/lit/ - Literature

I really liked him in Zoolander.

>>14526814
A boring New Atheist of the many.

He's going to hell.

https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/334656775196393473?lang=en

>new atheists

"but that's not sam harris!"

they're the same kind of retard

Pretty good actor desu

>>14526814
He's like that friend who's not as cool but still works with the squad if you're inviting extra people

Consult the stove

>>14526814
I respect Neuroscientists, and the fact that he has a BA in philosophy is obviously far from enough to make him a philosophical authority but it sure as shit puts him ahead of 90% of people on this board.
If you can ignore the fedoralord atheism he's pretty alright, and he's coming from what seems to be an authentic place. And he is intelligent, unsophisticated in some of the areas he involves himself in but certainly intelligent.

>>14526900
>If you can ignore the fedoralord atheism he's pretty alright
That's like 80% of his schtick

>>14526814
I don't

>>14526828
>>14526842
>>14526859
>>14526892
Can someone tell me why /lit/ is so damn hostile to atheism.
Is it genuine or is it just contrarianism due to the existence of Reddit?

>>14526925
I'm an atheist and a redditor, People who are aggressive about atheism or who consider it important are usually kind of small minded, it rarely makes sense as a thing to be militant about. A lot of great thinkers are atheists, but you have to dig into their work to extract that fact because they don't consider it worth work talking about much. Atheism as something independently significant, or religion as something problematic in some way that's special and distinct from the rest of human dogma rather than just a useful example of it, is a recent fad for low tier thinkers

>>14526925
I'm the one who posted Dawkins and I'm not hostile to atheism. I'm just saying these fellas aren't really worth your time. Look at that tweet. Listen to some of Harris's retarded takes like his support of Ben Carson. Read the intro to Hitchens's God is not Great, which should not even be impressive to a 13 year old who went to an acceptable school.

Fuck's sake.

>>14526925
I just can't help but tip my fedora when I am surrounded by its commie veganism.

His podcast is nice to listen to while I commute.

While his takes are a little cringe, I hate his detractors even more because they engage with his ideas in very uncharitable ways because they don't like his politics.

>>14526953
>I'm an atheist and a redditor
Of course.
>People who are aggressive about atheism or who consider it important are usually kind of small minded
Harris is very vocal about his atheism. You can't ignore the subject when his name comes up.
>Atheism as something independently significant, or religion as something problematic in some way that's special and distinct from the rest of human dogma rather than just a useful example of it, is a recent fad for low tier thinkers
Harris is a low tier thinker, yes.

At least he figured out determinism

>>14526900
He isn’t an actual neuroscientist

>>14526990
By using meme experiments which don't really show us how reality actually works.

>>14526980
>Of course.
Of course what?
>Harris is very vocal about his atheism. You can't ignore the subject when his name comes up.
Yes.
>Harris is a low tier thinker, yes.
Mid tier. Also, what's your fucking problem?

>>14526994
PhD in Neuroscience from UCLA definitely makes you a neuroscientist

>>14526990
It’s too bad hard determinism isn’t actually true.

>>14527008
>Of course what?
Of course a soulless bugman redditor is atheist. It's only logical.
>Mid tier. Also, what's your fucking problem?
He's low tier using your metric.

>>14527015
>He's low tier using your metric.
It's not a metric, it's a trend

>Of course a soulless bugman redditor is atheist. It's only logical.
ahh you're one of those

I think militant religious people are a few steps below atheists, sorry

>>14526900
Atheism is the only thing he's right about. Philosophically, he's a nonentity.

>>14527011
Ok I'll bite, how the fuck you imagine physical laws working without it. It logically cannot be any other way. And no sky wizards allowed

>>14527032
>It's not a metric, it's a trend
No, you used a trend to formulate your own personal metric and judgment. The trend was nothing in itself. You gave it a low value and Harris happens to match such value which is being a low tier thinker.
>I think militant religious people are a few steps below atheists, sorry
I never said anything that was militant religious. I'm not religious, I just dislike obnoxious bugmen atheists who idolize mediocre clowns like Harris.

>>14526925
Not atheism, we constantly discuss and praise atheist philosophers and writers.

However the " horsemen " are just pseuds appealing to edgy teenagers and redditors. Praising them exposes you as poorly read and cultured

>>14527041
The experiment he used to "prove" determinism has obvious holes and shouldn't be taken seriously.

>>14526814
Wrong about 90% of his beliefs. But, respect him for going after Islam and its acceptance in liberal "woke" culture.

>>14527056
Fine, obviously you cannot prove principles by epistemology.

>>14527054
The only two I can think of at the moment are Schopey and Nietzsche, what other atheists does /lit/ meme?

>>14527119
Nietzsche was very religious and sometimes even Christian at heart. He resented the death of God, he didn't celebrate it. And even he hated God (which he didn't) then that means he loved him.

>>14527049
There's really nothing up for argument there, I explained why we'd seem hostile to atheists. If I sounded like I was positing some law of nature about atheists then I can revise it or revoke it however the fuck I want by virtue of me being the one saying it, what you're trying to do is nonsensical.

>I'm not religious, I just dislike obnoxious bugmen atheists who idolize mediocre clowns like Harris.
I don't idolize Harris, I don't care for his atheism or much of his philosophical input, but I do like Harris, and you're not being very compelling

>>14527165
>backpedalling because I'm throwing my boyfriend Harris under the bus by the things I'm saying
Whatever, mate.

>>14526900
He's no more intelligent than any other Stanford or ivy league grad on this board. Those are basically his credentials. What new ideas does he have? Otherwise he's just a guy with degrees who talks like a hylerlogical aspie.

>>14526814
He's a strict pseud when it comes to any discussion of philosophy, but he is at least TRYING to synthesize atheism and some sort of mystic tradition, even if from a purely materialist sense.

I see him as a sort of cringe modern Crowley, if I had to name an individual he reminds me of the most (besides Ben Stiller, seriously that joke is getting old) it would be Jordan Peterson.

I do not hate his regurgitated philosophic and pseudo-ethics. I do think that in terms of politics he is strictly speaking a homosexual Jew and he acts like it. Listening to him try to provide political analysis is sort of like talking to a liberal from the 70s who has very antiquated ideas about modern geopolitics and what "America" actually is. He is totally blind to the ethnic and demographic struggle of the modern day and his answer is a sort of underachieving "well we fucked the entire country and now we're basically Mexico but we still need to pretend that we're Anglo-Saxon and have the capacity to run a neoliberal capitalist country even though that's manifestly false because to not do so is asdfghhj" with just enough "Islam bad" tacked on to the end to get retarded atheist centrists on board with it.

