Would love to hear Sam Harris discuss dream states!

Laugh track??

I've often wondered how any rational, intelligent person can dislike Sam Harris because I know he has his detractors. I think it's because Sam pulls no punches and calls out ignorance, superstition, and dishonesty with laser-like precision. I suppose if I fell into one of those categories, I would feel insulted as well. And since I don't believe in free will, I guess I feel lucky that I somehow stumbled into a life that falls squarely along the path of logic, reason, and the love of all things that are true. Thank you, Sam for your tireless efforts to tell the truth.

Walker Ruth Robinson Jose Lopez Gary

My feeling of celibacy is evaporating oh my gosh part II what’s going on 🥰❤️

I love the way he says ‘fundamental’ it sounds so cute oh my gosh 🥰❤️

Hahahaha. “I usually speak well but sometimes when I can’t get the words out, then I’m just worried about dementia.” SAME. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

“Omega point” sounds like a cult I could get behind. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Mr. Harris has acolytes and so has many who get it wrong. When he can explain consciousness, is it fundamental, and mind, does it emerge with quantum events, and magnetism, then it may be assumed that he knows something. Missing that, he is talking based on belief and opinion. It is true that many religious believers go on belief, that is their capacity, there are few knowers; they are far and few between, still what makes him think that his belief is the absolute truth and trumps all other beliefs. Apart from that fact, he is offensive, which is not the way to win friends or influence people. St. Francis who was born rich, had every luxury and advantage, and still found truth is someone Mr. Harris obviously cannot comprehend, no more than a person in the dark age could comprehend quantum theory.

5:57 literally the rationale for the existence of the state of Israel, which Harris curiously defends for some reason...

How does anyone care about the mishmash of everything Jordan Peterson has to say when Sam Harris is on offer?

If you only heard the audience, you might think this was a comedy skit

I've always thought Sam Harris was excellent, but this is by far the best I've ever seen him. This is excellent information.

1:53:01 angelic voice

Can someone tell me how i become a yogi

Did good and evil exist before human consciousness?

I love Sam Harris, I really do, one of the most sain people in the world today, but I can’t get why he is using the term spiritual about this topic, I just don’t get it, Spirituallity is for most people something odd and strange, and not something that he is actually talking about, he is talking about something basic and something that is the fundamental to us all, as human beings. It has nothing to do with spiritusllity, it”s about being, being a human being..Simple as that! 😊

Excellent work Sam. I've experienced 2 strokes ln last 15 months. Learning to think clearly. Keenly interested jn development of mediation skills.

“Consciousness is the one thing in the universe, including the universe, that cannot be an illusion.” All I have to say is WOW.

Sam Harris.......... THE BEST !!!!

Vipassana is very helpful. Profound talk as always. Thank you Sir.

Insightful.

I grew up with Sam being a voice of reason in an irrational world, then he started pitching old religious practices.... Of course I'm conflicted... What do you do? Assume that a staple of rationality suddenly went insane? That's what I did. A couple of years later a friend recommended the Waking Up app. Boy, was the old me wrong. When Socrates said "know thyself" he should have linked to this video as a catalyst.

we are all here for a short time not a long time better make the most of everyday

Sam Harris live. Someday it will read Sam Harris dead.

1:00:41 Spirituality in all its forms, including even `secular spirituality`, has within itself the proclivity to tend to believe in something other than what is. Certainly, the reality that we know is probably a very small part of the forces at play in the universal reality, but the fact is that the proclivity to believe that we are more than what is does not really help anyone in any way to approach the unknown with reasonableness. Instead, it pushes us away from reasonableness... towards the oblivion of illusions.

People will be reading Hitchens a century from now. But Mr Harris may change the world more than any thinker of this era.

22:12 i like to think the increase in the chest section for US Americans is from firearms training, where you're taught that the chest is a person's "center of mass" (and the slightly brighter mouth is from eating all the time)

sam has got to be one of the most reliably great public speakers out there. every talk is amazing.

Hitch once said he thought Sam was " A bit of a Buddhist"

Sam is an amazing thinker, but seems to go off the rails in attempting to redefine terms which hold so much baggage as to corrupt any honest usage.

There will always be conflict between truth and error so Sam's premise is misguided. Furthermore, Darwinism is just another junk religious system with zero basis in empirical science (common descent, not adaptation and speciation within fixed genus/family lines)

(a) What is atheism? The answer is given in the word, some say: A-Theism = NO-God-belief. - My name is not Jokp Fylox, what is my name? I don't live in Nuioh, where do I live? My code is not 20321 what is it? None of these questions can be answered with even microscopic probable certainty. Nor, what is atheism. Only well-defined pairs of 2 opposites can be answered with, NOT; like this: I am not she = I am he, not night=day etc. (b) What about to believe?: It is; to be quite sure, but not absolutely sure. Absolutely sure is: To Know. So: Not believe: To be unsure but not absolutely unsure. The same as ´to believe´! The concept of God is only implied as something higher and more powerful than us, to define or describe it more accurately is impossible. So what does NO-God belief become in this clarification: To be unsure but not absolutely unsure, whether something higher and more powerful than me, but not more precisely defined, exists, in this case God. (c) What the general public believes to be scientific evidence or proof rides the same humanity like a demon. The whole concept of proof has its origins in the mathematical method: An example of a mathematical proof: 449 is a prime number. Proof: No prime less than 21 divides 449. - Now how is a method like that to be transferred to all phenomena in the World or the Universe? So far there is NO possibility to generally use this method in the world, only in special cases, and Kurt Gödel prooved logically in 1931 that there are true statements in any logical system, that can not be prooven. Undecidable questions have even arisen in physics, suggesting that incompleteness afflicts not just math, but in some little understood way, The Reality. About the World and Reality, we must use the method of observation. And observations do not always give the whole picture, so theories must constantly be adjusted in line with new observations. Thus, existing phenomena may have inaccessible evidences. Asking to find a Creator among the created implies he would have created himself: Impossible. So evidence based on direct observation can never be found. - I have no evidence, just a question: (d) The answer to whether one believes in or the outlook on life one has can, because the word ´belief´ is fluid and the term God is only implied as something elevated over us, cannot therefore be answered with: I do not believe in God, I am an Atheist. The question must be clarified like this: I didn't ask what you don't believe, I asked what your outlook on life IS, what IS being an atheist, or what is the content of atheism? Someone will then try to rewrite NOT with other words: Rejection of, refutation of, lacking, dismissing, absence of etc... It doesn't help much. If the atheists have someting to say at all, the question must have a NOT-free answer. (e) Then I get lectured in that atheism is no beliefsystem, has no message, no philosofy, no answer, nothing; just ordinary people that has not got any evidence. But this is just a rewriting of NOT, so I ask: What are you lacking evidence of? "God" they answer. I ask then: What is that, describe that? - no answer - Then the atheist instead proudly explains: "We are not from the stoneage, we are modern. We have lazer tools, microscopes, telescopes, satelites, computers and cars etc., we dont need to believe in anything." - These tools give us greater opportunity to see how things happen, why things happen is in lesser degree revealed, and they often generate more questions than they answer. They do not explain why matter organizes, and things (forms) are assembled, and the nature of consciousness is still inaccessible to science. (f) Then the atheist deliver one spectacular devastating selfdestructing blow after another: "God belief is exactly parallell to this: Believer(theist): I believe unicorns exist. - Nonbeliever(atheist): I do not believe unicorns exist." - But unicorns are well defined and described fantasy animals and that gives us opportunity to search for one, and noone has ever found one on Earth. The idea of God is neither well defined and possible to describe in any detail, and this idea does not even belong to the category of ´things´. The atheists now clames that I have a personal problem that dont concerns them if I dont accept definitions with; NOT. But I only want to know what atheism contains. So that claim is synonymous to; If anyone want to know what atheism is, they have a personal problem! (g) Now the atheist tries to divert the subject by asking; why he should believe in the Christian god, out of 1000 other hungry gods who have to be fed with newborn children and people, drink blood and torture animals and humans to death? - In that case, the Christian God (Christ) is the opposite to all of this, so that could be a good reason for the atheist to become a Christian, but does he want that? "No, the 1000 gods dont exist", he say. "Ok, I understand, but describe in all details what it is that doesnt exist." Now the atheist gets angry and fights for his life; ridicules my horrible english and tells me to seek professional help, and tries a last desperat attempt to save himself by claiming that the burden of proof that God exists is on the believers, not the atheists. But Kurt Goedel proved in 1931 that there exist true statements that cannot be proven even in the well defined logical systems of consistent theories. So the burden of proof that they are true cannot possibly be on Kurt Goedel, exactly because he proved that they cannot be proven true, but STILL are TRUE. So the atheist are in urgent need to explain why they dont think such statements are true, contrary to the Goedel principle. When atheists reject this prooven principle the burden of dis-proof of it is on the atheist, but that cant be done. That leaves the burden of disproof of God on the atheist. But noone gives it! (h) Hundreds of atheist videoes have got this comment, but not a single factual counter-comment, just comments that scold this as nonsense and a meaningless wall of word-salad, or personal attacks and characterisations of me as an idiot that tries to look wise by cooking soup with advanced words(even though I dont use any). Never a comment that explains what is nonsense and why. - NOT ONE! - So every such harassing counter-comment is proof that I hit the rotten point where atheism collapses. (i) But once again I give atheists a chanse to explain what they positively without negatives, stand for: I want an answer from an atheist about the CONTENT of atheism without not, absence, rejection, dismissing etc. I am not satisfied with that definition with negatives; What is left of the atheist when all the NOTs (negatives) have done their job? Science? I also believe in science, but I am not an atheist. "We dont believe in God", they shout a bit louder, as if that helps. Describe that? I ask. And the atheist cannot answer, and even ask me for what evidence I have, or tells me to ask those who believe in God about it! So the atheists depend on the believers to tell them what not to believe in! But the believers cannot define or describe God, noone can. And round and round it goes, . . so I will give my answer: (j) Even though atheism by the atheists own clame is nothing; the atheists are something. Millions og people deprived by satanistic propaganda, of any meaning, purpose, direction, hope and inspiration in life what so ever. That is dangerous, extreemly dangerous! The theists, while having the same definitional problem as atheists, at least have the humility to look up to something higher unfathomable in wonder, awe, inspiration and longing. This the atheists cannot do, and they cannot accept that others have it. They are driven by self-satisfaction and selfimportance. They want to ridicule those who have perceived something they do not see, all atheist videos show that. Atheism is therefore pride in the strongest form and therefore the original sin. The origin of sin! The orgin of human degradation. When one does not want to look up to something higher and more powerful than oneself, then it is only oneself and that which is lower than oneself that can be seen. When you think yourself are at the mountaintop, all further movement will lead downward. If you have no higher idea about life and existence, then: Down you go! And in this context that means destruction, breakdown, dissolution, disaster, desperation, aimless flight downwards and downwards to death and unconsciousness. And in time it will spread to everything, both personal, cultural, scientific, artistic, moral - EVERYTHING That is WHAT Atheism is. Don't go that way! (k) If, on the other hand, one has something higher which is not just a word or an abstract, theoretical and very vaguely defined concept, but a supreme concrete example - Jesus Christ son of God - which we can visualize through concrete sources, then we always have something to reach for and we are securely anchored in the highest.

THE COTHE CONSEQUENCE OF ATHEISM: (1) It is people like the atheists who spread this absolutely insane idea of an attitude of life built on nothing (or randomness), which leads to desperation, suicide, murder, crime, destruction, human degradation, moral destruction, cannibalism etc. Only when man lacks a basic spiritual perspective in life, these options become relevant. (2) What the general public believes to be scientific evidence rides the same humanity like a demon. (3) The whole concept of proof has its origins in the mathematical method: An example of a mathematical proof: An odd number^2 can always be written as 4n+1. PROOF: (4m+1)^2= (4m+1)*(4m+1)=16m^2+8m+1=4(4m^2+2m)+1 = 4n+1. AND (4m+3)^2= (4m+3)*(4m+3)=16m^2+24m+9=8(2m^2+3m)+9 = 4(4m^2+6m)+8 +1= 4n+1. (4) Now how is this method to be transferred to all phenomena in the World or the Universe? So far there is NO possibility to generally use this method in the world, only in special cases, and Kurt Gödel prooved logically in 1931 that there are true statements in any logical system, that can not be proven. (5) Undecidable questions have even arisen in physics, suggesting that incompleteness afflicts not just math, but in some little understood way, The Reality. (6) In the World, observation is the method of proof. And observations do not always give the whole picture, so theories must constantly be adjusted in line with new observations. What is created never makes the creator directly visible, as a carpenter is not directly visible in the chair he made. But the existense of a chair indirectly indicates a carpenter. Observable evidence for a Creator in the Universe cannot ever exist, because if we got such a thing, it would disprove what i tried to prove. It would be similar as saying that the carpener IS the chair that he made. The demand for such kind of evidence is a self-reference problem, and can therefore never be resolved. So evidence based on direct observation can never be found. (7) Many people claim that a spiritual world exists, which atheists usually object to, because for them everything is physical. I think and feel; these are not physical things. Thoughts and feelings do indeed generate electrical activity in the nerves and brain, BUT the thoughts and feelings are not generated by them! (8)Thoughts are patterns, system and order, the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that if the brain is a closed system (in other words; generating its own consciousness) then the brain will only increase in disorder and electrical chaos with time, and never be able to converge to systematic and orderly thoughts and ideas: (9) So therefore the brain is NOT a closed system and consciousness with ordered structures in the form of thoughts and ideas must come from outside, and from the outside thoughts and ideas induce the ordered electrical impulses that take place in the brain (not the same as sensory impressions). This even applies to a misconception, because it is after all a structure, but a structure that is attacked by the chaos in the physical (term.2.nd. law) and will in time, only have 2 ways to go; to its own destruction or to correction and modification over to that which corresponds to reality. (10) That the 2nd law of thermodynamics in this way hints at a spiritual dimension must be considered no less than a miracle. Thus our mentality is the closest we come into contact with a spiritual reality, and with our consciousness we arrange our physical surroundings through work, according to the degree of consciousness that each individual has developped. (11) When we see the structure in nature and the Universe, we can only sense via an induction process that this continues, EXACTLY because we see order and structure and order and structure do not arise randomly from chaos. (12) So for this reason a consciousness is induced where there is structure and the structures in the Universe completely surpass human concepts, and when these are assigned to a consciousness that stands behind this arrangement, similar to we arranging our private physical surroundings, this consciousness must accordingly stand above our comprehension in terrifying height, depth and power and effectiveness. (13) But you can close yourself off from all this and live in your disghusting little atheist world without any meaning, purpose, direction, hope and inspiration what so ever, and for that reason only have one remaining option; All the desperation and evil acts that humans in this condition fall in to. (14) OR you can open your eyes and get a glimpse into the Universe behind the