HOME | DD
rationalhub β Sam Harris on divinity of the Bible..
Published: 2012-10-25 17:52:15 +0000 UTC; Views: 3697; Favourites: 48; Downloads: 95
Redirect to original
Description
Absolutely, Sam.Related content
Comments: 39
Ah, sam harris as a progressive icon.
That didn't age well.
π: 0 β©: 0
I respect scientists like Sam Harris; however, his entire pursuit of denying religion began in 1986...after taking a bunch of ecstasy in college. So...meh.
π: 0 β©: 0
I much prefer this Sam to the one starring in Minchin's "Thank You God".Β An excellent point is made here.
π: 0 β©: 0
Sam, making heavy logic rain on the world once again! Bravo.
π: 0 β©: 0
If one considers an infantile tirade laced with vulgarity a counter point, then Aneyolf has a point.
Unfortunately you undermine every point you "try" to make and are clearly pontificating and not presenting any discernible point of view other than you care only about what you perceive as facts, withou any regard how these "facts"are derived.
A debate I can do, shouting down a child with no apparent communication skills is not worthy of my time. When you can present your point of view dispassionately and logically give me a call and we'll contest our views.
π: 0 β©: 0
The reality is that none of the defenders or the detractors of this quote will have their minds changed by the other. Mainly because neither side is capable of truly "objectivity". Either side, whether consciously or unconsciously, will endeavor to prove their core "beliefs" regardless where they land in the spectrum.
Anomalies are often ignored in the secular community instead of fully investigated and basic natural science facts are often ignored in the evangelical community instead of trying to understand how such things could be.
Talk down to those who disagree with your secular or evangelical religions all you like, the reality is that neither scientists or evangelicals are truly objective. Machines are objective, when they are programmed as such.
π: 0 β©: 1
Your claims are hollow, coming from someone who just ignored cold factual evidence of evolution after they claimed it was a position of faith (Despite the fact you've probably benefited from the science directly for all of your life).
Like this gem: "Anomalies are often ignored in the secular community instead of fully investigated" Are you serious? Do you have any idea how many scientists and lay-people would risk tits, testicles, or both to find an anomaly first, let alone one they could potentially solve for the rewards that would naturally come with it?
Are you seriously so ignorant of the quantity of ambitious scientists and technologists who would do anything to empower their personal journey for truth, let alone the honors given to those who expand humanity's search? Yet you, in pseudo-intellectual fashion, paint everyone arguing with the same brush, with no factual or self-concieved logical counterpoint towards anyone who actually engages in such discussion. News flash: Some people are going to be proven wrong, and some people arent, pretending every idea is equal puts atomic energy right next to geocentrism.
"the reality is that neither scientists or evangelicals are truly objective." SO FUCKING WHAT?! That doesnt mean no one has a stronger piece of evidence or logistical grasp on reality than someone else! Are you seriously going to suggest that because no one is truly objective, that a detective with decades of experience in solving and preventing murders has no greater objectivity at preventing crime than a law student who started in a firm yesterday? Really?
"Talk down to those who disagree" Fuck disagreement, I dont give a single shit about disagreement, what I do give a shit about is facts, and facts dont care what side you're on. If you claim that an entity capable of creating forms of existence is responsible for this existence, fail to prove it, use texts that have been historically and scientifically debunked countless times by countless people, get caught actively distorting scientific literature and history, even to the point where you must bribe politicians to get your claims taught in schools to the members of our society least likely to be prepared to fact check your claims (kids), and even lose in courts set up by the very politicians you bribed or were likely to attempt to bribe, you can bet your ass I'm going to talk down to you.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'd be amazed if an ancient book said something people at the time couldn't have known. Rather than give us revelations, the Bible tells us things like how weather works and how life was formed and gets everything absolutely wrong. If anything, the Bible is evidence against it's own divinity.
π: 0 β©: 0
You could say the same thing for any number of religious texts. Is your argument specifically against the Bible, religion, or are you just angry with the world in general?
π: 0 β©: 0
The Bible is just an out of date book.
It is like looking at reference books from the 1800s and trying to apply them to our lifestyle now. Just doesn't work.
A bible should be a work in progress, something written by the people for the people. And it shouldn't be about how we lived before, it should be about how we can live healthy happy lives now.
*shrugs* Just my thoughts.
π: 0 β©: 0
[link]
Any illusion of taking you seriously is gone now. You are going to quote Sam Harris, a person with no degrees in Theology, but plenty in neuroscience, the only thing he has any fucking knowledge in? He believes that rape is less evil than religion, that certain people with certain beliefs should be killed, and he interprets the bible like a kindergartener would.
