Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Sam Harris & Noam Chomsky Trade Nasty Emails Until A Winner Emerges..." video.

  1. honestly, i know poor excuse, but i am a little wined up and i really LOL i confused one comment line with another. sorry. LOL but no,i don't think he was mean spirited with Chomsky at all... and Chomsky is... a brilliant mind... but also sorta leaning towards loony with his views. not even his political views necessarily just overall. but nah again, i don't think if i said this here but Sam Harris has got some damn good patience and he's got a great rhetorical ability to be calm cool and collected and he thinks about his words before he says them i don't think it's easy to necessarily disagree with Harris.
    2
  2. Anthony Serocco whoa, man whoa, don't bring logic into this, Sam Harris is God among men...nah, he's just representative of a lot of views, which may or may not be true and he's still figuring out things as he goes along just like everyone else. i can't wait to see him, actually see him own up to be wrong about his ethical views. even though he's a intelligent man, he ALWAYS uses hypothetical scenarios in tandem with his anti-fundamentalist views. smart guy...not always factual.
    1
  3. i never said i disagree with him, i said he's always using hypothetical scenarios to help his points along. i think he's pretty damn smart, pretty much genius. but i'm not gonna say he knows everything so much so that he can't have a rational debate with anybody without that person automatically being an idiot. i'd be willing to be bet though Sam probably gritted his teeth a bit, in his probably well endowed and maybe even righteous arrogance, that he respected the honesty and questioning he got from Cenk.
    1
  4. well to be honest, i thin that ethics are the most important thing we can, for lack of a better word, "Dwell" on, but i also think that everyone shares their opinion and has the ability to be entirely wrong based on the premise that they state their opinion on. now i don't think he's been wrong about anything i've heard recently that i can remember, but i can say that he surely has had to learn all that knows so surely at some point he was as misinformed as the rest of humanity. so how can i know he's right based on a hypothetical presumption? i think he's got good IDEAS but that doesn't necessarily make him right. but i ain't bashing him. i am actually kind of a Sam Harris fan. he doesn't even like the word "atheism" and what it's come to represent to communities of supposed atheists, and i agree with him on that. some people say it means the lack of believe in anything... well, i dunno... the lack of believe in things with substantiation or evidence is called empiricism and i like that more than the term atheist for that connotation. but really the word just means A (as in anti) Theism (meaning a single God entity) so technically by the word's ascribed meaning it's self, Atheist shant believe in a single God, but they're certainly allowed to believe in multiple rulers of the universe, so...how can one take it all so literally? some people really do, and don't even get the definition right. i think it's fine that they can live by their own definition but it's not fine that some people can't even discuss the differences from people's views on what the word actually represents, for example; not to get into the details of how some atheist's just piss me off with their rhetoric and some with their insensible conniptions about the world around them. i am more of an agnostic than anything.
    1
  5. i like you. this is good. well first off let me say that i am an agnostic atheist. personally my opinion is as follows, and thanks for letting me clarify: i think that a God that wanted me to worship and believe in him fervently with no regard to... not even facts... just... knowledge and believe's and logic... i think that that God would not be worthy of my worship... so hence i say "if there is a God let him take me into heaven or whatever you want to call it (truth, knowledge, some indefinable good)  without me subjugating myself to him, otherise what's the point, but if so, sure i'd take it, but i don't necessarily believe in it". that's my honest point of view; correct me if i'm wrong but that makes me an atheist no? i don't believe. i do open myself to the possibility though that well... who knows? i can't prove the non-existence of a God who's immensely secretive and whom is unknowable (even by any religion's standards, afterall, isn't that the point, trust?) but i do struggle with being on the fence, so to speak, about things. i do not accept things at face value unless these things are factual, i question everything. so if there is God i'd have to have him accept me for questioning his/her/it's entire existence. it's a nice story though, i mean, it's practically poetic. but let me bring up this other minor point... " I think this is the main point I want to get across, that using a hypothetical situation to explain a position isn't a weakness, it's part of forming a strong argument, or part of attacking someone's position by highlighting contradictions in their views." as an example. i do not believe that hypothetical's are inherently dangerous or immobile; i live by this standard, the possibility of being wrong. so i do not view Harris's view on creating hypothetical dialectics to show that he may have a point, not at all, as a wrong doing. i am just saying he might have to be correct in the near future, cause who knows? hindsight is 20/20 but to make predictions that's always "up in the air" so to say. bad grammar is a trait of mine. i do not ascribe to entirely proper grammar to make a point more reasonable. i think that my thoughts should stand on their own, and grammar is for writing (while i add this edit to affirm that i forgot to add a comma here and this is important so... i'm pointing it out , comma), while on the internet for example, my grammar isn't really portraying my thoughts, it may make my thoughts more communicable but i don't care to convince people. i'll save grammar for my writing and for when i am well i take it account... i won't say i don't, but not always. so please excuse the horrible punctuation and sentence structure. i am type in a stream of consciousness style and have no editor. :P
    1
  6. aren't you just sick of "smart people" on the internet? don't you just love the echolalia?
    1
  7. oy. Christ^ this isn't a debate though, idiot.
    1
  8. Youtube Aneesh both Chomsky AND Harris are sophists. and you "types" are no better... who is the 'righter man'? i can tell you none of them are any righter than the other. not one of them makes a conclusive case for anything. they are seekers. good for them, but their particular prose does not make automatically correct in any assertion, which is what these are, assertions, NOT arguments.
    1
  9. Mark Beronte lol, watch then it happens to you. or did it already?
    1
  10. Tal Moore lol who isn't at least a little mean spirited in that exchange? i'd say they're all understanding...to the degree their ideology's allow them to be.
    1
  11. ^ right. they are. they are just in a huge echo chamber.
    1