hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha: LOOK ON WILLIAM LAME CRAIG...hahahaha what a loser...!!!
I believe in always asking why, as well. And I believe in God. It is my refusal to stop asking why that leads me to believe in ultimate causality and a necessarily existing ground of contingency.
I've seen Craig lose a debate before. But it's lost on me how anybody thinks Craig lost this one. Harris got so far off topic, talking about the shortcomings of Christian theology, when that didn't weaken Craig's position or strengthen his own.
@TheMcColley Thanks. I know Craig claimed a knockdown argument against Harris's position, but I need to give it a closer look. But in any case, it was bad that Harris didn't even really address that. When your opponent stands right up and says "I have utterly refuted with your position with this argument," you have gotta say A WORD OR TWO about it. I was eating dinner while I watched the debate, though. Maybe I missed it.
@Jugglable LOL. "Knockdown argument". Craig misrepresented Harris' argument and then proceeded to tear down the strawman he'd put up. That's no knockdown.
@magnusjsolberg Well, seeing as Craig repeatedly claimed he had a knockdown argument, it was a pretty glaring omission on Harris's part that he didn't even respond. He went on and on about the flaws of Christian theology, trying to make points that had nothing to do with the debate.
By the way, Craig did not misrepresent Harris. Harris did say that evil people could occupy the peaks of the moral landscape in a certain circumstance.
@Jugglable Harris said after the debate he didn't bother putting out all the little fires that Craig started, but instead focused on making his points.
Craig's knockdown argument was indeed one of those small fires. A very small one. Craig misrepresented Harris' argument, like I wrote in my previous post, and you really should be able to see that. If not, I guess I'll be forced to explain it to you. I would, however, like you to think it through for yourself first.
@magnusjsolberg When Craig repeatedly says he has a knockdown argument, it's not a "little fire." It was perhaps the most important argument Craig put forward in the whole debate. Even if Craig misrepresented Harris's position, which he didn't, Harris should have addressed that and shown HOW. I'd recommend reading the review of this debate on the atheist blog commonsenseatheism. At least that atheist is intelligent and unbiased enough to see how poorly Harris debated.
@Jugglable I've read the review several times, and I believe Luke is wrong about a lot of what he writes. Luke bought into Craig's reframing of the debate in his opening speech.
@Jugglable Evil people may be able to be happy, but if they're fueling their happiness by doing bad things to other people, this is not conducive to human well-being.
Good = Conducive to human and animal well-being.
Psychopaths are not conducive to human and animal well-being, even though they themselves may be happy (which they usually are not).
Other people matter, and that's what Craig's knockdown argument omits. This should not be hard to understand.
@magnusjsolberg However, if we can concieve of a world in which doing evil (let's say rape) would be conducive to human well-being, then that which we in our actual world call evil, would in this possible world, in fact, be good. Either way, Craig's argument fails.
@magnusjsolberg Harris says that human well-being is IDENTICAL with human well-being. But if an EVIL person can be HAPPY, it is more complex than saying they are IDENTICAL, which is how he states his case.
@Jugglable If you've read Harris' book, you'd know that he's never defined human well-being as only the well-being of the individual. He's also never used the phrase "they're identical". Craig's argument is a blatant misrepresentation of Harris' work.
@magnusjsolberg Fair enough. I should not have just relied on Craig's summary. But I'm sorry, Harris didn't even bother to address it and if it's so easy he should have instead of trying to disprove Christianity -- an endeavor which, if successful, still would not have shown that atheism can provide a foundation for morality.
@Jugglable Jesus fuck! My patience is running thin. Harris stayed on-topic. His opening speech explained a basis for objective morality that's not based on anything supernatural.
@magnusjsolberg Yes. He made a case. But criticizing Christian theology didn't strengthen it and was irrelevant. The debate was about God, not even the Christian god.
@Jugglable LOL. Dude, keep up. Yes, the debate was about God. Not Plantinga's god, which Craig wanted to limit the debate to. In a country where something like 85% of the population identify as christians, it does seem relevant to adress the christian God when the debate topic *does not* define God as simply some omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being that's spaceless, timeless and issues commands, which is what Craig would have liked.
@magnusjsolberg "it does seem relevant to adress the christian God"
Well then, they should have defined the terms of the debate differently. Had they defined it in terms of the Christian God, as you say would have been relevant, Harris's criticisms of Christian theology may have been on point.
The debate topic does not exclude Yahweh, and since we all know Craig is a christian, as well as most of the people in the audience, if the debate is not to be merely an intellectual exercise, the christian God should be adressed. We're talking about morality in this world where real suffering is a huge issue. All Craig generally does is muddy the waters while defending genocide. Harris is talking about the real world in which we find ourselves.
