Except on Trump

Hes not that sharp when it comes to philosophy

Struggle in math class, did we? This thing was 17 years before you made this comment

@@BroodallyHonest oh, math was fine. The subject where you pour over details that nobody cares about in order to correct a superficial post-v-source material error that a stranger made a year ago: I flunked that one, and thank the heavens: someone who leans that way would surely be insufferable.

@Asler Renan Oh that was the problem huh? Lol roger. 8 years later, few things have changed.

Asler Renan where do you get your data?

@Asler Renan If only people were MORE religious, right? That would fix everything? Organized religion has had roughly two thousand years to prove that it's A) not a fairy tale, and B) that it can unite the worlds peoples in peace. Has it worked? In two thousand years, people are more divided than ever. Why? The main reason is as the numbers of people identifying as religious has dropped, it's left us with the people who are MORE religious. How's that working out for the world? You watch the news?

@Asler Renan I'd be really careful about using religion, especially Christianity, as your moral compass. When in history has been okay to kill unborn children? Never, that I'm aware of, because God chose to do it after they were born (Exodus 11-12). I'm assuming that there were probably a few million unborn babies still in the womb when the flood happened, too (Book of Genesis). So yeah, he doesn't need to let killers in, he's already there. Jesus himself had absolutely no issue with mass death and destruction... "it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town," (Matthew 10:15) You don't need religion to be a good person. In fact, it seems to just give people another excuse to highlight their differences. For every individual like yourself who seems to recognize personal responsibility with your religion in not becoming an extremist, there are millions of people ready to kill and die for theirs. Religion is not the answer. It has never been the answer. Edit: grammar snob sorry

@Asler Renan Babies in their mother's womb do not inherit their parent's sin. God is a straight up murderer. Cheers.

rigbone jr 😂😂😂 I see what you did there.

whichever one was before he started enjoying wine and cheese late at night with birds

Love it!!

epik joke bromethius. no ones's come at this from the ben stiller angle before. props for originality

You wrote that comment a year ago and the joke was already getting old!

Sam Harris and Bill Maher caught in lie about Islam kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rtenlZhlyL2lgHU.html

Lol

you learn more about yourself in what you see in others.

Ironic in what sense lol

@@StickHits I'm not 100% on this, I'm only human so I will embrace any instance of me being wrong, but I think this would be classified as "situational irony" since organized religions tend to put on the appearance of supporting peace, love, and unity, but in practice, they are wielded to support intolerance, bigotry, persecution, murder, etc. Meanwhile, impartial science and rational thought don't really care about any of that, but as a byproduct, actually achieve the goals of peace and unity more so than organized religion. TLDR; Situational irony: situations and events contradict what is expected.

Guess you do whatever the government does to you because theyre organized more than religions lol

It doesn't show the "scientific side" fully understands that side of the argument, it shows Tyson (one guy) thought to ask that question, there is many other's would not and some other's would scuff at it etc, he only speaks for himself.

Except Hinduism uses the mumbo-jumbo of karma to enslave hundreds of millions if not billions of individuals,classifying them as untouchables based solely on who they are born to and what they supposedly did in their past lives. It also promotes sex-selective abortion and female infanticide due to dowry and an ultra-male dominated society,the burning of widows known as sati, and a very unequal and wasteful societal structure called the caste-system which forces the masses to perform mass labor as shudras and allows society to be controlled by the kshatriyas,greedy kings,and the brahmin elite.

Hinduism may not Harm science in big way, but they have stupid superstitious mind, and keep them self in box and have to agree with Paul .... all tho the caste system is going away, its still there in villages and such..

Being Indian, and an atheist, I dig your style

greatbalance Ever heard of Myanmar genocide?

Paul Stephen the caste system actually has little to do with the Vedas which serve as the foundation for Hinduism. The Bhagavad-Gita is also a book that contributes to this foundation. The caste system and sati is neither mentioned nor put into practice like it was in recent history. Saying this I have to agree with you when you say they are nothing but mumbo jumbo. These ideas penetrated hinduism and have since dominated the religion. I do agree that because of this Hinduism should not be followed, nor should any religion. I'd rather believe in facts and science than base my life on a book of well written fiction.