To put it another way, you're better off getting geopolitical analysis from literal neo-nazis than Sam Harris, and you're better off getting Philosophy from random meme accounts from /lit/. He is only useful at all if you buy and read modern self-help books.

Do you buy and read modern self-help books? Because if you do, there's this guy called Jordan Peterson who writes better ones than Sam Harris. It's essentially a modern rehash of Christopher vs Peter Hitchens, with the same result: There is literally no reason to read Chris when you could instead read Peter, but there's no reason to read either because Chesterton is in the Public Domain.

>>14527165
Religious types are not below atheists.

Sorry. :3

>>14527237
holy mother of BASED

>>14526925
Lit isnt hostile to Atheism retard. We are hostile to the New Atheist movement because its a group pf pseuds who are just as bad as Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro.

If you want to talk about REAL Atheism however, like Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Deleuze, ie. any continental Atheists, then we wont have a problem

>>14527203
>>backpedalling because I'm throwing my boyfriend Harris under the bus by the things I'm saying
LOL
You actually think I was overpowered out of my original stance by the force of your argument?

All you did was try to repeat what I said and act like it was somehow my problem. Frankly I'm not even sure what exactly is going on in your head, or what you think my position is. Let me spell it out for you:

/lit/ is hostile to atheism because aggressive atheists tend to be weak thinkers, and offered a word against the significance of atheism.

I would've thought someone like you would be grateful for something like that, but you had this weird, bitchy little reaction to it that frankly looked like kind of a nonsequitur to me. It was weird.

Anyways, if you interpreted from my comment that Sam Harris must be a low tier thinker, I can clarify that: I don't think this. I think Sam Harris is a nicely above average thinker. I like Sam Harris. He is not my boyfriend, but I would react positively if I was in a position to have a conversation with him. I'm not much interested in his input on philosophy, and I think his fixation on atheism is a flaw in his profile, but for his specific breadth of education I think he has some value as a perspective. I'm interested in listening to neuroscientists regardless, neuroscientists who also got a degree in philosophy strike me as a step in a positive direction.

You, on the other hand, are clearly in some sort of mood. Something about religious people, at least on this board, are always like this. You're hyper defensive and can't keep your head straight, you seem to feel like you're in some sort of perilous war with everyone around you when the rest of us don't give a shit, and you wouldn't act so threatened if you had solid philosophical/intellectual footing where your religiosity is concerned. It would be one thing if you just believed in a God, that would be fine, but I can specifically tell you're religious by your raging intellectual insecurity.

Not that religion must do this to everyone, I respect religious philosophers enough, but they're of a very different sort from yourself

>>14527122
lmafo where all these christian pseudonietzscheans coming from

>>14527287
Probably the same place all the Marxist/Deleuzian Pseudonietzscheans are from

>>14527287
>AZ Quotes

>>14527287
>>14527294

>>14527237
patrician.

>>14527039
>>14527213
As a participant in discourse, it doesn't have to be about sheer philosophical novelty or sophistication. His value is not as a philosopher, but as a philosophically interested scientist. He'll likely never stand on his own legs as a philosopher.
But neuroscientists are important to philosophy, as are many scientists, but the mainstream of amateur philosophers are as neglectful of that fact as amateur scientists are neglectful of the value of philosophy. A neuroscientist with any philosophical training is instantly valuable. I think amateur philosophers are just insecure in the face of a public which favors the sciences and does not respect philosophy. To that I say: fucking get over it. Don't run off in the opposite direction and act like you can downplay the sciences.

I'll be frank about this - as a philosophy major, I'm far more interested in what a Neuroscience PhD has to say on the mind than a Philosophy PhD. Philosophy has far more leeway for bullshit, as it moderates bullshit via the personal discretion of academics, and plenty of retards can make their way through. I've had them for professors.
The best philosopher is better than the best neuroscientist, but the average neuroscientist is better than the average philosopher, and the worst neuroscientist is FAR better than the worst philosopher.
But the average philosopher takes to science more easily than the average scientist takes to philosophy, as science demands rigidity and commitment to certain belief frameworks in order to function. That's why Sam Harris is unlikely to ever be a shaping force in philosophy. But he's still good to listen to, because he's a fucking scientist and you're bound to learn something on that front. It's not hard to filter out whatever bad philosophy you find yourself suffering in the process. You should be able to filter out valuable information from anyone informed on matters that you aren't.

>>14527362
What "science" does he do retard? Do a bit of reading into his contributions lmfao

>>14526814
he really places too much hope in the average person's rational faculties

>>14527381
I don't mean researcher, I call him a scientist because he has a PhD in a science just as I'd call someone a philosopher for having a PhD or even an interest in philosophy despite them not researching, contributing, or doing anything except reading philosophy or maintaining some concern with philosophy.

When I talk about Sam Harris' value as a neuroscientist, I mean he has a PhD level of knowledge of neuroscience and I consider that valuable because I'm not a fucking antiscientific pseud.

>>14527390
lol

>>14527410
fuck off

>>14527362
>As a participant in discourse

>>14527390
>>14527428
You have no idea what you are talking about. Sam literally is the 'worst neuroscientist', as he payed through his PhD, did no experiments himself, but got the degree for no other reason than that he would be able to act like he knows what he's talking about on philosophy of mind. He is a nothing.

>>14526814
I wish he could distance himself from the coastal/neoliberal/Jewish circles and just follow his curiosity, invite edgy guests and stuff.
He hasn't had an interesting podcast in years, so I stopped caring.

>>14527435
>Sam literally is the 'worst neuroscientist'
weak statement

>as he payed through his PhD
fiction

>did no experiments himself
incorrect

>but got the degree for no other reason than that he would be able to act like he knows what he's talking about on philosophy of mind
He was engaged in neuroscience before he got into philosophy. What kind of dumbfuck theory is that anyways, getting a PhD in Neuroscience to pretend to know philosophy?

>>14527010
no it doesn't. He only did dodgy 1 thesis and that's it. He hasn't done any major work in neuroscience and just uses it to bolster his philosophy/anti-religion books.

>>14527041
Bell's Inequalities must be satisfied if there is determinism and local realism. Quantum mechanics violated Bell's Inequalities. Local realism almost certainly has to be maintained, ergo determinism goes. Actual physical laws disprove hard determinism and it is fucking mind-blowing that morons are still discussing this.

>>14527507
>engaged in neuroscience

In what capacity? What neuroscientific training did he do and what are the experiments he performed and their results? Look this up yourself.

