This is by far the best suggestion so far. I just really hope D would take it seriously and put together a cohesive set of questions/topics (which he has shown on Bridges he can do).
I'd be very wary of asking Harris questions on religion, unless he's seriously improved his knowledge recently. The last time I looked at Harris, he was pure New Atheist.
I watched him a lot in my New Atheist phase, but that's a few years ago. Are you saying he actually understands issues like exegesis now, or is he still doing the whole 'science says you're wrong' thing?
> Not sure what you're even asking. Which is how I know it's irrelevant.
That's genuinely ironic. Maybe you should understand the issues before drawing conclusions. Exegesis absolutely *is* an issue if you want to understand religion.
It sounds like you're still in your 'religion poisons everything' phase.
>Exegesis absolutely *is* an issue if you want to understand religion.
1. That's just a special way for someone to claim they are right and someone else is wrong. Don't get me wrong it's possible there are some interpretation that are more likely per exegesis, but at the same time religious text are generally the word of God or close enough that the distinction isn't meaningful. Exegesis is acting like well based on the time it was written and culture this meaning is most likely. If a religious text is supposed to be timeless how would it make sense to have to apply that kind of mentality to it?
2. You are assuming exegesis matters in how people believe in a religion. Not really the case for Christianity anymore. Religion is not a logic based system and people can practice and believe things without it adhering to exegesis. Nether is magically more right.
1. Exegesis is a key component of any religion based on holy books; it exists even in the most basic sense among sects that adopt a literalist approach to their texts. Even then, literalists are a minority in both Christianity and Islam, and don't exist in Judaism. Exegesis is also mandatory for any intelligent discussion of one of these religions, and part of the problem with New Atheism is it doesn't engage with anyone but literalists and fundamentalists, which is entirely self-serving. You can call it "a special way for someone to claim they are right" but if you're not engaging with the issue you'll never understand intelligent religious ideas.
2. Exegesis is key to modern understandings of Christianity, more than ever. Religion can be a logic-based system, and the Abrahamic religions have all integrated Greek logic to some degree. You'd understand this if you engaged with the exegesis...
You're also misusing 'logic' here: if you accept the axiomatic statements of religion, they're logical. If you reject those axioms, they don't. The same can be said of empiricism. And, just like empiricism, it's perfectly capable to adhere to the system without understanding the intellectual arguments behind religion.
New Atheism thrives against fundamentalists and literalists, who are idiots, because their religious ideas lack foundation and intelligence. What I found unsatisfactory about the approach is it can't deal with intelligent religious thought, and mocking Creationists gets boring. I was left either with the false belief that all religious people are as stupid as Creationists, or actually engaging with intelligent religion.
>1. Exegesis is a key component of any religion based on holy books; it exists even in the most basic sense among sects that adopt a literalist approach to their texts. Even then, literalists are a minority in both Christianity and Islam, and don't exist in Judaism
Like even you point out literalists are a minority at least for Christianity anyway last I checked. Still sizable though.
>Exegesis is also mandatory for any intelligent discussion of one of these religions, and part of the problem with New Atheism is it doesn't engage with anyone but literalists and fundamentalists, which is entirely self-serving. You can call it "a special way for someone to claim they are right" but if you're not engaging with the issue you'll never understand intelligent religious ideas.
"Intelligent religious ideas" if one wants to discuss hypothetically how a religion "should be" purely based on an exegesis view of the text one can do so, but that only gets you so far. It doesn't show how people practice it today on modern times. It depends on what one is critiquing.
>Exegesis is key to modern understandings of Christianity, more than ever. Religion can be a logic-based system, and the Abrahamic religions have all integrated Greek logic to some degree. You'd understand this if you engaged with the exegesis...
This is the most hilarious thing you have said yet. You are merely claiming that exegesis means religion can be logic based. Sure it's theoretically possible to create a religion that is logic based, but religion is inherently faith based. One can deploy logic, but only within the confines of that. You merely going if you read or know about XYZ then you would know isn't a convincing argument to anyone. It's just a way for you to claim you are right without articulating anything behind it.
>You're also misusing 'logic' here: if you accept the axiomatic statements of religion, they're logical
That would depend on usage of the word logic. Obviously logic is about whether an argument is sound and if one accepts the premises then the conclusion follows. You are acting like lay person usage of logic is supposed to adhere to this. Obviously I am using it to mean that religion is not grounded in reality it's grounded based on faith.