@magnusjsolberg To state the topic of the debate as it was defined is not quote mining. It's called sticking to the topic of the debate. The debate topic does not exclude Yahweh, as you say -- Yahweh could be the foundation of morality -- but Craig, who is a Christian, as you say, was not defending that position.
"if the debate is not to be merely an intellectual exercise"
@Jugglable You're quote mining again. Not content with picking sentences out of context, you're going one step further and picking out *parts* of sentences.I think the point of the debate disappears if we don't at least try to make it relevant to the real world. That's what Sam is doing. He's also on-topic, since, as I've stated before, the debate topic does not exclude Yahweh. Craig, by stating what he's willing to defend, can not dictate what is on or off topic. The debate topic dictates that.
@magnusjsolberg If he shows Yahweh is not the basis, another deity could be, or nihilism could be true. So even if he'd succeeded, he wouldn't have weakened what Craig was defending that night -- it's ironic that Harris talked about Yahweh more than Craig -- or strengthened what he had agreed to defend. "Good does not come from Yahweh" doesn't entail, or suggest, "Therefore, a transcendent being is not the foundation of morality." Utterly LOGICALLY irrelevant to the debate terms as defined.
@Jugglable It seems we will not see eye to eye on this. I will simply end by saying that *of course* Craig avoids talking about Yahweh, because he knows he would have lost the debate in the blink of an eye if he did.
This is from Harris' blog:
"I simply argued for a scientific conception of moral truth and against one based on the biblical God. This was, after all, the argument that the organizer’s at Notre Dame had invited me to make"
@Jugglable Also, you seem not to understand that "God" can mean anything. To a lot of people, "God" just means love. If Harris did not narrow it down, he would be arguing against every notion of God on the planet, natural and supernatural.
The definition of "God" Craig utililized in the debate isn't any more "on topic" than Harris' definition. Craig went with Plantinga's God, which is no less arbitrary since a lot of religious people do not believe in such a God either.
@Jugglable Harris wrote in a blog post that Craig usurped him by defining the terms of the debate in his opening speech, of which weren't the terms Harris had originally agreed to or planned on discussing. So yes, it did appear Harris wasn't on message according to Craig's terms.
@estevancarlos So what precisely was Harris arguing for, anyway? Even if all he said about Christian theology is true, it doesn't in any way follow that morality can be scientifically determined.
@Jugglable The debate topic was "Is Good From God", and that's why Sam's points about the moral shortcomings of christian doctrine were very important.
@magnusjsolberg Even if Harris had falsified Christianity, it doesn't show that we can have morality without God or weaken Craig's position that a perfect moral authority is needed to discuss morality coherently. Even if Christianity were false Craig's position in this particular debate could still be true.
@Jugglable he was talking about the shortcomings of christian morals... and the shortcomings of the christian god's morals... and all the bad that has come from these fairy tales.... also .... ne1 ever see magic... didnt think so
@gangstanton69 Yes, and even if he showed that Christian morals are completely lacking, it didn't strengthen the position he was SUPPOSED to be arguing, or weaken the position that Craig actually was arguing.
@Jugglable Sam's points were not off topic. The topic of the debate was "Is Good From God?". Not "Plantinga's God", and not "some deistic god". Just because Craig *claims* that something is off topic, doesn't mean it is. Of course bringing up the christian doctrine of hell weakens Craig's position.
@magnusjsolberg I think Harris' tactic was great. It's easier to show that Craig's god most likely cannot be the source of morality (you suck, Yahweh!) than it is to show that a "bare bones" god most likely cannot (although that can be done, too). And since it's pretty clear that Craig isn't really interested in defending a god that's not the Christian one, why should Harris bother taking on the latter, more difficult task?
@LunchAnderson But let's say that Harris did indeed bother with this more difficult task, and that he failed. Then some people in the audience would probably have seen this failure as a reason to believe not only that a "bare bones" god can indeed be the source of morality, but also that Craig's god can -- the latter which would still be a wholly unwarranted conclusion.
@magnusjsolberg The topic was about whether good is from God. Even if Harris disproves Christianity, God still may be needed to discuss morality coherently, and atheism may indeed entail nihilism. So criticizing Christianity was ridiculous.
@Jugglable In his opening remarks, Sam tried to show that we do not need a god in order to have objective morality. In his first rebuttal, he showed how we certainly do not get morality from the christian god. The two speeches combined make a pretty good case for Sam's case, and they were both on-topic.