>>14527507
>Since getting his PhD, he has conducted no scientific research.
>Since getting his PhD, he has taught no university/college courses in neuroscience.
>Since getting his PhD, he has devoted his efforts to his anti-religious think tank and publishing books, such as the one on using drugs and meditation to discover truths about our reality.
>He received his PhD through partial funding from his own atheist organization.
>He didn’t do any of the experiments for his own thesis work.
>His PhD thesis was about how science can determine what is right and wrong and he turned it into a book for sale.
>Since publishing his thesis/book, Harris has yet to use science to resolve a single moral dispute.

>>14527547
>Actual physical laws disprove hard determinism and it is fucking mind-blowing that morons are still discussing this.
are you referring to things like the double slit experiment? somehow i think such a interpretation from it is beyond /lit/'s pay grade

>>14527507
>fiction
"If you read the Funding section of the paper, you’ll find the following: The project described was supported in part by Grant Numbers RR12169, RR13642 and RR00865 from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and by a grant from The Reason Project. Sam Harris is the Co-founder and CEO of The Reason Project. The Reason Project is a 501(c) (3) nonprofit foundation whose mission includes conducting original scientific research related to human values, cognition, and reasoning"

>incorrect
"Performed the experiments: JTK"

>He was engaged in neuroscience before he got into philosophy.
"It’s not clear how long it took Harris to get his PhD. According to Wiki, he received his BA in Philosophy in 2000 and his PhD in Neuroscience in 2009"


https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/neuroscientist-sam-harris/

>>14527566
>are you referring to things like the double slit experiment?
Yeah, although its quantum mechanics writ large. There might be certain deterministic processes and states, but in the hard deterministic form the argument is basically moot.

>>14526814
just a neolib atheists trust fund kid what more is to be said

>>14527555
>>Since getting his PhD, he has conducted no scientific research.
>>Since getting his PhD, he has taught no university/college courses in neuroscience.
This is not of issue unless you want to nitpick over the title of "scientist" as something that comes and goes on the basis of whether you're publishing research. Sam Harris is knowledgeable in Neuroscience, that would be the point.

>>>Since getting his PhD, he has devoted his efforts to his anti-religious think tank
boo hoo
>>and publishing books, such as the one on using drugs and meditation to discover truths about our reality.
Philosophers would abundantly agree
>>He received his PhD through partial funding from his own atheist organization.
Interesting. I would have accused you of being deliberately misleading by saying such nonsensical bullshit as this, but it turns out you're just regurgitating one of the google results from one of those ask-and-answer sites, because you don't know what you're talking about and you're coming up with all of this on the fly.
Indeed, PhD's cost money in America. The fact that his career paid for it rather than his parents is supposed to be a problem how?
Don't even bother answering
>>He didn’t do any of the experiments for his own thesis work.
Provide a source for this, please, I'm skeptical that this is the case and I haven't found access to his paper. I know you haven't either but I'm curious to see what you come up with next.
>>His PhD thesis was about how science can determine what is right and wrong and he turned it into a book for sale.
If there was ever such a thing as right and wrong, then it follows that it is up for scientific analysis. I think you just don't understand the actual boundaries between philosophy and science very well.
>>Since publishing his thesis/book, Harris has yet to use science to resolve a single moral dispute
Indeed, there is no such thing as resolving a moral dispute, all you need is someone to fucking dispute it. Things don't get "proven" or "resolved" in philosophy or in science, do you actually have any education in either?
>>14527550
A neuroscience graduate program in a California UCLA entails extensive experimentation. You, and the others in this thread, are speaking from nothing but a cursory glance at wikipedia and the like and banking on the fact that his involvement in science isn't the salient feature of his internet presence. Whatever science he's done, you don't know one way or the other.

But this is dragging the discussion down into pedantry. He could've not even finished his PhD for all I give a fuck, neuroscience grad students are still superior authorities on the mind to whatever it is you are.

>>14527550
What you mean to say is that you've found it difficult to access his work in the PhD program and find it a safe opportunity to bluff

Imagine being such a slave minded pseud that you invest yourself in lying to strangers on the internet just to a slander PhD you don't know anything about

>In the midst of this ordinariness, however, I was suddenly struck by the knowledge that I loved my friend. This shouldn’t have surprised me—he was, after all, one of my best friends. However, at that age I was not in the habit of dwelling on how much I loved the men in my life. Now I could feel that I loved him, and this feeling had ethical implications that suddenly seemed as profound as they now sound pedestrian on the page: I wanted him to be happy.
>That conviction came crashing down with such force that something seemed to give way inside me. In fact, the insight appeared to restructure my mind. My capacity for envy, for instance—the sense of being diminished by the happiness or success of another person—seemed like a symptom of mental illness that had vanished without a trace. I could no more have felt envy at that moment than I could have wanted to poke out my own eyes. What did I care if my friend was better looking or a better athlete than I was? If I could have bestowed those gifts on him, I would have. Truly wanting him to be happy made his happiness my own.
>A certain euphoria was creeping into these reflections, perhaps, but the general feeling remained one of absolute sobriety—and of moral and emotional clarity unlike any I had ever known. It would not be too strong to say that I felt sane for the first time in my life. And yet the change in my consciousness seemed entirely straightforward. I was simply talking to my friend—about what, I don’t recall—and realized that I had ceased to be concerned about myself. I was no longer anxious, self-critical, guarded by irony, in competition, avoiding embarrassment, ruminating about the past and future, or making any other gesture of thought or attention that separated me from him. I was no longer watching myself through another person’s eyes.
>And then came the insight that irrevocably transformed my sense of how good human life could be. I was feeling boundless love for one of my best friends, and I suddenly realized that if a stranger had walked through the door at that moment, he or she would have been fully included in this love. Love was at bottom impersonal—and deeper than any personal history could justify. Indeed, a transactional form of love—I love you because…—now made no sense at all.
https://samharris.org/podcasts/chapter-one/

>>14527581
>The Reason Project is a 501(c) (3) nonprofit foundation whose mission includes conducting original scientific research related to human values, cognition, and reasoning"
PhD's cost money in America, dipshit. It's not bribery.
>"It’s not clear how long it took Harris to get his PhD. According to Wiki, he received his BA in Philosophy in 2000 and his PhD in Neuroscience in 2009"

Sam Harris was engaged in Neuroscience before he got into philosophy. Learn how graduate degrees work.

also
>>citing a blog
lmfao

>>14527629
revision: he COPY PASTED from a wordpress blog
Why do I waste my time with these people

>>14526819
Same

>>14527010
He did pay to publish and PhD, it's not a real PhD.

>>14526814

>>14527629
>>14527622
>Sam Harris is knowledgeable in Neuroscience, that would be the point.
He advertises himself as a neuroscientist. This isn't the same as being knowledgeable in neuroscience. He's basically the Deepak Chopra of brain science (at least Deepak practiced endocrinology before becoming a charlatan).

