Sam Harris

>>8687984
He's a faggot.

>>>/reddit/

A really bad philosopher.

>>8687984
>we should eliminate muslims because, like, islam is a set of bad ideas, man

Wow so intellectual

>>8688312
>>we should eliminate Christianity because, like, i hated being dragged to Church as a kid, man

>>8687984
He shouldn't sophistically pretend to solve is-ought problem but simply deny the necessity of objective oughts and appeal to values or interests that his audience shares.

He goes on about how say some ethicists believes FGM is not objectively wrong, as if it were abhorrent, but doesn't consider whether or not the ethicist would agree to enforce the values Sam and all civilized people hold.
Even fucking ebin Sam Harris athiest fedora peddler cannot resist creating God aka objective morality. Pussy.

>>8688312
>>8688327

hey look, it's morons

>>8687984
>objective morality because science
this guy is literally braindead

>>8688330
and a fgm supporter too
good times.

>>8688340
>literally
look mom, I'm a scientist now

>>8688342
Nigger, I am not a FGM supporter. I believe FGM has no objective moral status because I don't believe objectice morality exists or is necessary. I am not stopped by my disbelief in objectice morality from opposing FGM and eagerly seeking for those who practice it to be punished witbhin the framework of my values and interests.

All morality is us seeking to ascertain our framework of values and interests to see whether or not cooperation is possible. All else is religion and deception.

>>8688330
>[action] is wrong because of my feelings

Does he actually have an argument for FGM being """objectively""" wrong?

>>8688344
>look mom im a scientist now
nice argument
t. salty sam harris dick rider

he spouts conjecture like it's the word of god, just like that pseude youtuber posted here an hour or two ago

objective morality is the single most braindead concept i can think of, right up there with the cunts that argue "free will" like it makes any difference kys

>>8688350
>believe FGM has no objective moral status

an fgm supporter if there ever was one
someone cut this idiots dick off

>>8688357
>i can think
nope

>>8688351
To most argument is not necessary.
To those steeped in the culture and practice a sufficient argument is "Do this (FGM) and we will imprison you where you can get benised by homos and Quran will be shoved down toilet daily." They will judge that FGM is bad to avoid that outcome.
To others can construct any argument based on their values. Highlight unnecessary suffering, removal future intimacy with spouse. I dont really care since there is basically no one who supports it.

>>8688357
>objective morality is the single most braindead concept i can think of

Well, I'm sure you have a well-reasoned argument against it other than "it just doesn't make any sense, dude." It would be silly to hold such a strong position without having seriously considered why all other options are invalid.

>>8688358
You dont need objective morality to exist to oppose something vehemently. Why does my disbelief in ibjective morality annoy you if I am going to act as if it is objectice anyway?

>>8688359
can't be wrong if you don't make an argument at all

>>8688363
Why are you so insistent that there is no objective morality if you're going to behave as if there is an objective morality, anyway?

>>8688362
>I'm sure you have a well-reasoned argument against it
>well-reasoned argument against objective morality

mo·ral·i·ty
məˈralədē/
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

do you really need me to help make this any more apparent? or are you braindead?

>>8688351
>Does he actually have an argument for FGM being """objectively""" wrong?

" Does he actually have an argument for [the holocaust] being """objectively""" wrong? "

this is how stupid you sound

>>8688378
>bad
define

>>8688380
Well, does he have an argument for the holocaust being objectively wrong?

or does an appeal to popular opinion constitute an argument?

>>8688378
>do you really need me to help make this any more apparent?
I don't really give a shit either way. But for the sake of entertainment, go for it. You really didn't explain anything or make any sort of argument by citing the dictionary definition of morality (the dictionary is not an authoritative source of the meanings of words, by the way, but that's beside the point).

>or are you braindead?
What if I was? This is irrelevant.

