Sam Harris is sharp as ever. Cenk loses damn near every point. I can genuinely not see how anyone can think Cenk "won" this debate.

@enoch I must say that I'm disappointed if that's what you're walking away with from this clip. Cenk seems to misunderstand most of what Harris is trying to say, and when he explains further Cenk brushes it off and changes the subject in, to use the wording from the video, a scatter shot way. Grabbing parallels or examples from seemingly random and unrelated ways. It feels like Harris is fighting an uphill battle which is tiring him, so there's a lot of repetitions to try and hammer the points home. Sadly they seem to fall on deaf ears.

I don't see any arrogance in the video, granted I'm missing the last 30 minutes or so.

this was a great discussion.
i was never a huge fan of sam harris as being a solid representative of an atheist viewpoint until a fellow sifter pointed some great essays by harris (waves to qwiz).my narrow opinion was mainly due to only watching short clips of harris,which is pretty unfair to harris and not indicative of his approach.

so i have gained a modicum of respect for harris in his ability to be reasoned in certain instances,though i may still disagree with many of his conclusions,for a multitude of reasons.

that being said i had two problems with this interview:
1.the first 5 minutes was harris whining and crying.that was total turn off.
2.at approx the 2hr mark he makes the argument that islam needs to experience a reformation,great argument and one i agree with,but in the VERY next sentence out of his mouth he criticizes reza aslan as not suggesting that islam is desperately in need of a reformation.

this is an out and out,bold face lie;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_god_but_God:_The_Origins,_Evolution,_and_Future_of_Islam

the entire book is an argument for reformation of islam!!

props to cenk for calling harris out on his draconian imaginary policies (if he were in charge).the arrogance of harris needs to be challenged at ever step and cenk did a great job.harris spent the majority of this interview back-pedaling.

there are some amazing atheist thinkers out there and throughout history,harris,at best,is mediocre.

i have read hitchens and harris is no hitchens.
*promote

Hmm, so this continues after JL: War. I'm mixed on it though. War was interesting. But I found some characters' personality to be too unfamiliar now. Both GL and Superman have some kind of arrogant attitude that felt unfitting. Seeing that this will be a continuation (since it featured the same cast), I'm not too sure if this'll be any good. I guess I just don't like this reboot.

To a certain extent, but unfortunately a charismatic (or dictatorial) leadership, or even parents passing on their belief systems to their children, can create or enforce ideals that can shape society. Many people still adhere to religion because "that's the way it's always been", not because the religion actually fits their personal ethics...

In general, I do actually agree with you in regards to the concept that secularity tends to lead to enlightenment, but there are plenty of secular countries that are authoritarian/despotic (North Korea being a shining example), violent and considerably backwards compared to countries which have a high proportion of religious people and freedom. Unfortunately, enlightenment leads to arrogance as well.

The continual push by the media/politicians etc to classify Muslims as a homogenous whole smacks more of an attempt to play on xenophobia and racism than any factual evidence.

Particularly when the enlightened country making the most noise about it has "In God We Trust" printed on their currency. Compound that with provoking and polarising moderate Muslims by marginalising and insulting them? Enlightenment does not preclude gross stupidity.

A simple look at the US (secular mind you) shows stark differences between the north and the south, red states and blue states etc. You're proposing that 1.5 bn people (that would be ~5 times more people than the entire population of the US) spread across most countries in the world are somehow tightly aligned purely because they share a religion that is as varied as any other in the world?

And the mean truth? The arrogance and presumption of "enlightened neighbours" are part of the reasons why certain countries are as they are...

Iran is a classic example. The US (all enlightened and shit) engineers the coup that deposes a democratically elected Prime Minister hailed as a leading champion of secular democracy. And when the Shah was overthrown, it was by fundamentalists lead by Ayatollah Khomeini, ushering in an era of strict theocracy and an abiding hatred of the US.

Your last paragraph highlights the problem perfectly. We have two media reporters, deliberately or ignorantly, disseminating false information which would probably lead to discrimination against Muslims. How ethical is it to incite an entire country to hate over the actions of a tiny percentage of the whole? How ethical is it to ignore humanitarian disasters in countries which have no strategic or natural resource value (and places where no white people have been beheaded)?

And when presented with empirical truth, how ethical is it to refuse to accept it?

