GOD, TRUMP & #metoo - Sam Harris & Matt Dillahunty This event occurred on February 23rd, 2018 at the Comerica Theatre. Over 2500 people were in attendance. Copyright - Pangburn Philosophy #pangburnlive
¡Suscríbete a nuestro nuevo canal en español! Our new Spanish channel will feature professionally translated voice acting & dubbing for all Pangburn Live Discussions. Please subscribe & share with your Spanish-speaking friends! ¡Esperamos que disfrutes! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dwiAsHi0Nj4.html
Those chairs are too small. A proper chair requires arm rests that exceed the height of the occupant. The purpose of a good chair is to encapsulate the victim inside.
Again, all this depend on how you define the concept of truth. You can accept both versions, but when it comes to a useful representation of the world and a tool for everyday use, Harris' view comes off as the most sound
Haven't read so much nonsense in a long while. "Why would one limit themselves to posit empiricism (science's founding principle) as the only method of truth, " Because it is based on any random selection of human consciousnesses having the same result in observations and not depending on singular, subjective reports of cosciousnesses. “Mind” but leads to a world-view that denies one's self, the objective reasoner as no more than mere biochemical illusory as the result of it's assertions. " So? "These metaphysical conceptual constructs can not be tested/falsified outside of themselves empirically thus are asserted as objective." That is nonsense. We created math based on our observations of this universe. All axioms are based on whether they make sense if we apply them to physical observation, e.g. what would it physically mean to divide a set of objects by zero objects? "The root problem in Empirical Science is a Materialistic positing that consciousness/mind is mere by-product functioning of brain." That's nonsense. We dealt with the mind body problem for centuries and this materialistic view is the only logical conclusion left based on all the failed attempts at other soutions which demand unproven constructs we have no reason to believe to exist other than you not personally liking materialism. "If morality, self awareness, emotions and freewill are also mere results of Mind (the brain by-product) it would then seem to be just cherry picking to trust logic over self-awareness or mathematics over morality and in the end become some form of “begging the question”." Yes, and that is what we see religions doing so there aren't actually any alternatives that don't do the begging the question or cherry picking part. They only falsely claim they do not. " The theory that all knowledge is limited to what can be empirically known is itself, incapable of being known or demonstrated empirically." You make a false claim of what empiricism claims. It only claims that you as a person can only derive knowledge based on your senses. You may think you don't, that just proves that without empiricism you can believe a lot of nonsense because a human brain is faulty. " for any trustworthy substrate for knowledge that is solely metaphysical (one's self, the objective reasoner);" Provide five examples of knowledge that is metaphysical. "Science's necessary presuppositions are otherwise inexplicable but logically follow after the positing of a Supreme Being designer of the Universe and life" non sequitur. "Once one posits a Supreme Being designer of the Universe and life; logic, reason, rationally, science and mathematics become validated. All above presuppositional foundations are accounted for with this starting principal notion; Pragmatically, there is a God"." non sequitur. "Moral obligations would not pragmatically exist if there is no God. It would be no less moral to cast a child into a river that you tripped over than to case a rock into a river you tripped over." Assuming absolute moral derived from reality, morality based on human interaction and social dynamics (aka social groups seeking a beneficial outcome for each individual participating in that group) don't have that problem. Incidently how religions came to be. "Morality, justice and guilt itself would not be pragmatic if there is no God. If any moral obligation is a net loss to the individual, it would not be pragmatic for the individual to follow such an obligation if there was no God." Limited understanding on what social species consider a net loss. "Pragmatically, there is no God" There isn't. If you want objective morality, an objective morality baked into the fabric of the universe is far less complex. Adding a God construct serves no purpose to explain morality other than making an appeal to authority to support your moral claims. " Many people may claim to be pro-abortion but if given the “choice” that they themselves stand in as the aborted, only the suicidal would volunteer." Stupid example is stupid. You should have that existential crisis anyway because it could be any of tens of millions of other sperm to make the race and you would not be here. Incidently "not being" is not an immoral state. "Suicide is already against the law, so why is suicide against the law but abortion not?" Suicide is actually not against the law in the US and even when there were laws against it, they were rarely enforced. Incidently suicide as a crime derives from Chriostian biblical scripture aka acting against God's will. So you have a circular reasoning there. Btw: Abortion in the Middle Ages also was not considered a sin because of murdering a person but as acting against God's will. The theory of soul being imbued into the body back then assumed to happen many weeks after conception. "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they appear from sensory perception. The mind's ability to know reality is dependent on a posited worldview to assert. " non sequitur. "However, it is essential that there is God in order to account for the otherwise inexplicable presuppositions in all means of knowledge." non sequitur. "so is the worldview "There is a God" that actually validates these means." non sequitur. Yes, if we ignore all alternatives the "there is a God" is the only idea standing. If we account for all alternatives your "there is a God" litany is an unproven, unnecessary and ill defined construct to explain things that don't need an explanation.
