Sam Harris

[Anonymous No.11623166]

Is it morally acceptable to conceal your net-worth to encourage people to donate to your patreon?

[Anonymous No.11623168]

no, you shit. /thread

[Anonymous No.11623189]

>>11623166
What does someones net worth have to do with someone creating a product and asking people to pay for it?

[Anonymous No.11623202]

>>11623189
you obviously know what the problem is and it makes me really angry when people do this

[Anonymous No.11623212]

>>11623202
No, I don't, what exactly the problem?

[Anonymous No.11623220]

No, that would be a lie of omission. But Sam Harris is obviously an amoral sociopath (look at his face) so I doubt he's seriously concerned with questions of morality or immorality beyond using them as talking points in his sophistry.

[Anonymous No.11623237]

>>11623166
>scamming braindead atheist
perfectly ok and a moral good

[Anonymous No.11623328]

>>11623220
Why do so many fokes hate Sam Harris? In my experientially subjective he has been very helpful in developing my intellectualism and much more. I find all of his points to be greatly argued and I daresay he will have a place among the greats.

[Anonymous No.11623340]

>>11623328
Among the great e-intellectuals like Jordan peterson and Joe rogan

[Anonymous No.11623346]

>>11623340
Whats wrong with that?!? Jordan Peterson (though not as smart as Harris) is still a great intellectual. And Joe Rogan is too.

[Anonymous No.11623365]

>>11623346
YIKES

[Anonymous No.11623376]

>>11623365
Not an argumentation kid

[Anonymous No.11623459]

>>11623166
see
>>/lit/thread/S10845861

[Anonymous No.11623481]

>During the course of my investigation of scientism and bad science, I have read a great many bad, poorly reasoned papers. This one might not be the worst, but it deserves a prize for mangling the largest number of things simultaneously. What is fascinating, and what I do not here explore, is why this paper was not only published but why it is believed by others. It is sure evidence, I think, that scientists are no different than anybody else in wanting their cherished beliefs upheld such that they are willing to grasp at any confirmatory evidence, no matter how slight, blemished, or suspect that evidence might be.

>I do not claim, and I do not believe, that Harris and his team cheated, lied, or willfully misled. I have given sufficient argument to show the authors wore such opaque blinders that they could not see what they were doing and so choose to write down that which they imagined they saw, which was a preconceived, incoherent concoction about how “Christians” would differ from “rational” thinkers.

Is it morally acceptable to call yourself a "neuroscientist" when your PhD lab work was paid for by an atheist think tank you co-own so that they could make up some evidence showing religion's irrationality?

[Anonymous No.11623488]

>>11623346
Joe Rogan is a great interviewer, not the best intellectual. Jordan Peterson however, fails on both counts.

[Anonymous No.11623493]

>>11623346
>And Joe Rogan is too.

lol

[Anonymous No.11623508]

>>11623212

[Anonymous No.11623519]

>>11623340
Sam Harris is an actual intellectual though. Peterson borders on, if not taking a deep dive in, anti-scientific nonsense much of the time.

[Anonymous No.11623521]

>>11623519
Peterson taught at Harvard

[Anonymous No.11623527]

>>11623346
>Jordan Peterson (though not as smart as Harris)

[Anonymous No.11623548]

>>11623521
Associate professor, not full professor. That doesn't make him an intellectual and doesn't mean what he says isn't gibberish.

[Anonymous No.11623568]

>>11623481
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.11623621]

>>11623568
my dad

[Anonymous No.11623654]

>>11623328
The difference between him and "the greats" as you put it is rather simply that he has come up with no new ideas, and yet masquerades as a philosopher. Compare him to Heidegger or Nietzsche or Kant or even a contemporary philosopher like Macintyre and the difference is pretty stark.

He is considered a landmark thinker only among people who haven't yet read much philosophy--which isn't their fault, of course, but it must be constantly kept in mind that his primary role is "babby's first philosopher." He should be considered as such.

[Anonymous No.11623678]

>>11623654
Calling Sam Harris a philosopher is a spit in the face to the field

[Anonymous No.11624061]

>>11623678
Calling philosophy a field is a spit in the face to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11624104]

You collegebros and your ecelebs. Please stop caring about individuals.
When you say that Harris is a pseud, you mean that you disagree with him without giving us the slightest idea why. When you say that Peterson is a pseud, it's the same exact thing.
Start discussing strictly the ideas and rarely the people, please. Otherwise we have vague clusterfuck threads like this one.

[Anonymous No.11624144]

>>11624104
Harris is a pseud.
He has never made a strong case for morality in a Godless world. His personal actions are highly questionable (see OP). Whenever he is wrong or stumped he will claim something along the lines of:
>i feel we're getting bogged down in minutiae. We really need to establish some specific criteria and definitions for 'x'.

Try telling me what is worthwhile about him.

[Anonymous No.11624168]

>>11624144
Christ dude. Even if I agreed with Harris I wouldn't bother discussing HIM, that was the entire point of my previous message. Please reread it in its entirety.