>I would have accused you of being deliberately misleading by saying such nonsensical bullshit as this, but it turns out you're just regurgitating one of the google results from one of those ask-and-answer sites, because you don't know what you're talking about and you're coming up with all of this on the fly.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0007272

>Provide a source for this
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0007272

>Indeed, there is no such thing as resolving a moral dispute, all you need is someone to fucking dispute it. Things don't get "proven" or "resolved" in philosophy or in science, do you actually have any education in either?
You have never read Harris then. He claims to have resolved the is-ought problem in one of his books. Except he doesn't back it up by science, only by absurd arguments.

>The fact that his career paid for it rather than his parents is supposed to be a problem how?
Its quite suspicious that he funded a study that would later turn into a book for profit to affirm his non profit's message don't you think?

>Whatever science he's done, you don't know one way or the other.
neither do you, I brought evidence to prove how Harris is a fraud and you autistically try to explain it away as if you're a neuroscience graduate in UCLA

>What you mean to say is that you've found it difficult to access his work in the PhD program and find it a safe opportunity to bluff
it's literally available for everyone to see, link is in this post (you could even find it on sci hub).

>Imagine being such a slave minded pseud that you invest yourself in lying to strangers on the internet just to a slander PhD you don't know anything about
Imagine defending a known fraudster like him and never having read his books or even bother to check the facts

>Sam Harris was engaged in Neuroscience before he got into philosophy. Learn how graduate degrees work.
ok mr SAT, how do they work then?

>also >citing a blog lmfao
nothing wrong with that

>>14527638
and that blog copy and pasted from the actual journal of the thesis in question.

Sam Harris is a fraud, get over it.

>>14527622
>A neuroscience graduate program in a California UCLA entails extensive experimentation.
It's well known that he paid others to do the experiments for him.

>>14526814
I used to like him somewhat. Most of his points were usually well argued (except for his weird ideas about moral realism), although not particularly original. Now, I think of him as a big hypocrite. The monetization of his podcast (pay half a Netflix abo to get to listen to an irregular updating average podcast) was the last straw:

-He always goes on about the illusion of the Ego and free will and how meditation can help us find true peacefulness, while having an extremely inflated opinion of himself and his intellect (you are not the second coming of Von Neumann or Wittgenstein, you are just a philosophy popularizer and political commentator, I’m sorry to tell you Sam) and stubbornly thinks all his positions are correct, hardly ever changing his mind, while preaching the importance of open-mindedness

-He was born into Hollywood money (His mother was cowritter and producer of a famous American TV show), enabling him to travel for months on end in India going on meditation retreats. I am sure due to his book sells he is a multimillionaire by now. His Patreon account gives him an additional extensive source of income. Still it’s not enough. He thinks his time and work he puts in his podcast is not sufficiently appreciated. So he puts up a paywall. For a center leftist who talks about a fair economy, he seems to be awfully obsessed with his money. Compare that with an equally well situated guy like Dan Carlin, who actually seems like a genuinely non-narcissistic person appreciative of his privileged economic situation and doesn’t make outrageous demands on his products.

>there are actually people defending this obvious pseud

>>14527732
Most of the Sam Harris fanboys are Atheicucks who cant stomach Nietzscheanism, still desperately trying to hold on to their Morals and Ethics

>>14527701
It's a well known stupid myth regurgitating the same Google search result of an ask/answer website, there is no basis elsewhere

>Most of the Sam Harris fanboys are Atheicucks who cant stomach Nietzscheanism, still desperately trying to hold on to their Morals and Ethics
"I don't know anything about Sam Harris beyond the premise of his doctoral thesis"

>>14526925

It's a sin

>>14528004
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007272
>Conceived and designed the experiments: SH JTK MI MSC. Performed the experiments: JTK. Analyzed the data: SH JTK MI MSC. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: MI MSC. Wrote the paper: SH JTK. Performed all subject recruitment, telephone screenings, and psychometric assessments prior to scanning: AC. Supervised our psychological assessment procedures and consulted on subject exclusions: SB. Gave extensive notes on the manuscript: MSC MI.
>Performed the experiments: JTK.

>>14526814
I've yet to see any christcuck rationally respond to him, let alone attempt a refutal.

>>14527237
>Chesterton
Based

>behold! a caricature of the person's idea
>truly the person is stupid, oh how much i loathe him!
if you never read or understood his work why are you replying?

>>14528098
His ideas do sound like a caricature.

>>14528098
He really is that stupid though. Or more accurately, he's undisciplined and negligent.

I feel like Harris is itt.

>>14527281
bruh

>>14527281
>He is not my boyfriend, but I would react positively if I was in a position to have a conversation with him
Hi Sam

>>14528114
>>14528115
care to elaborate and not just spout baseless disagreement? oh and try to not invoke any mythical creatures while you are at it

Smug midwit.

>>14526980
Harris himself hates the term atheism, he attributes it to saying most people are non-astrologer or non-flat earther
you are already an atheist with respect to Zeus

A Jew.

>>14528296
Not really though, because all religions centrally say very similar things about the one true God.

It's not that all religions are saying vastly different things, this belief is a stupid one and thinks that humans are capable of vastly different belief structures and that good is not objective. This is held by the Nietzsche idiots.

No, the intelligent position is that God, much like Good, is only one. There is no other in existence. Anything attributed towards Zeus typically is attributed towards God later on, (considering he was the king of Gods). Therefore, I very well think that I am not an atheist with respect to Zeus, insofar as Zeus was an approximation of the true God. After all, faith is faith, and although God will tell the polytheists and pagans they are going to hell, it is for their own good, since they subvert their souls for polytheism, something inherently less pure than monotheism. It's logically inferior, as per the nature of reality reflects (cf Metaphysica)

Being one with the central beginning of the universe is very important. It's why many translations of Plato's Republic have him talking about 'God' at various intervals instead of Zeus: they considered Zeus their God.

>>14527566
I'm a physics phd candidate, no hard science accepts determinism and most mathematicians I know are Pythagorean or neoplatonists when it comes to spirituality. It is simply easier to construct a universe with randomness than one without that at certain irreversible processes due to entropic principle and cosmic expansion likely being driven by some fundamental imbalance between radiation and matter makes determinism a big yikes position at a theoretical level. Nobody ever pretended you could use determinism in a practical way we cant even predict 3 body orbit problems for asteroid collision systems... I believe the only field of science that pushed this was psychology under behaviorism and neuroscience seems like it's trying to revive that tradition maybe genetics too but these are largely statistical sciences that use abstract models and are struggling to make useful predictions due to combinatiorial explosions in their data and model complexity. Harris always struck me as a pseud who tried to use his 'science' background as a crutch to push his personal beliefs without facing scrutiny because no practicing scientist has the time to bother with his popsci garbage.