It's become quite clear that you cannot have extremists without 'regulars'. If you have religion (politics, ideas in general) you will always have extremists.

Sevv9220 Extremism is a state of mind, religion can be the vehicle. Absence of religion will not predict absence of extremism.

@@JohnSmith-to5ow religious extremism is worst extremism that can exist...

@@MorbiusBlueBalls not necessarily especially nowdays we see political extremism

@@MorbiusBlueBalls in fact many muslim extremists are actually more politically driven than religiously moving. Political extremism especially in the west like Europe and america is very dangerous and has become more and more troublesome . We shouldnt just pretend that religion extremism is the most dangerous. It isnt. Many aspects are politically and culturally driven

Sam has such a lucidity of thought when speaking . Joy to listen to. I have to always rewind back to make sure I understand yet he just goes with it

Tyson didn't lose a battle, he asked Sam a question.

I think it was a very, personal question. I think it was very valid in that. I do think Harris missed the point of the question though he did answer the ideal. I'm drunk, I don't know if what I wrote makes sense.

@@Thulgore hey are you still drunk?

I just hate the 'C word so unnecessary

"So fuck him and his supporters"Classy response. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Not really, he didn’t answer Neil’s question, he’s a hell of a lot better now thank god

Ren Zhe wow you literally lied all of that 🤦‍♂️

The scenario he talked about was to prove that you CAN'T make religions not harmful because their fundamentals are harmful. You could try to convince religious people to only care about the spiritual world but the bible is still there, and it still says enslaving people is ok. So unless the very fundamentals of religions go away there will be no change, and that's what Harris does. He attacks the fundamentals, instead of Neil's proposal which is to only attack the extremists.

yawn was hardly a crap answer. he wasn't ignoring neil's question, he was saying that such a hypothetical isn't possible due to the infallibility of the religious texts and how serious the followers take those texts.

Shiggystardust Doesn't matter, it wasn't the question. Answer the question first, then explain how it cannot be. And I don't believe its impossible. In the US christianity still has a lot of fanatics so it might be hard to believe, but here in the Netherlands fanatical christianity has all but disappeared apart from a few incestuous enclaves that are the laughing stock of the rest of the nation. Though its still retarded, faith can get set apart from the old doctrines like it does in my country. Its that situation that dr. Tyson asks about. Most of the religous here just think God kickstarted the Big Bang. Of course that idea is still laughable to me, but there's no creationism debate going on here is what I'm saying, and no intrusion into politics or science. Not counting the bloody muslims who bitch about pork, alcohol and their right to cover the satanic whores called females with disgusting full body clothing. My answer to Neils question would be; I'd still think it stupid because there's still faith without evidence involved and a God of the gaps deal going on, but I won't fight it as long as you don't let your beliefs interfere with the physical world, indoctrinate proven science and disregard proven science. So yeah it is a crap answer because it dodges the question.

what is the point of entertaining the hypothetical by saying yeah I would leave religion alone if it didn't interfere with the physical world, when he is saying that is a hypothetical not even worth your time entertaining because of how serious believers treat their doctrine? its a waste of time. for the most part christianity is like the netherlands in every westernised country except america where it has a strong foothold on in the public life. christianity is only one religion n i dont know about the netherlands or how many muslims you may have there cause that is a whole different ball game as it takes only a handful of radicals to cause an attack.

Shiggystardust Because European christians used to be just as nuts as the muslims are now, which proves that in time all religions can evolve into moderation, secularisation and eventually become more like deism as well. Doesn't mean they will, but its not impossible. As atheism/nonreligious is on the rise everywhere the religioms will hold less and less power and eventually will have no choice but to evolve into something like that. Like it did in my country (where the majority is nonreligious and most of the christians left are non-practicioners). So thats why its a valid hypothetical scenario. Its not likely to happen soon, but imo its an eventuallity before all religions slowly fade into oblivion.