[Anonymous No.11624182]

>>11624168
Discussing a public intellectual is fine. You took the time to post in this thread so don't act like you're above what you've already done. What are 'his' ideas that you find agreeable? I haven't heard him say anything of value that an average IQ 18 year old couldn't arrive at on their own.

[Anonymous No.11624235]

>>11623189
Because it’s disingenous, greedy, unbecoming, and immoral to spend shit tons of money on extravagant assets and then plug for money as if you cannot fund it yourself. He’s an atheist though so that behavior goes with the territory.

[Anonymous No.11624245]

>>11624182
I don't find most of his ideas agreeable. I couldn't believe that spirituality without religion was a thing when I first heard of it so I read Waking Up. Waste of time, it was the same "be the best subjective version of yourself" shtick that successful / not depressed nihilists seem to love.
But Harris sure doesn't act like a nihilist. He undeniably believes there is some level of objectivity intrinsic to human ethics, yet he dismisses this as an evolutionary quirk. Dawkins brought this argument to the spotlight a decade ago and it hasn't held up.
tl;dr Harris has some good ideas with poorly drawn conclusions and plenty of straight-out shit ideas.

[Anonymous No.11624251]

>>11624235
Well he can't be all bad, he's spiritual after all :^)

[Anonymous No.11624278]

>>11623166
I don't agree with everything Sam Harris spews out, but I do love how hard he triggers godcucks.

[Anonymous No.11624280]

>>11624245
I feel similarly.

[Anonymous No.11624306]

>>11624245
Harris has no good ideas. He has half formed ideas that were already fleshed out and argued fully by people 200 years ago. He self contradicts himself all the time. He's a pseud and a fraud and probably has self esteem issues that make him project this image of being smart so hard when there is literally nothing backing it up.

Peterson is the same in much the same way. He argues and says shit about philosophy that he demonstrably knows dick about for no reason other than it seems he needs to believe he is some genius culture warrior or something. This is further evidenced by the fact that the fucker never even smiles in pictures and that he threatened someone with physical violence for calling him a Nazi. Which is totally laughable because Peterson is at least like 60 and not tough at all and most people even on this site would fuck grandpa Peterson the fuck up if it came down to it, in self defense of course. I wish Peterson would threaten to slap me I really do.
I would self defensively break his frail kneecaps like fucking chopsticks and curbstomp his frail old skull in self defense obviously

But Peterson is at the very least not as idiotic as Harris. He at the very least perhaps because of his training as a psychiatrist, understands humanity and rejects things like reason, truth, civility, etc as thin veneers. Unlike Harris who thinks that we are in a video game where we acquire these things and they are part of the human condition now forever. What a joke. Just like you, op. You are a fucking joke for taking these clowns seriously

[Anonymous No.11624310]

>>11624278
>I do love how hard he triggers godcucks.
You have to go back

[Anonymous No.11624323]

>>11623548
He has 10,000 citations and his first book was an academic treatise published through Routledge. I'm no lobster, but peterson dunks on pop philosophy man sam harris.

[Anonymous No.11624331]

>>11624306
I have no fucking idea how you're supposed to deal with immense repressed anger, but you should do something (nonviolent) about that man.
>>11624104

[Anonymous No.11624342]

>>11624323
It's all coming together.
People today eat up anything and everything "pop"

[Anonymous No.11624355]

>>11624342
Peterson is ok. His self-help turn is a bit hacky, but he can still redeem himself if he goes full trad jungian, pumps out another academic work and opens a church in alberta.

[Anonymous No.11624502]

>>11623166
A fool and his money are soon parted. Anyone who listens to this loathsome, ignorant Jew and feels the need to give him money deserves to be that much poorer.

[Anonymous No.11624510]

>*ignores the is-ought problem*
Pssh, nothin personnel... philosophy

[Anonymous No.11625209]

>>11623488
>Joe Rogan is a great interviewer
He's a horrible interviewer. If he's able to bully the person he will, and if he isn't, he'll kiss their ass and try to derail the conversation with random facts he read on wikipedia to try to impress them.

[Anonymous No.11625230]

>>11624355
He won't because that won't get him those NEETbux

[Anonymous No.11625397]

>>11624235
Well I don't give a shit about the guy but in all fairness if I was a millionaire I wouldn't just throw my own cash at a product or service to offer if other people would do it anyway. That's the kind of dumb idea that would make me NOT a millionaire.

[Anonymous No.11625438]

>>11623189
Because if you do not need the money (and someone who is wealthy does not need money in any way) then asking for money is uncharitable. Charity is a virtue. Therefore what he is doing is not virtuous. Basic applied ethics tbqh, although I can see how an atheist would struggle with it.

[Anonymous No.11625443]

>>11623328
>I daresay he will have a place among the greats.
Holy fucking SHIT dude you had better be trolling.