"Rational hub"? Reminds me of a verse in Romans: "Professing to be wise, they became fools...."
π: 0 β©: 4
You're using the Courtier's Reply, which is a logical fallacy.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtierβ¦
It can be summed up as:
"I'll tell you what - if you think I need a "sophisticated understanding of theology" to debunk bad religious ideas, then I hope you are also criticizing all those people who believe this nonsense without an "expert level understanding" of it, too."
-Hemant Mehta
π: 0 β©: 1
If you're going to criticize ANYTHING, you better do it right.
The only training I have had in religious studies was four years of high school seminary and a two year mission, and yet I'm still more knowledgeable than the majority of Bible critics I've met.
π: 0 β©: 1
He did do it right, but you're objecting to him not having a theology degree.
I don't need a degree in geography to tell you that the Earth being flat is completely wrong, so why does he need a degree in theology to point out the contradictions and problems in the christian bible?
So your complaint is invalid.
π: 0 β©: 1
Because according to well educated believers, the "contradictions" and "problems" aren't so at all.
What would you say if I told you that I didn't need a degree in order to tell you that God created the Earth in 6 days and point out the contradictions and problems in the theory of Evolution?Β You would laugh it off.
Let's face it, the Bible skeptics you bring up are just as ignorant about the subject they criticize as creationists typically are with the theory of Evolution.Β You wouldn't go to an ignorant creationist to learn about the theory or Evolution, why the hell should I go to a Bible skeptic with an obvious agenda and no sufficient knowledge in the subject?
π: 0 β©: 1
There is 0 evidence for your religion, and as Sam Harris' comment clearly showed, he read the bible all the way through.
There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. Here's a taste:
www.newscientist.com/article/dβ¦
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdeβ¦
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrβ¦
And you keep using the Courtier's Argument and ignoring the fact that education is tied to lack of religion.
Not to mention that there is no evidence for the christian biblical god outside the christian bible.
π: 0 β©: 1
And you keep using the Courtier's Argument and ignoring the fact that education is tied to lack of religion.
Which is really hilarious, because my specific denomination of Christianity defies that trend.
There is 0 evidence for your religion, and as Sam Harris' comment clearly showed, he read the bible all the way through.
As have I, and yet I've come to a completely different conclusion.Β Perhaps he only did it to cherry pick?
π: 0 β©: 1
Now you're using special pleading.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_β¦
Where's the evidence?
None has been provided. Unless you count lies, logical fallacies, and misrepresentations.
π: 0 β©: 0
See, the point is not to be considered theologically. It's a social debate, it's about real things. And neurosience is pretty impressive and complex - you have to be rather on the smart side to "have some fucking knowledge in it".
The point is, that people use the bible for ridiculous arguments. And that makes THIS kind of religion evil. Not faith as such - which is fine, AS LONG AS YOU KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. Organised religion almost always leads to suffering and hatred, wars and bloodshed and stripping people of their rights. I believe there should be no difference between the organised christianity and scientology - both are equal sects, and actually, christianity is probably ten tims worse.
π: 0 β©: 0
Lol. "The only thing he has any fucking knowledge in". So what, every critic of any topic needs to have some institutional credibility? If so, how do we determine the quality of that institution? How do we judge one institution better than the other, apart from a very suspect criteria of dogmatic purity?
Dishing out the word "fool" without any show of understanding basic logical fallacies. Okay.
π: 0 β©: 1
No, but he interprets the bible like a first grader would.
π: 0 β©: 3
You seem to be interpreting the way Sam Harris interprets the bible, like a first grader would.
π: 0 β©: 0
Which is an interpretation of its own, and from a video that not only does not feature Sam Harris himself, but dialogue written specifically and deliberately to discredit his views. Do you know what ad hominem is..? Have you read Harris, without prejudice and a critical attitude? Nevermind the fact that for a text that purports to declare truth guided by the hand of an omniscient deity is liable to a range of interpretations. If you can't see the implications of that (without being fundamentalist), then well.
π: 0 β©: 0
Which is an interpretation of its own, and from a video that not only does not feature Sam Harris himself, but dialogue written specifically and deliberately to discredit his views. Do you know what ad hominem is..? Have you read Harris, without prejudice and a critical attitude? Nevermind the fact that for a text that purports to declare truth guided by the hand of an omniscient deity is liable to a range of interpretations. If you can't see the implications of that (without being fundamentalist), then well.
