Conk Christian Love Letters to Richard Dawkins! LMAO!!

[JoltinJoe]

To answer my own question, since no one possesses the requisite knowledge, skill or intellect to do so: Harris' philosophy represents a classical determinism taken to the (extreme) point of determinism, asserting that humans lack all free will. Harris's contribution is that he claims the lack of free is biologically based, and that he has performed the scientific inquiry needed to conclude that all human impulse, including morality and spirituality, is biologically based (as evidenced by his neurological studies).

His assertion of scientific proof is specious, made to sell books.

[kalm]

Where did Chizzy falsify his position? You're trying to hard by rejecting Harris out of hand.



Robert Pirsig

Chizzèng would be mighty proud of you defending him with a quote from Pirsig. Peas in a pod. Two counter-culture hippies right out of the time capsule.

Read Harris and see if you can fairly say he is not dogmatic about all human actions, feelings, emotions, spirituality being biologically based.

BTW, if you look up this thread, you would see that I did say Harris "may be right." BUT, he is misrepresenting the facts when he says science compels such a conclusion -- there is no science which establishes what he claims -- and he is a charlatan for claiming otherwise.

He should just be honest and say that he takes his position based on his faith in science. It's just another belief, another leap of faith.

Harris, Pirsig are limited by an insistence that ultimate rationality must be based on tangible human experience or explanation.

Just to be annoying (and see if Bandle is lurking the poli board, here's another Pirsig quote which also happens to be a decent response to your post:

“The law of gravity and gravity itself did not exist before Isaac Newton." ...and what that means is that that law of gravity exists nowhere except in people's heads! It 's a ghost!"
Mind has no matter or energy but they can't escape its predominance over everything they do. Logic exists in the mind. numbers exist only in the mind. I don't get upset when scientists say that ghosts exist in the mind. it's that only that gets me. science is only in your mind too, it's just that that doesn't make it bad. or ghosts either."
Laws of nature are human inventions, like ghosts. Law of logic, of mathematics are also human inventions, like ghosts."
...we see what we see because these ghosts show it to us, ghosts of Moses and Christ and the Buddha, and Plato, and Descartes, and Rousseau and Jefferson and Lincoln, on and on and on. Isaac Newton is a very good ghost. One of the best. Your common sense is nothing more than the voices of thousands and thousands of these ghosts from the past.”

Damn…I need to go back and read ZAAOMM again.

Strike the smarmy responses on either side and this can be a great conversation.

[kalm]

To answer my own question, since no one possesses the requisite knowledge, skill or intellect to do so: Harris' philosophy represents a classical determinism taken to the (extreme) point of determinism, asserting that humans lack all free will. Harris's contribution is that he claims the lack of free is biologically based, and that he has performed the scientific inquiry needed to conclude that all human impulse, including morality and spirituality, is biologically based (as evidenced by his neurological studies).

His assertion of scientific proof is specious, made to sell books.

Since you apparently possess the requisite knowledge, skill, and intellect, why don't you post some Harris quotes to support your theory.

[biobengal]

Richard Dawkins has an H-Index of 56. The H-Index is a measure of research and scholarly productivity and 56 is quite high. Regardless of what you think about his views on God and spirituality, Dawkins has had a productive career with significant contributions to evolutionary theory, especially the idea of an extended phenotype.

[Chizzang]

To answer my own question, since no one possesses the requisite knowledge, skill or intellect to do so: Harris' philosophy represents a classical determinism taken to the (extreme) point of determinism, asserting that humans lack all free will. Harris's contribution is that he claims the lack of free is biologically based, and that he has performed the scientific inquiry needed to conclude that all human impulse, including morality and spirituality, is biologically based (as evidenced by his neurological studies).

His assertion of scientific proof is specious, made to sell books.

Joe
His contributions (or total lack there of) are not relevant to the discussion
YOU are the one who is saying he makes claims that he in FACT does NOT make
If you don't even understand what he's actually saying
how are you going to make a legitimate statement on his contributions

Here's what Sam Harris actually does
1) He criticizes the books of the Bible very specifically chapter and verse
2) He criticizes the violence with which people will defend their faith of a loving God
3) He criticizes the lazy "tennis without a net" style debate that religious leaders use
4) He criticizes the moderate Christians and Muslims who allow safe hiding for fundamentalists
5) He criticizes those who make serious claims about things they cannot explain

Here's what else he does
1) He says we're totally looking in the wrong place for answers - we're still behaving like cavemen
2) He says it is far more likely someday we will be able to "chart the brain" for answers than meet Jesus
3) He says Science is new in compared to Faith - we haven't even scratched the surface of what we will learn
4) He says human behavior is predictable - far more predictable than we ever imagined


He is repeatedly misquoted by the real charlatans...
He's been misquoted by every Religious person I've had the good fortune of watching debate him

Here's what Sam Harris is NOT Joe...
He's NOT a Liar
and the gaggle of religious leaders standing behind you on your side
is fairly bulging at the seams with Liars
and those that would have us believe "they know something" they in fact do not

[JoltinJoe]

Chizzèng would be mighty proud of you defending him with a quote from Pirsig. Peas in a pod. Two counter-culture hippies right out of the time capsule.