Haha! Good one! Also.. If anyone wonders what they're called.. I believe these are "Chesterfield armchairs". Just search: "Chesterfield armchairs uk" and you'll find them! Or something looking a lot like them at least! 😉👍
Matt Dillahunty must have a problem with his wife. He's always mentioning her even when it doesn't makes sense. I think the man has a pretty apparent and massive ego.
About the chairs. I've organized events and debates a number of times. Giving your speakers funny chairs and watch them sit awkwardly while speaking is genuinely one of the few pleasures of the job.
I've organized events too and I think this is fine. The chairs in this video look comfy and appropriate for an intellectual discussion. Personally I prefer cozy armrests if I'm going to be sitting down for a lengthy amount of time.
Anyone has a name for them? Googling Thick/Fat Leather Armchair doesn't help xD. I really like these sorts of armchairs. Not a big fan of recliners, but simple comfortable and quality made chairs are a must for me.
"I hate bad arguments -- I hate them Most when they are defending positions that I think are correct." Matt keeps voicing precisely things that have been on my mind.
@@ceceroxy2227 Haha what's the worst argument you think Matt made in error? Unless you meant the worst attitude? That'd be an opinion I could understand. He can be fair, but the volatile temperament is the weakness I see in his ability to advocate the positions he does on this show. I'm too often disappointed by that.
@@anthonypc1 What you say about Matt is exactly how i feel. I agree with him on most things but his lack of patience and bad attitudes earns him a bad rep for many. its a shame he cant better communicate with people during conversations. But it's also a shame that some people cant see past all that and just listen to the substance of what he says.
I can’t believe you’re all commenting on the chairs. Don’t you guys know Sam and Matt are only 4’11” in height? Of course they look big in comparison, try to be a little more sensitive.
"The internet is where religions go to die... it may also be where the next round of religions are born." That was pretty prescient and insightful of Matt.
There is probably good reason religions have places of worship. To have a place where people can circle jerk their beliefs in affirmation to strengthen that belief without opposition. Whether or not social media we know today was created for that purpose doesn't really matter, the same type of people that manipulate and exploit people through belief systems have turned it into such a place of circle jerking affirmation. Like and retweet to spread the word.
@@muchanadziko6378 IMO there is only 1 foundation concept required to manipulate and exploit other human beings regardless of the method, that's belief. Where belief is a prerequisite to bigotry you have your contradiction driven conflict between groups, which is also bolstered by those given power of authority treating some demographics better than others. Make the peasants hate and fight each other over nothing, swoop in as the savior of the situations you created and get raised up in society by the idiots that bought it, use the idiots to police the non-idiots, keep everyone in check and under your thumb! :D Divide and conquer baby!
6:20 Thank you Matt! I'm in my 20s and I can't keep up with the Pace at which social media cycles demand reactions. And I don't want to! I deliberately take for myself as much time as I need to read through other's more informed views from different perspectives and refine my own until I can feel RESPONSIBLE enough to share it, when it's on any issue that's controversial and matters.
Neither a beanbag nor a stool, and yet your brain recognises a great opportunity for sitting. Q.E.D.: The would consists not of matter but of what matters.
Joe Gillian propaganda does not inherently mean fake or untrue..... There are endless examples of factual propaganda..... Propaganda can be true and good for societies. Propaganda can also be fake. It is simply a type of way information in conveyed....
Nope. Propaganda serves a manipulative purpose. Fake news are often a result of attention seeking, sensationalism, simply low standards of fact-checking, and auto-promotion or marketing.