π: 0 β©: 0
Seriously? An ad hominem? Yeah right, what else did I expect from you, really?
Oh and being rational is not 'professing to be wise' - duh. So clueless.
π: 0 β©: 0
I've read the bible and found no where does it's theme reflect that of a science text book. It's a morality instruction manual for those who choose to follow it.
Counter point, in 153 years since Darwin presented his hypothesis of evolution, the scientific community has yet to "prove it" and thus turn the theory in to a law, like the "Law of Gravity". Equally notable is the lack of any "proof" of the big bang theory as well.
I am a healthy skeptic that questions both the faith based and scientific community's assertions. Neither can definitely proof their case, since no one was there at the big bang and no one has yet seen a actual evolved species. I find it convenient that the scientific community hides behind the assumption that evolution takes millions of year, but no definitive evidence supports that assertion.
Both questions require "Faith" to believe in them, regardless of your personal position. Both sides (including the minority creationist scientists) are trying to prove their own pet positions and neither are truly seeking objective truth. If they were they'd be trying to reconcile anomalies rather than discarding them.
Hence why I don't espouse either as fact...
π: 0 β©: 4
It'd be a bit more prudent in learning about the things you scrutinise before you label yourself a "healthy" skeptic. As said, scientific methodology doesn't run parallel with commonly held views of it. Much of criticism directed towards science is due to misunderstandings or distortions. There is verification, and then there is confirmation. Scientific theories may be highly confirmed without positive (absolute) proof of its truth. Just in regard to biological facts, natural selection is highly confirmed by the staggering amount of empirical evidence that gives it favour over a Biblical account. Given that, scientific verification is itself a bit of a contentious topic. And then there's the assumption that there must be a singular truth...
Actually, this point was brought up the Four Horsemen talk between Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and Harris, in how their critics most often have not even read their books.
π: 0 β©: 0
"no one has yet seen a actual evolved species" [link]
You were saying?
π: 0 β©: 1
ITS EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID NO ONE'S EVER SEEN OR PROVEN!
You cant just ignore it!
π: 0 β©: 0
Actually we see evolution all around us. Influenza, for instance, changes every year. The evolution of diseases is well known and taken into account in treating bacterial and viral infections. Another example: antibiotics that used to work no longer work on certain bacteria because they have evolved to be resistant to them, in accordance with Darwin's theory of natural selection. Though it could be argued this is not "natural" because humans are involved, humans are not purposely breeding these "superbugs"; rather, they are evolving to counteract our species's methods of defeating them. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "a actual evolved species," though, seeing as according to the theory all species are "evolved species."
Quite simply, claiming that evolution doesn't happen with what we are capable of observing and tracking is as silly as claiming that gravity doesn't exist. We may not fully understand how it works and what causes it yet, but both things have remarkable effects on the world around us.
And, you know, the "assumption" that evolution takes millions of years has to do with evolution causing very small changes and most macroscopic life being quite complex. Little changes add up to make big changes. Going off of the fossil record, it is also apparent that big changes are millions of years apart. Honestly, expecting one generation to be a lizard and the next to be a bird is just a bit far-fetched. Evolution relies on small, random mutations, most of which are not beneficial. So it relies on the occasional mutation being slightly beneficial, and then another mutation building on that one, and so forth.
π: 0 β©: 0
It might interest you to know that it's actually still called the 'theory of universal gravitation.' According to your apparent misunderstanding of what the word theory means in science, that means that gravity is unproven.
What it actually means, for both evolution via natural selection and the theory of universal gravitation, is that there are still some issues that need to be worked out, but the theory itself is proven (insofar as anything in science, thanks to the reliance on inductive reasoning, can be proven). In point of fact, it's not called a theory until there is rather a lot of evidence supporting it. For evolution, this means radio-isotope dating of sediments and fossils, numerous transitional forms found in the fossil record, and at least a basic understanding of some of the key principles of geology, not to mention the emerging body of genetic evidence, which has proven quite valuable in correcting errors in cladograms that had been drawn up based on morphology and certain population data (viability of hybrids, for example).
π: 0 β©: 2
TY for saving me some time there
π: 0 β©: 0
Oi, Excalibur ... I'd totally have your babies, just saying.
Please don't mind my crude response to a well written, wonderfully informative response - I didn't think you could hear me clapping from here.
π: 0 β©: 0
Ask any psychiatrist, it's impossible to reason with unreasonable people. This is not a world of fact, even when something is definitively proven, people delude themselves more, so good luck with that.
π: 0 β©: 0