>>8688383
exactly you fucking retard

>>8688368
Because I do not need sanction from a higher power nor do I want such a need. I own my actions. I recognize myself as the source of all values, and thus am not deceived into unconsciously making myself the servant of an idea and instead recognize that I am enforcing that idea. Basically, I accept responsibility.
And it is not just for the feeling of freedom, the view of morality as negotiation based on value-interest frameworks makes it more difficult to be fooled by religious arguments put forward by others as I reject their priestly claim to truth and goodness and instead analyze what exactly they hope to accomplish with their ideology and whose interests would be served if it were taken to heart.
Belief in objective morality opens us up to deception.

>>8688380
>dude it's bad because of a combination of my feelings and social pressures to publicly condemn things that other people tell me are bad lol

Not an argument.

One source I like on morality
https://propertarianism.com/2016/02/02/truth-natural-law-physical-law/

>>8688388
Yes, aside from the definition, which was solely to point out the subjectivity of the words used in the definition; it should've been apparent when that retard asked me to define "bad". The only way "bad" and "good" aren't subjective, is if you're taking the existence of a god for granted. In that case it's unlikely you'll ever concede, because you somehow managed to take conjecture for granted; and then we'd just spend hours arguing why each and every ontological argument is retarded

>>8688391
>I own my actions.
Maybe, but do you own your thoughts? You are already imprisoning yourself by strongly holding to the idea that morality is subjective and cannot possibly be objective. This belief affects everything you thing and do. And any other alternative belief would do the same thing. You are not truly free, though you can deceive yourself into thinking you are.

"Posted by Curt Doolittle
(religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume, damning of rawls)

[O]ur brains are smaller than those of our distant ancestors.

With the evolution of language we were able to learn more by shared calculation: in the form of thinking and reasoning than we could by our own observation, memory, and judgement.

By communicating using language thereby transferring experience, we extended our perception, could make use of other’s memories.

But with greater perception and less individual certainty of that perception, we needed a means of judgement. Or what we call, a method of decidability.

With greater numbers, and a greater division of perception, we required even greater tools of judgement, of choice, of decidability.

We needed ‘theories’ of the good. And those theories evolve in parallel with the extent of our cooperation:
–From:–
“What is good for me?” and “What is true enough for me to act?” using the criteria “So that what I gain by the action is preferable to not doing so.”
–to:–

1) What is good for me : what is true enough for me to act without retaliation

2) What is good for me and good for us : what is true enough to encourage future cooperation?

3) What is good for me and good for us, and good for all those like us, so that we encourage cooperation of others, and do not encourage retaliation.

4) What is good for me, and good for us, and good for all mankind, so that we TRANSCEND. (Evolve).

This problem of decidability is the origin of our myth, religion, and philosophy – and now science. These techniques
Just as in ethics we start with mythical inspiration, and evolve into ethical virtues, to ethical rules, to ethical outcomes, we evolve from the actions of the individual, to the ethics of cooperation, to the ethics of cooperation at scale, to the ethics of transcendence of man."

"So, to confer decidability upon all, from the young child to the old and wise, the method of decision making must be accessible for use by everyone from the young child to the old and wise.

A religion comprises a group evolutionary strategy, wherein members are taught metaphysical, mythical, traditional, and normative methods of decidability, by means of analogy.

Traditional law codifies this strategy in prohibitions. Why prohibitions? Because we can all equally refrain from the violation of that group evolutionary strategy, but we cannot equally contribute to the furtherance of that group evolutionary strategy. We are equal in ability to not do, but we are not equal in ability to do.

A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful or unsuccessful in the persistence of the group – such as by being dependent upon local phenomenon that can change: the worship of the sun so logical in the agrarian era, is no longer so logical in an era of trade, or of industry, or of energy, or of information.

A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful but violate principle three: in that it encourages retaliation: murder, career thievery, Gypsy petty parasitism, Jewish organized and systemic parasitism, muslim invasion and raiding, Russian low trust propaganda and lying, and Chinese and European ‘Asymmetric Colonialism’.