@magnusjsolberg "In his first rebuttal, he showed how we certainly do not get morality from the christian god."
The debate was about whether good is from God. Even if it's not the Christian god, good could still be from God. Craig was defending the notion of good being grounded in a transcendent moral authority. He wasn't defending Yahweh, though he has in OTHER debates.
This was great. A nice ending to the videos of the debate. The image of Harris engaged with a line of eagerly appreciative fans, while WLC sits alone at an awkward angle, smilingly his brittle salesman's smile, is priceless. Thanks for sharing :)
Sam 's reasoning and intellect are perfect and well thought out. I have no words for how lucky we are to have him articulating THE TRUTH for those of us "who don't have the words".
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha: LOOK ON WILLIAM LAME CRAIG...hahahaha what a loser...!!!
thanks for the upload guys.
chinamanspeakenlis 3 months ago
Thanks for the video. This summarizes the debate very well :)
peace.
acepanson 8 months ago
Dr. Craig frowned and thought, "No cute girls ever brought me a beer."
JQisAwesome 10 months ago
I like Heather's glasses. She is a cutie!
zakiechan 10 months ago
You should title this video "Sam Harris and 2 arrogant bastards".
nemirn 10 months ago
@nemirn Brilliant!
ItAintNecessarilySo 10 months ago
Comment removed
Alexdurrant7 10 months ago
wow, I feel sorry for him. Actually, after I hear WLC talk, I realize that he looks and sounds good talking but I never find his arguments convincing
aether9000 10 months ago
HAHAHA nobody wanted to talk to william LAME craig.
Poor craigy
sylviabombs15 10 months ago
Thanks for this video
MauricXe 10 months ago
I believe in always asking why, as well. And I believe in God. It is my refusal to stop asking why that leads me to believe in ultimate causality and a necessarily existing ground of contingency.
I've seen Craig lose a debate before. But it's lost on me how anybody thinks Craig lost this one. Harris got so far off topic, talking about the shortcomings of Christian theology, when that didn't weaken Craig's position or strengthen his own.
Jugglable 10 months ago
@Jugglable
That's fair. I'll give you that.
I don't think either of these guys engaged the other's points.
TheMcColley 10 months ago
@TheMcColley Thanks. I know Craig claimed a knockdown argument against Harris's position, but I need to give it a closer look. But in any case, it was bad that Harris didn't even really address that. When your opponent stands right up and says "I have utterly refuted with your position with this argument," you have gotta say A WORD OR TWO about it. I was eating dinner while I watched the debate, though. Maybe I missed it.
Jugglable 10 months ago
@Jugglable LOL. "Knockdown argument". Craig misrepresented Harris' argument and then proceeded to tear down the strawman he'd put up. That's no knockdown.
magnusjsolberg 9 months ago
@magnusjsolberg Well, seeing as Craig repeatedly claimed he had a knockdown argument, it was a pretty glaring omission on Harris's part that he didn't even respond. He went on and on about the flaws of Christian theology, trying to make points that had nothing to do with the debate.
By the way, Craig did not misrepresent Harris. Harris did say that evil people could occupy the peaks of the moral landscape in a certain circumstance.
Jugglable 9 months ago
@Jugglable Harris said after the debate he didn't bother putting out all the little fires that Craig started, but instead focused on making his points.
Craig's knockdown argument was indeed one of those small fires. A very small one. Craig misrepresented Harris' argument, like I wrote in my previous post, and you really should be able to see that. If not, I guess I'll be forced to explain it to you. I would, however, like you to think it through for yourself first.
magnusjsolberg 9 months ago
@magnusjsolberg When Craig repeatedly says he has a knockdown argument, it's not a "little fire." It was perhaps the most important argument Craig put forward in the whole debate. Even if Craig misrepresented Harris's position, which he didn't, Harris should have addressed that and shown HOW. I'd recommend reading the review of this debate on the atheist blog commonsenseatheism. At least that atheist is intelligent and unbiased enough to see how poorly Harris debated.
Jugglable 9 months ago
@Jugglable I've read the review several times, and I believe Luke is wrong about a lot of what he writes. Luke bought into Craig's reframing of the debate in his opening speech.
magnusjsolberg 9 months ago
@Jugglable Evil people may be able to be happy, but if they're fueling their happiness by doing bad things to other people, this is not conducive to human well-being.
Good = Conducive to human and animal well-being.
Psychopaths are not conducive to human and animal well-being, even though they themselves may be happy (which they usually are not).
