocks together to make fire. If ANYTHING, society, and everything we have and know, is based on science and scientific method.

That human morality is based on theism, which is what your assumption and subsequent arguments infer, is laughable and offensive to the millions (billions?) of thoughtful, good, and moral people who pray to no one, and yet seem to get along with others and function just dandy within society. Recent studies even suggest that cooperation, kindness, altruism, and empathy are most likely evolutionary traits, at some point necessary or advantageous to survival. Imagine that... humans may have only reached our current stage as a species simply because we learned to be nice to each other.

>> ^jonny:
So you reject the concept of the Abrahamic God based on a lack of evidence. Well, that's not really saying much. I do too. I find it disturbing, though, that most atheists extend that rejection to the notion of any kind of divine existence, based on little more than "guilt by association".


You reject the Abrahamic God for lack of evidence, but don't understand why atheists reject any kind of "divine existence"? Seriously? Are you really in the "there must be SOMETHING out there" camp?

You can't prove you feel love for your mother, but I don't need that proof to know she exists. I can see her. You speak of beauty of a painting as if a subjective opinion of something is in itself a thing. You may think the painting is beautiful, and others may think otherwise, but you can ALL see it exists. You can see it. You can touch it. It lights on fire, and has mass. All EVIDENCE that the painting is real. The Tooth Fairy is beautiful. Is that evidence that she exists, or, that our brains have developed the ability to subjectively perceive beauty?

There is also a chance what you wrote just went right over my head.

>> ^cindercone:
As for HOMOSEXUALITY:
in a rational world there would BE no homosexuals because homosexuality has not been proven to exist. There are simply people who really really believe that they are homosexual. And then there are lesbians, who have simply figured out that boys are gross, which IS rational.


Ok, done feeding the troll.

Part of the problem is that people expect "atheist" to mean something to people. It's not a belief system, it's a lack of belief.

If you believe in God Does your lack of belief in Thor, Zeus, Apollo, or any of the other Greek Gods have any impact on your life or is it simply incidental and you go on with your life without another thought about it? It's not a belief system and for those who try to approach it as if it is that's probably why it doesn't make sense to them. They are looking for something that isn't there.

We're all atheists about 1000+ Gods, some of us just added one more to the list and it's about as meaningful in day to day life as your lack of belief in Thor is to you. Not much. If it wasn't for the far religious right and the outright lies about the most basic aspects of what science even says it's a debate I wouldn't care the slightest about. The militant or "evangelical" atheists kinda miss the point I think, they too often push their negative belief with the same fervor that the religious push their positive belief and it never occurs to them that they are both pushing belief in the end.

if current society and morality aren't overtly influenced by or based upon theism, then what is Harris' problem with theism in society?

"If anything, society and everything we have now is based on the scientific method". ethnocentric?
Should only America become atheist? Only Western civilization? Isn't theism more universal among human cultures than the scientific method?

At question here is Harris' feeling compelled to confront the ascendent ignorance of theism.

I know you asked that of someone else but I want to offer two things real quick, cindercone, then I'll leave you to them since I don't want to jump in the middle.

First of all this is why you should care if you're a Christian. This is the damage being done, this is the source of too many crisis of faith, this is your enemy. Not atheists. The roots of a crisis of faith.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L5bo50zwrI

And this is an argument that one atheist made when defending a theist he tends to hate but who had just been suspended from Youtube for hate speech against Islam. This comes closer to why I care.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnC7Nwqw5Dg

The problem in part is that we've got a movement based on lies, on distortions of both reality and of the truth, and that movement has been doing all too well and has more power than it should have ever got. Look around you. How much of that actually functions without a base of educated scientists to keep it working and to develop new technology? Where does the next generation of them come from when we intentionally distort and deny reality and what science says? Other nations have pitched themselves into a dark age of sort and we can too, even if we don't realize it.

Why Sam cares he'd have to explain but there's plenty of reason for all of us to care. It's not an us and them situation. It's a we situation. Everyone but the liars themselves. They are hurting all of us even if we sometimes don't realize it yet.

Back to your regularly scheduled program, sorry for the interruption

"If you believe in God Does your lack of belief in Thor, Zeus, Apollo, or any of the other..."
&
"We're all atheists about 1000+ Gods..."
Are you talking about atheism or aTheism? Why assume that a Theist doesn't believe in Thor or Greek gods?
Do atheists recognize a difference between belief and faith?

also...
"'atheist'...it's not a belief system, it's a lack of belief...they are both pushing belief in the end."
Atheism isn't a lack of belief. 28 comments later, these people do believe something.
Atheism is a lack of faith, rationalized by the lack of knowledge. And the resulting belief is so simple, it is assumed to require no system. But Sam Harris demonstrates that it DOES "compel" a system of resulting action.

"Do atheists recognize a difference between belief and faith?"

I think you missed the point I was going for. Do people who don't believe in Santa Clause all have any particular trait in common, other than the lack of belief in Santa? They can be good or bad, smart or dumb, aggressive or passive, and so on.

Atheist just means they don't believe in God. Nothing more or less. They might be realistic about faith and belief or they might as I pointed out in the note you quoted from confuse their own lack of belief with proof in the same way the the religious sometimes do. For those I already said I think they kinda missed the point, I'm not sure exactly what else you're looking for.

They are just people who don't believe in something, where that something isn't relevant they'll vary the same way the rest of us do. The only common thread is lack of belief in God. "Atheists" don't do, believe, or act a given way any more than those who don't believe in Thor can all be said to be the same in any other way.

>> ^cindercone:
if current society and morality aren't overtly influenced by or based upon theism, then what is Harris' problem with theism in society?


Your ignorance of his positions or reasons lends no weight to your initial assumption. What is his problem? You haven't heard a word he has said. Why are you even trying to argue his points if you don't even understand them (or him). The information is out there. Good luck.


"If anything, society and everything we have now is based on the scientific method". ethnocentric?
Should only America become atheist? Only Western civilization? Isn't theism more universal among human cultures than the scientific method?


Ethnocentric? Where did I even IMPLY that? And no, it isn't. I wasn't speaking of scientific method as an established, structured, and incorporated societal system, but as a way to describe the way humans are naturally, the main tool we've used to reach our present reality, and that it is largely why we've evolved to the point we have. Sure, there are political systems in the world that are theist, but your original assumption requires theism to be some innate part of our psyches that will be replaced by chaos and immorality should we ever invent a "cure" for it. Ludicrous, not to mention pessimistic and ignorant.

If a devout theist who is suddenly shown the light (so to speak) of science goes on a killing spree, or engages in other immoral or reprehensible behavior, then I submit that the problem isn't his lack of belief, rather, it is a religion that taught him his life and the life of others was meaningless without god in it.


At question here is Harris' feeling compelled to confront the ascendent ignorance of theism.


Again, your "question" about Harris's positions or reasons for them rely on your silly assumption (imho) that society is "theologically based". I think the real question here is why you feel compelled to listen to the voices in your Wheaties. I'm taking MaxWilder's advice. HAND.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Can we get an option to automatically upvote every comment BRM makes? Maybe Campioni can make a greasemonkey script to do it.


Haha, thanks man. More of my ramblings when i get home from work.

There are no black swans unless the evidence says otherwise. Just because we might imagine them, doesn't mean they are there. Just because someone says they've seen one, doesn't mean they are there. If millions say they've seen one, then there might be something to the anecdotal evidence, so further study is required. If there are millions of them, then it should be easily verifiable.

If all tests of validity fail the only logical conclusion is that the assumption is false.

It's not that I believe that God does not exists, it's that I don't believe he exists.

>> ^jonny:
As you mentioned, the amount of evidence required to sustain a belief is partially dependent upon the nature of the belief. So, for instance, how much evidence do you require to believe that a painting is beautiful? Do you trust your own eyes when everyone else is telling you different?