[Anonymous No.11625452]

>>11623481
>Is it morally acceptable to call yourself a "neuroscientist" when your PhD lab work was paid for by an atheist think tank you co-own so that they could make up some evidence showing religion's irrationality?
Making up evidence is surely morally unacceptable if done intentionally. The person you quoted though is clearly of the opinion that it wasn't intentional.

[Anonymous No.11625455]

>>11625397
>Being a nice person is dumb
Get out.

[Anonymous No.11625459]

>>11625455

[Anonymous No.11625468]

>>11624235
>He’s an atheist though so that behavior goes with the territory.
>>11625438
>Basic applied ethics tbqh, although I can see how an atheist would struggle with it.
experiments show that religious people are just as dishonest as atheists. in fact more so, since atheists don't claim that they are under some kind of supernatural surveillance which monitors how good they are being.
it's almost as if religious people don't really believe in the omnipotence of the god they worship. or in fact, believe in that god at all in any meaningful way

[Anonymous No.11625471]

>>11623166
Only if you're Jewish.

[Anonymous No.11625478]

>>11625468
>experiments show that religious people are just as dishonest as atheists. in fact more so, since atheists don't claim that they are under some kind of supernatural surveillance which monitors how good they are being. it's almost as if religious people don't really believe in the omnipotence of the god they worship. or in fact, believe in that god at all in any meaningful way
It's almost as if atheists are so stupid they can't coherently link two sentences together in any meaningful way.

[Anonymous No.11625479]

>>11623328
nice bait

[Anonymous No.11625482]

>>11625397
>>11625438
>>11625455
you people are idiots
do you think people who are reasonably wealthy should work for free?
i am not talking about the extremely wealthy who do philanthropic acts like bill gates etc
but normal middle class people who work hard and want to enjoy the results
i am a millionaire. i don't work for free.

[Anonymous No.11625485]

>>11625478
point out how what i wrote is "incoherent"

[Anonymous No.11625495]

>>11625485
The content of your last sentence bears no coherent relationship to the content of the previous sentences. You may as well have written
"experiments show that religious people are just as dishonest as atheists. in fact more so, since atheists don't claim that they are under some kind of supernatural surveillance which monitors how good they are being. it's almost as if I'm a raging faggot".

[Anonymous No.11625515]

>>11625482
>do you think people who are reasonably wealthy should work for free?
Sam is obviously more than "reasonably wealthy". Not as wealthy as Bill Gates but obviously more than the average middle-class person. And as for "working for free" you're just muddying the waters now, with what I can only imagine is with deliberate intent. Sam's podcasts are not his only, or even his primary, source of income. He also personally benefits from them and enjoys making them, in such a way that while it is still work of a sort (but only insofar as anything that consumes energy is work), it is not "labour". He would (at least according to his own testimony) be doing them, provided he had the means to do them, even if he was not being paid for them.

[Anonymous No.11625526]

>Has an online product
>Gives it away for free
>"If you would *like* to support this podcast you can..."
>much uncharitable jew asks for money

Why do you faggots care whether or not he asks for money? He explicitly says he does not want money from those that can not spare it. I'm not that big a fan of his either but this thread is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.11625531]

>>11625495
you absolute utter fucking moron

1 experiments show that religious people are just as dishonest as atheists.
2 in fact more so, since atheists don't claim that they are under some kind of supernatural surveillance which monitors how good they are being.
3 it's almost as if religious people don't really believe in the omnipotence of the god they worship.
4 or in fact, believe in that god at all in any meaningful way

sentences 3 and 4 are conclusions drawn from the statements in sentences 1 and 2
any religious person e.g. a christian or muslim would tell you their god is omnipotent. that would mean they would be able to see dishonest acts (most religions would regard e.g. stealing as dishonest, unless it was necessary for survival or something) performed by that person. you can't fool an omnipotent being.
so if that religious person performs a dishonest act what conclusions can we draw?
the person does not actually believe that the god is omnipotent
or they think their act is not dishonest
or they recognise the act as dishonest, but are ok with the consequences e.g. going to hell etc
most religious books have commandments and stories about what happens to bad people. the only real possibility is that religious people who do dishonest acts think they can fool an omnipotent being or they don't believe in it in the first place.

now fuck off and be a religitard somewhere else or i'll get sam harris to come to your house and hit you with a hammer

[Anonymous No.11625535]

>>11625526
You think the question in the OP is intrinsically ridiculous?

[Anonymous No.11625559]

>>11625531
Calm down, my child.

>so if that religious person performs a dishonest act what conclusions can we draw?
>the person does not actually believe that the god is omnipotent
>or they think their act is not dishonest
>or they recognise the act as dishonest, but are ok with the consequences e.g. going to hell etc
Or they have weakness of will. The fact that you are not aware of this possibility as an explanation for why religious people sin, despite it being a commonplace in religious doctrine, shows you are speaking from a position of total ignorance with respect to the topic. At any rate, I can know reappraise your contribution to the thread, having a fuller account of it: It is indeed coherent, but unfortunately it is manifestly fallacious.