A groups evolutionary strategy can violate principle four by inhibiting transcendence – such as islam’s demand for respect and mandated ignorance – or a strategy can construct transcendence: Western Indo European Natural Law.

A group’s evolutionary strategy can provide the minimum resistance to transcendence and the maximum possibility of transcendence:

Truth telling law (Truth), Natural Law (cooperation), and physical law (correspondence), the incremental, total suppression of parasitism, under the Common Law. And genetic suppression by the incremental culling of the parasitic from the group by separation, sterilization, and hanging

>>8688309
>A really bad philosopher.

So, a really bad fry cook?

>>8688419
kek

And while we can perhaps tech these concepts to children through repetition, we cannot teach it to them as inspiration, without myth, ritual, tradition, and norm to persist it across generations, and to convey it to all those regardless of age and ability.

That we require ‘religion’: myth, ritual and tradition, in narrative, literary form is a product of man’s intellectual evolution from innocent and ignorant child to jaded and experienced sage.

But whether stated as religious narrative, reasoned moral argument, rational justification, strictly constructed law, ratio-scientific criticism or testimonial truth, the actions that result from the use of these forms of communication must produce correspondent results.

So it is not the method of conveyance that we judge – since the method of argument is a measure of the speaker and the audience – but whether
The only transcendent philosophy must be natural law of man and physical law of the universe, stated testimonially – the best that man’s words are able to state.

And therefore the only transcendent religion is Testimonial Truth, The Natural Law of Cooperation, The Physical Law of Correspondence.

All else is lie to obscure parasitism and predation, or it is error that not must be not tolerated, but corrected.
If any mythological, reasonable, rational, ratio-scientific argument is incompatible with natural law, then it is merely an act of predation – an act of war – not a religion.

Christianity and Indo European Paganism are compatible with Natural Law in the production of resulting behavior, as long as inbreeding is prohibited, tolerance for violation of natural law is limited, and the culling of the underclasses by expulsion, separation, incarceration, sterilization, and hanging is encouraged as necessary for the preservation of natural law and the achievement of transcendence.

>>8688430
thank you for finally ruining this thread with a massive copypasta of shit nobody is going to read

im not being sarcastic, im glad its over

>>8688437
you gotta admit that moral relativist faggot got btfo

>>8687984

>muh objective morality

Hume could have destroyed this pleb in a minute.

>>8688403
Freedom is just identification with the going ons of your own mind. It is having your directives, no matter how severe, followed with equanimity. How can I be unfree if I recognize myself as the source? The mentally deficient unable to enforce their own edicts and those fooled into enforcing those of others are the unfree.

Christians, muslims, whoever, can be free to. They just have to reject God. They have to say, "Pork is haram by my edict, off with your head." And they are free, until they get droned of course.

>>8688440
What thread you in bro?

>>8688385
>Well, does he have an argument for the holocaust being objectively wrong?

I rest my case

>>8687984
pseudo intellectual

>>8688470
>doesnt make any case
>i rest my case
4chan

>>8688440
ya i think ur in the wrong thread

>>8688330
I hope for your sake that English is not your first language. Fucking hell

>>8688494

Pseudo post

>>8688391
You also own your own actions in Christianity. It's kind of how the big man judges you when you die- what choices you made.

Christians also take responsibility for their actions.
(Christians believe they burn in eternal hellfire if they are judged to be deviant from their moral system.)

If this is not a value-interest framework, I don't know what is.

>>8689233
fan boy post

File: 4hqrsemen.jpg (32KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x360px

He's a fraud and a self-promoter.

http://www.rhizzone.net/article/2016/09/30/sam-harris-fraud/

Sam Harris Is A Fraud

In 2004 Sam Harris published his bestselling book “The End of Faith”. In the aftermath of 9/11, the declaration of the War on Terror and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, Harris’ book hit the mark with middle class liberals. It argued that Muslims are driven to violent actions by their violent religion. Even moderate Muslims harbour dangerous and savage thoughts that make them an enemy within. He makes a few passing philosophical remarks that dazzle lay readers into buying Harris’ personal moral code – we should be willing to fight these irrational, dangerous people in order to protect Western liberal values: secularism, reason, progress. The book marked the beginning of a long and fruitful media and publishing career for Harris, who has now become a leading figure in the New Atheist movement, and one of its Four Horsemen.