That wouldn't require evidence at all. It's subjective opinion, or reactions inside my brain to what I'm seeing. I also accept the view that perception of beauty is indeed a real, material reaction, entirely non-supernatural in origin. Studies show this all the time, scientist can measure brain activity when showing different faces, pictures etc, and different parts of our brain "lights up", in the same way as when we taste things etc. Of course we dont know exactly how the brain does all this, but thats why we keep working on it, and its very exciting. But I do not see how all this relates to a divine presence. Infact, it shows the opposite.

It shows that when you fall in love , there is no fat little flying baby shooting you with love-arrows, even if it feels that way. Thats because your brain is messing with you. The same can be said for the people who loves Jesus more than themselves or their own kids, its not because Jesus is God, but because they believe he is God. Often this belief can reinforce the belief itself, as I said previously, and as is evident in cindercone's posts, this is a fallacy that they completely miss.

If you believe love to be some kind of spiritual "force", independent of our brains and all material existence, I suppose the same thing applies, when you feel love, it confirms for you the existence of these supernatural phenomena, including the ever-elusive "higher power".

If you pray, you're not an atheist. Nor are you much of a critical thinker in my book.

>> ^Fletch:
You reject the Abrahamic God for lack of evidence, but don't understand why atheists reject any kind of "divine existence"?

No, I understand it. I just think it's misguided. My point was simply that there is evidence of a sort for some kind of divine presence. But that evidence does not lend itself very well to scientific analysis.

Seriously? Are you really in the "there must be SOMETHING out there" camp?

No, I just love a good philosophical debate, especially about things like epistemology. I don't necessarily believe in any kind of divine presence, I just don't reject the possibility on the same grounds that I do the Abrahamic god.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^jonny:
As you mentioned, the amount of evidence required to sustain a belief is partially dependent upon the nature of the belief. So, for instance, how much evidence do you require to believe that a painting is beautiful? Do you trust your own eyes when everyone else is telling you different?
That wouldn't require evidence at all. It's subjective opinion, or reactions inside my brain to what I'm seeing.

Beauty isn't entirely subjective. There are certain forms, combinations of sound, etc., that do have universal appeal. Golden ratio stuff for example.

I also accept the view that perception of beauty is indeed a real, material reaction, entirely non-supernatural in origin. Studies show this all the time, scientist can measure brain activity when showing different faces, pictures etc, and different parts of our brain "lights up", in the same way as when we taste things etc.

What fMRI actually measures is known as the BOLD response - Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent. It is thought to correlate well with neural activity, but there is some debate about that. (This may have been settled - it's been some years since I worked with fMRI.) More importantly, it's still only correlating some neural activity with a particular mental state. AFAIK, no one has ever conducted a study demonstrating a causal relationship between neural activity and particular mental states. The closest we've gotten to that is nerve stimulation during brain surgery. But that is very anecdotal.


Of course we dont know exactly how the brain does all this, but thats why we keep working on it, and its very exciting. But I do not see how all this relates to a divine presence. Infact, it shows the opposite.

The connection is the kind of evidence required to believe something and how we go about analyzing that evidence. I think I've pretty clearly shown that in many cases anecdotal or non-verifiable evidence is plenty good enough.


If you believe love to be some kind of spiritual "force", independent of our brains and all material existence, I suppose the same thing applies, when you feel love, it confirms for you the existence of these supernatural phenomena, including the ever-elusive "higher power".

This is really getting to the heart of it. I'm not suggesting that the possibility of a divine presence is in any way supernatural. It seems possible to me that divinity may be as much a part of the natural world as anything else. For me, divinity does not have to be a creator or controller of the universe, but is something that suffuses every part of it. That we don't understand by what mechanism that happens is incidental. It may be that we are incapable of doing so.

I expect you will respond by saying any such thing could not be divine, because that's how you define it. "Just what is it that you're talking about?" you might ask. It's basically impossible to put into words. It's like trying to describe the taste of steak using the menu. Or describing what the color red looks like. I can describe the wavelength of light and how that affects the neurons involved, but I won't have done anything to convey the mental state of perceiving red.

I suppose if I'm going to be leaving all these comments here, I should leave one that's actually about the video.


Once again, Harris is conflating faith with religion. He is also naively asserting that religion is the cause of all these problems he mentions. It's only the cultural lever, and without out it, demagogues would just find another reason to hate gays, impede science, start wars, etc. And btw, the conflict in the middle east is not explicitly religious, it is explicitly political and economic. Again, religion is just the lever to get people worked up about it.

He strikes me as fairly smart, but I think his intellect would better be used to talk about some of the underlying issues. Why are humans so easily led into tribal behavior? Why is it so easy for a group of people to dehumanize another group? How can we go about understanding these things and possibly change them?

MaxWilder and Fletch: why the anger? you're all wound up and can't even engage in a simple conversation with someone not as well-versed in the topic as yourselves. Rather than call me names, why not just make the argument and educate me. Does it make you feel good to make subjective, derogatory comments about others, when those comments have no content or basis? I wouldn't be asking questions if I didn't want to learn. You're obviously answering them to make yourself feel smart. I don't think you're smart. I believe I could trick you into painting my fence! The fact that you can't just ignore my comments without ANNOUNCING that you're going to ignore my comments indicates that you would fall easy prey to my Jedi mind trick.

How come BicycleRepairMan and drattus are able to craft rational arguments without calling names or storming out of the room?

Thanks BRM and drattus. The links were very interesting.

questions:
Are there assumptions out there that if all eyes were opened, and an atheist society emerged, it would be intrinsically better? Or are we just getting rid of the flawed, and hoping the alternative is better? Do people think it will be more peaceful? Does a peaceful have anything to do with a better world, if there is not theist morality?

>> ^jonny:
Once again, Harris is conflating faith with religion. He is also naively asserting that religion is the cause of all these problems he mentions. It's only the cultural lever, and without out it, demagogues would just find another reason to hate gays, impede science, start wars, etc. And btw, the conflict in the middle east is not explicitly religious, it is explicitly political and economic. Again, religion is just the lever to get people worked up about it.


Well, this is exactly right! But don't you think that it would be a lot harder for those demagogues to rally people to their particular point of view without theism?

Sure there have been and will be charismatic people who lead people to do horrific things, but it seems to me that it is a much harder scenario for someone to say, "Go kill these people for me because they don't agree with what I'm saying," than it is to say, "Go kill these people for God because they don't agree with His word." It's the exact same thing, said by pretty much the exact same demagogues, but it holds a lot more impact for people when you rally people based on some superstitious faith, and the promise of eternal rewards, or eternal punishment for disobeying. Sure you can pay people like mercenaries, and kill them for disobeying, but that doesn't get into their hearts they way superstition does.

So doesn't it make some amount of sense to remove superstition, and replace it with reason, so that these demagogues have a harder time to bend people to their will? To keep charlatans like Ted Haggard from taking people's money? To get people to understand that what they are fighting for is not for the divine will of some imaginary being, but instead for the power and lucre of the already powerful and rich?

You aren't interested in learning anything, so spare me. Just the same arguments we've all seen a thousand times here before, yet you feign indignance when a couple of us tire of the game, as if you think you are the first. And then you decry your ill treatment at our hands as you continue to aver the same point over and over, as if, disguised as another, you could press it home. Your misquoting of me and then making some left-field deduction from that statement was simply meant to be provocative. There are people here who will debate you and argue with you until their fingers are numb. I won't. I see you.

I'm not angry and I didn't call you any names, but you don't seem the type to let facts get in the way of your beliefs, so... whatever. I have nothing more to say to you. Try to get over it.

