Fixed.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
Fixed.
Just reading 'The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes' by Robert Alter. Very good translation plus commentary.
I can understand and respect certain points on religion... but D'Souza's way of debating is so conniving and disingenuous.
But you've read them before and there's a cornucopia of world literature you haven't read.
Translate Tin Tin from the original French again but allegedly more accurately (or poetically) and it is still fiction.
While is is more likely than not that there was an actual person that the essentially fictional character of Jesus was hung on but this doesn't meant anything about the historical truth of the various bibles which are a mish mash of stuff starting with things like the Osiris-Dionysus pan-Hellenic cult and various other older sources which the Jews commandeered and adapted, added some stuff of their own which was in turn commandeered by the Roman's a long while after Jesus's death to help them rule the world. Actual truth is in very short supply. So perhaps seeing it simply as poetry is the way to go if that floats your boat.
While is is more likely than not that there was an actual person that the essentially fictional character of Jesus was hung on but this doesn't meant anything about the historical truth of the various bibles which are a mish mash of stuff starting with things like the Osiris-Dionysus pan-Hellenic cult and various other older sources which the Jews commandeered and adapted, added some stuff of their own which was in turn commandeered by the Roman's a long while after Jesus's death to help them rule the world. Actual truth is in very short supply. So perhaps seeing it simply as poetry is the way to go if that floats your boat.
Liked 'The God Delusion' very much. Also, the documentary of it is great.
That's right, Laphroaig can understand Nietzsche fine but he's stumped by Sam fecking Harris
I got bored even if I generally agreed with his opinions but there was too much of "Ohhh look at the odd things people believe" with arguments and reasoning more at home in here than you would expect in a serious work. Dan Dennett is where it is at IMO.
Yeah, in the book there were some of that stuff (example that page of internet when people wrote why God's must exist which although it could be funny is pretty non-serious and some of those parts should have been cut).
The documentary was pretty cool though, especially the part in US when a priest almost broke his camera.
What is there to understand? He thought Christian's were cnuts and that Shopenhauer was too depressing even for him.
Next I'll sum up the history of the English Speaking Peoples in 2 sentences.
Maybe it's an accent thing?
I don't agree with Harris on lots of things but he and Dawkins are easy to understand. Harris's main problem IMO is that he thinks that science can determine morality but isn't very scientific when he tries to do this.
That's the reason Laphroaig (or however it's spelled), mehro, Plech etc. hate him.
Edit: Ah, dumbo was the dude I was thinking of.
oh look out, the Harris worshipers are about.
He may be right eventually but he doesn't fill me with confidence the way he goes around trying to demonstrate this.
The authorised version is fantastic as literature but most of it was written in the 1500s by William Tyndall.
Well, what I think is weird (and somewhat funny) is that on here (and other places) people seem outraged by the mere fact that Harris had the audacity to dare write a book about this subject. But perhaps the subtitle of his book was destined to create such a hysterical backlash.
Also worth pointing out that people like Steven Pinker, Patricia Churchland and even Peter Singer agree with him, and many others thinks he raises valid points.
That's unfair, Norwegian and German accent isn't very similar at all. You've been miseducated by Hollywood.
I'm sure you're not alluding to me here, but the problem isn't his "daring" theory (similar stuff has been done a million times before) but that he seemed unaware that it's been done a million times before and oblivious to old criticisms. He got attention because he's a celebrity pop scientist writing a book, not because he was doing good or innovative philosophy.
That's unfair, Norwegian and German accent isn't very similar at all. You've been miseducated by Hollywood.
Hardly a celebrity.
I wasn't necessarily alluding to you, but what is it that suggests that he does not know it's 'been done a million times' before, or that he's not aware of the intellectual history on this subject? He's studied philosophy at Stanford, one of the highest ranked universities in the world, and I certainly get the impression (from his writing and speaking) that he's very well-read, so I dare say he does.