Unlike the other Horsemen, Sam Harris has no pre-existing career worth mentioning. Dan Dennett is an accomplished philosopher and writer. Richard Dawkins built his atheism promotion out of his mediocre but well publicised science writing. Christopher Hitchens was a scumbag, but he was at least a successful writer. To believe Harris’ own hype, you’d think he was some kind of amalgamation of all three of these people: a neuroscientist and philosopher, the most potent Horseman of all.

Yet Harris’ claims about his intellectual bona fides are all a fraud. Sam Harris is no neuroscientist, nor is he a philosopher. Harris’ success has not been built on his abilities in either discipline. It has been built on his parents’ wealth, his connections, and a media and audience lusting after the kind of warmongering-but-liberal calls to action that he spouts, touched up with a veneer of intellectual credibility.

File: harris.jpg (104KB, 898x893px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 898x893px

>>8689420

Behind every media darling is a pair of rich, indulgent parents, and Sam Harris is no exception. His parents, both former TV stars and producers, footed the bill for Stanford, and then a string of New Age spiritual retreats once little Sam decided to drop out of Stanford.

>“ looked for answers in books about the occult and eastern religion, and then re-invented the 1960s for himself, experimenting with psychedelics and traveling to India and Nepal to study with Buddhist meditation masters.”

In an interview back in 2006 Harris mentions in passing that “at the time, he was supported financially by his mother”. As well as his family’s lavish support, connections were already developing, as he managed to swing a job in a “security detail” for the Dalai Lama. Being the child of highly connected and wealthy TV heavyweights certainly has its benefits, though what type of security a 19-year old Stanford trustafarian dropout was providing is beyond me.

Sam’s real passion during this time was philosophy. His spiritual guide at the time remarked later that:

>"His passion was for deep philosophical questions, and he could talk for hours and hours," Salzberg recalls. "Sometimes you'd want to say to him, 'What about the Yankees?' or 'Look at the leaves, they're changing color!' "

>>8689424

Already developing his trademark narcissistic and computer-like style of discussion, Sam was compelled to indulge himself in further study. According to the same interview, after re-enrolling and completing his diploma, Sam began writing at length about his philosophical views: “but nothing was published.” Whatever Sam was producing at this stage, it wasn’t of any interest to actual philosophers. The best way to get around this problem was to bypass them and publish for a lay audience, and thankfully for Sam this wasn’t an insurmountable problem: coming from a TV family he had already developed the ability to find an audience – rubes who will buy what you’re selling.

After spending his 20s in some kind of haze of middle class ennui searching for spiritual truth Sam finally found the more fundamental, bourgeois truth: New Age spiritualism has nothing on getting filthy rich and famous. The essays he had tried to send off to philosophy journals for publications were later amalgamated into material for “The End of Faith”, and its publication opened up a whole new world of connections and media attention.

In 2004, after the success of “The End of Faith”, Harris was introduced to David Samuels, media heavyweight, who lauded him as the next Voltaire. The friend who introduced Harris to Samuels? A mysterious “writer for the Simpsons”. Atheists and libertarians began crawling out of the woodwork to latch onto this rising star. The connections begin to come thick and fast. In more recent years Harris has found equal success in enlisting the support of New Atheists like Dan Dennett & Richard Dawkins.

File: talk.jpg (50KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 800x450px

>>8689425

At this same juncture in his life Sam decided to dive into the world of neuroscience, and what a career move it turned out to be. For the broader middle class yokelry who fawn over Sam, it gives him some kind of insight into the “inner workings of the mind”, which neuroscience does not actually involve. A small aside, let me tell you what neuroscientists do: data entry. The neuroscientist title turns out to be a lie, a bit of performance art from an accomplished performer. It’s true that Harris completed a PhD in neuroscience, yet the story of how he got this qualification casts some doubt on his bona fides as a so called “neuroscientist”.