Sam's answer to the question about mindfulness at around 1:30:00 almost made me cry. I had to go back and listen again because it's so profoundly helpful. I wanna get the transcript of that little speech and read it every morning lol
"Man, that's a complicated question, you don't take abzzurdness with due seriousness! I need at least 3 months to think this through, at the moment I can not give a short answer, roughly speaking."
Six months later, this video gets uploaded? The conversation is practically irrelevant, obsolete. I understand Pangburn needs to sell tickets to events, but waiting six months cannot possibly be boosting ticket sales to events. A 1-month embargo seems more reasonable. At that rate, uploads may function as advertising for upcoming talks while remaining somewhat current.
Pangburn actually bought those chairs with the money that was meant for the tech crew, which is why he was forced to hire dogs and cats to operate the cameras and audio equipment.
Matt likes to be humble and pretend that he isn't very well educated since he didn't really have much schooling, but he does a really good job of having a thought provoking conversation with someone as intelligent as Sam. These guys are basically my top two favorite atheists, so I'm pretty happy that they had this conversation together.
Speaking personally, Matt gave me courage and language to advocate my lack of blindsided devotion to Sunday school silly stories. SAM HARRIS opened my mind to the science, history and bigger psychological issues involving the survival of our species. Stephen Fry 'paints' the spaces in between with a humanity that accepts beauty in the religions deeds such as architecture, music, ceremony, and a sense of community. I love the debates, the honesty, and honor our current day ability to make sense and make our own minds up. Thank you Matt and Sam!
Say what you want about these two, and say what you want about the stupid chairs (way too many comments about the damn chairs here), these 2 men here were the 2 most instrumental individuals that contributed to my deconversion out of Christianity. A big nod goes to Richard Dawkins who actually kicked it off thanks to The God Delusion. But it was really both Sam and Matt who were the ones I would continue to watch trying to soak in as much information as I could in trying to understand the conflicts I was going thru with religion. Both were important to me for different reasons. I appreciated Matt's no holds barred approach to callers on his show who tried to use the typical argument points, full of fallacies, when trying to defend their beliefs. Matt is quick to point this out to his callers and often brutal in shutting down the conversation when they refuse. Sam Harris on the other hand is so damn talented at explaining things in a way I could understand while somehow not dumbing it down too much. Dawkins and even Hitchens, while very knowledgeable, could be hard to follow occasionally. Sam was different in that aspect. I also loved Sam Harris's wit and charm. It amazed me that he would get laughs from both the atheists and the theists on stage and in the crowd.
1:20:00 The answer to this great question is an absolute gem full of wisdom. Sam admits that this issue is something he continually meditates on and is confounded by it every time but the golden lesson here is to flip the default switch and see the others perspective and try to find out why which is the journey through how they come to that rather than reacting to it as an immediate response plays chess in the mind which makes situations where most people would find is an uncomfortable one is now seen as interesting to you. To uncover their truth and challenge yourself to understand them will ultimately not only affirms your mental position and state of equanimity but will leave you walking a path of least resistance where one might find in futile.
A new scientific commandment " thou shall not sit thy Gods in silly chairs, lets their heads look tiny and thy ridiculous chairs take away the attention of their reasons"
Many people who follow these discussions have already heard audio of this. I heard it several months ago; releasing the video doesn't make it a new discussion.
50% of comments are about the chairs 40% of comments are about how shitty pangburn is 9% of comments are about jordan peterson 1% of comments are about the content of conversation in this video
Boys, the "driver license" argument is invalid. All while ignoring the mental health question and facts behind SSRI drugs most of these shooters are on. Another swing and a miss gentlemen
I cant take anything they say serious when they sitting in those chairs lol Look how far the water is away from them seeing them drink water in that car would be funny as hell
Pangburn still has our money from the expensive and cancelled event in Auckland. He's been reported to the NZ Commerce Commission. It's a shame that unscrupulous operators have moved in to corner this market.
Really? That is terrible! I hope something is done. I went to the Sydney event and right up to the event we didn't know when we were getting our tickets or if it was also going to be cancelled. Radio silence was unhelpful. A few of us wondered if we were going to be refunded the (I think) $45 International mailing fee we paid, seeing as none were mailed. I won't hold my breath. If they continue to conduct themselves this way they'll go under pretty quickly.
