Comments by "Taxtro" (@MrCmon113) on "Sam Harris On Intelligent Religious People" video.

  1. +Commodoor64 Wow you're a horribly, horribly dishonest person. Harris talked about otherwise intelligent religious people, he didn't try to convince the last person with these few sentences, you pathetic fighter of strawmen. Further the default position is to reject a claim when there is NO EVIDENCE for it. Not to be on the fence, but to reject it. You reject all the outrageous claims for which there is no evidence, but you make a special exception for god.
    11
  2. So arrogant for not making baseless but absolute claims about the unknown...
    4
  3. +leon scott "Religiousness is not an exception unless you've proven once and for all that not only God doesn't exist" Bullshit. There is NO evidence for any deity, so the default position is not to believe in any. Also even if you had a deity that wouldn't mean you should follow it. This pathetic reasoning comes from the person, who claims that Sam Harris fails on a philosophical level. You're a hillbilly compared to him. "And I am a Christian" What as surprise. Why does your god require you to be intellectually dishonest to defend him?
    3
  4. ***** Wow you are like a loud drunkard. Three comments in a row and still only slander. It's more than clear you have nothing to say. You don't like Harris, because he won't bow down to your certain deity, but people like him and me protect your right to practice your religion. You are a parasite on society and a waste of my time.
    3
  5. +J Scott Upton The supernatural is not an explanation, but a lazy excuse for an explanation. You could as well say that a unicorn farts and so creates the winds. It is an absolutely childish perspective on the world. And that's what your religions wants: You staying an ignorant, fearful child.
    2
  6. J Scott Upton Mythology is not an explanation at all. It is an appeal to your childish intuition.
    2
  7. vovka-morkovka "Ok, so the fundies are wrong" No, they are right on what forms to core of the religion. "that Mein Kempf is a wonderful book" According to YOU one can make NO ASSESSMENT of any book. You want to tie everyone's hands and shut them up.
    2
  8. vovka-morkovka Yes you are keeping me from addressing ANY book itself, by inventing the lazy excuse of people reading it differently from what it says literally. That is attacking any assessment.
    2
  9. ***** Why do you even bother responding? Either address the topic, or shut up. It is remarkable how the opponents of Harris, Dawkins etc NEVER address their point, but instead attack them personally or try to victimize themselves: "it offended me"...
    2
  10. Bit Gamer Most of his loudest critics are. I think his sober and calm attitude enrages them to no end.
    2
  11. Bungalo Bill Are you actually incapable of critically observing your god and his prophets? You're pretty pathetic. After your big mouthed comment up there I expected much more. You regurgitated to well known dogma of your church and now you ignore the obvious responses.
    2
  12. Bungalo Bill Just tell me where your problem is. I've explained what's wrong with your theology and how it's morally bankrupt. You don't understand me, but as long as you don't address what I said, I can only guess that you are incapable of reflecting on your theology. It is really sad, how you call Sam Harris ignorant and all you come up with is the same old Christian dogma, he has long opposed.
    2
  13. Dennett and Harris are getting the most personal attacks and nervous responses from theists, because they make their cases so soberly, stoically and clearly.
    1
  14. +vovka-morkovka The "it's not literal" dodge is ONLY applied when the holy scripture says something factually wrong or something evil, when it says something good, that is applauded and taken as evidence for how great the scripture is. It is horribly intellectually dishonest.
    1
  15. vovka-morkovka"you probably use it whenever you get the chance" Whenever I have to. Which is all the time with people who pull ALL TRICKS, who constantly victimize themselves to convince others of the existence of a certain specter, which allows them to ignore their own mortality. "It is possible to disagree about stuff, that does not mean that people are intellectually dishonest" Yes that often happens when I have disagreements with nationalists, communists, anarchists, but very seldom with theists. I wonder why that is.... "have slightly different sets of values and priorities" Yeah one of them being intellectual integrity. "You want to lump all theists into the fundamentalist camp" No, I'm just pointing out how the Abrahamic religions are at their core. It is not the fundamentalists who stray from the original ideas, but the moderates. Just a few years ago I was in your camp. I grew up with apologists in the church and at school. But the more I got to know about the bible and Christian theology, the more I had to remove from my personal dogma, my personal canon, in order to keep the idea of the god of love. When I finally read the bible, I had to reject it altogether and became a pseudo Christian theists, who had his own idea of god as a well meaning but disempowered spirit.
