Waking Up with Sam Harris #115 - Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss, and Matt Dillahunty LIKE==========SHARE===========COMMENT Join Us Now: / @wakingupwithsamharris...
That's pretty funny. Its pandering now to not deride someone's personal beliefs? Stringent atheism is every bit as bad as any other dogma and should really watch itself lest it become even more absurd. Statements like your and his only stand to weaken your position. If you really think you guys are in the know, don't make the same mistakes that your enemies do. Sam loses orders of integrity every single time he tries to demonstrate superiority over religious thinkers by inadvertantly becoming one himself. Claiming reason doesn't guarantee the possession of it. Reason deserves better representation. Reasonable people would never stoop to this name calling, childish tribal reactionariality
Three of my favorite thinkers all together WOW !!! Simply amazing, intriguing and so interesting. Sam, Matt and Lawrence you are all fucking legends. Bravo boys, bravo.
I thought Krauss was a little snotty and dismissive about the Tiger Woods putting scenario. He brushed it off too quickly without absorbing what Harris was trying to illustrate--a paradoxical flaw in how we judge people. It's like, the better someone is at something, the harsher we judge them when they fail, which is unfair. (Also, we don't offer people much incentive to succeed; one could understandably become afraid of setting the bar too high for himself. I guess the tradeoff for receiving less forgiveness the better you do is respect, but respect shouldn't be impossibly difficult to maintain!) If Woods missed an easy putt, we would see it as much more of a tragedy than if Average Joe missed it, because we expect so much of Woods. If Average Joe made a putt he normally wouldn't make, we would go overboard in congratulating him, because we expect less of him. What we SHOULD do is laugh it off when Woods misses the putt, because we know what a great golfer he is, and that one statistical fluke of a miss doesn't represent his true ability. Conversely, we shouldn't heap on the praise too much when the mediocre golfer makes a putt, because his success is also luck and doesn't represent his overall skill.
You have to truly question a group of people who are savoring their believed future of ending up besides their supposed creator experiencing the tortured screams of those who didn't share the same ideas.
i didn't say that came from the bible but then Christians believe in plenty of things that are not in the bible like how Christ is a white European rather than a middle eastern Jew or how angels are humanoid with wings etc
@@firstnamelastname3280 the bible also endorses slavery but does not actually criminalize abortion, promotes genocide and puts forth the idea that humanity is from a few incestuous families
I don't think any masochist would derive pleasure from pain they couldn't stop or control to some degree themselves. I would argue if they're out of a controlled setting it wouldn't be enjoyable
Just came across this. Do you Sam Harris understand consciousness (the hard problem), mind, magnetism, please explain them as you are so supposedly smart? It is not surprising you do not understand transubstantiation as it is unlikely you understand consciousness. It is okay to be an Atheist and criticize if you understand what you are criticizing, if not you are just displaying your ignorance.
Sam, glad to hear you realize you've lost your atheist base due to wallowing in the trough of politics. Please come back home. For those of you who don't know who Sam really is, and where he started, watch his very best video ever. Best common sense ever spoken. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ITTxTCz4Ums.html
Judging and understand the bible based on what the catholic church does or what the crusaders did makes no sense. It's like using a thermometer to measure the distance between point A and point B. It just doesn't work
What kind of person goes in trying to prove people wrong as Krause states, you go in to science to improve and confirm your colleagues. His word choice shows his agenda.
Such kind of person is called "scientist". You not only try to prove your colleagues wrong, you try to prove YOURSELF wrong all the time. Scientific notion or a theory becomes more accepted and considered close to the truth the more it withstands additional attempts to be disproved. The romantic notion that you go to certain field to improve and confirm you colleagues may work in politics, religion, sports or family, but NOT in science. The live of a scientist is in some cases one of constant anxiety that your live's work or indeed worldview might crumble tomorrow by something discovered by your colleague, or (and this is the ultimate irony) discovered by YOU.
Lol. You clearly don't understand science on even a basic level. When you come up with a hypothesis, its literally your job to attempt as many ways as possible, to prove that hypothesis wrong. If you cannot find it wrong in a single case, you release your work to the scientific community, and it becomes their job to attempt to prove your hypothesis wrong in every way they can. If enough time goes by, and not a single experiment can provide evidence to disprove a hypothesis, but evidence supporting it continues to be found, that is how a hypothesis becomes a theory.
