In a secular view, morality serves a purpose. The reason we regulate ourselves during our interactions with one another is to be able to coexist and cooperate and we all benefit from this cooperation. What behavior will help us achieve this goal can be objectively discussed based on what we know about the universe and human nature
In theism, what purpose does morality serve? What is the goal? If it is to please a God, the behavior we need to adapt is to pay attention to what he likes, of course
It seems that Dr. Harris, rather than arguing for the existence of a universal basis for objective morality, is merely exercises his own moral judgement in deeming certain acts right or wrong. The question of the debate, however, already assumes that there are objective moral values! His task was to prove that Dr. Craig's argument that objective moral values and duties are best explained by the existence of God is wrong, then establish a scientific basis for objective morality.
The problem here is that Dr. Harris is not adequately treating the subject of the debate. Dr. Craig immediately presents his clear, sound arguments and Dr. Harris does not refute them and offers no logical justification of his contention that objective morality has naturalistic explanation. I agree with Dr. Craig that without an objective metaphysical reality, which naturalists such as Dr. Harris deny, there are no grounds for moral values and duties.
I can totally FEEL the open-mindedness and balance oozing from the screen as I read all the nice,non-militant, and fully educated commentary from all the posters here.
Theism= the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).
Revelation= God's disclosure of Himself and His will to His creatures.
here is a test for the religous person. study your holy book and TRUTHFULLY answer this question. is there anything you reject within scripture? if you answer yes then you are not a true believer.
Knowing God transcends human understanding. This is the reason this debate is thousands of years old. I was an agnostic for many, many years of my adult life until I came to this truth.
Craig is as intellectually dishonest as a snake-oil salesman. He wouldn't know what a moral value (either objective or subjective) was if it jumped up and bit him in the bum.
At least a snake-oil salesman knows he is being dishonest. Does Dr Craig? I honestly don't know.
You listen to Harris speak and and you feel like you are actually learning something. You feel yourself actually gaining incite into a complex area, that being the development of what we have labeled moral behaviour and it's implications. When Craig speaks you just feel like he is trying to sell you some crappy insurance that he insists you need. I am moral without your god Mr Craig and so are all my friends.
@boliussa Well thank you for that wonderful incite into an area that deserves more rebuttal than the ineffectual ramblings of a pre-pubescent boy. "You've lost the plot."??? Where do I begin? you have given me so much to work with.
@ptango101 Don't try to downplay it by calling it a "typo". You obviously did not know how to properly spell a fairly common English word, and you clearly did not know the difference between "it's" and "its", otherwise you wouldn't have gone through the extra trouble of putting in an apostrophe. Don't take it so personally, I merely pointed out the fact that if you want to be taken seriously in a "grown up talk" as you call it, you should first learn how to write properly.
@ptango101 I know I've triumphed in a discussion when the person on the other end resorts to ad hominem. You can now walk away from this conversation having learned a thing or two about proper spelling and grammar! It always feels good to enlighten the uneducated.
@martinbuzora Do you know what spanner head? For your insults to work I have to actually care about your opinion. Given the fact that I do not care whether you live or die makes you and your opinion worthless. Please exit through the door marked "fuck off wanker" now while you still have a shred of dignity left.
@ptango101 lol... you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper aren't you? Despite what you say, I have yet to insult you - but you just keep racking up your insults towards me. If you had the facts on your side, obviously you wouldn't feel the need to channel your frustration in such a basic way. By the way... I see you've made progress with the quality of your spelling - GOOD JOB! There is hope for you yet.
@ptango101 Ever heard a theoretical physicist give a discussion on astrophysics and TOTALLY know what he/she was talking about?
Yeah, me neither. Craig is a highly educated, articulate, well-spoken PhD who has written numerous books on theology and philosophy as well as hundreds of scholarly articles on topics you've never even heard of.
@mbelma6329 Sorry no. I will not. Craig is just another apologist that is pissing on my leg and telling me it is raining. Respect is earned not just given. His debating techniques are subtle in their dishonesty but they are dishonest. The smartest person on that stage was Sam Harris. Craig's level of education and articulation mean squat to me. Instead of just nodding your head to everything he says use your brain.
William Lane Craig's real idea is that since the Bible says it, it must be true. However, he won't openly admit that in such a way, because that would make him sound like an irrational idiot. However, that's exactly what he's always implying.
Even if God exists, either what is determined as moral is determined because he deems it moral; thus making morality arbitrary and whimsical, or morality is an objective concept outside of God, and God merely uses his power to reward those who abide by it; thus eliminating the need for God in explaining morals.
Atheist are accountable to christian morals. There is no agreement between them and there is no accountability. They do come up with alternative gods, to disprove that there would be absolute morality, but they do not believe in them. It is only GOD that they need to refute.
In Sam Harris's redefinition of moral goodness it is synonymous with posterity and the flourishing of life, therefore if i were to excavate Dr Harris's son's grave(provided he has one) and have sex with his son's body this would not be an immoral action based on his own redefinition of the word, because his son is already dead. I wouldn't be doing anything to detract from the flourishing of life. Somehow I can't see Dr Harris conceding his impartiality to such an act.
@scar504 The flourishing of the human species depends on maximizing the well being of the living. It would affect our well being to think that the corpses of our loved ones are at risk of being raped. Furthermore, Sams moral landscape provides a better reason not to rape corpses than any religious book, as it wouldn't be considered immoral to rape a corpse unless you're religious book says so. And if the book condones it than it would considered moral, regardless of how the living feel about it
@DDeCouto There is nothing in the act of necrophilia that would prevent the flourishing of other humans, therefore not only does Sam's redefinition not provide a better reason not to do it. It provides no reason not to do it.
@scar504 I'll try to explain once more since you're a little slow. While an isloated case of necrophilia that nobody knew about wouldn't affect a living person. Necrophilia being considered acceptable in society would have negative implications on the well being of people.