Harris’ desire to sleaze his way through a doctorate in neuroscience in particular was motivated by his instincts as an arch-careerist. “The End of Faith” was already on the shelves – he was already a Somebody in the public sphere, and he already had a topic that he knew would play. His PhD would investigate the differences in brain activity between Christians and non-Christian people when asked various factual or non-factual questions. The goal was to find some kind of neurological correlate of religiosity, showing how religious people think less rationally than atheists. He could then use this as a stick to beat religious people – presumably Muslims – with: “your brains work differently to ours”. These findings would tie everything up in a neat bow: Muslims are irrational and crazy, and here are the brain scans to prove it! Fortunately for Sam, and unfortunately for the credibility of neuroscientists generally, it’s pretty easy to produce whatever results you like with a little bit of methodological tilting of the scales.

>>8689428

Two equally interesting questions arise from the tale of Sam’s PhD thesis. Firstly, where did he get the money? MRI machines are expensive pieces of equipment, and are often rented for short periods at great expense. By now we should be able to guess the answer: Sam naturally had this covered through personal wealth and connections. Right around the time he was beginning his thesis Harris founded “The Reason Project”, later to become “Project Reason”, a “charitable foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society”. The Reason Project was apparently feeling particularly charitable about Sam, and provided the funds for his PhD, including use of facilities and an MRI machine. Once again, mum to the rescue.

The second problem was potentially more difficult. Sam had no history in neuroscience and he had never conducted an experiment in his life. It’s hard to imagine the UCLA neuroscience department accepting his PhD proposal, until you remember that Sam was by this stage highly connected, filthy rich, and becoming famous. He was given the red carpet treatment by UCLA. Sam got to pretend to do science while the professionals got to work. The various research jobs were passed to his co-authors: conducting the experiments, recruiting participants and designing the entire study were taken off Little Lord Fauntleroy’s hands. Ultimately Sam’s sole responsibility was the final write-up, which is less the account of a scientific experiment and more a screed about his personal views on religion, and a narcissistic flexing of his intellectual cred.

>>8689430

From the introduction:

>“While there may be many Catholics, for instance, who value the ritual of the Mass without actually believing the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the primacy of the Mass within the Church still hinges on the fact that many Catholics do accept it as a metaphysical truth—a fact that can be directly attributed to specific, doctrinal claims that are still put forward by the Church.”

First of all, that’s not what “metaphysical” means, and secondly, what does this have to do with a behavioural fMRI study?

>“Indeed, humanity seems to becoming proportionally more religious, as the combination of material advancement and secularism is strongly correlated with decreased fertility . When one considers the rise of Islamism throughout the Muslim world, the spread of Pentecostalism throughout Africa, and the anomalous piety of the United States, it becomes clear that religion will have geopolitical consequences well into the 21st century.”

Again, is this neuroscience or Sam’s new blog post?

The PhD predictably ended up a huge mess seeing how its lead author, Sam, was not a scientist but rather an anti-religious ideologue with no idea about how to design a study of this kind. Plenty of scientists during this period were swept up by the excitement of probing the activity in people’s brains to locate the regions or areas responsible for different mental behaviours. The emerging field of fMRI seemed to give us a special insight into the mind, but the methods involved are often rudimentary or extremely questionable.

File: fmri.jpg (39KB, 670x365px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 670x365px

>>8689433

Participants are routinely asked to “do nothing” or “think about nothing” while their “baseline” brain activity is recorded by the MRI machine. This baseline is then compared against their results during the experimental task, often in a very crude way. Researchers will simply subtract the baseline activation from the task activation, assuming that this will leave them with only the task activation, removing all the background noise. Researchers also frequently use mathematical tweaking to produce results that look good on a “heat map” by removing data that are “noisy” and don’t cluster neatly on the hotspots of activation.