NiekGAE I'm sorry its not a valid hypothetical. atheism is on the rise is westernised countries only yet christian and catholic groups alike everywhere may be losing power slowly but they will continue to oppress people whenever they can. look at marriage equality and how long that has taken to become law in many of those countries. religion cannot help itself, at its core is a need to control and oppress. plus u have many people raised in those democratic societies from educated families and then they will seek out acts of terrorism. its fanciful to think that religion will become how you claim it to be in the netherlands even though i highly doubt your claim, that's just confirmation bias based on no evidence. Sam is basing is assumption on a long list of evidence that he has taken the time to research the pattern of behaviour, he looks at polls that interview people on their beliefs. much smarter people than you or I have reached this conclusion, people who are merely looking at the situation objectively. I suggest go watch Christopher Hitchens elegantly explain why its just not possible if you are unsatisfied with Sam and his answer

We emerged from the chemistry of the periodic table. That is our reality. Within that reality exists the brain and within the wonderfully complex structure emerged consciousness.. all of it is ONE reality.. Imagination allows one to create a false reality,, a fictional reality,, a myth.

@@timhallas4275 You Think?

@@peterscherba4138 I'm sorry, did you just attempt to make a sentence again. Still not working dude.

@@timhallas4275 Only in your mind. It's your own ego that you need to feel sorry for...

@@timhallas4275 Imagination can be in error just as easily as can knowledge. All in how you use it! Einsiein; stated imagination is more powerful than knowledge... any questions?

When you're a carpenter the entire world is a nail.

+Commodoor64 And he is apparently so hammered XD

+mostafa mito He answered the question perfectly by explaining the harm of following outdated garbage like bible and quran.

Haha. I agree. Nails everywhere. and he looks hammered too. I tend to lean towards NDGT on this one. Religion is not going away anytime soon, but it can be modified into a system of philosophy that is more tolerant. if I have learnt anything from so many years as a Christian, it is that the Sunday sermons have evolved a light since i was a kid.

I being a Muslim never been in sunday sermons but I got Christian friend and I can tell you some of them are actually better than your normal Muslim ones but not due to religion due to being brought up differently. As irrelevant as that sounds I just want to say I agree with you and I can't really believe how people just can't get over a past that's long gone and is wrong told about in history books or more specifically text books.

the backbone of science is observation. We do not observe mutations resulting in to new species (evolutionary model) just variety within the same species and yet we do observe kind producing kind in every life form (creation model). So by using science we see there is overwhelming evidence to support the creation model and 0 for the evolutionary model. So why do you not believe and accept the evidence provided by science?

Bret Zajac false, it has be observed in several kinds of plants in a rather short time. Some plants have evolved after several generations to be different on the micro and macro level, and unable to breed with the original kind, which a definite indication of a new species. And then after this happens for long enough, you can get the picture

Harris is among the most bull-headed "big thinkers" I've ever seen. He just steams ahead and answers the questions he wished people asked him, or just ignores a point entirely. It's honestly mind-boggling how often he gets away with this. If he were to play a fighting video game, I imagine he'd quickly grok how to dodge and evade attacks... and proceed to do that until the timer run out. Or simply mash buttons when he happens to side-step his way behind his opponent.

Sam Harris simply pointed out that the very nature of the most popular religions today preclude that hypothetical from ever becoming a reality.

Eric van Bezooijen Yeah, ok but that still NOT the question. So your point is?

GuitarSessions! Mm no he answered it. He used an industrialized nation with no major religious sect to show how other nations can fall under pressure. The US did cave on this, and when your country caves on something as fundamental as free speech, you must look at the reason why. Religion is that reason. If it dies, humanity moves forward.

@@William102582 Unless those religion completely ditch those books full of hatred and bigotry to say the least, it won't happen. And guess what? Those religions are based on those books. What he's saying is that religions are based on harming superstitions, you can't take that away from those religions without completely destroying them.

Sam Harris and Bill Maher caught in lie about Islam kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rtenlZhlyL2lgHU.html

You seem to have missed the point too. The answer was almost a straw-man.