    1
  16. vovka-morkovka "I am NOT saying that fundies do not exist." It's not about their existence, but about them being right about what's on the core of their religions. "EVERYONE READS THIS BOOK DIFFERENTLY" What does that change on the default position of taking a set of laws literally? Especially when they demand to be taken literally. "WHO DO NOT READ IT LITERALLY?" Making them aware that they pick and choose between the good and bad stuff. Making excuses for the bad stuff, while putting the good stuff on a pedestal.
    1
  17. +Valelacerte Harris pointed out that the thora is much worse than the quran.
    1
  18. ***** How does a Nobel prize, or lack thereof, influence your application of the scientific method? Of course Pete's comment misses the point. Not because Harris didn't win a certain prize, but because the original comment addresses geopolitics while Pete argues with Harris' experience in neurology / science in general.
    1
  19. ***** You must be the single most pathetic rager I've ever seen.
    1
  20. justun chan That was the stupidest example you could have chosen. Atomic bombs were used to stop the warmongering Japanese, not for "science". Religions conserve bad ideas and so lead to suffering, while science lets us break through delusions and help our fellow humans in a better way. It is a method, the method, of gaining knowledge. No more. Dogmatism keeps you from gaining knowledge.
    1
  21. justun chan Yes I am so sure. There is no inventor. You obviously have not the slightest idea, what went into the development. It's not like someone can just cook such a bomb up on his own. The quote you are referring to stems from Indian mythology. You didn't even quote it right. What is spoken about, is the potential of nuclear weaponry to end modern civilization worldwide. The balance of terror, which prohibited this, was only possible because neither the USA nor USSR were governed by mad religious zealots. A nuclear arsenal in the hands of an evangelical priest or Islamic Jihadi would be a terrible thing indeed.
    1
  22. +neosoontoretro " Why is it that atheists advise religious people to question their faith, but most atheists are unwilling to do same with their atheism?" Wow that must be one of the most stupid sentences I've ever read. Why do YOU advise others to question their faith in dragons, while you are unwilling to do the same with your a-dragonism. Your comment is full of the uttermost conviction that your certain deity exists - only then does it make any sense.
    1
  23. neosoontoretro"Dragon are contingent being, genius. They're not in anyway equivalent" Oh yes, your fairy creature should have special treatment, because you make special pleads for it. Now that's entirely reasonable... XD
    1
  24. neosoontoretro Hahaha XD Oh my goodness the irony. Special pleading overload.
    1
  25. neosoontoretro I've got an invisible unicorn in my garden. Now you better take care to give constant credit to my unicorn since you cannot disprove it's existence. You can't call the belief in the unicorn stupid either. Do you realize how insane this kind of reasoning is?!
    1
  26. neosoontoretro No you can't. The unicorn can always be hiding. Now you must respect the unicorn in all you do. "can not be the creator of all things" Again: Making your claim MORE outrageous doesn't make it more believable.
    1
  27. neosoontoretro "And contingent would have to satisfy some evidence expectancy" YOU want evidence?! You insulted people for wanting evidence. "How is it "more outrageous" Well my unicorn created the world by farting. Does this make my claim more believable now.
    1
  28. neosoontoretro You said EXACTLY that.
    1
  29. +Bungalo Bill Christians still call the WHOLE of the bible their scripture. The story of Jesus is entirely build upon Hebrew mythology. Jesus himself establishes the old law until the end of days in the New Testament. Now please stop being a dishonest rat, I've had my fill of poor apologist bullshit during my youth and I bet my ass I could make a far better point for it that you.
    1
  30. Bungalo Bill "the punishment for breaking it is a demonstration that justice for breaking the law is still a reality" So you don't oppose it. You don't even reject it? "but through the reality of being a new creation in Christ" Merely not opposing Mosaic law is enough to render anyone morally bankrupt, especially a god. You have not only failed to oppose the misanthropic teachings and commandments in the OT, you have made them the basis of your theology. I really thought you would bring something new, or at least something that is not widely accepted. What a disappointment.
    1
  31. Bungalo Bill Yeah because you don't even think about critically assessing your gods and prophets. Pretty poor from someone, who went out of his ways to accuse others of not knowing Christianity. Your brand of Christianity is very wide spread and I'm honestly astonished you never heard my objections towards it.
    1
  32. +james deroc Harris gave a speech on that in front of an Atheist crowd.
    1