The preponderence of the evidence suggests that consciousness is the action of the brain. You only need to study the psychological effects of various physical circumstances, drugs, and brain damages to see so. A corrolary of this is that when the brain decomposes, the last remnant and hope of regaining consciousness is destroyed, unless the data constituting the hardware and software of the brain has been preserved by some other means. Since no such means are yet known, there is probably no afterlife.

Perhaps one of the reasons Islam forbids the use of alcohol is that the knowledge of any mind-altering substance undermines dualism, and dualism is a scaffold for belief in an afterlife.

I like the way jonny put it above. Rather than attack religion I've always thought we'd be better off pushing for more logic and critical thinking skills in school. For the parts we can't explain one guess is as good as another and if their guess offers them comfort in some way that isn't damaging or that even leads to charity then I don't see the harm, even if I don't share the belief. The threat comes from a different level and personally I don't think it's faith to those who are leading the movement. How could they possibly have any real faith and still be so comfortable with constant violations of their own 9th Commandment? As far as I can tell the extreme stuff is a movement lead by con artists and taking advantage of the good will and trust of the poorly educated, done for financial profit and power.

cindercone, please don't do that. Wave me at others as if they are supposed to be like me. If I'd been in the debate longer and had said all I wanted to say I might have said so and left too, it's not a big deal and I'd rather not be used like that. Ok?

My assumption isn't that we'd be better off with an "atheist" society, though we would be better off with one that accepts reality when it kicks them in the teeth. Past that from what I've read there is some indication of a biological inclination toward faith. If that's the case we won't have any more luck teaching them not to believe than they've had telling others not to be gay. That's just who they are. What we can do is to teach them the difference between faith and proof, that the way they want to run their life is their choice but they can't expect their moral or other sensitivities to run our lives too. If we can just settle it down to a private and non-damaging form of belief instead of the conflicts we see today my interest ends there.

>> ^Sketch:
>> ^jonny:
Once again, Harris is conflating faith with religion. He is also naively asserting that religion is the cause of all these problems he mentions. It's only the cultural lever, and without out it, demagogues would just find another reason to hate gays, impede science, start wars, etc. And btw, the conflict in the middle east is not explicitly religious, it is explicitly political and economic. Again, religion is just the lever to get people worked up about it.

Well, this is exactly right! But don't you think that it would be a lot harder for those demagogues to rally people to their particular point of view without theism?

No, I don't. Nationalism, racism, and political ideology can be at least as powerful. Look at some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century. The brutality of the Khmer Rouge, the Rwandan genocide, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and many others horrors were all carried out without any religious inspiration. If anything, religious fanaticism pales in comparison to its secular cousins.

While it is true that there have been plenty of non-religious reasons for war, it is currently on the top of the list. It is not the only reason on the list, and there probably was never a war fought for only one reason. Still, it's at the top, both for wars abroad and for a pernicious movement here in the US to stunt our intellectual growth.

You ask why I'm angry? Would you be angry if people were fighting wars in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Would you be angry if people were holding back real, life-saving medical research in the name of invisible pink unicorns? Would you be angry if people were demanding equal time in your pulpits to teach the principles of Discordianism?

You're damn right I'm angry.

And morons telling me that I'm only an atheist because of ignorance reeeeeeally burn me up. You don't understand the fundamental differences between reality and fairy tales, and you have the balls to tell me that I'm ignorant. You don't grasp concepts like circular reasoning and straw man fallacies, and you have the balls to tell me I'm ignorant. You shut your eyes so tight that you see nothing but the flares of light generated by the pressure of your blood setting off your rods and cones, and you call me blind because I tell you that those lights are not out here in the real world. You believe lies and accept anecdotes as evidence, you twist facts to suit your argument instead of letting facts shape your opinions, and you have the balls to tell me I'm ignorant.

I really hope you grow up. Really. You will be a better person, and the world will be a better place.

>> ^MaxWilder:
While it is true that there have been plenty of non-religious reasons for war, it is currently on the top of the list.