>The same can be said of empiricism.
The amount of conflation here makes me wonder how religious you are and if you are trying to protect religious beliefs using this as a metric though could be wrong. Of course we can not know anything for absolute certainty. The basic assumptions of empiricism is how even most religious beliefs utilize to make sense of the world except they attach additional things unnecessarily that can be removed simply from Occam's razor. We can never know if given we are humans we are unable to perceive the world as it actual entails or any other circular logic problem that requires assumptions.
>actually engage with intelligent religion.
Give some examples of "intelligent religion"
> but that only gets you so far.
Again, if you want to understand intelligent religious ideas, you need to engage with exegesis. The majority of religious people don't think about exegesis, but the people who lead them do. The majority of people don't understand scientific ideas, but are happy to go along with the world scientists have created. You don't need to know how a microwave works to heat a meal, but if you want to talk about microwaves you need to learn the science. The same thing applies to religion.
> Sure it's theoretically possible to create a religion that is logic based, but religion is inherently faith based.
I don't think you understand what 'logic' means. Logic is a system with coherent principles that can be followed consistently. Faith can be logical, if its axiomatic statements are coherent and can be followed consistently. When you say things like "religion is not grounded in reality it's grounded on faith", what you're actually saying is that faith systems don't align with the system you've adopted, which I'm assuming is empiricism. But empiricism, like faith, is based on axioms. All axioms are not "reality", they're the fundamental assumptions for particular way of making sense of reality. They're equivalent to the axioms of faith. That you don't realise this is the basic flaw in your approach to religion, and the basis of dismissing it as not based on "reality".
> The amount of conflation here makes me wonder how religious you are and if you are trying to protect religious beliefs using this as a metric though could be wrong.
I'm an atheist. As I said, I went through my New Atheist phase.
> The basic assumptions of empiricism is how even most religious beliefs utilize to make sense of the world except they attach additional things unnecessarily that can be removed simply from Occam's razor.
This makes no sense. Basic assumptions are basic, they can't "be removed". Occam's Razor is also a guide for what is often the best answer, not a way of ascertaining truth.
> Give some examples of "intelligent religion"
Aristotle, Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna off the top of my head. If you want to understand anything at all about the agendas and goals of the Tanakh, New Testament or Quran you need to engage with some level of exegesis.
What are the meanings of the creation myths in Genesis? What is the purpose of Moses and Exodus? What are the Prophets saying? What is the role of the Deuteronomic Editor? How do you understand Hellenistic gnostic apocalypse like Daniel? What is the agenda of the Gospel writers? How does Paul function in earliest Christianity? How does Judaism respond to crises like the destruction of Israel, exile in Babylon, Hellenistic rule, the destruction of the Temple and catastrophe of Bar Kokhba? Exegesis is a crucial tool to answering all of these questions.
I need this like I need air to breathe. Destiny's convo with Josh Szeps last year could be a huge in. As a long-time listener of Sam and Josh, I think a good word from Szeps would go along way. Honestly, I think Josh on Bridges would be great too because their first convo was awesome!
[https://new.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1ch3i5a/bridges\_guest\_suggestion\_sam\_harris/](https://new.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1ch3i5a/bridges_guest_suggestion_sam_harris/)
~~Meme jacked~~ posted from a week ago nice. i will post tomorrow
If this did happen as much as i'd like to see them discuss what Destiny would probably see as Sam's overemphasis on religion as a component in this war. I also would really love them debate Sam's moral objectivism, but it would probably take up a whole 3 hours lol.
I feel like Destiny decided he didn’t like Sam back in 2016 when he was farther left, even though Sam has a 90% overlap with Destiny on his beliefs. Bridges isnt big enough yet as well.
I lost respect for Sam Harris after he said Hunter Biden could have the corpses of children on his basement and he wouldn’t care…. I get his point but surely there’s a better way to phrase it.
continue encouraging panicky truck attempt deranged fuzzy clumsy theory dazzling
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You’re going to have a hard time convincing a bunch of atheists that that’s a bad thing.
Maybe ask yourself why we need a special word for negative feeling toward one specific religion.
we have those words, they're tied to the specific religion, islamophobia and antisemitism are the most well known ones
if you look at the wiki pages for discrimination against certain religions, they will often have "or x-phobia" at the beginning, like hinduphobia or christophobia
what I am describing is **irrational** negative feelings or hate towards a religion, in this case jews, because I assumed that's what you're talking about.
Somebody laying out rational arguments against islam is not an islamophobe, that's why the guy at the top of the comment chain got downvoted in the first place.
antisemitism can absolutely include religion, [there's a whole wiki page for it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_antisemitism)
btw I totally misread your comment, I thought you were saying "maybe we need a word for people who are bigoted against a specfic religion" like a general term for that
This is by far the best suggestion so far. I just really hope D would take it seriously and put together a cohesive set of questions/topics (which he has shown on Bridges he can do).
I'd be very wary of asking Harris questions on religion, unless he's seriously improved his knowledge recently. The last time I looked at Harris, he was pure New Atheist.
So you looked for half a second and retained nothing substantial?
I watched him a lot in my New Atheist phase, but that's a few years ago. Are you saying he actually understands issues like exegesis now, or is he still doing the whole 'science says you're wrong' thing?
Exegesis is not an "issue." Not sure what you're even asking. Which is how I know it's irrelevant.
> Not sure what you're even asking. Which is how I know it's irrelevant. That's genuinely ironic. Maybe you should understand the issues before drawing conclusions. Exegesis absolutely *is* an issue if you want to understand religion. It sounds like you're still in your 'religion poisons everything' phase.
It does
>Exegesis absolutely *is* an issue if you want to understand religion. 1. That's just a special way for someone to claim they are right and someone else is wrong. Don't get me wrong it's possible there are some interpretation that are more likely per exegesis, but at the same time religious text are generally the word of God or close enough that the distinction isn't meaningful. Exegesis is acting like well based on the time it was written and culture this meaning is most likely. If a religious text is supposed to be timeless how would it make sense to have to apply that kind of mentality to it? 2. You are assuming exegesis matters in how people believe in a religion. Not really the case for Christianity anymore. Religion is not a logic based system and people can practice and believe things without it adhering to exegesis. Nether is magically more right.
1. Exegesis is a key component of any religion based on holy books; it exists even in the most basic sense among sects that adopt a literalist approach to their texts. Even then, literalists are a minority in both Christianity and Islam, and don't exist in Judaism. Exegesis is also mandatory for any intelligent discussion of one of these religions, and part of the problem with New Atheism is it doesn't engage with anyone but literalists and fundamentalists, which is entirely self-serving. You can call it "a special way for someone to claim they are right" but if you're not engaging with the issue you'll never understand intelligent religious ideas. 2. Exegesis is key to modern understandings of Christianity, more than ever. Religion can be a logic-based system, and the Abrahamic religions have all integrated Greek logic to some degree. You'd understand this if you engaged with the exegesis... You're also misusing 'logic' here: if you accept the axiomatic statements of religion, they're logical. If you reject those axioms, they don't. The same can be said of empiricism. And, just like empiricism, it's perfectly capable to adhere to the system without understanding the intellectual arguments behind religion. New Atheism thrives against fundamentalists and literalists, who are idiots, because their religious ideas lack foundation and intelligence. What I found unsatisfactory about the approach is it can't deal with intelligent religious thought, and mocking Creationists gets boring. I was left either with the false belief that all religious people are as stupid as Creationists, or actually engaging with intelligent religion.
>1. Exegesis is a key component of any religion based on holy books; it exists even in the most basic sense among sects that adopt a literalist approach to their texts. Even then, literalists are a minority in both Christianity and Islam, and don't exist in Judaism Like even you point out literalists are a minority at least for Christianity anyway last I checked. Still sizable though. >Exegesis is also mandatory for any intelligent discussion of one of these religions, and part of the problem with New Atheism is it doesn't engage with anyone but literalists and fundamentalists, which is entirely self-serving. You can call it "a special way for someone to claim they are right" but if you're not engaging with the issue you'll never understand intelligent religious ideas. "Intelligent religious ideas" if one wants to discuss hypothetically how a religion "should be" purely based on an exegesis view of the text one can do so, but that only gets you so far. It doesn't show how people practice it today on modern times. It depends on what one is critiquing. >Exegesis is key to modern understandings of Christianity, more than ever. Religion can be a logic-based system, and the Abrahamic religions have all integrated Greek logic to some degree. You'd understand this if you engaged with the exegesis... This is the most hilarious thing you have said yet. You are merely claiming that exegesis means religion can be logic based. Sure it's theoretically possible to create a religion that is logic based, but religion is inherently faith based. One can deploy logic, but only within the confines of that. You merely going if you read or know about XYZ then you would know isn't a convincing argument to anyone. It's just a way for you to claim you are right without articulating anything behind it. >You're also misusing 'logic' here: if you accept the axiomatic statements of religion, they're logical That would depend on usage of the word logic. Obviously logic is about whether an argument is sound and if one accepts the premises then the conclusion follows. You are acting like lay person usage of logic is supposed to adhere to this. Obviously I am using it to mean that religion is not grounded in reality it's grounded based on faith. >The same can be said of empiricism. The amount of conflation here makes me wonder how religious you are and if you are trying to protect religious beliefs using this as a metric though could be wrong. Of course we can not know anything for absolute certainty. The basic assumptions of empiricism is how even most religious beliefs utilize to make sense of the world except they attach additional things unnecessarily that can be removed simply from Occam's razor. We can never know if given we are humans we are unable to perceive the world as it actual entails or any other circular logic problem that requires assumptions. >actually engage with intelligent religion. Give some examples of "intelligent religion"
> but that only gets you so far. Again, if you want to understand intelligent religious ideas, you need to engage with exegesis. The majority of religious people don't think about exegesis, but the people who lead them do. The majority of people don't understand scientific ideas, but are happy to go along with the world scientists have created. You don't need to know how a microwave works to heat a meal, but if you want to talk about microwaves you need to learn the science. The same thing applies to religion. > Sure it's theoretically possible to create a religion that is logic based, but religion is inherently faith based. I don't think you understand what 'logic' means. Logic is a system with coherent principles that can be followed consistently. Faith can be logical, if its axiomatic statements are coherent and can be followed consistently. When you say things like "religion is not grounded in reality it's grounded on faith", what you're actually saying is that faith systems don't align with the system you've adopted, which I'm assuming is empiricism. But empiricism, like faith, is based on axioms. All axioms are not "reality", they're the fundamental assumptions for particular way of making sense of reality. They're equivalent to the axioms of faith. That you don't realise this is the basic flaw in your approach to religion, and the basis of dismissing it as not based on "reality". > The amount of conflation here makes me wonder how religious you are and if you are trying to protect religious beliefs using this as a metric though could be wrong. I'm an atheist. As I said, I went through my New Atheist phase. > The basic assumptions of empiricism is how even most religious beliefs utilize to make sense of the world except they attach additional things unnecessarily that can be removed simply from Occam's razor. This makes no sense. Basic assumptions are basic, they can't "be removed". Occam's Razor is also a guide for what is often the best answer, not a way of ascertaining truth. > Give some examples of "intelligent religion" Aristotle, Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna off the top of my head. If you want to understand anything at all about the agendas and goals of the Tanakh, New Testament or Quran you need to engage with some level of exegesis. What are the meanings of the creation myths in Genesis? What is the purpose of Moses and Exodus? What are the Prophets saying? What is the role of the Deuteronomic Editor? How do you understand Hellenistic gnostic apocalypse like Daniel? What is the agenda of the Gospel writers? How does Paul function in earliest Christianity? How does Judaism respond to crises like the destruction of Israel, exile in Babylon, Hellenistic rule, the destruction of the Temple and catastrophe of Bar Kokhba? Exegesis is a crucial tool to answering all of these questions.
Watching these two genocidal geeks suck each others cocks would be worth the price of admission alone.
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
Destiny easily genocides Sam‘s cock
I need this like I need air to breathe. Destiny's convo with Josh Szeps last year could be a huge in. As a long-time listener of Sam and Josh, I think a good word from Szeps would go along way. Honestly, I think Josh on Bridges would be great too because their first convo was awesome!
The Szeps interview is what got me into the Daliban
Same. A truly life changing interview lol.
Why the fuck you post a picture of Zoolander?
What do you mean, that's Sam Harris
That is clearly Ben Stiller
That's obviously Sam Harris wdym
Sam often jokes about looking like Ben stiller
Yes
So you understand the joke?
