Which one?

He has always been an obnoxious bully that punches down

A hateful man

he didn't punch down with his jokes, literally explained the joke multiple times about how he's making fun of the people who have a problem with trans people

honestly that's the most annoying part of Ricky's character...which is what (most) comedians are doing...they're doing bits/playing characters always, explaining the jokes/doing audiance reaction callouts gets old fast

Bullshit. Ricky is mocking trans people for years now. You're just too blind to see it.

I stopped listening to him because he was super arrogant and condescending and self important, didn't know about the other stuff

Not denying Dawkins is plenty smart about some things but man, I miss Carl Sagan

But enough about Sam Harris

*motherlode

He's always been a hateful bully, he's about as funny as trump.

I hope they both die soon.

WTF are you even saying. There is no perfect person as we are not robots.

Perfecting is a process which produces results of a particular/characteristic kind..

& as one brings-in more & more & more dimensions-of-perfecting, that must continue refining the dimensional-depth of the results that the process is producing..

I don't accept your mundane-is-the-limit-of-reality axiom.

Remove the origin of defect, & defect must fall-away.

Unconscious-ignorance is the origin of SurfaceMind defectiveness.

Continuum/Soul-ignorance is the origin of being born into a LifeMind ( that we make "unconscious", to protect SurfaceMind, but which can be developed into its-own-Awareness, with work: that is Zen mastery ), & removing continuum-ignorance this is the means of removing LifeMind's defects, from then on.

_ /\ _

Then downvote everything you see that I've said, & improve your world for all.

_ /\ _

Perhaps a couple decades ago, some research published, stated that they were identifying macro-scale evidence that universe is fractal.

New Scientist went to an astrophysicist with that..

who then told them that "the model doesn't support that evidence".

New Scientist's reaction was:

"That isn't science, that is religion."

Scientism.

Rejecting-of-contradictory-evidence, axiom+authority-based, protecting-self-consistency-of-view paradigm.

Nobody who chooses, unconsciously or consciously, to be standing within that paradigm, can falsify it.

It is a religion: New Scientis was right.

_ /\ _

ALL systems-of-knowing have axioms they're dependent on.

As has been discussed in the philosophy-of-science stuff, insisting that physical-experiment is THE criterion-for-validity itself presumes that subjective-reality isn't reality, since physical-experiment is only on the objective..

The stuff where one can prove indirectly that the immaterial-alterer-of-matter's-behavior of entanglement, or probabilitywave, and that has to be:

• not-real, since neither entanglement nor probabilitywave themself is physical, XOR
• real, since the effects/consequences of their acting are consistently measurable, therefore the causes of those effects have to be real..

proves that axioms matter, even in empiricism.

Pick whichever axiom, of those 2, you want, & reject the "reality" or the other, & call that empiricism.

Axioms are inescapable.

Axioms, as many in philosophy have noted, are "articles accepted on faith".

That was declared decades ago.

_ /\ _

First, you'll need to cite your your source because I'm almost sure you're either not giving us the whole context, or you're only telling us what you understood from that interaction. Because my interpretation is incredibly different from yours.

Second, you can't possibly expect me to take you seriously when dismissing something for being a religion after admitting to defending some "one true god". Like, pick a side, dawg.

There is no axiom central to empiricism, since empiricism relies on proof, whereas axioms are accepted as true without any. The purpose and fundamental core of empiricism is to be free from axiom, and to question and test everything.
Entangled particles and wave functions are physical phenomena, contrary to what you have claimed, because they a) exist in nature, b) possess energy and c) have measurable, predictable effects. This classification of (a seemingly arbitrarily-chosen pair of) quantum phenomena is not axiomatic because it does not rely on faith to proceed, it is a simple definition of terms, used to agree what is a physical phenomenon.
We do not need faith to measure quantum entanglement, we need an experimental setup.
We do not need faith to describe the wave function, we need Schrödinger's equation.
So I will call empiricism what it is: deriving objective truth through observation, deduction and consensus using the scientific method.
Empiricism is not concerned with subjective truth, because subjective truth, whilst important to lived experience, is unimportant in the purely pragmatic furthering of the progress of human understanding of the physical universe. Again, this is not axiomatic, just a definition of terms.