In one famous example of the flaws of fMRIs, researchers used a dead salmon as their fMRI subject. The salmon was shown a series of images of various human social situations, designed to evoke an emotional response. The researchers found that, using the standard methods employed by neuroscientists and psychologists, the dead salmon responded to the images, illustrating the insanely high false-positive rate of fMRI research.

On a deeper theoretical level, it is rarely assumed anymore that discrete brain regions “do” any particular task. More and more evidence is emerging that distributed networks, graphical and topological features of the whole brain, and other kinds of non-localizable processes are what actually drive our mental life.

>>8689436

Harris’ research manages to hit every single note of bad neuroscience design, and reveals an ignorance of theoretical issues on the part of the scientists involved. The statistician William Briggs, having studied the thesis, points to numerous flaws in its design. The researchers recruited a hugely biased population sample that skewed their data, and did not record whether the non-Christian participants were Muslims, Atheists, Buddhist, or whatever else (I guess the folks round Stanford are white enough to rule other religions out). They also didn’t include the details of the questions asked, and we simply have to assume that the questions were valid. Harris’ team also discarded data that did not suit their desired results: 7 out of 40 participants were not included in the results “because their responses to our experimental stimuli indicated that they did not actually meet the criteria for inclusion in our study as either nonbelievers or committed Christians”. How was this decided? They never say. In addition, since some participants didn’t answer consistently enough according to Sam’s reckoning he excluded “subjects who could not consistently respond “true” or “false” with conviction.”

Briggs summarises:

>“During the course of my investigation of scientism and bad science, I have read a great many bad, poorly reasoned papers. This one might not be the worst, but it deserves a prize for mangling the largest number of things simultaneously.”

Yet the thesis was accepted and Sam received his PhD anyway. Doubtless the connection to his thesis supervisor Mark S. Cohen, a pioneer in MRI scanning techniques, helped carry him over the line. And thus Sam, a man who knows virtually nothing about neuroscience, who has never conducted or designed an experiment, is the proud holder of a PhD.

File: face.jpg (23KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 460x276px

>>8689437

Recent research on the flaws of fMRI techniques has often used theses like Sam’s as a punching bag. A 2016 paper “Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates” provides some convincing evidence, perhaps even more convincing than the salmon, that fMRI data is often misleading or useless, which was picked up in an article in the New York Times. Harris’ supervisor, Mark S. Cohen, responded at length to the charges, but the best he seemed to do was a small act of pedantry, correcting the article author for putting full-stops in the acronym fMRI. Later on Cohen concedes that maybe scientists got a little excited about the possibilities of fMRI:

>“… scientists share the same foibles as all people: we are biased by our own beliefs and by our desire for recognition. Nothing, and certainly not statistics, can really protect us from this enthusiasm.”

You said it Mark. Where was this clear-headedness when you were watching Sam cut half the participants from the study based on a gut feeling?

So Sam’s thesis and the papers he’s been publishing based on it since demonstrate his novice-level understanding of neuroscience and experimental work in general. The nerds who revere his science-cred should bear in mind what an act of fraud it is for this man to call himself a scientist of any kind. Putting “neuroscientist” on the sleeve of his books is like calling the 9/11 attackers aerial stuntmen – he tried his hand at it once and it ended in disaster.

>>8689440

But neuroscience was just one string in Sam’s bow. His passion, as we’ve noted, was originally philosophy. While he has dabbled in philosophy of mind and sometimes parrots the positions of his friend Dennett, Sam is primarily interested in religion and moral philosophy. “The End of Faith” launched a vicious attack on religion in general, but particularly Islam. There are plenty of other articles running through the pathetic and nasty bile that Sam levels at Muslims on the regular, and I’ll focus instead on the weakness of his philosophy, and the lame techniques he uses to fool unsuspecting readers into agreeing with his nonsensical arguments.

