/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6285544]

Why is he always right?

[Anonymous No.6285550]

>>6285544
Please, tell me what you think he's right about.

[Anonymous No.6285556]

He's always wrong, though

[Anonymous No.6285565]

>>6285544
Everything.

[Anonymous No.6285575]

>atheist
>not a nihilist or absurdist

Into the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.6285579]

>>6285544

why is he so based?

[Anonymous No.6285586]

>>6285575
This, he's clearly in denial

[Anonymous No.6285593]

>>6285550

[Anonymous No.6285608]

>>6285593
Context?

[Anonymous No.6285611]

>>6285608
Glen Greenwald insists that muslim terrorism is caused by the US and not by the fundamentals of Islam being violent

Also the Charlie Hebdo murders weren't inspired by Islam (although they happened after that particular tweet)

[Anonymous No.6285612]

>>6285544
It's easy to be right when you just take whatever position is most reasonable like some kind of intellectual pussy.

[Anonymous No.6285616]

>Being religious on 4chan.

You're all dumb lol.

[Anonymous No.6285624]

>>6285611
Protip: Greenwald is right, reminder that the CIA funded the Mujahideen in the cold war

[Anonymous No.6285632]

>>6285611
It wasn't just Islam that got us into this sorry state of affairs.

There's a whole lot of colonial/imperial, economic, and tribal shit going on, man. Greenwald is right to a degree, and Harris is right to a degree. History and human nature aren't as simple as "X CAUSED EVERYTHING." Shit interplays with and escalates other shit.

[Anonymous No.6285633]

>>6285632
We can't change history.

We can change whether we allow a violent death cult to affect our behavior and culture.

[Anonymous No.6285637]

>>6285633
>violent death cult
Lots of presuppositions you're making f there, my supposedly reasonable friend.

[Anonymous No.6285647]

Why is every picture of him a face forward, smug shot? Does he not have emotions?

[Anonymous No.6285653]

>>6285647
No, he's too rational for feeling

[Anonymous No.6285674]

>>6285653
He probably has the least interesting personality of all of the pop atheism guys, and that's saying something. At least he looks like Ben Stiller

[Anonymous No.6285681]

Why does he think that science can give us answers to moral questions? Is he just trying to sell books?

[Anonymous No.6285686]

>>6285647
He is too enlightened by his own intelligence.

[Anonymous No.6285689]

>>6285575
spooked

[Anonymous No.6285793]

>>6285544

He's not.

[Anonymous No.6285866]

>le brave defender of western imperialism man

[Anonymous No.6285886]

>>6285653
Is he a Kantian?

[Anonymous No.6285894]

>>6285544
>utilitarianism
You know where it goes

[Anonymous No.6286265]

daily reminder
1/3

[Anonymous No.6286270]

2/3

[Anonymous No.6286275]

3/3

[Anonymous No.6286314]

>>6286265
>>6286270
>>6286275
hilarious

[Anonymous No.6286353]

How do I become as euphoric as Sam Harris?

[Anonymous No.6286853]

>>6286265
>>6286270
>>6286275
What happens if you post this on /r/atheism? They're kinda in love with Sam Harris for some strange reason.

[Anonymous No.6286860]

>>6286275
behaviorism is fucking retarded
why people still rely on behaviorism in fucking 2015 is beyond me
seriously, fuck behaviorists

[Anonymous No.6286864]

>>6286353
Do stuff, get a bachelor in philosophy, start blogging, act like a professor. Also mix your political views with atheism and pretend everybody who disagrees with you is irrational.

[Anonymous No.6286871]

Why is he always right?

[Anonymous No.6286878]

>>6286275
>There are no mental events, you are only imagining them
Kek

[Anonymous No.6286892]

>>6286871
Hey its that kek dude from [s4s]
(n:

[Anonymous No.6286897]

>>6286871
Wasn't this guy refuted?

[Anonymous No.6286901]

>>6286897
You can't refute hard statistics, comrade.

