Why do you guys hate him?

Because he's a moron clinging to a morality that, if he were honest with himself, is indefensible to him.

>>7643223
>indefensible to him
How so?

>>7643229
Hume, Nietzsche. Is-Ought Problem. Christians can escape the trap by saying "God says so." Atheists can't. For atheists morality can't exist, at least not the way Harris wants it to. Nietzsche hammers this point.

Because he is the symbol of new atheist moronity. Now I'm an atheist but this guy is an absolutely idiot. He is just as conservative as the religious folks he dislikes. His conversation with Chomsky was ridiculously cringeworthy, check it out.

le morality

He got BTFOed by Chomsky and decided that his getting absolutely destroyed was worth publishing because he could pretend that he got to at least "debate" an actual intellectual of our time.

>>7643240
>His conversation with Chomsky
that sounds horrible

File: laughingchinaman.gif (496KB, 500x455px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 500x455px

>>7643252
>Chomsky
>an actual intellectual of our time.

>>7643252
Chomsky was a great intellect, but now he's too busy trying to convince the world that America is the worst thing to happen to humanity.

>>7643268
Do you disagree with that?

>>7643273
I do. America has done a lot of good and bad in the world.

>>7643240
+9000

>>7643220
I don't. I agree with him on almost everything.

>>7643280
I don't mind the wedding consent. I don't know if the fact that they have done some good is much of a statement against what anon relayed of Chomsky's "position".

>>7643268
He makes some good points.

File: samharris.jpg (16KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x337px

>get bachelors in philosophy from stanford
>can't recognize a paradox
he is everything wrong with american """""""""""education""""""""""""""

>>7643306
I guess I should be more specific. For example, if you say something like "America is the greatest terrorist organization in the world" because of the global war on terror, wouldn't you be blatantly ignoring the fact that America's military protects millions of foreigners (like South Koreans, Taiwanese, Western Europeans)? Isn't this way of thinking flawed because of the imbalance of facts?

>>7643375
To be honest I shouldn't get involved in this conversation due to a lack of knowledge on Chomsky's position, but, I don't believe that one refutes the other in the example you're giving.

>>7643220
Hasn't been in anything worth watching since meet the fockers

Fuck it, I'll admit it. I hate him because I know in my heart he's fucking right. About nearly everything. His mind is like a computer, and it rubs me the wrong way because I can feel the chill of the ice cold logic behind everything he says. It's like instead of a brain he has some kind of futuristic machine whirring behind his forehead. Every argument he's faced with, he dismantles point by point, without ever raising his voice or betraying disdain for his opponent. Listening to him destroy an argument is to experience some kind of intellectual uncanny valley. It's human, yet it's not. It's robotic, computer-like, otherworldly. There's something untrustworthy about someone as intelligent as Sam. What's going on in his mind as he's denying God's existence on stage or composing a calmly worded but merciless takedown of Noam Chomsky? Is he playing chess in his head? Is he solving impossibly complex math problems? What's going on in that skull? I don't know, but I'll tell you one thing: the arguments that travel from the top of his head to his mouth, into the microphone and then across the Internet and into my ears... I cannot fucking deny them. And it torments me.

>>7643265
He is. Only a Harriscite could think he isn't.

>>7643430
jesus every thread i read is being trolled hard
go do something productive
i'm supposed to write a proposal; do something like that

>>7643220
Because he's an arrogant idiot.

File: 1445751132503.png (233KB, 500x449px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 500x449px

>>7643233
>Morality is a construct of the human mind.
>The human mind is bound by logical parameters.
>These parameters are set by the universe.
>Morality is a construct of the universe.

Nietzsche compiles opinions on the nature of submitting to the authority of a morality which isn't of your choosing.

The morality exists, tho, m8.

You may as well say that love doesn't exist, when we can demonstrate pretty easily that it physiologically does inside the brains of social mammals who pair for life. You're confusing the abstract concept with the actual process that describes it.

>>7643220
Don't hate him, just don't care much for him.
The Moral Landscape was torn to shreds by philosophers and scientists alike and yet he acts as if he's revolutionized neuroscience with his three experiments at UCLA.
Plus he had his Kent Hovind moment of promising a ludicrous amount of money to whoever could 'refute' his thesis.

>>7643280
Have you read Chomskys criticism? He isnt saying America is bad because he hates America, he is saying it so we could know what the problems are and fix them.

>>7643375
Terrorists usually protect their own aswell, i dont see you point. All of the things you mentioned were not done for "good" but for geopolitical power.

>>7644285
>Morality is a construct of the human mind.
It is a construct of the society, not the human reason
>The human mind is bound by logical parameters.
It isn't, at least not that it subconsciously constructs a moral morality
>These parameters are set by the universe.
But Harris is a nominalist.
>Morality is a construct of the universe.
How? Natural law? Sure if you have a completely different set of views.
>Nietzsche compiles opinions on the nature of submitting to the authority of a morality which isn't of your choosing.
He isn't the relevant philosopher here.
>The morality exists, tho, m8.
It does, but not as a rational entity
>You may as well say that love doesn't exist, when we can demonstrate pretty easily that it physiologically does inside the brains of social mammals who pair for life. You're confusing the abstract concept with the actual process that describes it.
Love does exist, but has no rational a priori value Harris wants

You can't have it both ways. You can't be an honest atheist and shill natural law while being a nominalist.