Christopher Hitchens: Lite Fare for the Uninformed

[JoltinJoe]

First Young Smartass falls for it, now Klam.

There's no antecedent reference in your sentence.

[YoUDeeMan]

They are going to be lawyers. No judge is going to cut them a break. If a judge doesn't understand what they have written, he or she is going to give my student a second chance.

Are you sure you want to continue criticizing people for not clearly expressing their thoughts in writing?

[youngterrier]

grammar nazis are disgusting.

[houndawg]

Show me the proof.

I don't need to show you the proof, for my point has been proven already by those that deny Jesus, the man, existed.

You would rather cling to your unfounded heresy, rather than listen to those educated in the fields because it doesn't fit into your belief system.

For the record, I am not directing this at you specifically, more at houndawg.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Always pickin' on ol' houndawg.

For the record SG, I think this Jesus person probably existed even though there is not one single first hand account from anybody who can say: "Yep, he's real. I saw him at a wedding". A couple of thousand years from now scholars may universally agree that Uncle Sam was real people too and denigrate those who ignore the overwhelming evidence of his existence.

[D1B]

I don't need to show you the proof, for my point has been proven already by those that deny Jesus, the man, existed.

You would rather cling to your unfounded heresy, rather than listen to those educated in the fields because it doesn't fit into your belief system.

For the record, I am not directing this at you specifically, more at houndawg.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Always pickin' on ol' houndawg.

For the record SG, I think this Jesus person probably existed even though there is not one single first hand account from anybody who can say: "Yep, he's real. I saw him at a wedding". A couple of thousand years from now scholars may universally agree that Uncle Sam was real people too and denigrate those who ignore the overwhelming evidence of his existence.

[Chizzang]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGMR9dnv2VM[/youtube]

[youngterrier]

Sam Harris has contributed literally nothing positive to mankind.

[D1B]

Sam Harris has contributed literally nothing positive to mankind.

Really, you arrogant little fuck? You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[youngterrier]

Sam Harris has contributed literally nothing positive to mankind.

Really, you arrogant little fuck? You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

He is literally the worst person alive right now.

[Chizzang]

He is literally the worst person alive right now.

I can only assume you're being sarcastic...

[youngterrier]

He is literally the worst person alive right now.

I can only assume you're being sarcastic...

Dawkins and Hitchens have redeeming qualities (Hitchens' knowledge of history and Dawkins knowledge of biology for instance). Harris does not.

[Chizzang]

I can only assume you're being sarcastic...

Dawkins and Hitchens have redeeming qualities (Hitchens' knowledge of history and Dawkins knowledge of biology for instance). Harris does not.

And this somehow makes him "the worst person alive" ?

[youngterrier]

Dawkins and Hitchens have redeeming qualities (Hitchens' knowledge of history and Dawkins knowledge of biology for instance). Harris does not.

And this somehow makes him "the worst person alive" ?

No, his eurocentric, simplistic philosophy and his religious commitment to science as a means to discern morality is peak liberal and extremely problemat

Dawkins and Hitchens agreed with him, but they didn't claim to be philosophers. Harris is a philosopher, and a bad one, and his philosophy is a rallying cry for terrible people everywhere. I embarrassed to say I ever fell for it, even for the shortest time. But the difference was I was like 16, whereas the people he influences is far beyond that demographic

[Chizzang]

And this somehow makes him "the worst person alive" ?

No, his eurocentric, simplistic philosophy and his religious commitment to science as a means to discern morality is peak liberal and extremely problemat

Dawkins and Hitchens agreed with him, but they didn't claim to be philosophers. Harris is a philosopher, and a bad one, and his philosophy is a rallying cry for terrible people everywhere. I embarrassed to say I ever fell for it, even for the shortest time. But the difference was I was like 16, whereas the people he influences is far beyond that demographic

What's wrong with a "simplistic" philosophical question..?
Unless of course it is directed at some tired old dogma and exposes it to "common sense"

and

His rally cry is "apply common sense" and "question antiquated dogma"
how does that translate into a rally cry for terrible people..?

and

Sam Harris criticizes Liberals a lot - he is not "peak Liberal" - he questions Liberal bullsh!t
It's pretty obvious you're confused about Sam Harris because almost nothing you said was accurate

[D1B]

No, his eurocentric, simplistic philosophy and his religious commitment to science as a means to discern morality is peak liberal and extremely problemat

Dawkins and Hitchens agreed with him, but they didn't claim to be philosophers. Harris is a philosopher, and a bad one, and his philosophy is a rallying cry for terrible people everywhere. I embarrassed to say I ever fell for it, even for the shortest time. But the difference was I was like 16, whereas the people he influences is far beyond that demographic

What's wrong with a "simplistic" philosophical question..?
Unless of course it is directed at some tired old dogma and exposes it to "common sense"

and

His rally cry is "apply common sense" and "question antiquated dogma"
how does that translate into a rally cry for terrible people..?

and

Sam Harris criticizes Liberals a lot - he is not "peak Liberal" - he questions Liberal bullsh!t
It's pretty obvious you're confused about Sam Harris because almost nothing you said was accurate

Young Shitforbrains may be talking about the playwright.

[youngterrier]

No, his eurocentric, simplistic philosophy and his religious commitment to science as a means to discern morality is peak liberal and extremely problemat

Dawkins and Hitchens agreed with him, but they didn't claim to be philosophers. Harris is a philosopher, and a bad one, and his philosophy is a rallying cry for terrible people everywhere. I embarrassed to say I ever fell for it, even for the shortest time. But the difference was I was like 16, whereas the people he influences is far beyond that demographic

What's wrong with a "simplistic" philosophical question..?
Unless of course it is directed at some tired old dogma and exposes it to "common sense"

and

His rally cry is "apply common sense" and "question antiquated dogma"
how does that translate into a rally cry for terrible people..?

and

Sam Harris criticizes Liberals a lot - he is not "peak Liberal" - he questions Liberal bullsh!t
It's pretty obvious you're confused about Sam Harris because almost nothing you said was accurate

I have read quite a few books by Sam Harris (I would guess more than you, for what that's worth) so if you truly want to qualify my statement I shall. The problem with his positions are that they are ahistorical and idealized concepts of ~the scientific method~ as if the empirical method or what have you is always something where everyone sees the same answer and has the right answer the first time. In other words, he'll talk about the injustices of religion as institution but not of the injustices of science as an institution. He literally skips over stuff like the atomic bomb and eugenics but won't let others forget the inquisition or crusades. I'm not saying we shouldn't do either, but he dresses up his opinions as if they are ~objective~ which they aren't, no perspective is objective.

And that's the whole problem with the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris; they make you think they're questioning dogmatism of society, but these criticisms have been around for decades, if not centuries. They prance around as if they advocate some sort of brand new philosophical position, but it's extremely outdated. Philosophy isn't about ~finding objective truth~ as they pronounce it to be, it's about exploring different hermenuetics (perspectives) to have a better understanding of truth.

They don't do that, in fact they hold this dogmatism to the scientific method that rivals religion. They neglect societal problems that are real, like poverty, sexism, racism, imperialism, and so on and criticize the low-hanging fruit that is religion (which, like every institution is as much an effect of oppression as it is a cause). In this way, it's a reflection of the privilege Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and so on have. It's the privilege to pretend to have an objective viewpoint from a birds-eye view. They don't know what true oppression is.

In this way, they're liberal, in the classical definition of the word. They champion the enlightenment as if all philosophy died after it. Criticizing fundamentalism isn't edgy or provocative, it's simple. Criticizing religion in the way they do---as an idea as opposed to simply the function of the institution, is boring and unhelpful.

[ASUMountaineer]

Sam Harris has contributed literally nothing positive to mankind.

Really, you arrogant little ****? You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Name calling and a lack of substance. Clearly, a bastion for intelligent thought.

[D1B]

What's wrong with a "simplistic" philosophical question..?
Unless of course it is directed at some tired old dogma and exposes it to "common sense"

and

His rally cry is "apply common sense" and "question antiquated dogma"
how does that translate into a rally cry for terrible people..?

and

Sam Harris criticizes Liberals a lot - he is not "peak Liberal" - he questions Liberal bullsh!t
It's pretty obvious you're confused about Sam Harris because almost nothing you said was accurate

I have read quite a few books by Sam Harris (I would guess more than you, for what that's worth) so if you truly want to qualify my statement I shall. The problem with his positions are that they are ahistorical and idealized concepts of ~the scientific method~ as if the empirical method or what have you is always something where everyone sees the same answer and has the right answer the first time. In other words, he'll talk about the injustices of religion as institution but not of the injustices of science as an institution. He literally skips over stuff like the atomic bomb and eugenics but won't let others forget the inquisition or crusades. I'm not saying we shouldn't do either, but he dresses up his opinions as if they are ~objective~ which they aren't, no perspective is objective.

And that's the whole problem with the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris; they make you think they're questioning dogmatism of society, but these criticisms have been around for decades, if not centuries. They prance around as if they advocate some sort of brand new philosophical position, but it's extremely outdated. Philosophy isn't about ~finding objective truth~ as they pronounce it to be, it's about exploring different hermenuetics (perspectives) to have a better understanding of truth.

They don't do that, in fact they hold this dogmatism to the scientific method that rivals religion. They neglect societal problems that are real, like poverty, sexism, racism, imperialism, and so on and criticize the low-hanging fruit that is religion (which, like every institution is as much an effect of oppression as it is a cause). In this way, it's a reflection of the privilege Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and so on have. It's the privilege to pretend to have an objective viewpoint from a birds-eye view. They don't know what true oppression is.

In this way, they're liberal, in the classical definition of the word. They champion the enlightenment as if all philosophy died after it. Criticizing fundamentalism isn't edgy or provocative, it's simple. Criticizing religion in the way they do---as an idea as opposed to simply the function of the institution, is boring and unhelpful.

You're an arrogant and dumb fucking child.

[D1B]

Really, you arrogant little ****? You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Name calling and a lack of substance. Clearly, a bastion for intelligent thought.

There's wisdom in being simple and direct.

It's obvious that little fuck has it wrong about Harris and others. He's regurgitating bullshit he transcribed from some weakazz Wofford Intro to Religious Philosophy TA, invariably named Kent or Gayle.

[youngterrier]

Name calling and a lack of substance. Clearly, a bastion for intelligent thought.

There's wisdom in being simple and direct.

It's obvious that little fuck has it wrong about Harris and others. He's regurgitating bullshit he transcribed from some weakazz Wofford Intro to Religious Philosophy TA, invariably named Kent or Gayle.

I've actually read some books by Harris...I highly doubt you can say you've read anything in general

[D1B]

There's wisdom in being simple and direct.

It's obvious that little fuck has it wrong about Harris and others. He's regurgitating bullshit he transcribed from some weakazz Wofford Intro to Religious Philosophy TA, invariably named Kent or Gayle.

I've actually read some books by Harris...I highly doubt you can say you've read anything in general

Yawn.

Try reading them again, Shitcrates. Take an intro to logic class too, then reevaluate your last few posts which are chock full of fallacies.

[ASUMountaineer]

Name calling and a lack of substance. Clearly, a bastion for intelligent thought.

There's wisdom in being simple and direct.

It's obvious that little **** has it wrong about Harris and others. He's regurgitating bullshit he transcribed from some weakazz Wofford Intro to Religious Philosophy TA, invariably named Kent or Gayle.

[youngterrier]

I've actually read some books by Harris...I highly doubt you can say you've read anything in general

Yawn.

Try reading them again, Shitcrates. Take an intro to logic class too, then reevaluate your last few posts which are chock full of fallacies.

I'm kind of numb to your irony

[JoltinJoe]

They are going to be lawyers. No judge is going to cut them a break. If a judge doesn't understand what they have written, he or she is going to give my student a second chance.

Are you sure you want to continue criticizing people for not clearly expressing their thoughts in writing?

I think faster than I type. That's why I employ proofreaders.

If you want a job, send your résumé.

[kalm]

Are you sure you want to continue criticizing people for not clearly expressing their thoughts in writing?

I think faster than I type. That's why I employ proofreaders.

If you want a job, send your résumé.

God you're a dick.