Really? Name one currently active armed conflict which is primarily motivated by religion. I can name 5 others which are not. The two active wars in which the U.S. is currently involved have virtually nothing to do with religion. They are about nationalism, tribalism, and political and economic power. Religion is used as a lever for some factions fighting in those conflicts, but it is hardly the root cause. Georgia? Zimbabwe? Myanmar? Sri Lanka? Mexico? How many examples do you need before you realize that religion is not the cause, just an occasionally useful tool?

No, no, no. Religion is never the "cause". It is the gasoline that gets poured on sparks. It is the brightest beacon in an "us vs. them" mentality. "They" are heathens. "They" are infidels. "They" are goyim.

In the places around the world where there is war, how many of them are fought between peoples who share an identical religion? Sunnis hate the Shiites, Muslims hate the Jews, Protestants hate the Catholics. Nevermind that they all share the same ideological roots.

How many conflicts would simply stagnate and die if the religion element was removed? The entire middle east would suddenly have no reason to fight. No holy land to contest. You talk about tribes and nations, but aren't they primarily defined by their religions as well?

And you say it's "occasionally" useful? It's what drives the ignorant to support the greedy!

>> ^MaxWilder:
No, no, no. Religion is never the "cause". It is the gasoline that gets poured on sparks. It is the brightest beacon in an "us vs. them" mentality. "They" are heathens. "They" are infidels. "They" are goyim.

Do you argue that other fuels like nationalism are less volatile? If not, why are you attacking the gas instead of the spark? If you think humans are incapable of escaping from their violent nature, then what are you arguing about? We will always fight, and the reasons are irrelevant.


In the places around the world where there is war, how many of them are fought between peoples who share an identical religion? Sunnis hate the Shiites, Muslims hate the Jews, Protestants hate the Catholics. Nevermind that they all share the same ideological roots.

So what. People from different backgrounds fight? Wow, that's profound. The point isn't that religious backgrounds cause harm, but that humans find any difference between their tribe and another as worthy of fighting over.


How many conflicts would simply stagnate and die if the religion element was removed?

None.

The entire middle east would suddenly have no reason to fight. No holy land to contest. You talk about tribes and nations, but aren't they primarily defined by their religions as well?

No, they are not. They are defined by tribal and ethnic associations. Do you think a fanatical orthodox jew shares more with others that subscribe to his religion, or those who share his heritage, including those who do not visit temple every saturday? The "holy land" isn't disputed because of some temple, it's disputed because of its economic, political, and military importance.

As a christian, I think he brought up some very good points. Christianity has many different denominations and associations within those denominations that take their own stance on things like gay marriage. I feel like some of those denominations/associations are taking things way beyond what's needed and isn't focusing on the things that have a heavier need/importance.

And the whole thing about grieving, I think it's a shame that people are put into this mode where they shouldn't be sad because their grandmother is in heaven. In the Bible, people grieve all the time. If you look at the book of Psalms, a lot of the chapters are written based upon anger and doubt.

Religion is a major factor of that tribalism and nationalism that you are talking about! That's the point. Of course we'll still fight over territory, resources, military dominance, etc. etc. But my point is that it's a shitload harder to rally your people for the promise that the already rich and powerful will get to become richer and more powerful. Most people wouldn't give a damn. However, if you tell people that your enemies think they are the infidel and want to destroy your way of life, well, now you have something for the masses to fight over.

Even if it's only one reason for going to war out of a billion, it seems to me like removing even just that one is a step in the right direction.

And throwing it back to the actual point of the video clip, because this has gotten way off track, the same thing applies to other ideologies such as homosexuality, science, evolution, etc. If you remove the religious element, then those demagogues would have a harder time convincing other people that they should think the way they do, and the suppression and oppression of actual people and ideas would be just that much more difficult to achieve.

I used to think the same way to a point, Sketch, but I ran into one slight problem with the idea. There isn't a way in the world that I see to make it anything other than a fantasy. If it won't work then it's not a good idea and it's probably a waste of time and source of inevitable conflicts to pursue.