Read Harris and see if you can fairly say he is not dogmatic about all human actions, feelings, emotions, spirituality being biologically based.

BTW, if you look up this thread, you would see that I did say Harris "may be right." BUT, he is misrepresenting the facts when he says science compels such a conclusion -- there is no science which establishes what he claims -- and he is a charlatan for claiming otherwise.

He should just be honest and say that he takes his position based on his faith in science. It's just another belief, another leap of faith.

Harris, Pirsig are limited by an insistence that ultimate rationality must be based on tangible human experience or explanation.

Just to be annoying (and see if Bandle is lurking the poli board, here's another Pirsig quote which also happens to be a decent response to your post:

“The law of gravity and gravity itself did not exist before Isaac Newton." ...and what that means is that that law of gravity exists nowhere except in people's heads! It 's a ghost!"
Mind has no matter or energy but they can't escape its predominance over everything they do. Logic exists in the mind. numbers exist only in the mind. I don't get upset when scientists say that ghosts exist in the mind. it's that only that gets me. science is only in your mind too, it's just that that doesn't make it bad. or ghosts either."
Laws of nature are human inventions, like ghosts. Law of logic, of mathematics are also human inventions, like ghosts."
...we see what we see because these ghosts show it to us, ghosts of Moses and Christ and the Buddha, and Plato, and Descartes, and Rousseau and Jefferson and Lincoln, on and on and on. Isaac Newton is a very good ghost. One of the best. Your common sense is nothing more than the voices of thousands and thousands of these ghosts from the past.”

Damn…I need to go back and read ZAAOMM again.

Strike the smarmy responses on either side and this can be a great conversation.

I read Zen in college and actually thought it was a pretty interesting work. I didn't buy everything, but I did like his critique of modern consumerism and we certainly had common ground there. I think every almost every philosophy has something of value in it, regardless of whether you buy into everything. Heck, I'd suspect Pirsig would be pissed if someone accepted everything he proclaimed. He'd see that as a lack of self-contemplation.

But I find deterministic claims of a lack of free will to be troubling, and contrary to my own experience. I have a great faith that I have a free will, and that I am responsible for what I do, say, think, because I control that. And, to take it a step further, I think it is free will, to the significant extent which humans possess it, to be what distinguishes humans from other species, and (dare I say it) what makes us soulful creatures.

I don't like Harris because he tries to take away what makes humans extraordinary, in my judgment.

Remember that YoungTerrier guy.? He was a bit of a young smart aleck and we use to joust over Harris. He head read a lot of Harris and was very much persuaded by him. A lot of guys here jeered me for telling YT to follow up on his interests in philosophy and metaphysics in college.

So he goes away to college, spends two semesters taking three metaphysics and epistemology classes. He comes back here that summer (2013) and calls Harris "the worst person alive." And then the guys -- who once applauded him -- blasted him, while I sat back and smiled.

[JoltinJoe]

To answer my own question, since no one possesses the requisite knowledge, skill or intellect to do so: Harris' philosophy represents a classical determinism taken to the (extreme) point of determinism, asserting that humans lack all free will. Harris's contribution is that he claims the lack of free is biologically based, and that he has performed the scientific inquiry needed to conclude that all human impulse, including morality and spirituality, is biologically based (as evidenced by his neurological studies).

His assertion of scientific proof is specious, made to sell books.

Joe
His contributions (or total lack there of) are not relevant to the discussion
YOU are the one who is saying he makes claims that he in FACT does NOT make
If you don't even understand what he's actually saying
how are you going to make a legitimate statement on his contributions

Here's what Sam Harris actually does
1) He criticizes the books of the Bible very specifically chapter and verse
2) He criticizes the violence with which people will defend their faith of a loving God
3) He criticizes the lazy "tennis without a net" style debate that religious leaders use
4) He criticizes the moderate Christians and Muslims who allow safe hiding for fundamentalists
5) He criticizes those who make serious claims about things they cannot explain

Here's what else he does
1) He says we're totally looking in the wrong place for answers - we're still behaving like cavemen
2) He says it is far more likely someday we will be able to "chart the brain" for answers than meet Jesus
3) He says Science is new in compared to Faith - we haven't even scratched the surface of what we will learn
4) He says human behavior is predictable - far more predictable than we ever imagined


He is repeatedly misquoted by the real charlatans...
He's been misquoted by every Religious person I've had the good fortune of watching debate him

Here's what Sam Harris is NOT Joe...
He's NOT a Liar
and the gaggle of religious leaders standing behind you on your side
is fairly bulging at the seams with Liars
and those that would have us believe "they know something" they in fact do not

Stick a pipe in it, drop out.

[SunCoastBlueHen]

I admit I don't know a lot about the philosophies of Richard Dawkins, but he was really good on Hogan's Heroes and Family Feud.