Nacht Physik Well congratulations for jumping into this with condescension. This is exactly the kind of mindset that gravitates towards the near straw man in Harris's corner. Arrogant, unbending and unreasonable that was. 1) I said near straw man so , the irony is that you straw maned me too. 2) I heard the explanation; I have ears but it was very weak,relatively rushed and not convincing by far. Harris's hatred of religion is making him look at this in black and white terms and that is indeed undesirable in an intellectual.

Nacht Physik Yes and the condescension continues. Keep going, make yourself feel as if you are the intellectual heavy weight here if that's what you need to feel before the subject returns to the fallacious response Harris gave. You are indeed arrogant and I am aware of the German ideas of arrogance considering I have been a few times and don't live far off. Go on, unload....

This clinical analysis of human beings that oozes out of Harris is indeed supported by like minded people.

Nacht Physik Throwing the term ad hominem around does nothing for your case; all it does is feeds your ego.

Sam Harris and Bill Maher caught in lie about Islam kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rtenlZhlyL2lgHU.html

Because it is the real one. Extremists follow their holy texts to the letter, that's why they're called extremists. And how can supposedly 'infallible' holy books be interpreted in different ways? Is that not contradictory?

No, they follow what is most convenient. They also ignore context, age and original purpose of the text. A literal reading doesn't make sense in the Bible for example.

mig5l Every Christian, Muslim, or otherwise follows what is only convenient to them from their holy books. There most certainly are those who follow them literally. Look at the Westboro Baptist Church.

Westboro Baptist Church ignores the context of the passages in the New Testament who talk about Homossexuality. In Romans Chapter 1 versicles 26 to 27 "26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." In it Homossexuality is described as dishonorable and shamefull. But If you take it in context as Romans Chapter 1 versicle 20 to 30 it is: "20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." It is condemning and punishing men because they were not worshiping God and ignored His presence. It is not however condemning Homossexuality in general!

mig5l Tell me how they ignore that? That's the kind of thing they quote to fuel their bigoted beliefs and condemn others. It doesn't say homosexuality isn't bad, it quite clearly states that it is. I can tell you now, those people most certainly do follow their holy book to the word, including that part, they view those who have 'turned from god' just as poorly as they view homosexuality, because to them it IS turning away from god, which is almost exactly what the bible states. They are a prime example of how the bible is riddled with disgusting judgements and morals. To be honest, I respect them for having the balls to be honest to themselves about their outdated religion, they are among the few that will read it and take it literally, as it was supposed to be taken hundreds of years ago. You may say it can be interpreted in different ways, but this argument has only been drawn up because so much of the bible has been found to be false, historically speaking. Such as Earth being just a few thousands years old, or a world wide flood where some bloke managed to get two of every animal on a boat, renewing a cycle of inbreeding that first started at Adam and Eve (which also never happened). Are you simply defending the bible from a philosophical point of view or do you actually believe it? Because you seem intelligent, I don't want to believe that you could believe such horse shit.

@John Joseph Callahan Hi, Do you believe that you can consciously delude yourself to believe something that you know is false?

What a great religion. Believe or Suffer. I think I'll take my chances.

Except for all that eternal suffering. An ultimatum is not free will.

What if Free Will doesn't exist. Also, wheres your proof for all these claims?

I don't think you understand science very well.

Sam is legitimately a master linguist and a genius. Watch the episode with Sam on Ben shapiros podcast. Not saying Ben is one of the smartest guys out there but he is very intelligent, knows his content, and is an extremely fast speaker. He uses that to destroy most people in debates. Sam came on and calmly completely destroyed every single one of the topics he spoke with Ben. It’s pretty crazy how good Sam is. Master