@scar504 As for an isolated case of necrophilia in a scoiety that considers necrophilia unacceptable, you'd just be doing an immoral act without anyones knowledge.
@scar504 Are you serious? You do realize that simply washing of the hands in running water, when moving from the morgue to deliver a baby, increased the mothers chance of survival by 20% in three months right? You can't say, "there is no reason not to do it". Get back to me if you need more common sense reasons.
sam harris should be bestowed with every medal going because to debate in a calm manner with an obvious lunatic like craig really takes a special sort of person.
I'm uncertain if if morality is objective -- other than it has clearly separated us from animals. I wonder though, if anything is "objectively" beautiful, or if there is music that could be objective? I wonder how William Lane Craig explains how what was once condoned by religions, is now abhorred. Pedophilia being a prime example of this. Women's Rights. Slavery. I believe it changes with society.
@SocialDissimulation Pedophilia, slavery, women's rights, were always condemned and immoral, but people and culture lacked the capacity and wisdom to know that such acts were indeed immoral. It was not until recently where people have finally understood morality as to what it truly is. Morality never changed, people changed and grew in knowledge. But such a thing as murder is condemned universally.
@Majorsafety Then how do you explain what the Israelites did to the Amalekites? When they slammed babies against rocks in front of their parents, raped women in front of their husbands? Surely, this cannot be the morality that we have always known? If so, why did it happen so often?
@SocialDissimulation I'm sure, if there is a true, omnibenevolent God, this being would not condone slamming babies against rocks. The pursuit here is for an objective morality, much less a set of laws inspired by any religion. William Lane Craig does not present his case in a manner that says religion should govern society, he is only saying that there is a metaphysically present "good" and "bad" known to ourselves inherently. And he claims that it must have a source in order to be objective.
@thelegend759 This is what the LORD of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt.
3 1 Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.'" - So there goes that argument. The pursuit is his God is evil, therefore it cannot come from that source, therefore it is an unnamed source and a dead argument.
Sam Harris is brilliant. The other guy is a joke and a bad one at that. What a shocking surprise that mumbo-jumbo is not a good answer to anything, including morality.
Harris - "A load of common sense statements delivered from a fresh perspective in order to offer insight."
Craig - "So you see, with the help of a maze of philosophical caveats and dead-ends I can take even the most solid of logical principles and contort them beyond recognition. And that is why I win."
Craig ALWAYS says that: "You'll recall that in my 1st speech I said I would defend 2 basic contentions.. ...My opponents haven't addressed my contentions...etc." a stale old tactic from a man who ALWAYS INSISTS on speaking first in a debate, so as to make it seem necessary for his opponent to even deal w/ his excruciatingly ridiculous "points of contention". (let's call them what they are: "stinking red herrings" w/o any teeth because they always require the acceptance of a false premise.FRAUD!
@mouthyweasel Yeah, it is really getting a bit tiresome seeing Craig do this in every debate. He erects a field of strawmen and then dares his opponent to get mired down in dismantling his vapid assertions AND somehow deliver their own arguments within the narrow timeframe allotted them. Every single time he does it, same old schtick, and I feel that ultimately he's more interested in "winning" a debate than in actually advancing the conversation in any sense.
If you really believe that, Mr Weasel, then the thing to do is not be a weasel but tell Craig in the debate, that you contend with what he said, and say that he stated a false premise. Do that and don't run away like a Weasel. I like Sam Harris generally, but here he weaselled out like you Mr Weasel!
@boliussa Why. why. why are people so scared of admitting that we just don't know. If Dr. Craig actually knew something he'd be lauded in all scientific journals, but he doesn't. He just runs his little specious shtick, and accomplishes nothing. We're left exactly where we were. Not knowing ANYTHING about how we got here. And why should that be so frightening for people to admit. We certainly don't have good enough reason to organize our lives around those bronze age scribblings.
Yeah you're right of course Professor Craig doesn't know anything!!! And he's frightened to admit to everybody that he doesn't know anything. Congratulations Weasel man.. You've really got to the bottom of it! By the way, the now dead MR Hitchens didn't oh forget it dude!
First I agree with what you stated, but Craig takes this one step further.
When a person admits they don't know something, they're still left with room to explore and find the actual answer for themselves. What Craig does is to say 'god is the only answer' for everything. In answering everything with 'god did it,' Craig replaces ignorance with some phony explanation that answers absolutely nothing. People cannot learn if they're unwilling to accept that they're ignorant.
@mattetho Not quite. The well-being of rapists is not increased just because they may enjoy raping. Well-being is not necessarily the same as pleasure. Craig made the charge that Harris believed this, but Harris pointd out that Craig was mis-reading him. Perhaps you should read Harris' book to get a better idea. Check out Sola Ratione's break-down of Craig's "knock-down" argument for a more in depth rebuttal.
@mattetho Can you please explain which part of his argument was weak? I get that you weren't impressed, and that other people might not be -- but what about it is exactly wrong? And what do you define his argument as?
Harris is making points that are so far removed from a religious mind set that I clearly see why allot of people think he is "not thinking". The pervasive religious indoctrination world wide make some people unable to hear beyond thier presuppositions. Listen to it a few times and it comes through the barriers that have been pounded into your head.
@mattetho In 100AD Jesus had only been dead for several decades, and christianity had a larger religion to compete with. There are more muslims and hindus today than there was 1000 years ago too. In developed nations religion is at an all time low (look at Europe, America, and some of Asia). The simple fact of the matter is that christianity has been proven incorrect on many points and educated people are less likely to believe in something that isn't supported by facts.
@mattetho Illiteracy in Africa and most of Asia are stunningly high, it's simply a fact. At one point in history my ancestors (germans) were a pack of savages who ran around in loincloths and pelts and were considered savages by more developed societies. In say the UK or Japan someone would be an object of mockery if they claimed to belief that they were possessed or cursed, and yet in african society it's actually a crime in some places to "curse" people.
