"Religion allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions what only lunatics could believe on their own. If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley, you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus, you're just a Catholic."

Do most people really believe that they're eating the body of christ, though? It's just tradition for most people, I think and tradition binds us together.

Right... which is why I think that most people who claim to be Christian aren't really Christian.

There's nothing like a little bit of zombie cannibalism on a Sunday morning.

I think it goes: catholics see it as a representation of Christ's body & blood, while protestants see it as literally the body & blood once the priest says some words at it.

Sam Harris is discussing what faith-based thinking does to normally sane people. This is just the most blatantly ridiculous example. It's faith-based versus reason-based thinking. See 58:37.

other way around

lol child rape

"The god that our neighbors believe in is essentially an invisible person, a creator deity who created the universe to have a relationship with one species of primate. Lucky us. And he's got galaxy upon galaxy to attend to but he's especially concerned with what we do and he's especially concerned with what we do while naked. And he almost certainly disapproves of homosexuality. And he's created this cosmos as this vast laboratory in which to test our powers of credulity and this test is this: Can you believe in this god on bad evidence, on faith? And if you can, you will win an eternity of happiness after you die."

sam harris sucks

In what way?

how far you've fallen.

He's a simpering, disingenuous poser whose stock-and-trade is poor philosophical reasoning peddled in a manner that is nonetheless digestible to those unwilling or unable to understand a more formalized approach. He asserts rather than argues, and in so doing betrays his intellectual poverty.

More often than not I find myself in agreement with his positions. But he is right not so much for the wrong reasons, but for reasons he is unable to explain. He sucks, and as with most public "intellectuals" should be largely ignored.

Do you listen to much of him? I can see how you can form an opinion like this from a surface-level perspective.

He sometimes simpers, yeah.. seems mostly inconsequential.. Disingenuous, .. I wouldn't say that. I'd say he attempts to reach as broad an audience as possible, given the importance of these ideas and the likelihood many of them wouldn't otherwise be able to digest them he may come across as talking down to his audience..

I need proof for "disingenuous" and "poor philosophical reasoning". Admittedly, I am not well-educated. I simply find these ideas intriguing and learn a lot from listening to him.

omg tree doesn't know what betrays means

Oh, I get it now. Edit.

Sorry for all the edits.. haha... i kept finding errors

Also, who would you recommend I listen to on YouTube at work instead of Sam Harris?

John Milius

Harris Wittels