Universe.NSEQUENCE OF ATHEISM: (1) It is people like the atheists who spread this absolutely insane idea of an attitude of life built on nothing (or randomness), which leads to desperation, suicide, murder, crime, destruction, human degradation, moral destruction, cannibalism etc. Only when man lacks a basic spiritual perspective in life, these options become relevant. (2) What the general public believes to be scientific evidence rides the same humanity like a demon. (3) The whole concept of proof has its origins in the mathematical method: An example of a mathematical proof: An odd number^2 can always be written as 4n+1. PROOF: (4m+1)^2= (4m+1)*(4m+1)=16m^2+8m+1=4(4m^2+2m)+1 = 4n+1. AND (4m+3)^2= (4m+3)*(4m+3)=16m^2+24m+9=8(2m^2+3m)+9 = 4(4m^2+6m)+8 +1= 4n+1. (4) Now how is this method to be transferred to all phenomena in the World or the Universe? So far there is NO possibility to generally use this method in the world, only in special cases, and Kurt Gödel prooved logically in 1931 that there are true statements in any logical system, that can not be proven. (5) Undecidable questions have even arisen in physics, suggesting that incompleteness afflicts not just math, but in some little understood way, The Reality. (6) In the World, observation is the method of proof. And observations do not always give the whole picture, so theories must constantly be adjusted in line with new observations. What is created never makes the creator directly visible, as a carpenter is not directly visible in the chair he made. But the existense of a chair indirectly indicates a carpenter. Observable evidence for a Creator in the Universe cannot ever exist, because if we got such a thing, it would disprove what i tried to prove. It would be similar as saying that the carpener IS the chair that he made. The demand for such kind of evidence is a self-reference problem, and can therefore never be resolved. So evidence based on direct observation can never be found. (7) Many people claim that a spiritual world exists, which atheists usually object to, because for them everything is physical. I think and feel; these are not physical things. Thoughts and feelings do indeed generate electrical activity in the nerves and brain, BUT the thoughts and feelings are not generated by them! (8)Thoughts are patterns, system and order, the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that if the brain is a closed system (in other words; generating its own consciousness) then the brain will only increase in disorder and electrical chaos with time, and never be able to converge to systematic and orderly thoughts and ideas: (9) So therefore the brain is NOT a closed system and consciousness with ordered structures in the form of thoughts and ideas must come from outside, and from the outside thoughts and ideas induce the ordered electrical impulses that take place in the brain (not the same as sensory impressions). This even applies to a misconception, because it is after all a structure, but a structure that is attacked by the chaos in the physical (term.2.nd. law) and will in time, only have 2 ways to go; to its own destruction or to correction and modification over to that which corresponds to reality. (10) That the 2nd law of thermodynamics in this way hints at a spiritual dimension must be considered no less than a miracle. Thus our mentality is the closest we come into contact with a spiritual reality, and with our consciousness we arrange our physical surroundings through work, according to the degree of consciousness that each individual has developped. (11) When we see the structure in nature and the Universe, we can only sense via an induction process that this continues, EXACTLY because we see order and structure and order and structure do not arise randomly from chaos. (12) So for this reason a consciousness is induced where there is structure and the structures in the Universe completely surpass human concepts, and when these are assigned to a consciousness that stands behind this arrangement, similar to we arranging our private physical surroundings, this consciousness must accordingly stand above our comprehension in terrifying height, depth and power and effectiveness. (13) But you can close yourself off from all this and live in your disghusting little atheist world without any meaning, purpose, direction, hope and inspiration what so ever, and for that reason only have one remaining option; All the desperation and evil acts that humans in this condition fall in to. (14) OR you can open your eyes and get a glimpse into the Universe behind the Universe.

