Pure Genius. Haters gonna hate, baiters gonna bait, and skaters gonna skate.

@kaimarmalade9660

Жыл бұрын

I'm just gonna shake, shake shake!

It's a shame that the only time he debated the great Christopher Hitchens (who seems a natural adversary for him, an antitheist, journalist, pro-Iraq-war, marxist) they didn't get to have a direct exchange (they mostly went after the points of the other's lower-weight partners Dinesh D'Souza and Boateng for NNT or Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett for the Hitch). I'd have traveled far and paid much to watch such an encounter live. I can only imagine that Hitchens would've argued that the Stalinist, Syrian and Iraqi regimes were by no means secular (dictatorships never are). He might have also said that his anti-theistic crusade was one against totalitarianism and "final solutions", rather than the heuristical and moral (when applicable) aspect of religion (he once wrote a beautiful essay defending the literary value of King Jame's version of the Bible, and he proposed an amended version of the Commandments, rather than getting rid of them). To this he might have added that if abandoned, the heuristic vacuum left by religion can be filled by the Classics and the philosophy of Spinoza (Hitchens never fully fell for the information trap of "knowledge will always triumph" that Taleb advises against). Furthermore, he belongs to the few in the Left that abandoned Socialism the moment they perceived as dogmatic. Taleb believes that Atheism is as bad as fundamentalism minus the aesthetics, but to read Hitchens and say that the man lacked an aesthetic quality would be beyond ridiculous. In any case they are both among the ballsiest and intellectually honest essayists in modern times. Again, what a debate that would've made.

@federicoresendiz3617

9 жыл бұрын

***** lol starting political career would probably go against every single thing he has ever written or said. Other than the 'laughable' part, I can't say I disagree with what you said.

@sidneycastillocardenas1868

8 жыл бұрын

+Federico Resendiz I agree that dictaroships aren't secular at all, and retain what Weber would call in some cases "charismatic domination" present in the cult of personality and so on. But how its not a final solution to get rid of religion and other ideas that aren't uniquely a scientific worldview, with also other charismatic leaders?

@federicoresendiz3617

8 жыл бұрын

+Sidney Castillo Cárdenas Indeed! Not even Hitchens agreed with the complete elimination of religion (unlike his friends Dawkins and Harris).

@federicoresendiz3617

8 жыл бұрын

***** Your research on Taleb still looks rather superficial to me. And if you agree with Harris, I'd look into it again (talk about pseudoscientific frauds).

@federicoresendiz3617

8 жыл бұрын

***** Taleb has distanced himself from anarchists, though. It's why he's always rejected the label of libertarian. He's more of a localist. I'm not sure about replacing religions by intervention. Religion is at its best when it's about knowing when to trust Nature rather than oneself, and at its worst when its about claiming to know nature better than Nature itself. Indeed, what reasonable Seculars and Theists have in common is that neither claim to know the "mind of God/Nature". By the same token, claiming to "know" is what all fascists, from Stalin to ISIS have in common.

Mirrored by Jordan Petersen. Really interesting stuff.

@ahmedshousha1958

4 жыл бұрын

funny because he disagreed massively on IQ (would call Peterson an idiot).

@moatazmattar4714

3 жыл бұрын

He came before Peterston though.

_"Don't uproot it [religion], unless you better be certain that you replace it with something better & so far we have been fooled."_ 8:13 > Scandinavia for example, seems to have found a good way to diminish religiosity & to increase happiness.

@luisbarbosa8136

24 күн бұрын

Scandinavia like Sweden that has the largest number of RAPE in womans in all Europe?? we must see what it will be the scandinavian in the next years.. I wouldn´t be so sure like you are on "happiness", maybe that times are about to be "gone" with the increase of their violence due to illigal migration

Spain was heavily indebt during the XVI and XVII century when Catholicism was at its peak. It even declared bankruptcy a few times.

@mikegeo76

4 жыл бұрын

... but the lenders were... Jewish from Amsterdam?

I did a few takes of this video. At first, I though it was gibberish. Then next couple of times i sort of understood. And now I completely understand what he was saying. It does make sense but not all people will be willing to accept it.

@safashaikh2894

2 жыл бұрын

Can u explain

He mentioned Aquinas but I think the quote is from Shakespeare: "Neither a Borrower Nor a Lender Be"... or from the Deuteronomy: "and you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow". .. anyway, I can't confirm Shakespeare was a Catholic.

5:08 best part

@Egooist.

Жыл бұрын

_"Dawkins ... Steven Pinker ... simple minds that you know write books ..."_ > It takes one to know one?!

We need secular churches like those started by Julian the apostle.

Ustaz Nassim Nicholas Taleb...

If I understand correctly, God in whatever conception is not really the relevant point. The ethics are the most important thing and the shared rituals is a way of saying 'i trust you because we share the same values'

This talk is taken out of context. If you haven't read ANTIFRAGILE ...

@SPR4GOD

9 жыл бұрын

Ash Edwards Basically, THIS!!

Taleb's views on religion are very fascinating but I wish that he would develop them more thoroughly. You can find bits and pieces on the subject in each of his last three books and in a few videos, but that's about it. Is anyone aware of a more complete treatment of the question of religion?

@ThaRobfatherYT

10 жыл бұрын

He has recommend John N Gray, Karen Armstrong, Mircea Eliade, and Rudolph Otto

@ThaRobfatherYT

10 жыл бұрын

try follownassim.stanyurin.com

@AnkitSinghAnarchoAtheist

5 жыл бұрын

Listen to Bret Weinstein debate Richard Dawkins.

@donaldwebb

5 жыл бұрын

John Gray -- Straw Dogs is a great book.. Also, Black Mass

It is true that officially non-theistic states such as the USSR were abysmal, but there are two problems: (1) the state was worshipped as god and (2) all states demand worship to some degree, or else. Thus, the problem may be statism rather than the absence of theism per se. Or to put it differently, man without the state may be better behaved; man with religion at least has a code of conduct to follow, apparently as an option.

@gomertube

10 жыл бұрын

***** You have reversed causation. The state has been the cause of violence in the areas you mention, not the panacea. Syria: a western-ordained, state dictatorship collapses and chaos ensues. Or to put it differently, if you keep a hive of bees inside a bottle, shake it up and then uncork it, you are to blame for the harm the bees cause, not the bees. Somalia (never strongly centralized but everyone loves to point to it anyway): a victim of destabilizing US-sponsored intervention in the 90s with unpredictable consequences following; Northern Mexico: the state-imposed drug war sows the seeds of vicious gang violence. Lift the state prohibition and there's no longer any incentive to fight over drugs (it's not a stateless region, by the way. Go visit.). And so on. Any other examples to undermine your case?

And by the way: "most religions start..." really. It is not historically correct. It is just a statement and bs. I like mr Taleb but I think he likes himaelf too much.

You can replace the Judeo religions with what they are derived from, the true source that is the Greco-Roman classics.

The absence of religion is good, unless you feel a need for spirituality like Mr Taleb does. He should have a conversation with Sean Carroll.

The intellectual juggernaut has spoken. The rest of you may take notes.

This is unconvincing, but I understand his points better after reading Skin In The Game. He's a better writer but all his talk sounds like BS

It is not only religion that people like Dawkins are against. It is against all forms of dogma and unquestioning attitudes and for the promotion of science, skepticism and critical thinking. Most of the time religion is mentioned because it is prevalent and common. Dawkins, Sagan, Shermer, Harris have all spoken about other kinds of irrationality like astrology, psychics and fortune telling. Hitchens himself denounced communism and rejected socialism after looking at Soviet. Atheism != Communism. Whether the theories of communism were sound, the implementations were disastrous. It has been tested. It fails. So Hitchens changed his mind. Communist regimes are exactly what skeptics are against. This is a fine example of limiting free speech and imposing force on those who do not agree with authority. And it is also true that communism was something crazy that replaced religion. This can be said if religion only consists of Islam, Judaism, Christianity and the likes. But they have much in common. Followers hold certain dogmas and have ultimate conviction that they are true and have intolerance for people who don't. This intolerance does not express itself as merely pen and paper. It is usually manifested in the form of guns and bombs. He said religion has been replaced by other crazy ideas. That may be true but it can also be replaced by saner ideas. US is an example of an effort to separate the church and state so as to allow freedom of expression and conscience. Religion was substituted for the constitution. And it is obvious the US constitution is less crazy then the Bible. Also, all matured forms of religion is already a crazy idea that replaced previous crazy ideas. So is it that religion is false but Taleb said religion is not epistemic but ritualistic. This is undoubtedly false. Claims are made in religions. The truth value of these claims can be subjected to scrutiny and epistemic duty. Religion is so ritualistic it can spin off a spectrum of behaviors quite arbitrarily. Nassim has said something like frauds should be exposed. In the case of religion it is certainly a fraud. The people who advance religion do so spreading their beliefs without any justification and the gullible follow. And also if only religion was purely ritualistic. Not just ritualistic, but voluntary. Secularists won't give a damn. The problems come when religious leaders say 'God wants us to this'. Maybe it's not epistemic but the mechanisms in religion allow such that followers will have more motivation after hearing that. When God wants you to vote or act as your pastor says, we'll be thrown back into the Dark Ages where fevers were caused by the devil.

@Lxx-tc4xc

9 жыл бұрын

askingalexandriaaa Taleb's claim that "religion is ritualistic" does not describe Christianity very well, but describes Judaism and Hinduism very well. I leave to others to decide how well his claim fits Islam. I noticed decades ago that a person of Jewish ancestry who adopts atheism is not shunned by fellow Jews. An outspoken atheist fully benefits from the Law of Retufn.

@joeashbubemma

6 жыл бұрын

You miss the entire point of Christianity. This the danger of organized religion. Christ himself opposed it.

@thechadeuropeanfederalist893

6 жыл бұрын

Nassim Taleb is an anti-rationalist. He rather trusts some random shit people made up thousands of years ago simply because it persisited since now and thus has been proven to be anti-fragile than reason.

This is profound. What a mind.

Ra. Religion is a way of living life.

In Islam God is primary, it is highly God focused which makes it the most anti-fragile as well of all beliefs.

As much as I love Taleb, on this issue Hitchens would have destroyed Taleb's argument.

@ocerco93

4 жыл бұрын

Gautam Pandey hitchens is so overrated, don’t confuse a great debater and a great mind.

@harimbolarazafindratsimba6261

3 жыл бұрын

He would've destroyed him simply because he's a better talker, and it's because he's a journalist before everything else

Science: I know somethings based on observations and evidence Religion: I know everything based on faith

@Egooist.

Жыл бұрын

_"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved."_ [Tim Minchin]

@Egooist.

Жыл бұрын

@Prasanth Thomas: "Religion teaches the opposite of "knowing everything" - it teaches humility ..." > The Bible teaches _wishful thinking_ & _gullibility_ : *Hebrew 11,1* _Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."_ @PT: "... the opposite of "we can do everything on our own with our own knowledge & science" as atheists think." > Nice little straw man! _"So this is atheism in a nutshell. You say there's a god. I say, "Can you prove it?" You say no. I say, "I don't believe you then."_ [Ricky Gervais]

@Egooist.

Жыл бұрын

@Prasanth Thomas: "That isn't "wishful thinking". > _Dream on!_ _"Glaube heißt Nicht-wissen-wollen, was wahr ist."_ [Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche] (Faith means not wanting to know what is true.) @PT: "And that definition of faith is perfect .... > I agree! _"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."_ [Hebrew 11,1] *Faith* = things *hoped for* + things *not seen* Bible believers very often avoid citing their praised verses, so the actual words don't collide with *their* "interpretation". @PT: "That's the literal reason why you want atheism." > Atheism is nothing we/I want. It's just the rejection of your ludicrous god claims. _"We are all atheist about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."_ [Richard Dawkins] @PT: "The claim that because of science you can know everything & build everything." > Citation needed! _"If you base medicine on science, you cure people. If you base the design of planes on science, they fly. If you base the design of rockets on science, they reach the moon. It works ... bitches!"_ [Richard Dawkins] And before you start again reading into it - _reading between the lines_ - the word "everything" isn't mentioned or implied, not even once! @PT: "... what Dawkins thought an atheist world would look like ... "paradise on earth ... a world ruled by enlightened rationality ... a much better *chance* of no more war ... less hatred ... less waste of time."" > That's called an "hypothesis" with no mentioning of _"we can do everything on our own with our own knowledge & science"_ [Prasanth Thomas] But you almost got it right so: _"We __-can-__ _*_have to_*_ do everything on our own ..."_ because (so far) all the alleged *_Sky Daddys_* are a no-show. _"A god that does not manifest in reality is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist."_ [Matt Dillahunty] @PT: "And the entire premise of both Dawkin's book & Sam Harris' book is that when you abandon religion [superstition], the world becomes a scientific paradise where we can know everything through reason." > Your interpretations are wild. No wonder you can hold onto the Bible, although it's a horrible book in every conceivable way. _"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things & evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." [Stephen Weinberg] @PT: "I do have proof for God." > Is it any good? _"I want to believe as many true things & as few false things as possible."_ [Matt Dillahunty] Or, is it as bad as all the other "proof" (fallacies, "personal experience" = hearsay, ...) from people believing in gods & magic? _"Gods & magic are the simplest & most infantile excuses men have ever invented to explain things they obviously didn't & still don't even want to understand."_ [AronRa] @PT: "Do you have proof that he doesn't exist." > Nowadays many deities are downgraded to *nonfalsifiable assumptions* . Is your god one of them? _"It's a meaningless panacea to invent a god that can do anything & be anything ... It serves as an answer to every question & as an explanation for nothing."_ [Matt Dillahunty]

"it's called trust". No, it's called suspension of reality. Understanding something ISN'T REAL.