Best I can tell every culture, no matter how widely separated by geography or time, has had their own creation stories, myths of a superior being or beings, and so on. It doesn't seem to be anything we need to teach each other but a natural human response to the unknown, a way to explain the unexplainable. And it doesn't apply just to religion, Hell, look at those poor people on the other side who think they can use science to disprove God. You can't prove a negative. Not with God, you can't prove there were never unicorns, you can't prove we don't have that legendary flying teapot in orbit up there, not that the FSM didn't do it all. We can say we have no reason to believe it ourselves but we can't prove it. Lots of self titled "atheists" think they can though and is there really any difference in their misplaced faith and the other? Sure, one more damaging if used badly, but both latched onto faith even if only one of them realized it.

Get rid of religion before we're ready for it and what do we have? A culture that still needs to explain the unexplainable and that will latch into anything else that provides it. Politics, Scientology or some new morph of the type, nationalism, etc. Even a misplaced understanding of what science means for some. Wouldn't there be a great risk of trading one cult for another?

Maybe one day we'll evolve past that need but as far as I can tell the need for faith is a part of the species, stronger in some than in others and not there at all for me in this sense at least but it's hard to deny that it seems to be there for some. We aren't going to get rid of it, we just need to redirect it where it's damaging.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^cindercone:
The point I was making is this: I propose that since our current society is Theologically based, the conversion to rational reasoning would be disastrous. Society would fail. If I proposed this, you might argue my proposal. You would argue that the new ascendant rationale could not be determined in advance, or you would argue that rational reasoning would ascend. So either an unknown reasoning would emerge, or we would be dependent upon a historically flawed human assumption of rational reasoning for anything short of total anarchy. THAT is the proof.

First of all, "society" has frequently changed the structure on which it is based throughout history, and though it has gone through some tough times as a result, it doesn't simply "fail". Furthermore, the fear of the outcome of such a change has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of religion in the first place.
Because of the nature of theological indoctrination, even in ideal circumstances it would take generations to remove religion from society. During that time, people will develop other moral codes, whether it is "enlightened self-interest" or something else. Those ethics will be hotly debated, but at least they won't be founded on irrational fairy tales, and therefor will not be available for use as justification for war.
>> ^cindercone:
Obviously, HE doesn’t spend the emotional energy arguing nuclear proliferation and abortion. For him to imply that gay marriage and abortion are issues that are only emotionally contested because of the presence of theology is ridiculous.
How can you say that? It is patently obvious that abortion and gay marriage are only contested on theological grounds. Even if you could find examples of non-religious people who are anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage (which I doubt), those would be so few in number as to be laughable.
The point is that these issues are stupid fights that are distracting people from the real threats to society. In order to move attention from a distraction to a real issue, you have to attack the distraction.


The fallacy here is that the smallness of the number of anti-abortion or anti-gay Atheists would be ridiculous while the smallness of the number of Atheists themselves wouldn't.
What is the percentage of Atheists that hold conservative such as anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion? I don't know. You don't either. In this context any counter proof for your feeling that there ain't no such people can't be simply dismissed on the grounds of being numerically insignificant.

All that said I'm an anti gay marriage Atheist. And in fact, the Soviet Union criminalized homosexuality from the 1930's up to it's dissolution. The law was only repealed in 1993. None of the 5 current communist states accept gay marriage either. Since communism is a generally Atheist ideology, there you have your share of anti gay marriage Atheists, historically and currently.

Just please let's not get on logical implication nonsense here. I know Atheism doesn't imply Communism. I'm not a Communist myself. But it's the other way around: Communism largely implies Atheism. Plus Communism provides you with the one instance of an Atheist society, so it's quite relevant to determine what kind of morals can exist in the absence of religious guidance.

*death *length=5:05

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 5:05 - length declared by geo321.

Adding video to channels (Death) - requested by geo321.