[kalm]

I admit I don't know a lot about the philosophies of Richard Dawkins, but he was really good on Hogan's Heroes and Family Feud.

But terrible in the Running Man.

[SunCoastBlueHen]

I admit I don't know a lot about the philosophies of Richard Dawkins, but he was really good on Hogan's Heroes and Family Feud.

But terrible in the Running Man.

Word

[Chizzang]

Stick a pipe in it, drop out.

I "heart" You so much Joe...
and I did not "Drop out" I was kicked out for conduct reasons which I will discuss only in person
here's a huge difference...

[Grizalltheway]

Actually there are plenty biologically based reasons for what humans feel and experience.

I guess there isn't a lot of Church-endorsed research on it, so that might explain why you eschew it so easily.

Reading is fundamental. I said as if there is "always" some biologically based reason for what humans feel and experience. Huge distinction.

There is plenty of philosophical discussion on this point, so I don't know why you eschew my point so easily.

Fair enough. I readily concede that there are plenty of things about the human experience that science alone can't explain. But, IMO, seeking answers to fundamental questions in millenia-old dogma is a bit of a cop out.

[andy7171]

Holy fuck. Some of these thread are too tedious to figure out what is being argued about.

[Chizzang]

Holy fuck. Some of these thread are too tedious to figure out what is being argued about.

1) Are the letters to Dawkins real

2) Sam Harris is a charlatan

3) No he's not

4) Chiz dropped out

5) No I was thrown out - huge difference

[andy7171]

Holy fuck. Some of these thread are too tedious to figure out what is being argued about.

1) Are the letters to Dawkins real

2) Sam Harris is a charlatan

3) No he's not

4) Chiz dropped out

5) No I was thrown out - huge difference

1- don't care
2- who?
3- what?
4- so?
5- big deal

[bandl]

Chizzèng would be mighty proud of you defending him with a quote from Pirsig. Peas in a pod. Two counter-culture hippies right out of the time capsule.

Read Harris and see if you can fairly say he is not dogmatic about all human actions, feelings, emotions, spirituality being biologically based.

BTW, if you look up this thread, you would see that I did say Harris "may be right." BUT, he is misrepresenting the facts when he says science compels such a conclusion -- there is no science which establishes what he claims -- and he is a charlatan for claiming otherwise.

He should just be honest and say that he takes his position based on his faith in science. It's just another belief, another leap of faith.

Harris, Pirsig are limited by an insistence that ultimate rationality must be based on tangible human experience or explanation.

Just to be annoying (and see if Bandle is lurking the poli board, here's another Pirsig quote which also happens to be a decent response to your post:

“The law of gravity and gravity itself did not exist before Isaac Newton." ...and what that means is that that law of gravity exists nowhere except in people's heads! It 's a ghost!"
Mind has no matter or energy but they can't escape its predominance over everything they do. Logic exists in the mind. numbers exist only in the mind. I don't get upset when scientists say that ghosts exist in the mind. it's that only that gets me. science is only in your mind too, it's just that that doesn't make it bad. or ghosts either."
Laws of nature are human inventions, like ghosts. Law of logic, of mathematics are also human inventions, like ghosts."
...we see what we see because these ghosts show it to us, ghosts of Moses and Christ and the Buddha, and Plato, and Descartes, and Rousseau and Jefferson and Lincoln, on and on and on. Isaac Newton is a very good ghost. One of the best. Your common sense is nothing more than the voices of thousands and thousands of these ghosts from the past.”

Damn…I need to go back and read ZAAOMM again.

Strike the smarmy responses on either side and this can be a great conversation.

hey f*ck you and your rape mouth!

[kalm]

Just to be annoying (and see if Bandle is lurking the poli board, here's another Pirsig quote which also happens to be a decent response to your post:



Damn…I need to go back and read ZAAOMM again.

Strike the smarmy responses on either side and this can be a great conversation.

hey f*ck you and your rape mouth!

YES!!!

[bandl]

hey f*ck you and your rape mouth!

YES!!!

No. I won't go near your mouth of rape.

[Grizalltheway]

Not willingly at least

Get it? Because it's a mouth of rape?

[bandl]

Not willingly at least

Get it? Because it's a mouth of rape?

BOOYATHIRST!!!!

[kalm]

All this talk of mouth rape is making Clenz randy.

[JoltinJoe]

Stick a pipe in it, drop out.

I "heart" You so much Joe...
and I did not "Drop out" I was kicked out for conduct reasons which I will discuss only in person
here's a huge difference...

I think it's cool you get it and take all ribbing in stride.

You did got a little JSO in that post, didn't you?

[Chizzang]

I "heart" You so much Joe...
and I did not "Drop out" I was kicked out for conduct reasons which I will discuss only in person
here's a huge difference...

I think it's cool you get it and take all ribbing in stride.

You did got a little JSO in that post, didn't you?

Joe,
I am absolutely certain that you and I would get along (out in the real world) beautifully
We agree on so much