@StopFear All things concerning society are vague, and change rapidly. You'll see that heaven and hell often change with the society they affix themselves to. This is the same for morality. Until recently, it was perfectly acceptable to have sexual relations with a 13 year old girl. Not only acceptable, almost encouraged by the religious. It also changed because of the religious, but this is just one example at how societies shape things. And Craig got absolutely owned in this debate.
Actually in some parts of the world it's still seen as acceptable for older men to screw teenage girls, and even more societies see it as acceptable to marry them off to people without so much as asking their consent.
@SocialDissimulation I think you misunderstand me, i was reinforcing your point by illustrating that problems we view as belonging only to the past still exist. I fully agree with everything you said.
@JACKtheRIPP3R189 Oh, I apologize. The until recently part was referring to secular nations pretty much instituting these laws, and yes, you (we) are absolutely right in the fact that this -still- is prevalent in non-secular nations.
As Hitchens says, "If that's the best you can do, that's the best you can do." He is taken serious simply because that's the best believers can do. Craig is an unsophisticated, intellectually dishonest, hardly a high school debater. He is given no credit in any academic environment.
@mattetho "atheism is dying and Christianty is growing all over the world" Sorry again, but the world in all developed countries is becoming secular. The only thing that is growing is Islam, given their high birth rates.
@mattetho "STUPID redneck" Sorry, but I´m not a redneck. As far as I know, most rednecks are christians. I live in the third world and I know what poverty is, and I know how powerful it is to move people towards religion. Once you get better education and higher standards of living, religion just fade away.
@mattetho "Asia and Africa in particular are experiencing massive growth in christianity" Yeap. Where hunger, despair and illiteracy prevails, superstition moves forward. You forgot that, except in the christian fundamentalist USA portion of the world, religion is fading in all developed countries.
"there are more christian academics then ever before" And there are more atheists philosophers than before, so, where´s your revolution?
@mattetho "all philosophy dictionaries and encyclopedias" I already quoted sources that contradicts your assertion. This proves that when you say that your definition of atheism is the only one accepted, you are the one making mistakes, not me.
"utterly and completely destroyed" Most philosophers nowadays are atheists. Naturalists/materialists mostly. Not one will agree with your restrictive definition of the word or with your assertion that "atheism is dead". Fail again.
@mattetho Would love to hear your evidence for God and would like to know which parts of Harris' argument you consider to be "fluff". Your reply is eagerly awaited.
@mattetho Would love to hear your evidence for God and would like to know which parts of Harris' argument you consider to be "fluff". Your reply is eagerly awaited.
@mattetho "redefinition of the word atheism" You are redefining the word to reduce it to just positive atheism. I already quoted sources. Pretty standard stuff. You quoted none. Keep trolling.
"goldfish and cat are atheists" Precisely.
"one step closer to theism" And you are one step closer to believe in Santa Claus.
"view that there is no God" I don´t believe that there´s a god, but can´t prove it. You can´t prove that there´s a god. Under your definition, you are an agnostic.
Science just cannot derive and 'ought' from 'is' no matter how Harris looks at it. Craig made so many clear points that Harris did not rebut - AT ALL. And the interesting thing is I see the Atheist cheerleaders saying riduclous statements such as. "I thought Craig had this debate in the bag. Then Harris started talking." Foolish!
@lfzadra bull card as though one of us has an up on the other by it. I dont' argue about evolution or the big bang (for the most part) I will argue about certain ideas we get from what we do know that are not founded. I'm not calling them unintelligible, but I will say they are unscientific and not founded on absolutes or measurements. Those things which I have issues with and I've yet to have anyone intelligibly answer my questions, somehow hurling insults about how dumb i am not to
@lfzadra man I just put them down! of course I try not to hurl insults in general but that one has never crossed my mind. What working definition of atheist do you tend to go by? Are you an atheist? I missed earlier parts of the conversation here obviously. What historical an scientific data negates these Biblical accounts? I actually love science and history; however, this is where our personal lens comes in if we are honest with our selves and dont' try and play the empirical
meaning MORE LIKELY than not (counter to what you said) you believe in the need for forgiveness of sin etc.
Now, I'm curious though, honestly, i've never had someone say atheist is an insult. I know people who don't like atheists but I've never heard it in itself deemed insulting. I know many who proudly boast that title. I tend to have more respect for diests and agnostic because I feel there is more honesty in that title but I've never hurled out the term "you atheist" and thought
any validity to the adam and eve account then I would say I have no problem with the use of the word fundie, because those are in fact fundamentals of the faith which in themselves negate your statistical assertion that Most christians don't believe in this knocking out original sin. Your argument in this case would be correct that Christ did nothing, but since your remarks are towards christians your numbers would be off because to be a Christian means you've acknowledged a need for Christ
@lfzadra I guess you are answering my definition question while quoting my statistics question? 1)there are plenty of christians out there are are not a part of the "christian right" which is a typical fuel for the negative use of the word "fundie". And, there are a lot more "christians" who are not a part of the christian right than are. That is why I wanted to clarify which you are talking about. But , since you are standing by the thought that to be a fundie is to believe there is
@mattetho "both spell and comprehend what the term Hypocrite means."
Thank you. I do enjoy constructive criticism. Although I don't believe I used the word incorrectly.
Regardless of the philosophical definition of the term, the word 'atheism' is most commonly used to describe someone without a belief in a God. That is the position most 'atheists' hold and that the position that should be addressed.
@mattetho The Wikipedia article quotes sources, including Encyclopædia Britannica, that are more credible than you or even Craig, a known misquoting maniac. The funny thing about this word - atheism - a broad term with several meanings, is that only theists philosophers like Craig insist that the word has only one meaning. The reason is obvious. When you know that you can´t sustain your position, appeal to semantics to impress your opponents. Useless, of course.
Sam Harris has done a GREAT JOB with his first speech in this debate. Really excellent stuff. If WLC had a friggin' SOUL he would wither in shame and leave the stage.
They would say what other God in history got down out of the heavens (real or imagined) when he didn’t have to for his own wellbeing, and was willing to place himself in a position to feel physical pain and emotional the way all humanity has for those he created, even if they hated the idea or hated Him at the time.
@lfzardra We are no less eternal than He is according to the bible, but that does not negate the reality of the physical during our time here on earth does it? We still feel joy, pain, suffering and die physically at the end of it all. So to the person who believes this the idea that he did nothing(based on his eternal existence) would be faulty.
1) “Jesus can´t die, he is God himself. An since he can´t die, what exactly the highlander of the heavens did for us and for what?”
a. IF God came to earth in flesh AND you believed this (based upon the bible) THEN it would stand to reason you are eternal as well, though having a finite beginning. So, the argument you pose is irrelevant at the onset.
@mellybellyjf "it would stand to reason you are eternal as well" Granted. Now please explain which sacrifice Jesus did. If you are eternal, this life is meaningless, so you can dischard it, no big deal.
"to place himself in a position to feel physical pain" If he want to forgive us, all he need to do is to forgive. All his pain was unncessary.
@lfzardra How come you hardly hear this term used at scientists who cling to the fundamental principles that govern the physical universe when interpreting the data they take in? They are fundies, as well they should be…Objectively speaking it is what it is. However, if we disagree with those fundamentals then our interpretation of what this means bleeds through in our attitude during discussion.
@lfzardra people that I would not classify as "fundies" who believe there is historical relevance to the genesis account- specifically within the original sin account . Without that fundamental belief you could hardly call yourself a “Christian” because you would have no need for Christ. 2) Also, I would like to know your definition of “fundie” because if you simply mean to cling fundamentals of something, in all honestly it is not inherently bad to be a “fundie”.
@lfzadra Not debating the validity of the scriptures with you since you obviously don't believe. This is not what I'm bringing to the table. Just for conversations sake though, I'll discuss it as is from a biblical perspective- which is what must be done for perspective sake with the arguments you presented: 1) I'd like to know where you get your statistics when you state “all Christians, except the fundies, accept this” There are many! *I don't know the exact statistics*
@mellybellyjf "where you get your statistics when you state “all Christians" I don´t need any statistics. Logic and reasoning alone is enough. If you believe that Adam & Eve history (which includes the original sin) occurred, denying all historical and scientific evidence of the contrary, you are a fundamentalist. It´s not a nice word, but atheist is not nice either.
At 3:00 Dr. Craig is thinking: "Oh, I´m a misquoting bastard. I love to repeat what others said out of context, or even repeat things that my opponents never said in order to score points. I´m so good at it that nobody notice. At least not the ignorant audience that thinks that I allways win debates. Souls must be saved at all costs, even if the price is intellectual integrity."
it would be life saving in the eternal if it turned her from whatever crime she had committed.
again I do not agree with those actions but I think there is a logical argument that can be raised, much like the lady he referenced speaking to about burkas etc. and that the argument is not necessarily a bad one on basis of pure logic.
interpretation of the data which has little to do with objectivity- as much as we want to assert it does.
In a preface, I do not believe in Islam or Allah; however, in an argument IF what they believe is right and true THEN in fact doing such a thing would be morally good even by the scientific definition that Sam offers because at that point we are stepping into a view that adds the element of eternity to our existence and while that might be painful in the moment for her to experience
I don't agree that little girls should have battery acid thrown in their face, but *playing devils advocate here* To say that by science we can say this is objectively wrong also means that somehow science has managed to 100% beyond the shadow of a doubt prove there is no God whatsoever- in this case definitively no allah. While one can argue the probability of such things we can not argue the absolutes of such a statement by science without then stepping into our own philosophical
Sams version of morality is as attractive as him in drag. Sam is doing excatly what Craig predicted, he is taking the words good and evil and changing them to fit his model of morality. It's a herd mentality and what's good for the group is good for the individual.
Your apparent knowledge and anger at Judeo-Christianity is insolent and childish, much like Mr Harris' assertions. There are very educated scholars out there that have been exploring these issues and many are easily reconcilable. Before you and others get on your little keyboards with your quippy little talking points why don't you explore the opposition's best arguments, unless you are content maintaining your ignorant perspectives. Its like an idiotic Godless circle jerk.
"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist"
So Craig is 100% incorrect. I can be an atheist by simply denying the belief in God. I can´t prove that God does not exist, but the same goes with Unicorns. I´m an Atheist. And we both are Aunicornists.
@mattetho - accepted Jesus that person would go to hell for ETERNITY! ….ETERNITY! So, just because that person was born in the wrong place to the wrong parents that were of a different culture they are destined to spend ETERNITY in hell. That is APPALLING, and the very idea of it offends every ounce of my being! People’s belief systems are circumstantial.
@mattetho - Can you tell me how vicarious redemption is moral? For instance; A child rapists could actually go to heaven before a nurse whose saved hundreds of lives and has lived a completely moral life. If the child rapist goes to prison and accepts Jesus as his saviour, repents, and is baptized, then according to the Bible that rapist can spend ETERNITY in heaven. However, if someone were born in Japan, lived a moral life, and worked/volunteered at a hospital helping the needy, but never
@mattetho - "I’d like to suggest that this vision of life can not possibly be true." If you think for one second that he doesn't get paid for these debates you are extremely naive. He benefits financially somehow from these debates.
Example: Scripture, by virtue, was written by people in history that had less assets, knowledge, and common sense than anyone in this room. In fact, no one in this room even knows someone that has a world view that is as narrow as was the men writing the scripture of the Holy Bible. And, most of these men had a moral world view that was comparative to an Afghan warlord today. And yet religious people insist that they had everything they needed to understand the nature of the world and cosmos."