"All you've done is provide ammunition to..." - I use that phrasing a lot when I see people who I agree with using bad arguments/ buying into unverified stats. Somehow, regardless of the group you still get vilified by many like minded people just for being unwilling to defend your position dishonestly. Thank you so much for saying this Matt, I feel vindicated.
@@DimashCastellucci The words hysterical and narcissism have actual definitions and there is nothing I have observed about JP that would fit their definition. Or, if they would claim there is, it's not too late for them to match up specific examples to specific symptoms. I know that nuance is usually lost on social media, but it garners no respect from me. It shows no intellectual rigor and comments on a SH and MD video should be better. As to biased... that is a charge no one that is self-aware can deny. Some are more and some are less of course, but it speaks nothing to whether or not someone is correct. In this particular instance I obviously have no knowledge of the mental state of the person I responded to so I will give you that. But it was not truth I was looking for, it was a rebuke. If the meaning of words is unimportant then they can be applied to anyone.
@@jamespeterson3868 i appreciate your effort to comment but all i am saying is you are JP, so you could be a bit biased as you tried to defend the actual Peterson in your first comment man. Its just my own opinion and there is a possibility that i could be wrong. (Its only pun)
@@DimashCastellucci I'm sure there were many other people they could have made hyperbolic and unsubstantiated comments about that were totally unrelated to his beliefs (the thing that actually matters) and I would have passed by. They didn't. I didn't. Bias is inherent in being human and I have already acknowledged my guilt. The fact that I stopped at this comment speaks nothing to whether I am correct in my assessment. Does not the fact that you stopped to comment on mine. indicate your own bias? Does that mean you are therefore wrong? Or right for that matter?
Being a Jordon Peterson fan, and after seeing him getting destroyed Matt Dillahunty, when I came on this podcast I went to the comments section just curious to checkout some reviews of the debate. All I got is CHAIRS!!
Dillahunty Dresses like a Russian Oligarch from Siberia.. he especially loves these (Chester Field ) Imperial style Sofas. it gives him feeling like he is the Emperor of "Science & Reason Kingdom" ...
Maybe I one day will regret from not abstaining myself of a cheap joke instead of commentating on the value of an incredibly interesting conversation.... but I would have to lie If I hadn't told you that's how I always imagined a giant bearded toddler in a suit and a shrunk 90's teenager cool kid with a cool hair in a suit on two huge chairs would look like would look like in live action.
One of the greatest things Christopher Hitchens taught us is “That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence”. If we are to be intellectually honest and applied this reasoning across the board instead of just with religion, then I don’t see how anyone can be a fan of anonymous accusations of rape and sexual abuse.
Yeah I agree. So hypocritical of matt. If we are gonna believe things based on anecdotes then why not believe angels, alien abductions, faith healings and all other nonsense. Some people ditch one ideology and pick another and they fail to apply same standards of skepticism to it. Matt is one of them.
Not sure you know what the word anyonymous means... A victim testimony is evidence, legally and rationally. A witness takes the stand so their answers are entered into evidence => they are evidence. There is no anonymity but these are still "only" allegations. There is this nonsense assumption only independent facts matter. That is actually not how western justice systems work. In a given case the supporting evidence could be simply about whose testimony is more trustworthy, e.g. if one side answers all questions and even honestly admits ignorance about details while the other testimony evades answers and makes false statements the trustworthiness of one testimony goes up and that of the other goes down. The same goes about corborating evidence that suggests one witness has no reason to lie while the other does. It is about the collection of all evidence and how they weigh in to judge the circumstances of a certain case. That is where the concept of reasonable doubt comes in and again "reasonable" does not imply "none" so obviously uncertainty is acceptable. Now the threshold of reasonable is debatable and depends on the justice system of a country, I think in the US it can depend on direct instructions by the judge to the jury. There is also a small difference between scientific descriptions of reality and about fact finding the truth in a specific event of human interaction. Making the claim these are the same is a false equivalency and ignores the different purposes of these procedures.
In general this is the gnostic doctrine that the God of this world , Yahweh, is a demon meant to entrap humanity in materialism. The early church fathers of Christianity denounced them as heretics.
