My god, you’re an idiot ‘someoneatthedoor’ you aren’t even familiar with the research in question to be making judgements about how objective or unbiased it is. So shut the fuck up about it.
everything you say is more idiotic than the last thing, and you don’t even pretend you’re justified in making the comments you do, no one assumes that you are, so besides wanting to re-read your own posts and masturbate over them, whats the fucking point?
Besides as an eyesore to the rest of us.
“The point is that she comes to us, seeking the second most important job in the world, without any intellectual training relevant to the challenges and responsibilities that await her.”
He’s slipping “elitism” into the headline (which is the only place he uses it), in order to begin acclimating the public to accepting it. But he damns himself with the above sentence because it is indeed about elitism as I responded to it. In this case it doesn’t involve money (directly), but power, which is even worse. His case is that only the intellectually trained, who define and teach what they deem to be intellectual, should have access to power. Such inbred thinking is what’s behind the corruption and abuse of power that’s funneled from the Ivy League down to inside the beltway. Bush is Ivy League for God’s sake and he’s bought into the socialist momentum brought on by the Democrats and the leftist media.
We desperately need leadership, not elitist soundbites and demagoguery that haven’t been working for the last 40 years.
I relish the fresh air Palin would bring to Washington, including her wit, her integrity and (most of) her values as does much of America. If you or the Democrats wish for someone with “intellectual training”, why on Earth did you pick Obama? He can’t do anything without a teleprompter except stutter and reverse himself. Since they announced Palin, it’s been her running against him.
You got that right, and that’s as it should be, even though it isn’t what you meant. Morality is the basis for legislation (murder, rape, theft, pedophilia), but the problem is the religious fanatics and socialists attempt to legislate virtue (Prohibition I & II,don’t work on the sabath, don’t have sex outside of marriage, mandatory compassion et. al.) The only thing we should be legislating is morality, but it’s a race between the Democrats and Republicans as to which is the worst in this category, both being ruled to varying degrees by blind faith in their religions (Fundyism and Leftyism).
For all those who haven’t read the Harris book “End of Faith”, shut the fuck up. The mischaracterizations of his world view and his qualifications would fill another book called “I don’t know shit, but I’ll pretend I do”. Agree or disagree, but at least know what the man has said instead of your interpretation of what he said.
It’s curious how angry and dogmatic atheists become in denouncing the dogmatism of others.
It’s isn’t just the Christians who are hypocrites in expecting values and standards of others that they fail to live up to themselves.
sigh
First, you should really check your polical compass, again:
The Democrats can hardly be properly considered leftists, since they are rightist by this and pretty much every other measure.
As for the book-banning. It is a soud-byte to a certain extent, but someone looking into banning books sets a rather terrible tone. And I notice you didn’t try to debunk the others. Look into them with that tone in mind and tell me what you see.
It’s curious how angry and dogmatic atheists who don’t liken themselves as such become in denouncing the dogmatism of self-proclaimed atheists when they denounce the dogmatism of others. The hypocrisy of claiming hypocrisy…it’s still just as funny.
I read end of faith and I can quote you, from his own book, idiotic fucking comments about irrational nonsensical subjects. Do you want me too? Even worse than that, he lies, bold faced lies, about what his thoughts on ESP and etc are, when theres this huge backlash about his irrational comments.
His explanation about his beliefs in relation to the backlash, do not, DO NOT, mirror his statements in his book.
“blah blah i’m an idiot with no intellectual honesty”
we know for a fact that the paranormal got many fucking chances, in plenty of different circumstances, universities, government funded programs, this stuff HAS BEEN TESTED AND TESTED AND RE-TESTED.
Thats also, NOT WHAT HE CLAIMS IN THE BOOK.
[u][b]
[/b][/u] - Harris.
^^^END OF FAITH
kinda ironic name for a book spouting such bullshit. wish I never bought/read it.
Yeah, I guess Richard Dawkins knows nothing about genes and evolutionary biology. Guess he’s just some ignorant guy, using big words, because he wants his work to be read.
Its not like the first book he ever wrote, y’know, was a masterpiece and contains ideas which are the cornerstone of modern biology. Dawkins may not have invented the idea of a gene-centric view, but he explained it in a way that made it easily understandable for school-children and exposed an entire new generation of scientists to those ideas.
I know you don’t accept a bunch of ideas(including the idea that the gene is the unit of selection), based on your own bullshit criteria (someoneatthedoor) but you’re just as full of shit as ever.
Abrasive and ignorant fucking clown.
Thats leaving out the part where Harris points people to ‘research/study’ about reincarnation. Harris is compelled by cases of children out of nowhere, speaking in new languages and etc.