You don't respect him because he asked a sensible question? He is talking about philosophy here, not some totalitarian worldview which by the way does not have to be purely religious. I mean I have heard people try to blame everything on religion, and believe me I know its a problem nowadays. I have seen people say Communism is a religion, or socialism or Marxism..and when I say religion, they were referring to the definition which includes God. Which is just propaganda to say the idea of a creator creates disaster for people. The Point is Mr. Harris just wants his way with the world not believing in a creator...Any idea or philosophy can give rise to moments where people will act out of you disagree or write something about that philosopher or depict them in a drawing they do not like Science does not do this because its SCIENCE...it is a tool or system used to acquire pure information and not really philosophy or to have poetry etc of things....it is fact based not really opinionated. Take the Civil Rights movement for example, many people hold MLK and other leaders very high and any media to disrespect them they are offended by and will react, or any leaders that represent a movement if its disrespected will react in protest or violent, depending on how that culture or people were socialized in regards to it. Muslims were socialized differently from the west in regards to prophet Muhammad so they act different from how the majority of blacks would act about Harriet Tubman or Maya Angelou if they were disrespected. African Americans are more desensitized, or the west in general is...the Muslims are not, so is this religions fault? No its a cultural system away of life for them, Or should we blame prostitution and HIV and objectifying women and drugs on secularism....No "Well secularism or other movements do not say go out and kill disbelievers and you'll go to heaven and get 72 virgins"---Neither does Islam, for those that do not just skim wiki or random social medias...you would know that Islam has its origin actually from Africa and is closely related to an older philosophy called Ma'at.... If there was a day set to honor the importance of a great civil rights leader and instead people always drank on that day and around that time there was an increase in auto accidents because it was a day off and people partied, would that mean honoring that person is bad? Or perhaps it has become abused overtime, this a weak example but it is to say that Neil's option made more since, of course if that was possible, what Harris proposes is to rid everyone of things they hope for and believe and make people conform to an idea that he proposes...again I say what Neil proposed is better, because it rids the world of fundies while everyone can have their philosophy, Harris says no, remove it all together because it makes no since....people not eating certain foods even if they do not cause harm does not make since to some but they have a right to do it And before a smart A** says " Eating certain foods don't blow people up or hurt others", again read where I said Neil's approach is far better and again Harris is more or less destroying and attacking philosophy versus just religion...ultimately that is what he is doing

You know what Neil DeGrasse Tyson believes? It is so interesting that you "rationalists" are so SURE of things that other people are not. I never heard of someone being burned for being a astrophysicist....

@@mig5l you're kidding right?

@@w8m4n no, literally no ever was burned because of aphysics theory, Books were destroyed, but even that was rare. There are several books of Copernicus still, with nothing crossed or "corrected". Giordano Bruno was burned because of heresy regarding theology, not his believes on the universe.

@@mig5l Bruno theorised that each distant star was it's own sun surrounded like planets. It was all to do with theology AND cosmology. It's quite a claim to say that "literally no ever was burned because of aphysics theory" as you put it...

Ad Homonien is not warranted.Is it hard people to discuss civilly? Just because I disagree with Sam here does not mean I disagree with him entirely. I think it is still a dodging question. Now after correcting your personal attack, I agree with what your statement. However that is not what Sam was saying to at least his whole answer.

Now that I can see. Granted I will admit I only been a non-christian for a year and half. However thanks for the answer it does make what he says more sense. Maybe Sam could have worded it better, basic psychology says its not what you meant to say but what people think you said. I agree then with that Sam is saying. I think if religion reached that state like Tyson said that alone would be better.

Indeed, one thing is that religion does need to change. Right now religion having and bearing on science is ridiculous.

Mostly because Sam Harris doesn't really believe much in philosophy. His whole stance on ethics is that science can tell us what is right and wrong because science can tell us what makes people happy and healthy. He doesn't care to talk about why right and wrong are tied to human well-being. He says that his stance on morality is different from utilitarianism but also refuses to acknowledge that the same arguments against utilitarianism apply to his view of morality. Furthermore he completely side-steps those arguments. "I'm not talking about happiness I'm talking about well-being" he says. I came up with better BS excuses in middle school.

Because Tyson's question is naive. Religion is never going to reach that state. There will always be those who will want to push their religious ideals into the public realm forcing others to have to follow them. Christianity for example needs constant affirmation from others. We see this with every new convert. It is never good enough for them to believe what they believe they have to get others to confirm what they say is true not to mention the caveat clause of well my book says you would deny me and thus becomes self fulling that they are on the right path. It is not an insular religion. Tyson should know this since he is outspoken about Intelligent Design.

Thank god you saved me 20 seconds