@fidesquaerensintel89 "Why ought I pursue avoiding the "worst possible misery"?" Let´s put you in the worst possible misery for everybody fot just 5 minutes. After that you will finally understand why you ought to avoid stupid questions.
Harris' rebuttal is just terribly weak. It's as impotent as WLC's earlier attempt to defend the proposition that God can be a source for morality.
WLC's made one cogent point--why, in an objective sense, should we value the well-being of sentient beings? Harris' response boils down to 'we know that suffering is bad intuitively'. Then he goes off trying to justify using 'well-being' when it's definition isn't entirely clear. WTF? No one challenged the use of 'well-being', why waste time?
Haha your students probably also believe that dinosaurs walked with man, the earth is 10,000 years old, and Noah got all his animals to copulate on a boat...not much credibility there.
@ofssk an honest friendly advice, my friend. instead of acting bitchy and complaining all the time, face the situation and try to get used to the pain in your butt. take it easy.
@Pinage Harris? He's the one not wearing a tie... right? The guy whoimmediately lost the debate after he didnt even attempt to rebut a single of the devastating points in Craig's opener
@relarerfhjk Craig didn't have any real points. He said god is the source of morality and assumes everyone believes in his version of the Christian god. Well, the Taliban Muslims that Harris brings up follow a god too, and their view of morality is totally different than Craig's own, yet they're as religious as anyone. So which god is it that provides absolute morals? And how can Craig prove it?
Conversely, Harris illustrates quite well what morals are and how we decide what is moral or not.
@BigMikeMcBastard "Craig didnt have any real points" Talk about wilful blindness! You really did not see how Craig forensically annihilated Harris's arguments for grounding objecctively morality in nature?. Harris couldnt answer A SINGLE ONE of Craig's points. How does science get from "is" to "ought"? No answer. Why is human wellbeing objectively,morally good? No answer. Harris is a determinist yet "ought-implies-can"? No answer.How can evolutionary social mechanisms be moral values? No answer
@relarerfhjk Here's the problem. Craig says that the only way to get objective morals is from a perfect, omnipotent, etc moral arbiter. Well, that doesn't necessarily follow at all and he simply said it without proving it, but more importantly, none of the gods of any religion even come close to being morally perfect. He kept dodging that enormous flaw by saying it wasn't what he was there to debate, well, fine, but everyone knows he's a Christian, and the Christian god is as evil as the next.
@relarerfhjk So Craig's assertion that the Christian god is morally perfect and the source of perfect morals is clearly incorrect. On the other hand, Harris said that "good" relates to well-being and that the moral landscape, while there are many peaks and valleys, ultimately has to do with the well-being of people. I think a morality grounded in that kind of a manner is far, far more compelling than a divine moral objectivity which is absolute "just because", as Craig essentially says.
@BigMikeMcBastard really? you atheists are so blindly biased to you own view it is ridiculous. Craig had a great solid point that was plenty backed up, harris avoided a great majority of what he said...without God we are no more than animals, is it wrong for lions to kill zebras?no, is wrong for whatever it was to forcibly impregnate the female?no, why do humans have any say in morality when we are just smart animals? that is according to atheism, his argument is condradictory and unintelligent
@benjaminja77 You did listen to Harris, didn't you? Harris suggests a morality based off of the well-being of conscious creatures. Does rape and murder contribute to the well-being of society? No, they do not. In the moral framework Harris proposes, then, we have grounds for saying those actions are "bad".
Conversely, what if a particular God commands rape or murder? Are you willing to say that if you felt God told you to do rape or kill, as he did to Moses, that act is automatically good?
@BigMikeMcBastard You simply haven't understood Craig's argument. He's arguing that IF God does not exist, there is no objective morality. This debate isn't about demonstrating that such a God exists or that he prescribes Christian morality. Why is it so difficult for atheists to understand that Craig is talking within the parameters of the debate? Aren't you supposed to be sophisticated?
His arguments completely destroyed Harris. He exposed Harris' "morality" as pure evasion and wordplay.
@Dauphin35 I've understood his argument just fine thanks, and I'm not aware that I'm "supposed" to be anything, but don't discard your stereotypes on my account.
As I said, Craig's argument falls flat on its face once you extrapolate it to reality. Which god's word is the one that is the objectively moral one? Where I'm sitting, every single holy book we have is riddled with immoral garbage that most of its adherents conveniently ignore. Craig cannot account for this, and it's why he dodges it.
So all Harris had to do is show that a "good god" does not exist and Craig is defeated. That is why he invoked the Problem of Evil, which Craig didn't respond to. Craig is a crafty debater and he employs many tactics that some consider to be cheap. Check out what Sam said on his blog:
w w w (dot) samharris (dot) org/blog/item/the-god-debate/
I would also note that Craig's definition of......
Wrong.Arguing whether God exists would be a different debate to the subject.So Craig suggested very fairly,that the debate be If God does exist,If God does not exist.. And thus we don't need to believe in a God to have the debate.Craig's framing was very fair and logical,and if Sam didn't agree then he should've stated logically why he didn't agree and at the outset.Sam just gave his normal lecture a if Craig wasn't there,that is not a debate. Sam lost And i'm an Atheist saying that
"Sam tried to show that god does not exist and therefore good cannot come from god." Yes i'm aware of that or perhaps he was arguing against the christian god, but either way, that is my point. If the debate was Does God exist, then fine, but it wasn't.If Sam did as you say he did, then he changed the subject of the debate to Does God Exist. WLC's formulation as I said it and as you quoted me,is perfect as a framework, and if Sam disagreed with it, he should've said so at the start.
.....the term "objective" is not shared by the vast majority of philosophers. Both were arguing for a different type of objective morality. Sam addressed this as well.