>>14526819
[audible kek]

>>14527297
>>14527287

>>14528351
then your concept of God is pretty much existence itself
this is so far removed from what MOST people say when they believe in God
I don't believe one bit that the bloke on the street have this very abstract concept of God
> After all, faith is faith, and although God will tell the polytheists and pagans they are going to hell, it is for their own good, since they subvert their souls for polytheism, something inherently less pure than monotheism. It's logically inferior, as per the nature of reality reflects (cf Metaphysica)
what makes you think that God works this way? You seems to have grasped what is supposed to be the Unimaginable
God works in mysterious ways, except when the infidel gets shot its a punishment but when I get shot its a test
You need to shed your clinging to the Old and Decrepit Religions because you want to justify your and others suffering

>>14528377
>then your concept of God is pretty much existence itself
You understand what Pantheism is, correct? (not that this is my position, or the correct position either)
>this is so far removed from what MOST people say when they believe in God
Not really, the Quran, for instance, confirms much of The Holy Bible.
>I don't believe one bit that the bloke on the street have this very abstract concept of God
I'm sure you think yourself much more """""intelligent"""""" than others because of your atheism correct?
>what makes you think that God works this way? You seems to have grasped what is supposed to be the Unimaginable
I have read the Metaphysics and The Republic, perhaps you would do well to do the same?
>God works in mysterious ways, except when the infidel gets shot its a punishment but when I get shot its a test
You sound like an infidel, though.
>You need to shed your clinging to the Old and Decrepit Religions because you want to justify your and others suffering
I want to justify why you should suffer and I shouldn't.

Simple as. :3

>>14528352
Not the same poster.
I’m a graduate mathematics student (not a Platonist, but a Hilbertian Formalist by conviction, but you know the joke “All mathematician are Platonists from Monday to Saturday when actually doing math, and Formalists on Sunday when they atone for their sins”)
Correct me if I am wrong (obviously not my field of expertise), but doesn’t Bell’s inequality just state that either determinism, realism or localism must be abandoned.
Isn’t for example the Everett-De Witt many world interpretation ontological deterministic (of course not epistemic deterministic) and only abandons counter-factual defitness (not sure whether this implies giving up locality or realism or both)? Sean Carroll for example is a proponent of it.

>>14527362
I think started off as a philosophy major, but switched to neuroscience. I don't think most neuroscientists are all that particularly concerned with philosophy. If anything, it seems that philosophy has the biggest interest for theoretical physicists now. There are a lot of scientists that are versed in philosophy, however. It's more prevalent in the scientists of old and those polymaths, but philosophy is intimately linked to science, as it gave birth to it

On the subject of Sam, though, he's just a rich kid whose family was in show business, I believe. It's said that he essentially bought his phd and benefited from his connections. He doesn't really work in the field. I can't recall anything he's done as far as neuroscience besides the work he did for his thesis dealing with comparing brain scans of theists vs non-theists via neuroimaging. He's primarily an author, speaker, and podcaster, rather than someone like Richard Dawkins who has made real contributions to the field

>>14526859
this nigga needs to read spengler

>>14527041
Copenhagen interpretation pf quantum physics

>>14528352
where can i read more about this?

>>14527054
>However the " horsemen " are just pseuds appealing to edgy teenagers and redditors
What about Dan Dennett?
Or Dawkins' the Selfish Gene and Extended Phenotype?

>>14528542
>Analytic Philosophy
>AMERICAN Analytic Philosophy
Yeah, they are pseuds who have no real value.
Read Any Continental Atheists instead. Schoppy, Neech, Heidegger, anyone is better than dennet

>>14528352
Well it's that old knowledge: "that if you had computer large enough and you'd know state of every object in universe, you could predict the future precisely". What modern physics say is that they don't obviously have that, and so regards the determinism everything is just COPE.
Philosophically random translates unknown, so that's not saying much, nor doest that fact that you cannot analytically solve most of the problems. Somehow()they define deterministic as non-stochastic
To me to say that physicist isn't determinism, when to whole field relies on rational causality "x causes y" is ludicrous. So, quantum physics can only seem not to be so, since we don't know all the underlying forces involved.

>>14526814
His accent makes it really hard for me to take him seriously. Fucking west coast faggy way of talking makes anyone sound like a huge retard.

>>14528548
>heidegger
>atheist

>>14528606
They didn't believe in God the way Christians conceive it. If you want to be technical, Schopenhauer wasn't an Atheist because to him, God was the pure Will to life.

And then Niether was Nietzsche, because God to him was the Overman, that you had to unite with

>>14528616
Which is why Continental "Atheists" are infinitely better than Analyticucks

>>14526953
I find this kind of strange. Atheism, or really anything besides agnosticism, carries with it pretty profound implications for a person's view of epistemology, specifically how it pertains to metaphysics. It's like an abbreviated communication of how you understand value and morality and the limits of knowledge, which maybe doesn't so much have a place in formal writings for most philosophers but it does say a lot, I think.

>>14528576
Absolutely false. That’s like a meme answer. I’m not sure whether you are trolling.

Your belief that randomness is just “a degree of us not knowing” (i. e. epistemic chance) and that QM is just incomplete, missing certain “hidden parameters” is exactly what Einstein believed and was soundly and definitely disproven by Bell’s inequality.
While ontologically deterministic interpretations of QM are still possible, epistemic determinist interpretations, i. e. absolute predictability in some imagined extended framework is impossible.

Most likely probabilistic randomness is ontological and real feature of our universe. The Laplacian demon doesn’t exist.

>>14528548
Dawkins writes about science in those books, before he went into the whole atheism thing, and he's not American

>>14528649
I'm talking about Dennett. Dawkins isn't even a philosopher so he doesn't count. Even analytic Philosophers are closer to scientists than they are to philosophy, that's why I wish they would stay out of religious debates and leave it to the continental philosophers

>>14526889
Jesus Christ go back immediately

>>14528649
I don't have a problem with their science by the way, my problem is when they try and use it to "refute" religion

>>14528637
This is what I'm talking about. I thought it obvious that human actions, doing the experiments, count as a result of determinism.
>There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the 'decision' by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster-than-light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already 'knows' what that measurement, and its outcome, will be

>>14528702
That there is no free will, I’m in absolute agreement. It’s actually not so important whether determinism is true or not to realize this.