Also, what exactly are you credentials, if you don't mind? I just want to know whether I think it's ironic that you're accusing him of ignorance (or arrogance, or both) or not. Are you an academic philosopher? (Not that that automatically makes you immune to mistakes or misconceptions (nor does no formal education necessarily mean that you don't know what you're talking about either, for that matter), but it would be something.)
For the record, I have no philosophical education (well, except ex-phil.), but I feel pretty confident in my ability to judge an argument to be valid or not (generally speaking). And if I don't understand something, I either make an effort to, or shut up about it. What annoys (and amuses - interchangeably) me about this is that people here seem to be working backwards from the premise that Harris is an ignoramus who does not know what he's talking about, and that all his arguments therefore are fallacious. And this is coming from people who have not even read the book, and/or don't bother actually engaging its arguments.
Yep. It was a more (truly) Christian book, in spirit, than zealots and hypocrites like More and the Vatican could tolerate.
I was joking in case it wasn't clear.
I thought so, but it was an opportunity to have a go at Hollywood constantly thinking Norway, Sweden and Germany are one country (never Denmark though, I don't think they know that Denmark exists).
No, your questions are fair (especially considering I didn't get into the details but just slagged him off). I've only an MPhil in philosophy but ethics was my subject. Harris has a BA and I suspect he's not done much ethics. Despite all that he can still be a terrific moral philosopher (but he's not). Which university you study at isn't really that important in my experience. Oxbridge for example will be just as happy to ruin a good philosopher as to make one, so his wee degree from Stanford, to quote prof. Twain, "don't impress me much". The degree certainly don't give him any sort of credibility. I wouldn't be interested in reading a book by the cleverest BA's I've met in my life, and probably not even the wisest MPhil's (not even if it was written by myself)... (Note that I'm saying that I don't give a feck about his degree either way. It doesn't mean that he has a clue and it doesn't mean that he does not have a clue. I just happen to think he comes across very poorly when he dabbles in moral philosophy.)
And you've every right to let that annoy you whenever/if that happens.
- Bringing up his degree was only meant to counter your claim that he does not know anything about the subject.
- Fair enough, but, in my opinion, neither Blackburn nor Singer (who actually ended up all but agreeing with Harris by the end) were able to deliver any significant blows to his thesis during their debate. It should've been an easy task given your (and others') description of him on here. Singer even appeared to be confused on several points that I thought were pretty straight-forward.
I also get that any scientist (or anyone who's not an academic/established philosopher) trying to touch this subject with anything less than a 10 feet pole is toxic to most philosophers and philosophy enthusiasts. The defensiveness is bordering on sheer contempt, not just on here, but other places as well (which shouldn't be surprising given that they seem to think his thesis would render moral philosophy useless). Occupational pride is strong with these ones.
Sam Harris is going to be on Real Time with Bill Maher this Friday, making his second appearance on the show, by the way, for those interested.
Is Bill Maher going to be on the show? I'd like to watch Sam Harris but not if that means putting up with Bill Maher.
Well Eva Longoria will be there too 
Well Eva Longoria will be there too
Sold!
Well Eva Longoria will be there too
I'd convert to any religion of her choosing to nail that on a nightly basis.
What a festival of smugness that promises to be.
Yeah, it's gonna be great!
Don't know why he's there though, he hasn't got anything to plug (yet, his newest book isn't finished).
Hopefully he plugs Maher's mouth with his fist
What's wrong with Maher?
His mouth. Well his entire head really.
He's not pretty, I'll give you that.
Still, he's got a good personality
Wait, that's wrong... he has a terrible personality.
Wait, that's wrong... he has a terrible personality.
I like him (despite his massive ego).
I wanted to comment this, but I rage quit. I just shared it here instead!
Meh, it doesn't fill me with anything.
If you are gullible enough to be there in the first place, you are going to be fleeced.
If you are gullible enough to be there in the first place, you are going to be fleeced.
Here we go again with another sick hypocrite....
Amazing how people continue to be conned by these weirdos.
Amazing how people continue to be conned by these weirdos.