[Anonymous No.6286917]

He's always right because he's up against the easiest targets (Reza Aslan, Glenn Greenwald, William Lane Craig, et al). Sam Harris might not always be on the mark, but at least he's thinking. Greenwald and the other ultra-PC liberals he argues against have convictions, not thoughts. Regarding Islam, they use the naive, idealistic, sophomoric arguments that, when followed to their end, are suicidal. Yes, Greenwald, we know that socioeconomic factors (for which the West in in part responsible) are to blame for these extremists' patently bad beliefs and behavior -- Harris and everyone else knows this -- but what you don't seem to understand is the paradox inherent in your too-tolerant brand of liberalism. If violent measures aren't taken to put an end to these Islamic groups, the West will eventually be taken over. Extreme tolerance might be fine and noble but you have to draw the line somewhere lest the less tolerant groups try to take advantage of your ideals. And I think it goes without saying that it's not a coincidence that these violent groups are Islamic.

As for Christianity: it was BTFO centuries ago.

[Anonymous No.6286945]

>>6286901
Tautologically so, only arguments can be refuted.

[Anonymous No.6286965]

>>6286917

[Anonymous No.6286974]

I love Ben Stiller. Huge fan of Zoolander.

[Anonymous No.6286983]

>>6285544
>>6286974
kinda this. Ben Stiller perhaps doesn't always choose the best roles, so you could say that no, he isn't always right.
but when he's right the films are pretty alright.

[Anonymous No.6286986]

>>6286917
>If violent measures aren't taken to put an end to these Islamic groups, the West will eventually be taken over.

you can't be serious

[Anonymous No.6286991]

>>6286986
welcome to cold war paranoia all over again

[Anonymous No.6286999]

>>6286986
Won't take more than a couple of generations. The birthrates of White people are laughably low.

[Anonymous No.6287025]

>>6286986
Huh? It's quite obviously what will happen without preemptive action, what with the lack of children born into reasonable secular families and the intolerance of extreme Islamic groups. Obviously it wouldn't happen right away and preventing it wouldn't be difficult at all to prevent, but what I'm saying is that if the West is too tolerant, if the West doesn't take violent action, then it's likely we'll see an Islamic superpower begin to take over. If you have a culture who believes in non-violent solutions against a stubborn violent culture, the latter will invariably win unless the former decides to take violent action.

[Anonymous No.6287033]

>>6286864
He owned Cenk Uygur in that 3 hour interview though.

[Anonymous No.6287034]

>>6286986
>>6286986
Huh? It's quite obviously what will happen without preemptive action, what with the lack of children born into reasonable secular families and the intolerance of extreme Islamic groups. Obviously it wouldn't happen right away and it wouldn't be difficult at all to prevent, but what I'm saying is that if the West is too tolerant, if the West doesn't take violent action, then it's likely we'll see an Islamic superpower begin to take over. If you have a culture who believes in non-violent solutions against a stubborn violent culture, the latter will invariably win unless the former decides to take violent action.

[Anonymous No.6287037]

>>6286871
>violence has declined

Not really in UK, Sweden, France, and America...

[Anonymous No.6287038]

>>6286853
It never sees the light of day, besides

>/r/atheism
>not just a bunch of 14 year olds bitching about how their parents made them go to church

[Anonymous No.6287047]

>>6287037
>Not really in UK, Sweden, France, and America...
Very much so in UK, Sweden, France, America.

Let's look at a typical day in 1500. Vagabonds would murder travellers. Travellers would murder vagabonds.

Or 1800. By night the wealthy would set springe gunnes and kill young men who were starving, so as they could enjoy their sport.

1800.

Mass murder by night by the rich. Unpoliced in the least.

Violence has declined. And our bread is made of inedible products by elves.

<):D SAY THAT TO MY FACE MOTHERFUCKER

[Anonymous No.6287051]

>>6286853
Basically just downvotes.

[Anonymous No.6287062]

>>6286871
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-violence-war-declining

Why is he always right?

[Anonymous No.6287104]

The stupid person's Michel Houellebecq. God I detest Americans.

[Anonymous No.6287277]

>>6286999

I'd love to hear one these 'new-Atheists' address the fact that pretty much no society maintains a sustainable birthrate once it enters the post-Christianity that they work so hard for.

[Anonymous No.6287288]

>>6287104

He has nothing in common. They are polar opposites

Houellebecq has become an Islamophile, read his latest book.