Y’know, opposed to the idea that the people making these claims are fucking liars or being tricked. The studies he points people towards, ARE NOT BASED ON SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA EITHER.
He’s a clown. A fucking clown. A smart and consistantly rational clown for giant areas of thought though.
Its strange that such inherently intelligent and educated people can come to such strange beliefs, but thats the point, its the same thing which happens to traditionally religious people.
If he accepts the data on telepathy as evidence that reasonable people can disagree about, than reasonable people can disagree about whether god exists or not based on that ‘data’ (ie: NONE NO EVIDENCE FOR EITHER CLAIM)
Sure, god is less likely, but when we’re talking about two such idiotically improbable ideas, why even bother making that distinction?
Take it down a notch, mr.scientist.
Cyrene,
You’re a hard data sort of person, and that’s good, but sometimes you might just miss the context of what is being said a teensy bit. Harris isn’t touting parapsychology as a positive, he is using it as an example of not knowing, the same as religion is not knowing, which forces us to acknowledge that we know far less than we pretend and that rational methodical discovery and acting out is a better course for us to follow than the irrationality of religion or all the other metaphysical claims of which we are so fond. He doesn’t offer hard data because there isn’t any. That’s the frigging point. At the same time, he won’t dismiss religion or para anything because we just don’t know enough. Instead of a microscope, step back and look at the whole issue he is raising…
sigh
thats total and complete back-pedaling from his claim, just like he engaged in when called on it.
Its not that he’s just saying “We should do more research to see because we can’t assume its false” thats NOT the point he’s making, at all.
he’s not saying “Theres no evidence but we should keep looking, keep testing” thats not the sentiment he’s putting forward here.
If it was I wouldn’t have a problem. He’s talking about compelling data, which doesn’t exist, he’s claiming some stuff has evidence and is science, when its not.
He makes the positive claim that theres a body of evidence or data (but we all know he means evidence, thats what it means in this context) attesting to the reality of psychic ability.
That is a lie. Its just as much a lie, as any christian fundamentalist lie about us not being related to apes.
Plain and simple, its either a lie or misinformation.
Its even worse that he won’t just admit straight up that what he said was fucking wrong that the scientific evidence is not there to be ignored by anyone. But he won’t make that correction
shame its in fucking print for everyone to see though.
OK Cyrene, you’re convinced and so you know. Whatever you say, have it your way.
Now things are heating up nicely…
You’re misunderstanding and oversimplifying. It’s not “inbred thinking” to believe that rational, intelligent people who aren’t possessed by religious dogmatism are better equipped to serve our country than others, especially given the evidence of how religious belief can so easily bleed over into politics and policy, i.e. stem cell research. And no, being from an Ivy League school doesn’t fit the criteria Harris is talking about. He’s not saying only the rich, privelaged, upper class deserve to lead. THAT, in my opinion, would be elitism.
How vague…we desperately need “leadership.” Of course we do, but Hitler had great leadership, so I don’t think simply stating that we need a leader exactly makes any progress on the problem at hand.
I know a lot of people that would bring wit, integrity, and values to Washington. Hell, a lot of them wouldn’t believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago, or that women who are raped must carry the baby to conception. A lot of them wouldn’t be shoving their values down other peoples’ throats by trying to enact laws that invade in others’ personal lives.
I’d start another thread to point out exactly why this comment is retarded, but it’s been rehashed so many times that you could just search for it yourself if you’re interested in the education.
Yes, please, enlighten us all oh-wise-one.
Maybe he’s not talking about the paranormal. But why would you care, you dismiss him before you’ve heard him out, just as any comforted-by-certainty closed-minded individual would. An idiot with no intellectual honesty? I’d say it’s the pot calling the kettle black, but in fact it’s the pot calling a very educated, intelligent, rational individual, “pot.”
Prove it. Quotes, references, etc.
Prove it. I’m fairly certain Harris is a man who is convinced by evidence when it is available, and open minded when the evidence isn’t conclusive, which is exactly what I’d expect of a rational person. But if new evidence were made available, I’d change my mind regarding his stance. Quotes please.
lol tentative i’m not ‘convinced’ its just true. he claimed a body of evidence exists and more than that its ignored by mainstream science. his claims are WRONG. Get over it. its in print, right there.
d0rky, prove what? that theres no body of evidence suggesting the reality of psychic abilty? or that Harris claimed there was. 1. No. 2. its in print I quoted already.
The end of faith and Sam Harris in general, is basically like mental rape. As you read along they just pretend to be your friend, then the second you let your guard down they shove it in so hard and fast that you need stitches.
Its fucking defiling. I wish I never bought/read that book.