Golly, I’m beginning to think that Sam Harris, although very smart, is just another human being composed of self-serving opinions. beliefs and half-truths.
In this article he proposes that Mormonism is more quirky than the other religions.
That’s like saying that some night time dreams are more real than others.
He exposes his political liberalism which to this old capitalist indicates a mental infirmity.
(Neither he nor I can help what our brain’s come up with.)
I think I like Sam, but his opinions are looking more and like his opinions.
Golly, I’m beginning to think that Sam Harris, although very smart, is just another human being composed of self-serving opinions. beliefs and half-truths.
In this article he proposes that Mormonism is more quirky than the other religions.
That’s like saying that some night time dreams are more real than others.
He exposes his political liberalism which to this old capitalist indicates a mental infirmity.
(Neither he nor I can help what our brain’s come up with.)
I think I like Sam, but his opinions are looking more and like his opinions.
If free will does not exit, there is no freedom to offend an imaginary God.
I think Sam is right on about Mormonism. It does have many particulars that seperate it from the rest of christianity. Many of which are very unplausible. If mormonism falls however, that doesn’t necessarily does any damage to any other religion.
Are you saying that all religions are equally quirky then? I think we all (and Sam) must agree that they’re all equally false, but to say that they’re all equally batshit seems to be a different measure to me.
Just to clarify I think his point is pretty self explanatory when he explained it… himself. But basically he thinks (and is correct btw) that if you have a bad idea you cannot take the roots of that bad idea, create a new idea and say that the NEW idea which is just the old bad idea with some extra crap thrown on top, and call it good.
Just to clarify I think his point is pretty self explanatory when he explained it… himself. But basically he thinks (and is correct btw) that if you have a bad idea you cannot take the roots of that bad idea, create a new idea and say that the NEW idea which is just the old bad idea with some extra crap thrown on top, and call it good.
Who is the “he” you’re referring to in your post? The topic maker or Sam H. ?
Just to clarify I think his point is pretty self explanatory when he explained it… himself. But basically he thinks (and is correct btw) that if you have a bad idea you cannot take the roots of that bad idea, create a new idea and say that the NEW idea which is just the old bad idea with some extra crap thrown on top, and call it good.
Who is the “he” you’re referring to in your post? The topic maker or Sam H. ?
I can’t tell if you’re being ironic or not, but aren’t you supposed to use a pronoun when referring to Him?