[Anonymous No.6287298]

Isn't he the guy who believes we can derive normative moral principles from science?

[Anonymous No.6287305]

>>6285866
>implying there's anything wrong with that

I bet you dislike Kipling too

[Anonymous No.6288208]

>>6285544
I liked him in Zoolander.

[Anonymous No.6288217]

>>6286270
Oh the irony of attacking him for using a strawman

[Anonymous No.6288223]

>>6287277
They don't want sustainable birth rates, they are mostly neo-malthusians and in some way believe humans reproduce way too much. This is of course a generalization, but you will find few atheists with families beyond 5 kids.

[Anonymous No.6288231]

>>6286275
>Lol religion

>With our powers combined
>Lol religion a second time
That was a nice touch

[Anonymous No.6288267]

Dear secular triumphalist Islamofascists:

please watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07wDbZ-5KlA

(skip to 2:30)

[Anonymous No.6288280]

>>6286871
>violence declined
he probably has an obsolete conception of violence
like most people do today

[Anonymous No.6288312]

>>6285544
I seriously laughed out loud

[Anonymous No.6288344]

>>6288267
>One of Ali Shariati's students

Is he also based?

[Anonymous No.6288383]

>>6286265
>>6286270
>>6286275
These are so great, because I don't actually have to think up a critique of Harris's arguments. I just post these little beauts and it's all done. All three of them are SAVED.

[Anonymous No.6288598]

>>6286871
Pinker's face makes me angry and I don't know why.

[Anonymous No.6288600]

he couldn't handle the left

[Anonymous No.6288625]

>>6288344

Sachedina is unbelievably based. This motherfucker is an Indian Muslim raised in Tanzania, trained in theology in Iranian schools and also in western academia at University of Toronto.

He speaks Hindi, Urdu, French, Persian, Arabic, Gujarati, Swahili, English, Turkish and German.

He's been a professor in the US for the last couple decades.

His work focuses on building bridges between secularism and Islam.

He's a fantastic scholar and his work is some of the best academic stuff on Islam-western relations.

[Anonymous No.6289238]

>>6286275
I came here specifically hoping these were posted. You didn't disappoint /lit/, for once

[Anonymous No.6289305]

>>6288598

A jaw line that could very easily expose your wife's bottom tan line.

[Anonymous No.6289324]

>>6286265
Much appreciated. Worth every bit of my mobile quota.

[Anonymous No.6289535]

>>6285624
muslim terrorism is not caused by the CIA funding any group, it is caused by the total domination over and subsequent exploitation of the muslim world by the west
That muslim groups are constantly used as stooges in fights between world powers is just one of the consequences of that

[Anonymous No.6289735]

>>6287298
He is. I'm an atheist but this shit makes his fans so frustrating to argue with, making science prescriptive in any way is destroying the descriptive neutrality that science needs to aim for in order to be effective.

[Anonymous No.6289743]

Atheism also has an ideological space for (ir)religious extremism and Harris' calls for preemptive nuclear strikes on Islamic countries is all the proof anyone should need of that fact

[Anonymous No.6289770]

>>6285544
Is it just me or does the guy seem like utter psycho? Watched that interview with Cenk and he bitched about how his time was being stolen and the young turks would steal his audience. At the time and how he said it made me think he's talking about cattle or something.

The whole interview was creepy. I've got the feeling if there was bridge leading over some rails with a fat guy leaning over Harris would not hesitate to push the fat guy down, if it meant he would save a few folks further down the rails.

[Anonymous No.6289780]

>>6287277
You're implying we have a mandate/moral imperative/airtight reason to continue existing.

[Anonymous No.6289803]

>>6289743
>Harris' calls for preemptive nuclear strikes on Islamic countries
What the fuck are you talking about you retard

[Anonymous No.6289805]

>>6287277
Correlation does not equal causation. The first world countries of the West are abandoning Christianity for the same reason their birth rate is declining - we have achieved a high level of material wealth.
In the case of religion, this makes Jesus' promises of heaven as necessary to happiness in an age of poverty-stricken people 2000 years ago less and less relevant, especially given that the methodological framework we've used to achieve such wealth has also explained away much of the works attributed to God as being due to natural phenomena.
In the case of birth rates, technology and abundance has ensured infant mortality has declined, so women don't need to have 6 or 7 kids as a precaution that most of them will die before age 5. As with religion, the same methodology that gives us this abundance has educated us, and we are more aware of the impact that overpopulation has on pollution, crime rates and our overall standard of living.

It's hilarious that you paranoid right wingers take a single trend and extrapolate it to eternity.

>durr, people are having less kids now, westerners will be extinct!

This is not some giant conspiracy against white people. Japan and South Korea have also had declining birth rates due to material wealth despite not being post-Christian cultures. As third world nations in Asia and Africa become increasingly globalized and industrialized, they'll also have declining birth rates in the same way. With all the fucking problems that are being exacerbated by high population densities it's amazing that you idiots push this shit anyway. Do you honestly think the declining birth rates will never increase again? Apply the inverse logic to the perspective of someone living in the 18th century when they were rising and you'd contrive Malthusian extremism from it.

[Anonymous No.6289814]

>>6289803
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_End_of_Faith#Quotes

[Anonymous No.6289816]

>>6289814
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

[Anonymous No.6289828]

>>6289816
If you establish how it's out of context, I'll listen to you.

[Anonymous No.6289841]

>>6289828
Gosh you are truly bloody retarded
>Harris' calls for preemptive nuclear strikes on Islamic countries
Where is the context you fucktard

[Anonymous No.6289846]

>>6289816

I fucking hate people who link to "logical fallacies" on Wikipedia. It absolutely infuriates me. It also makes you look like an idiot.

-a man with an actual brain

[Anonymous No.6289860]

>>6289841
It's literally right there, the FIRST quote. You didn't even read the link, did you?

>if I use the suffix -tard enough it'll convince my opponents they're wrong!

[Anonymous No.6290767]

>>6287062

this guy's whole article focuses solely on violence - one of the many of Pinker's angels - and his whole argument is "maybe there's less violence, but some violence is worse than other violence, so there." That article was embarrassing.

I'm not even that into Pinker, I agree he's becoming a new orthodoxy, but that was a bad argument.

[Anonymous No.6290833]

>>6287034
That's body-bag-tier politics.

[Anonymous No.6290844]

>>6289805
Come on, you can not be this insufferable. For your own sake, m8!

[Anonymous No.6290847]

>>6289846
Ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.6290851]

>>6285556
christfag detected pls go

[Anonymous No.6290921]

>>6289805

For someone who I would guess likes Darwin a lot, you pay very little interest to what traits seem to be amenable to reproduction and continued survival

Monotheism would seem to be a useful trait when it comes to reproduction. Atheists are very happy to blame spiralling birthrates in places such as the Phillipines on the Catholic church (and not without reason) but by the same token shouldn't they also recognise that the advance of irreligious societies accompanies an unsustainably low birthrate which makes these societies, in purely Darwinian parlance, failures.

As Europe's native population moves away from Christianity, the newly imported population bring their own strong faith and higher birthrate; effectively replacing a benign form of religion, with one which has been far less blunted by enlightenment thinking

Of course I don't blame these celebrity atheists for these trends, that would be to give them too much credit, but could they not acknowledge the negative as well as allegedly positive effects of post-Christian societies.

As Comte said, "demographics is destiny" my friend

[Anonymous No.6291098]

>>6288280
>"Together with Hilary Rose, Lea correctly observes that I restrict the term ‘violence’
to violence. I do not extend it metaphorically to other deplorable conditions that some
theorists tendentiously call ‘structural’ or ‘slow’ violence, such as disease, poverty,
inequality, or pollution. Not everything that is unpleasant in life is the result of deliberate malevolence or exploitation. Just as a book on cancer need not have a chapter on
metaphorical cancer (the coarsening of popular entertainment, the decline of civility in
politics, and so on), a coherent book on violence cannot lump together slave auctions
and death camps with uneven economic development and the spread of AIDS as if they
were a single phenomenon. To equate them all as different forms of ‘violence’ is to get
carried away with words and to confuse moralizing and politicized theorizing with
understanding."