Hey --

i appreciate the dialogue and criticisms -- but I hope I didn't come off as dismissive or arrogant. We can agree to disagree, but I think we can do it respectfully. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

WH

If you want to focus on science, then whatever God you prefer - intelligent designer, whatever you want to call it - is completely out of the discussion. If anyone wants a scientific assessment of God, then it goes like this - "I cannot measure it with any instrument, i cannot infer its presence by its effect on something else. There is no way i can measure or quantify any aspect of God or the effect God might have on the physical universe, so why are you asking me about it?"

What is your point? I don't think Dawkins has ever said that he can prove "God" doesn't exist, and if he did he's wrong because you can't prove anything about something that doesn't exist; if it can't be measured or inferred or otherwise observed, it doesn't exist to science, because science is simply our way of understanding what our senses tell us. A non-measurable entity does not form part of that understanding if it has no measurable effect on anything we can sense. It's like asking how loud a smell is - it doesn't have that dimension to it, it's not a measurable quantity.

I'd also like to add that "i refuse to respond to responses to this" is about as arrogant a statement as you can make. "This is what i think, and regardless of any new information i can access about the situation, i will not have my mind changed and i will not even listen to the thing that may change my mind." That statement is pretty much anti-knowledge and anti-understanding and clearly demonstrates the futility of discussing science with someone who believes in so called "intelligent design."

As for talking about Dawkins being able to "create" the "tools for evolution of a giraffe".....? What on earth are you talking about? You just told the man to stick to science - but we have a working scientific explanation for evolution with gene mutation, time and selective breeding. You're the one injecting anthropomorphism into the mix (and worse, implying that Dawkins needs to disprove that nonsense explanation in order to stand so firmly behind the SCIENCE of evolution), he IS sticking to the science. When he gets asked about "God", he dismisses it - because it is out of the question when it comes to science, and he sticks to science like you ask!

@Trancecoach

interesting how i use a line i see in your commentary quite often :
"let me know how that works out for ya?"

i was being a cheeky shit,ill grant ya that but to think i was picking a fight?
that dips into delusional land.

ya know trance,
when people point out that you may be coming across as an arrogant ass,most people respond with an apology,but not you!

and @ChaosEngine pointed out the flaw in your logic,just as i have and so many others.
humans are irrational and economics is a human based system.

/drops mic

pick a fight?....seriously?
some people...

@Trancecoach
sorry mate but you have entirely missed the point.

which i will take responsibility for,in my usual verbose fashion i sometimes lose the plot.

so let me try again:

you speak in the language and certitude of someone who has found jesus.
i didnt ignore your argument points because i was NOT ADDRESSING them.
i was,however,addressing your:condescension.arrogance and constant passive/aggressiveness.

you quoted MY comment,so i responded.dont puss out on me now that i called you out on it big guy.

god you are one big ball of passive aggressive.
oblivious to your own proclivities.
and THAT my friend is what saddens me the most.

but feel free to preach to the masses and chastise them when they disagree with your conclusions,sneering down at them from your fortress of arrogance.

yeah..thats the tactic to get them to listen to your words.

good plan.

let me know how that works out for ya.

@Trancecoach
you could have commented on the video without quoting me.
but you didnt do that,did you?
care to explain why?

/scratch that..i dont really care,so dont bother.
you have already made it abundantly clear how see/feel/perceive me.

i am familiar with the mises institute and most likely BEFORE it became your religion.
i have also read the PDF you posted (multiple times on multiple threads) and what i really got out of it was where the majority of your arguments arise.

i even recall an incident where you were caught plagiarizing one of the mises institutes contributors.

the reason i mention these things is that i have been witness to you consistently telling people to think for themselves and to make their own arguments,when in fact,it is YOU who have copied others peoples arguments and called them your own,using the same source material for almost every argument you posit.

do you know who else does that? fundamentalist christians.

they too speak with an air a fake authority and arrogance given to them by the written word.they too deride and ridicule anyone who would dare disagree with them.

you ridicule me for liking this video?
and then have the arrogance to suggest i read YOUR bible..*cough*..i mean mises.

this assumes two things:
1.i am not familiar with mises.
2.i am willing to devote that kind of time in regards to economics (which i have already explained to you,i am not).

neither of which have been evidenced by my commentary here.

