Started By
Message
locked post

Sam Harris vs Ben Shapiro debate now posted

Posted on 1/2/18 at 8:33 pm
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
108098 posts
Posted on 1/2/18 at 8:33 pm
With Eric Weinstein thrown in

Posted earlier today, but I figured the board would be interested in seeing two intellectual heavyweights go after it (although civilly). Thank God we’ve finally skipped the Middle Man that is Cenk.
Posted by OleWarSkuleAlum
Huntsville, AL
Member since Dec 2013
10293 posts
Posted on 1/2/18 at 8:34 pm to
I would give my left nut for Hitchens to have destroyed both those idiots.
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
108098 posts
Posted on 1/2/18 at 8:36 pm to
quote:

I would give my left nut for Hitchens to have destroyed both those idiots.


Hitchens did debate Sam Harris on quite a few occasions. Harris didn’t beat him, but no one ever beat Hitchens as far as I’m aware.

Posted by victoire sécurisé
Member since Nov 2012
4819 posts
Posted on 1/2/18 at 8:44 pm to
quote:

both those idiots.


C'mon, man. Don't be that guy.
Posted by umop_apisdn
Member since Sep 2017
3673 posts
Posted on 1/2/18 at 8:45 pm to
What does the [s]fox[/s] Rubio say?
Posted by el Gaucho
He/They
Member since Dec 2010
52910 posts
Posted on 1/2/18 at 8:46 pm to
Why do y'all take Sam Harris seriously? He's an atheist and Ken Ham crushed him in a debate
Posted by victoire sécurisé
Member since Nov 2012
4819 posts
Posted on 1/2/18 at 8:57 pm to
quote:

He's an atheist


...and is therefore not capable of formulating and conveying a productive thought? I'm not following your line of thinking.
Posted by Gatorbait2008
Member since Aug 2015
22953 posts
Posted on 1/2/18 at 10:27 pm to
Hitch is pretty damn impressive. Him vs Ben would be a good show.
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46505 posts
Posted on 1/2/18 at 10:33 pm to
quote:

Hitchens did debate Sam Harris on quite a few occasions. Harris didn’t beat him, but no one ever beat Hitchens as far as I’m aware.


The difference them is that Harris, while very intelligent, tries to fit objective morality into a worldview in which objective morality is VERY hard to defend.

Hitchens was a nilhist (albeit a soft one) and naturalistic nilhism is a position immune to the arguments of religious and moral apologetics if carried to its logical conclusion. If you are willing to agree that nothing is truly, objectively immoral then you shut down the religious objections to atheism at the root.
This post was edited on 1/2/18 at 10:35 pm
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
108098 posts
Posted on 1/2/18 at 10:37 pm to
I don’t agree at all that Hitchens was a nihilist and I think he would have a 5 minute rant to anyone who would accuse him of being such. Hitchens has moral principles and was a total egalitarian. I do not think he is remotely a nihilist. His biggest beef is that religious people consider nihilism for the first 80,000 years of human history. It wasn’t until like 3,000 BC before we get a loving god.
This post was edited on 1/2/18 at 10:40 pm
Posted by CFDoc
Member since Jan 2013
2093 posts
Posted on 1/2/18 at 10:57 pm to
I find Harris’ defense of determinism tougher to agree with than objective morality.

Mostly because Harris has no issues waaaay overstepping his bounds in a discussion about the physical world as we currently understand it. I know he’s a very smart individual with a medical background but he’s way off in his application of deterministic behavior of the bits and pieces that make up our physical world.
Posted by GoldenGuy
Member since Oct 2015
10854 posts
Posted on 1/2/18 at 11:03 pm to
quote:

Hitchens was a nilhist


Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude. At least it’s a goddamn ethos.
Posted by BlackPawnMartyr
Houston, TX
Member since Dec 2010
15289 posts
Posted on 1/2/18 at 11:39 pm to
Will listen later...


LINK
Posted by ninthward
Boston, MA
Member since May 2007
20374 posts
Posted on 1/2/18 at 11:43 pm to
quote:

I'm not following your line of thinking.

quote:

el Gaucho
Youre lost on multiple levels and its beautiful
Posted by starsandstripes
Georgia
Member since Nov 2017
11897 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 12:18 am to
"The difference them is that Harris, while very intelligent, tries to fit objective morality into a worldview in which objective morality is VERY hard to defend.

Hitchens was a nilhist (albeit a soft one) and naturalistic nilhism is a position immune to the arguments of religious and moral apologetics if carried to its logical conclusion. If you are willing to agree that nothing is truly, objectively immoral then you shut down the religious objections to atheism at the root."

"I don’t agree at all that Hitchens was a nihilist and I think he would have a 5 minute rant to anyone who would accuse him of being such. Hitchens has moral principles and was a total egalitarian. I do not think he is remotely a nihilist. His biggest beef is that religious people consider nihilism for the first 80,000 years of human history. It wasn’t until like 3,000 BC before we get a loving god."


And here we have the reason that philosophy is so hated by most people. Dry and ultimately meaningless discussion.

It doesn't matter if someone is a pragmatist, relativist, egalitarian etc. The discussion and where it takes us is what matters.
Posted by Ole War Skule
North Shore
Member since Sep 2003
3409 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 5:50 am to
Harris isn't nearly as smart as he imagines himself to be. He refused to answer Shapiro's questions by saying they are not what Harris wants to discuss, but requires Shapiro to answer his. Anyone can win an argument when they determine what a valid question is.

Posted by beastieboys
South Jordan, UT
Member since Jan 2008
2188 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 9:10 am to
This was a very interesting discussion. The back and forth with Ben and Sam on free will, reason, and religion was fascinating. I like Eric Weinstein, but wish he had sat this one out
Posted by Damone
FoCo
Member since Aug 2016
32539 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 9:12 am to
Hitchens v. Shapiro would have been perfect. They're both extremely smart and well-versed with just the right amount of snark mixed in.
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
108098 posts
Posted on 1/4/18 at 12:33 am to
quote:

I like Eric Weinstein, but wish he had sat this one out


Yeah, it was a miscalculation by Sam. People who expand their horizons with multiple viewpoints tend to look at Sam as the brightest the Left has to offer and Ben as the smartest the Right has to offer. Granted them talking was 80% of it, but I hope the next time they debate, it’s just the two of them, since they barely scraped the surface here. I’m sure it will happen again sometime soon since they both praise one another, and neither of them are shy about shitting on another person they don’t like or respect.
Posted by culsutiger
Member since Apr 2012
652 posts
Posted on 1/4/18 at 12:54 am to
Can someone tell me why Sam Harris is a thing? I've listened to this, his podcast with Scott Adams, and his conversation with Ben Affleck on Maher's show.

He bested Ben Affleck on why Islam sucks (which isn't much of an accomplishment), he was horribly irrational (due to TDS) when talking with Adams, and he completely dodged Shapiro's larger points while simply attacking aspects of specific religious dogmas.

Further he has the most boring, monotone voice that is only broken by his uhming.

What am I missing? Why does this dude have a following?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram