Sam Harris Believes in God

[cS bIsHoP]

Rationalist Sam Harris Believes in God - Newsweek

Actually read it before you comment. If you have a problem with this sort of rational mysticism, then you aren't reasonable at all.

 

[Sebastian]

What Sam Harris believes in—rationality, morality, transcendence, humility, awe, community, selflessness, and love—meets a fairly common definition of God.

Yeah, sure...

 

[S O F I]

What sort of rational mysticism? Elaborate.

 

[cS bIsHoP]

Council for Secular Humanism

This is another article by the same author. I don't refer you to him, because I lack the ability to elaborate on my opinion; but rather because the person it is coming from adds credibility. And he more or less mirrors my own thoughts. Basically the pursuit of religious experience, and its transformative effects, without needless superstition.

 

[dilla]

A lot of intelligent people believe in God. Why do you think the debate exists today? No one has a definitive answer. Best thing you can do is live your life the way you think it's meant to be lived. The rest will fall into place.

 

[Jokerman]

Of course we shouldn't deny or shun everything that religious people have attributed to a god or their religious beliefs. We shouldn't shun the words mysticism or spirituality. We just need to separate those things that have some basis in existence from faith. We can then discuss them philosophically, if not always scientifically. But there's no reason to attribute them to some god or organized religion, and then believe it in faith.

 

[Pittsey]

A lot of intelligent people believe in God. Why do you think the debate exists today? No one has a definitive answer. Best thing you can do is live your life the way you think it's meant to be lived. The rest will fall into place.

Depends how you define god. If you are talking about a conscious being who moulded us in his image. Then, No.

I can't prove that Mercury, isn't made of Tomato soup either.

 

[Jokerman]

Sam Harris believes in Campbell.

 

[Jokerman]

This board is sucking right now with these out-of-order posts.

 

[Casey]

But there's no reason to attribute them to some god or organized religion

Exactly. The problem with this article and idea being so open-ended is that people can literally say that their definition of god is whatever the fuck they want. If you believe that god is your cat, i can't exactly tell you that your cat doesn't exist, can I?

I didn't expect such a sensationalist headline from newsweek, but the whole article is pointless. If I tell you there's no god, you cannot then "move the goalposts" and say your definition of god is something else entirely. We're talking about a standardized definition that takes into account the beliefs of the vast majority of people who have faith.

Whether one person feels that god is in their cup of coffee, or lampshade, or the happy feeling they get when they whistle a jaunty tune, or witnessing birth, or whatever the fuck, is completely irrelevant. That's what Newsweek have done here. Sam Harris doesn't believe in god. He accepts that some aspects of the universe, including ones we don't yet understand, may fall into SOME people's definition of what god means to THEM. Big fucking deal, it's meaningless. I accept that rationale, too, but it doesn't mean I believe in god.

 

[cS bIsHoP]

Exactly. The problem with this article and idea being so open-ended is that people can literally say that their definition of god is whatever the fuck they want. If you believe that god is your cat, i can't exactly tell you that your cat doesn't exist, can I?

I didn't expect such a sensationalist headline from newsweek, but the whole article is pointless. If I tell you there's no god, you cannot then "move the goalposts" and say your definition of god is something else entirely. We're talking about a standardized definition that takes into account the beliefs of the vast majority of people who have faith.

Whether one person feels that god is in their cup of coffee, or lampshade, or the happy feeling they get when they whistle a jaunty tune, or witnessing birth, or whatever the fuck, is completely irrelevant. That's what Newsweek have done here. Sam Harris doesn't believe in god. He accepts that some aspects of the universe, including ones we don't yet understand, may fall into SOME people's definition of what god means to THEM. Big fucking deal, it's meaningless. I accept that rationale, too, but it doesn't mean I believe in god.

I'll grant you that the author put unnecessary twists in there, but it seems like you completely missed the point of the article and are simply nitpicking. It was basically saying that Sam Harris believes a rational mysticism: the pursuit of the mystical experience; could help our society live a happier life. Whether these experiences have something to do with G-man or not is irrelevant.

 

[dilla]

Depends how you define god. If you are talking about a conscious being who moulded us in his image. Then, No.

I can't prove that Mercury, isn't made of Tomato soup either.

The definition of "God" is about as diverse as the word.. "cunt." Different people take it to mean different things. People use with different intents, effects, meaning, etc. In reality, it's a thought process. And right now, there are well over six billion different "thought processes" that dictate how people lead their lives. And I'm pretty sure each and every one of them is unique. And there have been trillions of "thought processes" before us. Some are harmful, and some are actually pretty conducive to living a successful, meaningful life.

And then, again, "successful and meaningful" have different meanings from person to person. No man robot-man in a wheelchair or child molester will be able to tell you what it is using science or religion. Which is why the longer we spend arguing it, the higher the tension builds between the two groups. You're telling people to drastically alter their lives and views on it without having convincing evidence. Convincing evidence is also a relative term ,so..


TL;DR: everything is relative and subjective. Fuck off.

 

[Duke]

I can't prove that Mercury, isn't made of Tomato soup either.

You can, actually, but point taken.

 

[dilla]

You can, actually, but point taken.

Without sucking Campbell's dick? Fuck you.

 

[Duke]

Who the hell is campbell?

 

[S O F I]

I'll grant you that the author put unnecessary twists in there, but it seems like you completely missed the point of the article and are simply nitpicking. It was basically saying that Sam Harris believes a rational mysticism: the pursuit of the mystical experience; could help our society live a happier life. Whether these experiences have something to do with G-man or not is irrelevant.

So, in practice, pursuit of religious mysticism is something along the lines of meditation? What does that have to do with God, as described in religious texts?

Also, in practical terms, tell me five different ways of pursuing a mystical experience. Do I quit my job and play with the ouija board all day long? I'm confused.

I still don't know what you're trying to posit here, even after reading that article you posted. If you agree with something, you should be able to put it in your own words. If you can't, you don't really understand it to begin with.

The definition of "God" is about as diverse as the word.. "cunt." Different people take it to mean different things. People use with different intents, effects, meaning, etc. In reality, it's a thought process. And right now, there are well over six billion different "thought processes" that dictate how people lead their lives. And I'm pretty sure each and every one of them is unique. And there have been trillions of "thought processes" before us. Some are harmful, and some are actually pretty conducive to living a successful, meaningful life.

And then, again, "successful and meaningful" have different meanings from person to person. No man robot-man in a wheelchair or child molester will be able to tell you what it is using science or religion. Which is why the longer we spend arguing it, the higher the tension builds between the two groups. You're telling people to drastically alter their lives and views on it without having convincing evidence. Convincing evidence is also a relative term ,so..


TL;DR: everything is relative and subjective. Fuck off.

Everything is relative, that's right, which is why you need a frame of reference in these debates. Atheists reject the existence of deities, what religious people call God as written in their religious texts. As Casey stated, if you want to call your dog your God, he's not going to argue with you, but that's not what the argument is ever about.

What the article quoted in this thread is doing is applying a very broad definition to what God means and then using that definition that atheists don't ascribe to, to argue that it's irrational not to believe in God. It's like the author of the article and this thread poster are so angry with atheists that they try to label anything as being God in hopes of winning some non-existent pointless argument.

 

[Flipmo]

You want that bom bom biggy, holla at my niggi.

 

[dilla]

Who the hell is campbell?

Campbell's Tomato soup, bitch. What? You one of them Progresso niggas? Clown ass bitch with your generic Jewel-brand shit.

 

[Pittsey]

Who the hell is campbell?

Do you not know Andy Warhol? Or Campbell's soup? You a Heinz fan? Me too.

 

[S O F I]

OK, I understand now. I think what threw me off and other people on this board is that "God" was associated with what you describe. Since I'm not a full-fledged atheist, I wonder what atheists think of these non-religious non-God pursuit of rational mysticism (what I would call altered mind states). Jokerman wouldn't resort to psychedelics simply because he's such a nerdy health nut but Casey on the other hand seems open to it.