One of Harris' best talks. In contrast to his earlier work, which was mostly pointing out the numerous negative aspects of religion, this one acknowledges the positive aspects of religion and points out that they need not be linked to historical religious traditions, and seeks to break them off into 'spirituality' as he (re-) defines it.

What these have to offer is already clearly indicated in the word “intellect.” That is: A narrowing of the perceptive capacity to purely earthly matters, and thus to the tiniest part of real existence. By intellectuals we are to understand those who have unconditionally submitted themselves to their own intellect. This very limitation brings them a so-called peak of comprehension, which must lead to such arrogant presumptions because they believe that they really are standing at the ultimate height. This is actually true so far as they are concerned, since they have arrived at that boundary which they cannot cross. But their attacks on seekers for the Truth, so often inexplicably malevolent, clearly show, on closer observation, the whip of the Darkness brandished behind them. In most cases there is only blind fury, devoid of any real logic. Examine such attacks dispassionately. The inane inferiority of the attacks is always quite strikingly apparent from the very fact that these are never kept purely objective! They are always overt or covert smear campaigns against the person of the Truth-seeker. This is only done by someone who is incapable of replying objectively. After all, a seeker for the Truth, or a bringer of the Truth, does not give himself personally, but he brings that which he speaks. The word must be examined, not the person! It is a habit of the intellectuals to seek always to examine the person first, and then to consider whether they can listen to his words. Owing to the narrow limitation of their perceptive capacity, these people need such an outward hold because they must cling to externals to prevent them from becoming confused. Indeed just this is the hollow structure which they erect, which is inadequate for men and a great hindrance to their advancement. If they had a firm inner stability they would simply let fact speak against fact, excluding the personal element altogether. But this they are unable to do. Indeed, they intentionally avoid it because they feel, or partly know, that in a well-ordered tournament they would be quickly unseated. The intellect is and remains bound to time and space, that is to say earthbound; whereas the Godhead, and thus also the recognition of God and His Will, are above time and space and above all that is transitory, and therefore can never be grasped by the narrowly-confined intellect. For this simple reason the intellect is not qualified to bring enlightenment in eternal values. Indeed it would be a contradiction. Therefore he who in these matters boasts of university qualifications, and would look down upon those who are not so influenced, thereby declares his own incompetence and limitation. Only those with a calling can be true teachers. Those with a calling carry the ability within them. These abilities, however, do not ask for university training, but for the vibrations of a refined intuitive sensitivity able to soar above time and space, thus beyond the limit of comprehension of the earthly intellect. Moreover, any inwardly free man will always evaluate a matter or a teaching according to what it brings, not according to who brings it. The latter is the strongest possible evidence of the incapacity of the one who examines. Gold is gold, whether a prince or a beggar holds it in his hand. For those who are really seeking seriously do not permit themselves to be influenced by such distractions from examining the matter itself. But those who do allow themselves to be so influenced are not yet mature to receive the Truth. It is not for them. But the hour is not far distant when a battle must be waged which has been lacking so far. The one-sidedness will end, and a sharp confrontation will follow which will destroy all false presumption. *"In The Light Of Truth (Grail Message) by Abdrushin"*

Bro got swag

what a title

I love Sam but the setting with the glass wall behind the stage is distracting. Why?

I am completely devastated by the amount of lies this man, Sam Harris, professor (!), about religion. Like a man living in the 21st century in a country where television is on the phone, news from around the world on dozens of TV channels, how can you lie and cheat like that? ? ? This is shocking to me. And that audience applauding him! Just hands down, for a moment!😡

Pieces of "What the Bleep.." was correct. It was only explained wrong.

There are two types of intellectuals. Those who learn and those who unlearn. Only one of them makes progress. And it's not the one who learns.

The first questioner in the shades OMG what an obnoxious fan boy

I love Sam Harris...What a legend

Every sentence is packed with useful information

Can’t get enough of Sam, interesting as usual.

If your definition of objective includes: logic, reason, and facts (then) logic, reason and facts, must necessarily exist, in the absence of subjective rationality and ontological presuppositions,. The existence of th rock is an objective fact, contingent on our ational judgment of truth value.

when I can achieve moments of no thought, I feel a sense of complete bliss and serenity, but thoughts enter quickly so that feeling doesn't last long.

Sam harris before he became political. Fair play for voicing his opinion but I'm afraid a lot of people will therefore throw away everything he has to say about living a good and ethical life

For me, this is the most valuable talk Sam Harris has ever given. I will watch this many times. Thank you so much.🌷