But this “superdeterminism”, seem to require something more: all our theories would become unfalsifiable, because we could never meaningful speak of “what the outcome would have been, had we performed another experiment”, i. e. not only couldn’t we have performed another experiment (that’s plane old determinism, no free will etc... dito), but to even hypothesize alternative outcomes (making falsifiable claims) would be semantically meaningless, we would lose counter-factual defiteness.

This would render all of science meaningless. All question why something happened and not something else would just be “it had to have happened this way, to speculate otherwise is meaningless”. All of science would become a “just so” story.

I’ll grant, if you are willing to bite this bullet you are indeed justified in believing in your (extremely constrained version) of epistemic determinism.

>>14529109
I did more internet research on this topic, which I have previously avoided knowing it cannot fundamentally hold. (Seems I assigned wrong meaning to superdeterminism). My stance is ontological nevertheless.

First thing is that these conclusions are drawn without giving credible explanation for why would measurement effect the results. Some are given but thatäs another matter. This the main reason any QM proofs should not be taken as foregone conclusion.
Second, Einsteins objection seemed assert that information would be encoded in the particles (being only possibility) not in the holistic systems. Which eg. measurement would be. Thus, making it still plausible that there are "hidden variables" in the system that could allow eg. instant information travel.

>>14526814
I used to be a regular listener to his podcast. I took a few months off to get caught up on a couple of Joe Rogan episodes that I had on the backlog and now I see that Sam has locked his podcast behind a new paywall.

I have absolutely no intention of paying to continue to listen, and find it disgusting that he has gone this route after spending years talking about being against ads, wanting to keep the podcast free, and getting by on donations. He has talked about how well his meditation app has been doing, so I guess he couldn't turn down even more money. It's disappointing.

>>14527725
>>14529809

He sounds like a big money obsessed hypocrite.

neocon shill. any contributions he may have or have had are irrelevant and can be safely tossed in the garbage on account of the fact that his brain doesn't work properly. he's an animal like the rest of his ilk.

Remember his encounter with Chomsky?

https://samharris.org/the-limits-of-discourse/

>>14530175
Unfortunately, it seems like that has become the case. It wouldn't be such a big deal except that he does these "housekeeping" segments at the beginning of each podcast where for years he would talk about how he was against doing ads and encouraged people to donate instead. Now, he has taken the extreme approach, seemingly out of nowhere, of locking the entire thing (except for a small preview of each episode) behind a paywall, when I am sure that most people would prefer that he would do what Joe Rogan and other podcasts hosts do by including a bunch of (easily skippable) ads at the start of each episode.

He took such a moral stance of being SO against ads, then he locks the entire podcast behind a paywall. It's absolutely profit-driven and hypocritical

>>14527281
You really lost your temper, didn't you?
b2r

>>14528576
>To me to say that physicist isn't determinism, when to whole field relies on rational causality "x causes y" is ludicrous. So, quantum physics can only seem not to be so, since we don't know all the underlying forces involved.
Except that x causes y is not a valid physical expression after you leave high school physics class aka calculator exercises

>>14526925
it's purely salty theists. if you make a thread examining christianity from an anthropological stand point and how it has the exact same "truth" merits as any other culture's myths, all the christ slaves will come pouring out of the woodwork with the usual tired insults.
this really is the prime example of the most base level of tribalism. the "horsemen" make solid arguments aimed at a contemporary audience, and gained mainstream appeal, and because /lit/ is so desperate to cling to the dogma of religion, they will rage against authors like Harris or Dawkins or Hitchens

>>14526814
Looking at someone’s face for too long renders them a hideously asymmetrical mask of skin. We can all relate to not recognizing ourself while staring at the mirror.

>>14530636
>We can all relate to not recognizing ourself while staring at the mirror.
Ummm... Anon...

>>14527237
Oh, I see. You're above the Ben Stiller joke, huh. OK.

>>14526819
He was better in Mystery Men

>>14530866
>Mystery Men
Wtf is it with 90s movies and Smash Mouth? https://youtu.be/Ozuwh-ofXK8

>>14526814
he looks a bit like a donkey imo

>>14530175
Everyone has their gods

>>14526900
All autism comes from an authentic place. As a consoooomer i am judging him by his product - ideas - not his genuineness.

So, two things:
-His ideas were already mouthed onhere before he showed up, and as you pointed out already, he's more qualified than 90% of /b/tards. His phil paaper did nothibg for him.

-He uses the "genuineness" as an appeal to pathos when cornered by a question that will force him into a very bad admission, such as Stalinism=Atheism. It's cynical and self serving.

>>14527237
Nice

>>14526900
Nothing more cringe worthy than people who think neuroscience can or will give "objective" answers to what people should do or "end" philosophy.

>>14528287
No, he doesn't meet the requirements to be treated seriously. Dismissing him out of hand giving credit where credit is due.

>>14528393
and the Quran also confirms that you are going to burn in Hell
have you not realized that Christianity is a fitna?

>>14526925
I'm an atheist.
New atheists can't even begin to tangle with Thomas Aquinas or Leibniz. Even Bertrand Russell is better, and Bertrand Russell sucks.

>>14532108
this. the guy is the ultimate pretentious status climber.

>>14527237
fucking BRAVO

>>14532108
Wrong, once we crack consciousness it's all over, and there's no reason to suspect it's magical. Harris-like figures are merely premature. What's cringey is classical epistemology, an entirely superfluous discipline premised on the specious notion that natural science somehow needs external validation, while failing to even climb out solipsism.

>>14528483
>this implies giving up locality or realism
neither it's a local real theory

many worlds is considered a meme theory that has no measurement. loophole-free nonlocality 5 years ago:
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949
>This result rules out large classes of local realist theories

manyworlders and boohmers replace wave collapse with quantum decoherence. the boohmers are deterministic non-local realist hidden variable theorists (to duck the Bell inequality* in EPR paradox). the manyworlders are deterministic local realists who reject probability and hide localism and realism inside (virtual? suprauniversal? magic?) hilbert spaces. together i don't think they make up more than 10-20% of the field, but i'd have to check citations/papers published. the standard copenhagen interpretation is nondeterministic local probabilistic (non-real) with wave function collapse in measurement. physics is largely driven by experiments. most physicists USE quantum physics effects and don't particularly care about the interpretations. my understanding is that since boohmers and manywolders have been working on their theories for so long they have fortified them against any criticism and can offer no proof so they have reached some kind of nash equilibrium of useless jargon, and copenhagen waves away the non-locality problem by leaving it unexplained.