Well i'm an Atheist and I understand. I agree, Sam lost. Sam was destroyed. Sam was evasive. I usually like Sam but here he failed. As to why it is difficult for Atheists to understand.. I think most Theists and Atheists are thick, most people are, and when there's too much logic, their minds cloud over!
And as I keep telling my dim witted fellow Atheists, if Sam didn't agree with what Craig said, If God exists,if God doesn't exist, then he should've said it at the outset. But it was a very fair formulation.Since debating whether God exists would've been a different debate.This debate was meant to be all relevant to Sam's book. And funnily enough, Sam has admitted elsewhere, that strictly speaking Science CANNOT determine moral values. I heard him speak! I find Sam the best of the 4.
I told you you've lost the plot!!!! You were never capable of responding to logic anyway, I shouldn't have bothered with you, though I barely did anyway, I just told you that you lost the plot. I am a strong atheist by the way. That's gone over your head already hasn't it.. How can an Atheist agree with WLC's logic in this debate. HEHEHE don't worry your little head about it. You can read what I commented and if you don't understand it then so be it.
and if it makes you feel any better (not that i'm trying to make you feel better or worse), but if it makes you feel better, I think most christians wouldn't get it either, and probably most atheists wouldn't.. i'm not restricting dim wittedness to Atheists. But to human beings, and humans are meant to be the smarter conscious creatures!
@boliussa You're being narcissistic, delusional and deceptive all at that the same time. That must take up a lot of energy.It also seems you are overcompensating for something. Do you live with erectile dysfunction?
@boliussa sorry mate. I am just being nasty now. Look, If you really want to argue a point with me I am happy to do it but please be honest about where you are coming from. Lying in the name of Jesus is still lying.
I deny Jesus and God and I can see WLC won this debate and i've given reason why. Am I hurting your brain too much now.. I think so.. or perhaps not since you can't even process what i've written to the point where your brain would hurt!
@BigMikeMcBastard Actually, Craig (so far as ep3 at least) has not said that the christian god is necessary - just that God is necessary. Now, we know that people become like the god they worship - so, if the Taliban are doing horrible things, do not blame God, blame Allah. And, yes, I said Allah. A task for you: look up why the symbol of Islam is the crescent moon, and find out who Allah was *before* Mohammed got ahold of him.
In a secular view, morality serves a purpose. The reason we regulate ourselves during our interactions with one another is to be able to coexist and cooperate and we all benefit from this cooperation. What behavior will help us achieve this goal can be objectively discussed based on what we know about the universe and human nature
In theism, what purpose does morality serve? What is the goal? If it is to please a God, the behavior we need to adapt is to pay attention to what he likes, of course
AD6043 3 weeks ago
All I see from Harris is red Herrings.
sweetmovie07 3 weeks ago
Harris got owned in this debate! He didn't even address Craig's arguments! I don't think he knows how to debate.
sweetmovie07 3 weeks ago
It seems that Dr. Harris, rather than arguing for the existence of a universal basis for objective morality, is merely exercises his own moral judgement in deeming certain acts right or wrong. The question of the debate, however, already assumes that there are objective moral values! His task was to prove that Dr. Craig's argument that objective moral values and duties are best explained by the existence of God is wrong, then establish a scientific basis for objective morality.
yshua1337 1 month ago
The problem here is that Dr. Harris is not adequately treating the subject of the debate. Dr. Craig immediately presents his clear, sound arguments and Dr. Harris does not refute them and offers no logical justification of his contention that objective morality has naturalistic explanation. I agree with Dr. Craig that without an objective metaphysical reality, which naturalists such as Dr. Harris deny, there are no grounds for moral values and duties.
yshua1337 1 month ago
I can totally FEEL the open-mindedness and balance oozing from the screen as I read all the nice,non-militant, and fully educated commentary from all the posters here.
HA!
mbelma6329 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Theism= the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).
Revelation= God's disclosure of Himself and His will to His creatures.
here is a test for the religous person. study your holy book and TRUTHFULLY answer this question. is there anything you reject within scripture? if you answer yes then you are not a true believer.
skubersteve24 2 months ago
Knowing God transcends human understanding. This is the reason this debate is thousands of years old. I was an agnostic for many, many years of my adult life until I came to this truth.
LettuceReason 2 months ago
Comment removed
mouthyweasel 2 months ago 2
Craig is as intellectually dishonest as a snake-oil salesman. He wouldn't know what a moral value (either objective or subjective) was if it jumped up and bit him in the bum.
At least a snake-oil salesman knows he is being dishonest. Does Dr Craig? I honestly don't know.
lacontrabasse 2 months ago
You listen to Harris speak and and you feel like you are actually learning something. You feel yourself actually gaining incite into a complex area, that being the development of what we have labeled moral behaviour and it's implications. When Craig speaks you just feel like he is trying to sell you some crappy insurance that he insists you need. I am moral without your god Mr Craig and so are all my friends.
ptango101 3 months ago 12
@ptango101
You've lost the plot.
boliussa 2 months ago
@boliussa Well thank you for that wonderful incite into an area that deserves more rebuttal than the ineffectual ramblings of a pre-pubescent boy. "You've lost the plot."??? Where do I begin? you have given me so much to work with.
ptango101 2 months ago
@ptango101
no problem.. but check some of the comments i've recently made like just now, to a few people, and you might see a bit better what I mean.
boliussa 2 months ago
Comment removed
martinbuzora 2 months ago
@ptango101 It's spelled "insight", and the possessive form of "its" does not use an apostrophe.
martinbuzora 2 months ago
@martinbuzora If all you have got to contribute is picking up on peoples typos go back to playing with your barbie dolls and let the grown ups talk.