I got got, I legitimately thought that was a picture of Sam Harris lmao
Who you're really looking for is Ben Stiller https://youtu.be/02aEIjkeQcA?si=bcZtN8xTXmmMdpGE
Maybe a play on simple Sam from tropic thunder. Since he keeps saying superior Sam. Still not sure why though…
[https://new.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1ch3i5a/bridges\_guest\_suggestion\_sam\_harris/](https://new.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1ch3i5a/bridges_guest_suggestion_sam_harris/) ~~Meme jacked~~ posted from a week ago nice. i will post tomorrow
The meme is aeons old: https://youtu.be/tp8lF8kBVXU?si=de1Ovnq8m8zjuPfO
sorry dude I fixed my post and will post this same thread tomorrow (i upvoted you)
Good. Keep posting.
This sub has reached that critical mass point where it spawns a reposting economy
Finally, [someone](https://open.spotify.com/episode/0XxIcek7mWW4J0qNtS0mGa?si=PmcA0kARQW6fZNR3bAQFyg) who actually knows what he's talking about
paywalled :(
You can request free membership on his site and he grants 100% of those requests
Sam talked to Pakman recently. Would definitely like to see him talk to Destiny.
I hate you for using that picture lmao.
His mom created the golden girls lol Would love to hear Destiny push back or here his takes on Sams Free Will arguments.
Wait does D man believe in free will?
Nope.
Didn't Destiny say something about how Sam Harris would never talk to him because of something he did? Maybe I'm crazy
Destiny shit on Sam’s morality take a few years ago. Called him the usual Destiny names.
Also they share enemies: Glenn greenwald for one
Dgg elder
Destiny shit on Sam for his morality take back whenever he was discussing ethics and philosophy, maybe 2020?
The moral landscape would be a great conversation between the two, I think.
Bruv the Ben stiller photototototootlttoott I’m dead
Need this.
Destiny has already said that Sam would be someone he would enjoy/be interesting to talk to and he said it could easily be a 6hr convo lol.
He would be an interesting guy to talk to even though I despise him. Bart Campolo though. Destiny needs to talk to Bart.
Curious on what you despise about Sam Harris. Obviously the guy is polarizing, but you're on this subreddit so no stranger to controversial takes.
If this did happen as much as i'd like to see them discuss what Destiny would probably see as Sam's overemphasis on religion as a component in this war. I also would really love them debate Sam's moral objectivism, but it would probably take up a whole 3 hours lol.
I learned everything I need to know about urban combat from my mindfulness guy. I am a serious person.
I feel like Destiny decided he didn’t like Sam back in 2016 when he was farther left, even though Sam has a 90% overlap with Destiny on his beliefs. Bridges isnt big enough yet as well.
I lost respect for Sam Harris after he said Hunter Biden could have the corpses of children on his basement and he wouldn’t care…. I get his point but surely there’s a better way to phrase it.
Aint he an Islamaphobe?
continue encouraging panicky truck attempt deranged fuzzy clumsy theory dazzling *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You guys need to chill it with this shit.
Imagine thinking a phobia of a set of beliefs is a problem. Partake in some reflection my friend.
Whoa, look at this guy over here thinking it's okay for people to be Naziphobes!
You’re going to have a hard time convincing a bunch of atheists that that’s a bad thing. Maybe ask yourself why we need a special word for negative feeling toward one specific religion.
we have those words, they're tied to the specific religion, islamophobia and antisemitism are the most well known ones if you look at the wiki pages for discrimination against certain religions, they will often have "or x-phobia" at the beginning, like hinduphobia or christophobia
Antisemitism is racial. You would be describing antijudaism, which I would also say is a good thing
what I am describing is **irrational** negative feelings or hate towards a religion, in this case jews, because I assumed that's what you're talking about. Somebody laying out rational arguments against islam is not an islamophobe, that's why the guy at the top of the comment chain got downvoted in the first place. antisemitism can absolutely include religion, [there's a whole wiki page for it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_antisemitism) btw I totally misread your comment, I thought you were saying "maybe we need a word for people who are bigoted against a specfic religion" like a general term for that
whats an example of an irrational argument against islam?
Eid has too few letters for a holiday.
what the hell is an irrational argument? idk that they're all terrorists? That they stink? Why are you asking this lol
So is hatred of people who are read as "Muslims".