>*tests for non-locality, leggett inequality tests for non-reality


if you want to see how pedantic and childish theorists are about this just read the comments here, it approaches mochizuki's inter-universal teichmuller theory level of anal retentive antisocial behavior:
>https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_interpretation_of_QM_seems_to_you_the_most_plausible
>https://www.researchgate.net/post/what_is_the_most_important_problem_in_the_theoretical_physics_now

>>14526925
It's a meme, you dip. /lit/ is an atheist board.

>>14526814
He's great. Love his podcast. I generally agree with him on most things and he has a nice delivery style. Keep up the great work.

>>14527237
>He's a strict pseud when it comes to any discussion of philosophy

t. anon 4chan poster who has never published anything of even shitty quality.

>>14527381
You realize that once you graduate with a PhD in any science you are a scientist right? Even a BA?

How big of a brainlet do you have to be to think that a scientist has to constantly practicing?

>>14527547

Keep dreaming buddy. You are determined too. kek

>>14527555
yet is by definition a neuroscientist.

you lose.

>>14528032
rekt

>>14528352
>I'm a physics phd candidate, no hard science accepts determinism


Who gives a shit what you're a candidate in. You have no free will and the universe is determined whether they accept it or not.

>>14528352
>when it comes to spirituality.

cringe

>>14533376

>>14528513
Can I ask your age?

>>14528548

t.anon pseud

>>14529109
>All question why something happened and not something else would just be “it had to have happened this way, to speculate otherwise is meaningless”.

This true though...

>>14530194
Chomsky BTFO

>>14532880

/thread

>>14526814
He wrote a book about postmodernism without reading any postmodern philosophers, so I don't think much of him.

>>14533405
He did that? I thought that was Jordan Peterson's shtick. Then again, he wrote a book on morality without reading any ethical theory, I wouldn't put it past him.

>>14526925
hyperstition

>>14528630
no it's just stupid fedora stuff atheism doesn't matter

>>14533350
So if I graduate with a PhD in physics and then work in finance for the rest of my life, I can have written in my obituary that I was a scientist?

One of his eyes is much higher on his head than the other.

>>14527688
wtf i hate sam harris now

>>14528393
only a kuffar would claim that Quran alludes to we are not separate from God
He is Perfection, and we are not

>>14534099
Yes. It’s a technicality.

it's impossible to write good if you don't look like you can write good.

>>14534246
this

>>14533726
You wouldn't even reach Omer Aziz tier with him in a debate.

>>14527010
He bought his credentials with his mom's Golden Girls money, he's the fuckin' ur pseud.

>>14535948

Just accept that he is smarter than you. What is the big deal?

>>14528393
>pleb uses religious grandstanding to mask his weakness of character
why are moral objectivists always the ugliest on the inside?

>>14527237
You're ok.

>>14534182
facial asymmetry, low set ears and protruding chin are signs of inbreeding.

>>14527732

>>14535948
This rumor is fucking nonsense and I think it's coming from people reading that he paid for a PhD, and not understanding that PhD's cost money

Really 90% of the shit people are talking in this thread comes from the same handful of dubious google search results, like blogs and shit, and all of it is poorly informed and poorly thought through

>>14526925
because it’s full of brainlet burgers

>>14527237
>TRYING to synthesize atheism and some sort of mystic tradition, even if from a purely materialist sense
this is a valuable project and I appreciate him from popularizing it, even if I roll my eyes at his politics.

>>14537061
http://www.loonwatch.com/files/2017/07/hollywood-harris-and-the-best-defence-money-can-buy/comment-page-1/
Along with his wife and Jai Lakshman, Harris established The Reason Project (later renamed Project Reason). The Hollywood spring-board was in full effect as Project Reason took up a Los Angeles office in the same building as mother Susan Harris and her business partner Wayne Rogers of M*A*S’*H fame. In 2009 he was to be the beneficiary of Director Robert Zemeckis’s generosity with Project Reason receiving $5,000 from the Oscar winners foundation. Zemeckis and Harris step-father Paul Junger-Witt are close – They sit on the same Advisory Boards, attend movie premieres together and curiously along with Susan Harris shared a $28,000-a-plate table at an Obama fundraiser prior to the Project Reason grant.

Regarding Harris’ PhD, online blog site ‘The Rhizzone’ acutely observes that:

“Sam had no history in neuroscience and he had never conducted an experiment in his life. It’s hard to imagine the UCLA neuroscience department accepting his PhD proposal�?.

Further research at Shadowtolight documents how Harris’ maligned thesis project in 2009 was partially funded through Harris’ nonprofit, while tax forms confirm Project Reason ‘donated’ $10,000 to UCLA Board of Regents around this time. Coincidentally or not, Junger-Witt’s non-profit, the Environmental Defense Fund, also donated $40,000 to the UCLA Board of Regents that very same year. Coincidence? Hollywood money undoubtedly played a supporting role in Harris’ life, from funding his PhD to helping him purchase further credibility. Something to consider when Harris next castigates the Muslim world for it’s lack of academic successes.

>>14537211
this is so incoherent

>>14537211

>loonwatch.com


I will take this opinion very seriously.

>>14537290
It really isn't. It's like
>Sam Harris' foundation paid $10,000 to the people that decide who gets to go to UCLA
>not long after his step-dad paid $40,000 for some reason
Hmmm... so hard to follow.

>>14537304
They cite a bunch of primary sources.

>>14526953
>im an atheist and a redditor
time to die, redditor

brainlet. Morals dont exist without God

>>14537398
assume god and derive morality. do it faggot. pro-tip: you can't.

>>14537211
So if we wittle this down to its logical parts...

>Sam Harris founded a nonprofit
>They set up the nonprofit in the same building as his mom and a guy from MASH
>>therefore: "hollywood springboard" is set (?? lol)
>His stepfather is friends with a hollywood guy and his mom ate expensive food

Then we have a real claim:
>“Sam had no history in neuroscience and he had never conducted an experiment in his life.
Which is completely baseless and rather strange. Experimentation is already a part of the process of getting a PhD. What they're really saying is there's nothing to readily look up about his work in the neuroscience program, which isn't anything to do with whether such work exists or not.

>It’s hard to imagine the UCLA neuroscience department accepting his PhD proposal�?
Based on what? What is there to lend any weight to this notion? What makes it "difficult to imagine"? I find it far more difficult to imagine that his PhD was fraudulent, UCLA is a good school.

>Further research at Shadowtolight documents how Harris’ maligned thesis project in 2009 was partially funded through Harris’ nonprofit, while tax forms confirm Project Reason ‘donated’ $10,000 to UCLA Board of Regents around this time. Coincidentally or not, Junger-Witt’s non-profit, the Environmental Defense Fund, also donated $40,000 to the UCLA Board of Regents that very same year. Coincidence? Hollywood money undoubtedly played a supporting role in Harris’ life, from funding his PhD to helping him purchase further credibility. Something to consider when Harris next castigates the Muslim world for it’s lack of academic successes
All of this could be interesting if there was a source. Could you provide a source? I'm trying to look it up myself and it's difficult to find anything corroborating this, I really do want to know, so please share whatever it is you read

>>14537503
The obvious question is do you assume everyone working at UCLA in the neuroscience department knows and doesn’t care about this?