ptango101 2 months ago
@ptango101 Don't try to downplay it by calling it a "typo". You obviously did not know how to properly spell a fairly common English word, and you clearly did not know the difference between "it's" and "its", otherwise you wouldn't have gone through the extra trouble of putting in an apostrophe. Don't take it so personally, I merely pointed out the fact that if you want to be taken seriously in a "grown up talk" as you call it, you should first learn how to write properly.
martinbuzora 2 months ago
@martinbuzora mmmm yes I see. Why the fuck are you talking to me worm?
ptango101 2 months ago
@ptango101 I know I've triumphed in a discussion when the person on the other end resorts to ad hominem. You can now walk away from this conversation having learned a thing or two about proper spelling and grammar! It always feels good to enlighten the uneducated.
martinbuzora 2 months ago
@martinbuzora mahh...
ptango101 2 months ago
@martinbuzora Do you know what spanner head? For your insults to work I have to actually care about your opinion. Given the fact that I do not care whether you live or die makes you and your opinion worthless. Please exit through the door marked "fuck off wanker" now while you still have a shred of dignity left.
ptango101 2 months ago
@ptango101 lol... you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper aren't you? Despite what you say, I have yet to insult you - but you just keep racking up your insults towards me. If you had the facts on your side, obviously you wouldn't feel the need to channel your frustration in such a basic way. By the way... I see you've made progress with the quality of your spelling - GOOD JOB! There is hope for you yet.
martinbuzora 1 month ago
@ptango101 Ever heard a theoretical physicist give a discussion on astrophysics and TOTALLY know what he/she was talking about?
Yeah, me neither. Craig is a highly educated, articulate, well-spoken PhD who has written numerous books on theology and philosophy as well as hundreds of scholarly articles on topics you've never even heard of.
Show a little respect
mbelma6329 1 month ago
@mbelma6329 Sorry no. I will not. Craig is just another apologist that is pissing on my leg and telling me it is raining. Respect is earned not just given. His debating techniques are subtle in their dishonesty but they are dishonest. The smartest person on that stage was Sam Harris. Craig's level of education and articulation mean squat to me. Instead of just nodding your head to everything he says use your brain.
ptango101 1 month ago
William Lane Craig's real idea is that since the Bible says it, it must be true. However, he won't openly admit that in such a way, because that would make him sound like an irrational idiot. However, that's exactly what he's always implying.
Weraisethenerdyflag 3 months ago
Even if God exists, either what is determined as moral is determined because he deems it moral; thus making morality arbitrary and whimsical, or morality is an objective concept outside of God, and God merely uses his power to reward those who abide by it; thus eliminating the need for God in explaining morals.
Sloth7d 3 months ago
They each got about 30 grand for this. Debating about religion seems to treat them well.
Keysteeze 4 months ago
Never new Ben Stiller was an atheist superstar!
LOLolololol
pjtrain 4 months ago
Why Sam why?! Morality is subjective, end of. Why are you wasting your time with this? It's not even an issue, it makes no difference to anyone.
mahmoudyzadeh 5 months ago
The taliban bla bla bla... they are just as fringe as atheists
CJFCarlsson 5 months ago
Atheist are accountable to christian morals. There is no agreement between them and there is no accountability. They do come up with alternative gods, to disprove that there would be absolute morality, but they do not believe in them. It is only GOD that they need to refute.
CJFCarlsson 5 months ago
Quite clearly, SH is thniking while WLC is preaching. Great difference.
mcshundess 5 months ago
I would like to know who is this kind and loving god Dr. Craig is talking about
cool24ize 5 months ago
In Sam Harris's redefinition of moral goodness it is synonymous with posterity and the flourishing of life, therefore if i were to excavate Dr Harris's son's grave(provided he has one) and have sex with his son's body this would not be an immoral action based on his own redefinition of the word, because his son is already dead. I wouldn't be doing anything to detract from the flourishing of life. Somehow I can't see Dr Harris conceding his impartiality to such an act.
scar504 6 months ago
@scar504 The living wouldn't want to live in a world where it's acceptable to have sex with their families dead bodies.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto That has nothing to do with the flourishing of the human species, and doesn't coincide with Harris's proposed redefining of the word.
scar504 6 months ago
@scar504 The flourishing of the human species depends on maximizing the well being of the living. It would affect our well being to think that the corpses of our loved ones are at risk of being raped. Furthermore, Sams moral landscape provides a better reason not to rape corpses than any religious book, as it wouldn't be considered immoral to rape a corpse unless you're religious book says so. And if the book condones it than it would considered moral, regardless of how the living feel about it
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto There is nothing in the act of necrophilia that would prevent the flourishing of other humans, therefore not only does Sam's redefinition not provide a better reason not to do it. It provides no reason not to do it.
scar504 6 months ago
@scar504 I'll try to explain once more since you're a little slow. While an isloated case of necrophilia that nobody knew about wouldn't affect a living person. Necrophilia being considered acceptable in society would have negative implications on the well being of people.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@scar504 As for an isolated case of necrophilia in a scoiety that considers necrophilia unacceptable, you'd just be doing an immoral act without anyones knowledge.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@scar504 Are you serious? You do realize that simply washing of the hands in running water, when moving from the morgue to deliver a baby, increased the mothers chance of survival by 20% in three months right? You can't say, "there is no reason not to do it". Get back to me if you need more common sense reasons.
thelordmemnoch 6 months ago
@thelordmemnoch I'm not sure if you replied to the wrong person but your comment wasn't related in the slightest to mine.
scar504 6 months ago
Alt + F4 ONLY if you love Dr. Craig.
mouthyweasel 6 months ago
sam harris should be bestowed with every medal going because to debate in a calm manner with an obvious lunatic like craig really takes a special sort of person.
megamus3 6 months ago
Craig owned him...he always owns atheists! They even admit it!!! Look up 'Common sense atheism'!