I don't quite get why he had to mock Steven Pinker. He is a nice, educated and very intelligent gentleman, who deserves lot of respect (he gives respect and credit also to ideas he personally doesn't necessarily hold important and tries to understand them first before he discards them - but he never feels need to ridicule them as general atheist fundie crowd does). For example Pinker never allows himself go that far into strawman arguments and reductions of religions into FSM myths. Pinker, (in contrast with Dawkinses, Krausses, Hitchenses and many other fundamentalist ideological hate-inspiring atheists) does know the evolutionary and socio-cultural value of religion, mysticism and spirituality and seeks their origins as a true scientist in fact indeed ought to. Dawkins may be very educated on the matters, relations and implications of evolution in human society. I totally support his fight against irrationality when it comes to falsifiable subjects - all good till he starts talking religion, then it becomes a stupid circus and mockery of somehting he never understood in its propper contexts. I have yet to see Pinker indulge in such naive bahviour and I really doubt he ever will. I dare you, anyone, find me one instance where he reduces the possibility of transcendence (an unfalsifiable matter in fact btw.) or where he reduces this idea into naive, self-debunking strawman arguments the way Dawkinses, Hitchenses and Krausses do/did. So, I would never place Pinker into the same category with Dawkins or Krauss. Pinker as far as I know doesn't cash on propagating non-scientific ideologies such as atheism or anti-theism or ontological naturalism. I'm all fine with someone being materialist if he's keeping an open mind and searches further.

@SPR4GOD

9 жыл бұрын

The White From The Dark Blue givebirthathome From reading Taleb's books it would seem that he believes Pinker to be a superficial thinker, and even goes on to name a fallacy after him - not taking fat tails into account.

@js290

9 жыл бұрын

www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n22/james-c-scott/crops-towns-government "Diamond is convinced that violent revenge is the besetting plague of hunter-gatherer societies and, by extension, of our pre-state ancestors. Having chosen some rather bellicose societies (the Dani, the Yanomamo) as illustrations, and larded his account with anecdotal evidence from informants, he reaches the same conclusion as Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of Our Nature: we know, on the basis of certain contemporary hunter-gatherers, that our ancestors were violent and homicidal and that they have only recently (very recently in Pinker’s account) been pacified and civilised by the state. Life without the state is nasty, brutish and short. Though Hobbes is not directly invoked, his gloomy view of savage life without a sovereign infuses Diamond’s narrative. ‘First and foremost, a fundamental problem of virtually all small-scale societies is that, because they lack a central political authority exerting a monopoly of retaliatory force, they are unable to prevent recalcitrant members from injuring other members, and also unable to prevent aggrieved members from taking matters into their own hands and seeking to achieve their goals by violence. But violence invites counter-violence.’"

@js290

9 жыл бұрын

SPR4GOD truth-out.org/opinion/item/16880-the-case-of-the-brutal-savage-poirot-or-clouseau-or-why-steven-pinker-like-jared-diamond-is-wrong

@Lxx-tc4xc

9 жыл бұрын

js290 Diamond's ethnographic field work was in Papua-New Guinea. The quote above is very descriptive of PNG mores. There is a curious fact about Pinker: he is a social conservative who has time for economic reasoning (a noneconomist who reads economic writings with risks losing most of his professional friends).

@federicoresendiz3617

8 жыл бұрын

+རྫོགས་ཆེན་ Hitchens is a far more sophisticated thinker than either Dawkins, Dennet or Pinker: At least he admitted the difference between fact and opinion and only took committed stances when debate, not consensus, was the objective (he did not call for the removal of all religion, despite considering it universally poisonous). Taleb goes against Pinker because his argument of "modernity=peace" has been somewhat universally accepted among certain circles, when in fact it's easy to see how it's wrong in the long term. It's interesting how we go for quick rewards over long term ones and avoid quick damages over long term ones *despite* their proportion: ask us whether we'd take a 100 dollars now or 200 in a year and we go for the lesser option. Ask us whether we'd rather have sword fights today or sarin gas tomorrow and we go for the second. One doesn't even have to go as far as Fat Tails to understand how Pinker's definition of "violence" is beyond naive.

How God Influenced The Toast In the beginning...man steps out of the cave. He looks to the stars, trips over the hearth, breaks a toe, curses the stars, goes back to the cave and drinks himself silly. Hours later, steps out of the cave, toasts the stars, trips over the hearth, passes out and dreams the night away. He sees "God" during rapid eye movement, wakes to tell the story and attributes the "God" experience to libation. The next night, he and his buddy step out of the cave, look to the stars, ... Caveman - Invention of Music kzread.info/dash/bejne/po12sNF_k9nJh6w.html

Religion needs to go. "Every man will be his own priest." Emerson

@Shahada2012

8 жыл бұрын

+solwolfpunk Maybe this is true for christianity.

@aoeu256

5 жыл бұрын

Einstein/Spinoza & the Stoics & the Hindus had a syncretic religion which was spiritual, scientific, and tolerant at the same time. Also church/charity gives people a purpose in life and people can make good connections and business deals among people who are very different.