That seems more unlikely. No one has come out and said “hey he was terrible! He couldn’t cut it and bought his degree!”

Also $40000 is not a lot of money to donate to a university.

>>14537503
>I find it far more difficult to imagine that his PhD was fraudulent, UCLA is a good school.


This. Lol yeah you’re proposals sucks but hey bud pay 40k and you got it. Even more ridiculous considering the recent scandal of people paying to get in to UCLA was $1million. If anything this would happen in a Muslim country.

>>14537667
>people paying to get in to UCLA was $1million
No, it was $100,000
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-18/college-admissions-scandal-ucla-rick-singer
And that was a fairly large sum relative to the others, $50K in 2008/2009 is about right.
>This.
>it's such a good school that it's now well known that rich kids have paid to get their credentials there
Like think about what you're saying. All of this bolsters the argument against Harris.

How the fuck someone gets a PhD in anything with two papers (and very poor papers) is beyond me. Except it isn't, it was just bribery. The same thing happens elsewhere as well, like look at some of the rich Oxbridge grads and you'll find they're quite often idiots.

>>14537719
You don’t get it buddy... it would get out.


Lori Loughlin paid $500,000 for her two daughters to get into USC Sorry not a million but also a lot more that 40000

>>14537719
> Thirty-three parents of college applicants are accused of paying more than $25 million between 2011 and 2018 to William Rick Singer

So almost a million each you fucking goof

>>14537628
>That seems more unlikely. No one has come out and said “hey he was terrible! He couldn’t cut it and bought his degree!”

I feel like that's been going on at Ivy League schools for quite a bit of time now. Nobody makes a big deal about it because it's so commonplace. It's not like people go out of their way to make sure someone who paid for their degree has some national headline about them.

>>14537719
They also couldn’t keep it secret, I think it would have come out now about Sam Harris given how many people would like that info to come out.

>>14538052
You’re just dumb

>>14538053
>I think it would have come out now
We're literally talking about it.

>>14526814
(((sam harris))) is a parasitic infection working to subvert his host society just like his tribe has been doing for thousands of years.

>>14526900
>I respect Neuroscientists
that still doesn't explain why you like harris. He's never worked as a neuroscientist and he didn't even conduct the experiment he submitted for his doctorate, and never engaged in any research afterwards. Harris is a jew, which should have let you know that he's a complete fraud masquerading as something that he isn't so that he can add the appearance of authority to his dumbfuck opinions.

>>14538033
>So almost a million each you fucking goof
Singer was involved in lots of Universities, including Yale, Georgetown and UT, they're the ones that are pushing up the average. Also for some reason USC was really expensive, I think that's because the ones going there were totally useless.

>>14526900
>the fact that he has a BA in philosophy is obviously far from enough to make him a philosophical authority

All a BA means is means is that you'll parrot the right opinion. You don't learn philosophy in college, you learn ABOUT philosophy while being brainwashed to adopt the hatred of philosophy that is post-modernism. Most college grads will tell you with a straight face that Neitzsche was a philosopher even though he was the exact opposite.

>>14526953
>I'm an atheist and a redditor
you have to go back

>>14527010
>PhD in Neuroscience from UCLA definitely makes you a neuroscientist

No it doesn't. A career as a neuroscientist is what makes you a neuroscientist. Harris has never spent a single day of his life employed as a neuroscientist.

>>14527667
and he wasn't even the one that actually did the lab work to support his thesis.

>>14527629
>>The Reason Project is a 501(c) (3) nonprofit foundation

Yeah, the same tax classification as every other church in America. Remember that the next time you hear one of those fedora faggots saying they want to end the special tax status of churches. Atheists don't hate religion, they hate OTHER religions.

>>14527693
>Things don't get "proven" or "resolved" in philosophy or in science

cute little hypothesis. You don't grasp the difference between what is and what ought to be.

>>14526814
zionist retard with a huge bias towards ((certain)) religions

I like Ben Stiller.

>>14538446
Not true at all

>Neitzsche was a philosopher even though he was the exact opposite.
"The opposite" you're just saying nonsense out your ass

>>14538446
>Neitzsche
Lol.

>>14526819
>I really liked him in Zoolander.
Tropic Thunder was his best performance.
Also I like how the movie make fun of itself.
Truly a genius.

>>14526925
>Can someone tell me why /lit/ is so damn hostile to atheism.
Atheism were wrong and humans evolved with magical thinking.
Taking it away makes society collapse.

>>14538633
>"The opposite" you're just saying nonsense out your ass

Neitzsche was a rhetorician that railed against philosophy. get your shit straight.

>>14538850
>Taking it away makes society collapse.
This is why atheists only focus on the existence of God and never concern themselves with any meaningful inquiry into the role of religion in society. They are religious fundamentalists that just hate opposing religions.

>>14538859
Nietzsche was a philosopher, and saying he wasn't isn't a meaningful statement to begin with. You're feigning authority

>>14538867
Some of us have read Jordan Peterson and know that religion is part of the metaphysical substrate of society, dw.

>>14538908
religion is the basis of society. if you have uniform religious beliefs and racial homogeneity you will have a strong, cohesive society. If you destroy either that society will fail. Atheists are just the gremlins the jews, freemasons and jesuits have loosed on the West to destroy us.

>>14539025
>if you have uniform religious beliefs
you mean like the ones we have now in the liberal west?...
>and racial homogeneity
you mean like the ones we will have in 10 years of inbreeding in the liberal west?...

>>14538462
Actually no it doesn’t you fucking brainlet.

>>14538402
I mean from a legitimate source

>>14538462
moving-the-goalpost.svg

>>14539783
>>14539828
Knock it off Sam, you're not going to convince anyone here you're a weal thientift.

I find his meditation app to be helpful.

since many of of you are scientists lets play a game of induction
the base case:
a person commits a crime but is found to be controlled by an evil wizard
we can fully justify that the person is not immoral, he is simply not in control of himself
induction:
any wizard A is controlled by another evil wizard A + 1
who is at fault here?

therefore the only one to blame is God, the One, the First and the Last

>>14532500
I am a Muslim :3
>>14534246
Uhhhh ok?
>>14536138
Moral nihilists are really just anarchists. They will not be saved from the fires either.

>>14526819
fpbp