i would go as far to say that many people are not willing to spend that kind of time on economics and short videos like this,while maybe not as in-depth as you would like,do offer us all a small inclination in regards to simple economics.

now maybe that is not a smart decision.maybe we should all take the time to understand something that affects us all,and maybe your suggestions have merit and are worth pursuing.

but the arrogance.........
and the belittling...
the ridiculing...
hard to listen to possible sage words when they are spoken in the language of the fanatic.

i do not say these words to harm,nor lightly.
i am quite confident you are unaware you come across this way.
but somebody has to say it.
so i said it.

realizing how little you think of me and my opinion,you may dismiss this.
but i beseech you not to ignore my words.
i am not the only one who feels this way.

please consider your tone when engaging in something that you are obviously very passionate about.

I think the my favorite part is how is ignorance is really only matched by his arrogance... 'we in academia'.

If i don't laugh... i'm going to cry.

It's not just FIFA itself who are exempt from taxes. It's also everyone associated with them, including construction, merchandising, and sponsoring, from the very second the World Cup was "awarded" to Brazil until they finally fuck off again.

No worries though. FIFA employed a very renowned expert as their chief ethics investigator, none other than Michael Garcia, who did such a crackerjack job when Lehman went belly-up.

And while we're at it, Jerome Valcke, the arrogant wanker at 5:15, is quite a piece of work himself. During his tenure as FIFA's marketing director, he ran a racket with VISA and Mastercard resulting in a penalty to the tune of $90m and was subsequently axed, only to be rehired as general fucking secretary.

You have just proved your totalitarian character (aside from your totalitarian title) and then tell me you wish you were wrong?
lol.. The audacity... Very funny. Please... You bathe in self-righteousness and arrogance. I know you love yourself more than anything, but there are people who dont fall for your bullshit, because they are smarter than you (think).

But please, continue to make a fool out of yourself, you dont seem to have an issue with it either, since you dont grasp what I said.

one benefit of a fully computer controlled traffic system is that when the computer knows exactly where all the cars are at, it becomes safer to go MUCH faster

only reason we have speed limits is because you simply can't trust a human to drive safely and react in time to someone else's stupid decision.

not only do we not have to worry about reckless drivers, we can get to places much faster...which is ironic because most reckless drivers are trying to get to their destination faster than everyone else. it's because of their arrogance that we have to slow down so we don't kill each other.

Very funny. Its always "scientists" who bring that up and who first brought that up. Do you even read those reports? Scientists and their studies (more like very flawed simulations) are always quoted. First they said (Mojib Latif and others) that there wont be any hard winters anymore due to AGW. After it became evident that those utterings were utter bullshit, they said that hard winters will be very often due to AGW (PIK and others) and after we got a normal winter again, they said that this is typical for AGW too (PIK and others again).
If it wasnt for them, this hype wouldnt be nearly where it is.

They just say what is convenient and what fits into their agenda. Its all about money and personal security. Nothing more nothing less, they just think its something different due to their indoctrination. AGW has become a huge self-sustaining (thanks to those corrupt "scientists") economic booster where insurances, scientists, politicians and many many companies (even oil companies - yes, check the global warming lobby) and their lobbies are benefiting from. Its simply not possible to talk about it objectively anymore. And if you try, people like you will come up and defend it like a religion, and prove this fact very quickly. Just look at "bio" fuels. Its a HUGE part of economy already, but it simply isnt eco-friendly at all. Instead people are starving because mono cultures are used instead of different plants for food, so much water is used for producing bio fuels that people have to suffer. The rain forest and others are cleared to be able to put more mono cultures up. Companies like Monsanto are becoming more and more powerful because of it and studies that bio fuels are bad for lots of engines are being censored or simply not funded since even car manufacturers profit from it when engines blow up sooner.

More extreme weather? Bullshit aswell. Thats simply not true, as quite a few (ignored by the "consensus") studies have shown. Its just the reports about even the tiniest things that have bloated up in the globalized and interconnected world of today and untold truths that are fooling you and of course the agendas that need to be kept upright with even the tiniest happenings that fit into it. Next time when you see a report, ask yourself if something like that would have been mentioned globally 20 or 30 years ago.