Other people matter, and that's what Craig's knockdown argument omits. This should not be hard to understand.
magnusjsolberg 9 months ago
@magnusjsolberg However, if we can concieve of a world in which doing evil (let's say rape) would be conducive to human well-being, then that which we in our actual world call evil, would in this possible world, in fact, be good. Either way, Craig's argument fails.
magnusjsolberg 9 months ago
@magnusjsolberg Harris says that human well-being is IDENTICAL with human well-being. But if an EVIL person can be HAPPY, it is more complex than saying they are IDENTICAL, which is how he states his case.
Jugglable 9 months ago
@Jugglable If you've read Harris' book, you'd know that he's never defined human well-being as only the well-being of the individual. He's also never used the phrase "they're identical". Craig's argument is a blatant misrepresentation of Harris' work.
magnusjsolberg 9 months ago
@magnusjsolberg Fair enough. I should not have just relied on Craig's summary. But I'm sorry, Harris didn't even bother to address it and if it's so easy he should have instead of trying to disprove Christianity -- an endeavor which, if successful, still would not have shown that atheism can provide a foundation for morality.
Jugglable 9 months ago
@Jugglable Jesus fuck! My patience is running thin. Harris stayed on-topic. His opening speech explained a basis for objective morality that's not based on anything supernatural.
magnusjsolberg 9 months ago
@magnusjsolberg Yes. He made a case. But criticizing Christian theology didn't strengthen it and was irrelevant. The debate was about God, not even the Christian god.
Jugglable 9 months ago
@Jugglable LOL. Dude, keep up. Yes, the debate was about God. Not Plantinga's god, which Craig wanted to limit the debate to. In a country where something like 85% of the population identify as christians, it does seem relevant to adress the christian God when the debate topic *does not* define God as simply some omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being that's spaceless, timeless and issues commands, which is what Craig would have liked.
magnusjsolberg 9 months ago
@magnusjsolberg "it does seem relevant to adress the christian God"
Well then, they should have defined the terms of the debate differently. Had they defined it in terms of the Christian God, as you say would have been relevant, Harris's criticisms of Christian theology may have been on point.
Jugglable 9 months ago
@Jugglable Stop quote mining. That's not cool.
The debate topic does not exclude Yahweh, and since we all know Craig is a christian, as well as most of the people in the audience, if the debate is not to be merely an intellectual exercise, the christian God should be adressed. We're talking about morality in this world where real suffering is a huge issue. All Craig generally does is muddy the waters while defending genocide. Harris is talking about the real world in which we find ourselves.
magnusjsolberg 9 months ago
@magnusjsolberg To state the topic of the debate as it was defined is not quote mining. It's called sticking to the topic of the debate. The debate topic does not exclude Yahweh, as you say -- Yahweh could be the foundation of morality -- but Craig, who is a Christian, as you say, was not defending that position.
"if the debate is not to be merely an intellectual exercise"
The debate *is* an intellectual exercise.
"We're talking about morality in this world"
Granted. What other world?
Jugglable 9 months ago
@Jugglable You're quote mining again. Not content with picking sentences out of context, you're going one step further and picking out *parts* of sentences.I think the point of the debate disappears if we don't at least try to make it relevant to the real world. That's what Sam is doing. He's also on-topic, since, as I've stated before, the debate topic does not exclude Yahweh. Craig, by stating what he's willing to defend, can not dictate what is on or off topic. The debate topic dictates that.
magnusjsolberg 9 months ago
@magnusjsolberg If he shows Yahweh is not the basis, another deity could be, or nihilism could be true. So even if he'd succeeded, he wouldn't have weakened what Craig was defending that night -- it's ironic that Harris talked about Yahweh more than Craig -- or strengthened what he had agreed to defend. "Good does not come from Yahweh" doesn't entail, or suggest, "Therefore, a transcendent being is not the foundation of morality." Utterly LOGICALLY irrelevant to the debate terms as defined.
Jugglable 9 months ago
@Jugglable It seems we will not see eye to eye on this. I will simply end by saying that *of course* Craig avoids talking about Yahweh, because he knows he would have lost the debate in the blink of an eye if he did.
This is from Harris' blog:
"I simply argued for a scientific conception of moral truth and against one based on the biblical God. This was, after all, the argument that the organizer’s at Notre Dame had invited me to make"
magnusjsolberg 9 months ago
@Jugglable Also, you seem not to understand that "God" can mean anything. To a lot of people, "God" just means love. If Harris did not narrow it down, he would be arguing against every notion of God on the planet, natural and supernatural.