A sure sign of Sam’s intellectual prowess comes in the opening pages of his book:

>“The young man boards the bus as it leaves the terminal. He wears an overcoat. Beneath his overcoat, he is wearing a bomb…The young man smiles. With the press of a button he destroys himself, the couple at his side, and twenty others on the bus…The young man’s parents soon learn of his fate….They knows that he has gone to heaven and prepared the way for them to follow…These are the facts…”

So far it reads like a spy novel written by a computer program. But soon we reach the grim conclusion...

>“Why is it so easy…to guess the young man’s religion?”

Dun dun duuuuun! If your average middle class American yokel who picked this book up in 2004 thinks that Muslims are violent, well, it’s got to be true!

The most impressively deceitful line is “These are the facts”. Never mind that these supposed “facts” are drawn from Sam’s imagination and placed into this heavily contrived scenario that never happened in real life. They’re as good as real facts so long as they appeal to the intuitions of the reader, and give the illusion of opening your eyes to the hidden evidence of Muslim evil.

>>8689443

A central theme running through Harris’ work on religion is that he considers himself an expert on the inner workings of the Muslim mind – a qualified Muslim Whisperer. The Muslim Whisperer understands the Muslim – what does he want, what does he think about, what drives his actions? Normal Westerners are unable to understand Muslims in all their savagery, but luckily the self-proclaimed scholar of Islamic psychology Sam is here to fill in the gaps:

>“Why did nineteen well-educated, middle-class men trade their lives in this world for the privilege of killing thousands of our neighbours? Because they believed that they would go straight to paradise for doing so. It is rare to find the behaviour of human beings so fully and satisfactorily explained. Why have we been reluctant to accept this explanation?”

Get your chin scratching finger ready. Where did Sam get this exhaustive explanation of the 9/11 hijackers’ psychology? We will never know – the Muslim Whisperer keeps these things to himself. He just knows, and if he says it confidently enough and it agrees with the readers’ intuitions then it’ll be accepted as truth.

File: face2.jpg (39KB, 500x257px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x257px

>>8689446

Sam has a list of divinations about Muslims: “Muslims hate the West in the very terms of their faith”. He knows that they are all devoted to “the literal word of the Koran”, they believe “modernity and secular culture are incompatible with moral and spiritual health”, and most damningly “the reality that the West currently enjoys far more wealth and temporal power than any nation under Islam is viewed by devout Muslims as a diabolical perversity” The average Muslim man “…will feel that the eternal happiness of his children is put in peril by the mere presence of such unbelievers in the world”. As someone who, unlike Sam, regularly talks to people of Muslim faith, I find his insights pretty surprising. Little did I know that hidden behind the façade of everyday life was a seething, roiling mass of black hatred for me and everything I stand for.

>“All are in perverse agreement on one point of fundamental importance, however: “respect” for other faiths, or for the faiths of unbelievers, is not an attitude that God endorses.”

If Sam had bothered to speak to a Muslim person he’d find that virtually all of them regard Christianity and Judaism as related faiths. Jesus was a prophet much like Mohammed, and Christianity is incomplete but basically acceptable. The number of mixed-faith marriages and relationships I’m acquainted with also seems to put the lie to Sam’s credibility as a Muslim Whisperer – then again, maybe Australia is just a bubble of religious tolerance, where people leave Muslims alone and don’t attack them or their sites of worship.

----

Man this article is way longer than I remember, I can't be bothered to paste the whole thing ITT. just read it I guess

>>8689446
I like Sam but buying into the official nine of elevens conspiracy theory? Wew!
Well I guess it plays into his narrative but there are far too many self hating Abrahamic cultists today.
We need Pikes WW3 to fire up and the great purge to get underway, move to the new age neo Pagan carbon climate economy already. I've been waiting my whole life for it, we need top stop stalling and just get er done.

I've listened to 2 of his self orated books and looking forward to the third, Free Will. What is it and why does it matter?