Take the flood in Pakistan for example. Oh, it was soooo bad and soooo AGW caused, oh the horror, we will all see the same thing and worse in our own countries if we continue to sin in the face of our go-- err scientists!
No, it wasnt. It was as normal as all the very common floods there before. It just wasnt mentioned that since the 70s Pakistans population has tripled and the vast majority of those people have settled down on the fertile lands around the (straightened!!!) rivers.

If that wasnt enough, people like you even completely ignore the fact, even if all their claims were true, that warm periods were ALWAYS much much better for this planet and its inhabitants than cold ones and colder ones than we have right now (we live in an ice age after all) were always bad, if not catastrophic.

And because of that fact I wont be that stupid and waste my time here with more replies, since you guys have made it very obvious already where you are coming from.

Just one little thing to think about for you guys (yeah I still have hope, though its prolly not very realistic), since the rest of my posts will get marginalized by your ignorance anyway:
Just because most scientists are pro-AGW doesnt prove crap. It was always only very few if not only a single scientist who tried to prove many other scientists wrong in their assumptions and most scientists were wrong and very arrogant, especially if they formed something like a society. But like before, there are thankfully still a few of them left who treat science as science and not as their religion or extension of their ego.

To be sure, it does not take "studies" and "experts" to "prove" that smog turns healthy breathable air into unhealthy unbreathable air.

But, again, the consensus among proponents of man-made global warming pretty much all agree that the cause is greenhouse gases. And the consensus is also that cattle accounts for the main source of greenhouse gases. I honestly don't see how anyone concerned with man-made global warming can ignore this and, therefore, not be vegetarian (i.e., be congruent in their behaviors and beliefs).

I recommend reading "Hot Talk, Cold Science", endorsed by respected physicist the late Frederick Seitz, William Harper professor of Physics at Princeton, Richard Lindzen, meteorologist at MIT, written by physicist Fred Singer.

If you want to know where Prof. Singer is coming from, read this (and skeptics are not "deniers"- that's just a slur).

But before you freak out, let me restate, it matters not; clean air is good either way; do things that contribute to clean air (like end the state -- > good luck with that!).

(Better to read and have these discussions with actual working climate scientists than to bother with Internet pundits either way.)

There is also "consensus" as to the three types of "deniers." If anyone calls me a "denier," I'd be curious as to which of the three types of "deniers" you think I belong to (as indicated in the Singer article linked above). And you can then give me your scientific explanations as to why my stance is not valid.

This is something worth keeping in mind (from Singer):

"I have concluded that we can accomplish very little with convinced warmistas and probably even less with true deniers. So we just make our measurements, perfect our theories, publish our work, and hope that in time the truth will out."

The warmistas matter as much as the deniers. And the bottomline remains: what are you going to do about it anyway? As has been shown over and over, your "votes" don't count for much (or anything at all). So, what are you going to do about this (other than fume and get your panties in a twist on videosift)? The same is true with the "deniers." And the skeptics (i.e., true scientists).

Science also doesn't work by consensus. No real scientist will say otherwise. You either prove/falsify some hypothesis or you don't. You don't determine the truth in science by "consensus." Scientific consensus, as has been said, is itself unscientific.

There is no "consensus" on the acceleration speed of falling objects. There is no "consensus" on whether the Earth is orbiting the sun. There is no "consensus" on water being made up of H2O. These you can measure and find out for yourself. (In fact, Galileo had less than 5% "consensus" on whether the Earth orbits the sun at the time of his experiments. Facts matter. "Consensus?" Not so much.)

But,

“If the science were as certain as climate activists pretend, then there would be precisely one climate model, and it would be in agreement with measured data. As it happens, climate modelers have constructed literally dozens of climate models. What they all have in common is a failure to represent reality, and a failure to agree with the other models. As the models have increasingly diverged from the data, the climate clique have nevertheless grown increasingly confident—from cocky in 2001 (66% certainty in IPCC’s Third Assessment Report) to downright arrogant in 2013 (95% certainty in the Fifth Assessment Report).”

Still, this does not in any way equate "denial" of man-made global warming or whatever other "climate change." That is simply an unfounded conflation made up by the propagandists which so many here take on as gospel.

And it still does not let anyone "off the hook" about actually doing something that matters if you care about it so much.

Let me know if anyone finds any "errors" in the science of the NGIPCC articles and studies that I posted above.