The definition of "God" Craig utililized in the debate isn't any more "on topic" than Harris' definition. Craig went with Plantinga's God, which is no less arbitrary since a lot of religious people do not believe in such a God either.
magnusjsolberg 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I don't think either of these guys engaged the other's points." -TheMcColley
Were you not paying much attention to the proceedings, or are you just not intelligent enough to comprehend and follow the discourse?
Try rewatching Craig and Harris' first rebuttals.
Craigmin 10 months ago
@Jugglable Harris wrote in a blog post that Craig usurped him by defining the terms of the debate in his opening speech, of which weren't the terms Harris had originally agreed to or planned on discussing. So yes, it did appear Harris wasn't on message according to Craig's terms.
estevancarlos 10 months ago
@estevancarlos So what precisely was Harris arguing for, anyway? Even if all he said about Christian theology is true, it doesn't in any way follow that morality can be scientifically determined.
Jugglable 10 months ago
@Jugglable He was arguing that it's possible that science can inform morality.
estevancarlos 10 months ago
@estevancarlos Yeah. Well, if he was arguing that, speaking about the flaws of Christian theology don't help to support that, either.
Jugglable 10 months ago
@Jugglable The debate topic was "Is Good From God", and that's why Sam's points about the moral shortcomings of christian doctrine were very important.
magnusjsolberg 9 months ago
@magnusjsolberg Even if Harris had falsified Christianity, it doesn't show that we can have morality without God or weaken Craig's position that a perfect moral authority is needed to discuss morality coherently. Even if Christianity were false Craig's position in this particular debate could still be true.
Jugglable 9 months ago
@Jugglable he was talking about the shortcomings of christian morals... and the shortcomings of the christian god's morals... and all the bad that has come from these fairy tales.... also .... ne1 ever see magic... didnt think so
gangstanton69 10 months ago
@gangstanton69 Yes, and even if he showed that Christian morals are completely lacking, it didn't strengthen the position he was SUPPOSED to be arguing, or weaken the position that Craig actually was arguing.
Jugglable 10 months ago
@Jugglable i hear ya and i dont wana start some youtube arguement... but imo he weakened craigs arguement
gangstanton69 9 months ago
@Jugglable Sam's points were not off topic. The topic of the debate was "Is Good From God?". Not "Plantinga's God", and not "some deistic god". Just because Craig *claims* that something is off topic, doesn't mean it is. Of course bringing up the christian doctrine of hell weakens Craig's position.
magnusjsolberg 9 months ago
@magnusjsolberg I think Harris' tactic was great. It's easier to show that Craig's god most likely cannot be the source of morality (you suck, Yahweh!) than it is to show that a "bare bones" god most likely cannot (although that can be done, too). And since it's pretty clear that Craig isn't really interested in defending a god that's not the Christian one, why should Harris bother taking on the latter, more difficult task?
LunchAnderson 9 months ago
@LunchAnderson But let's say that Harris did indeed bother with this more difficult task, and that he failed. Then some people in the audience would probably have seen this failure as a reason to believe not only that a "bare bones" god can indeed be the source of morality, but also that Craig's god can -- the latter which would still be a wholly unwarranted conclusion.
LunchAnderson 9 months ago
@magnusjsolberg The topic was about whether good is from God. Even if Harris disproves Christianity, God still may be needed to discuss morality coherently, and atheism may indeed entail nihilism. So criticizing Christianity was ridiculous.
Jugglable 9 months ago
@Jugglable In his opening remarks, Sam tried to show that we do not need a god in order to have objective morality. In his first rebuttal, he showed how we certainly do not get morality from the christian god. The two speeches combined make a pretty good case for Sam's case, and they were both on-topic.
magnusjsolberg 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@magnusjsolberg "In his first rebuttal, he showed how we certainly do not get morality from the christian god."
The debate was about whether good is from God. Even if it's not the Christian god, good could still be from God. Craig was defending the notion of good being grounded in a transcendent moral authority. He wasn't defending Yahweh, though he has in OTHER debates.
Jugglable 9 months ago
Priceless.
brunodemoura 10 months ago
This was great. A nice ending to the videos of the debate. The image of Harris engaged with a line of eagerly appreciative fans, while WLC sits alone at an awkward angle, smilingly his brittle salesman's smile, is priceless. Thanks for sharing :)
jakkbomb 10 months ago
i was soo impressed with Sam's performance in this debate. He seems to honestly care about the well being of humanity.
japonizieify 10 months ago
Sam 's reasoning and intellect are perfect and well thought out. I have no words for how lucky we are to have him articulating THE TRUTH for those of us "who don't have the words".
AnnaMishel 10 months ago 2
Comment removed
AnnaMishel 10 months ago