6630mcdo 6 months ago
I'm uncertain if if morality is objective -- other than it has clearly separated us from animals. I wonder though, if anything is "objectively" beautiful, or if there is music that could be objective? I wonder how William Lane Craig explains how what was once condoned by religions, is now abhorred. Pedophilia being a prime example of this. Women's Rights. Slavery. I believe it changes with society.
SocialDissimulation 7 months ago
@SocialDissimulation Pedophilia, slavery, women's rights, were always condemned and immoral, but people and culture lacked the capacity and wisdom to know that such acts were indeed immoral. It was not until recently where people have finally understood morality as to what it truly is. Morality never changed, people changed and grew in knowledge. But such a thing as murder is condemned universally.
Majorsafety 7 months ago
@Majorsafety Then how do you explain what the Israelites did to the Amalekites? When they slammed babies against rocks in front of their parents, raped women in front of their husbands? Surely, this cannot be the morality that we have always known? If so, why did it happen so often?
SocialDissimulation 7 months ago
@SocialDissimulation I'm sure, if there is a true, omnibenevolent God, this being would not condone slamming babies against rocks. The pursuit here is for an objective morality, much less a set of laws inspired by any religion. William Lane Craig does not present his case in a manner that says religion should govern society, he is only saying that there is a metaphysically present "good" and "bad" known to ourselves inherently. And he claims that it must have a source in order to be objective.
thelegend759 7 months ago
@thelegend759 This is what the LORD of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt.
3 1 Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.'" - So there goes that argument. The pursuit is his God is evil, therefore it cannot come from that source, therefore it is an unnamed source and a dead argument.
SocialDissimulation 7 months ago
Sam Harris is brilliant. The other guy is a joke and a bad one at that. What a shocking surprise that mumbo-jumbo is not a good answer to anything, including morality.
Happyascanbe1 8 months ago
Forgive me if I paraphrase:
Harris - "A load of common sense statements delivered from a fresh perspective in order to offer insight."
Craig - "So you see, with the help of a maze of philosophical caveats and dead-ends I can take even the most solid of logical principles and contort them beyond recognition. And that is why I win."
GrandSupremeDaddyo 8 months ago 2
Craig ALWAYS says that: "You'll recall that in my 1st speech I said I would defend 2 basic contentions.. ...My opponents haven't addressed my contentions...etc." a stale old tactic from a man who ALWAYS INSISTS on speaking first in a debate, so as to make it seem necessary for his opponent to even deal w/ his excruciatingly ridiculous "points of contention". (let's call them what they are: "stinking red herrings" w/o any teeth because they always require the acceptance of a false premise.FRAUD!
mouthyweasel 8 months ago 20
@mouthyweasel Yeah, it is really getting a bit tiresome seeing Craig do this in every debate. He erects a field of strawmen and then dares his opponent to get mired down in dismantling his vapid assertions AND somehow deliver their own arguments within the narrow timeframe allotted them. Every single time he does it, same old schtick, and I feel that ultimately he's more interested in "winning" a debate than in actually advancing the conversation in any sense.
BigMikeMcBastard 6 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@mouthyweasel What false premise is that?
MilquetoastThug 6 months ago
@mouthyweasel
If you really believe that, Mr Weasel, then the thing to do is not be a weasel but tell Craig in the debate, that you contend with what he said, and say that he stated a false premise. Do that and don't run away like a Weasel. I like Sam Harris generally, but here he weaselled out like you Mr Weasel!
boliussa 2 months ago
@boliussa Why. why. why are people so scared of admitting that we just don't know. If Dr. Craig actually knew something he'd be lauded in all scientific journals, but he doesn't. He just runs his little specious shtick, and accomplishes nothing. We're left exactly where we were. Not knowing ANYTHING about how we got here. And why should that be so frightening for people to admit. We certainly don't have good enough reason to organize our lives around those bronze age scribblings.
mouthyweasel 2 months ago
@mouthyweasel
Yeah you're right of course Professor Craig doesn't know anything!!! And he's frightened to admit to everybody that he doesn't know anything. Congratulations Weasel man.. You've really got to the bottom of it! By the way, the now dead MR Hitchens didn't oh forget it dude!
boliussa 2 months ago
@boliussa I'm glad you agree, I guess. Thanks.
mouthyweasel 2 months ago
@mouthyweasel
First I agree with what you stated, but Craig takes this one step further.
When a person admits they don't know something, they're still left with room to explore and find the actual answer for themselves. What Craig does is to say 'god is the only answer' for everything. In answering everything with 'god did it,' Craig replaces ignorance with some phony explanation that answers absolutely nothing. People cannot learn if they're unwilling to accept that they're ignorant.
BattleshipAgincourt 1 month ago
@BattleshipAgincourt Yeah. Agreed.
mouthyweasel 1 month ago
@mattetho Not quite. The well-being of rapists is not increased just because they may enjoy raping. Well-being is not necessarily the same as pleasure. Craig made the charge that Harris believed this, but Harris pointd out that Craig was mis-reading him. Perhaps you should read Harris' book to get a better idea. Check out Sola Ratione's break-down of Craig's "knock-down" argument for a more in depth rebuttal.
Hektor88 8 months ago
@mattetho Can you please explain which part of his argument was weak? I get that you weren't impressed, and that other people might not be -- but what about it is exactly wrong? And what do you define his argument as?
SocialDissimulation 9 months ago
@mattetho Which of Sam Harris' arguments were weak, exactly?
SocialDissimulation 9 months ago
Harris is making points that are so far removed from a religious mind set that I clearly see why allot of people think he is "not thinking". The pervasive religious indoctrination world wide make some people unable to hear beyond thier presuppositions. Listen to it a few times and it comes through the barriers that have been pounded into your head.
323323ify 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"UFO Disclosure A Global Deception Conspiracy" A
YOUTUBE video is a compilation of information revealed
by astronauts, politicians, military personnel, and presidents.
It contains revealations about life beyond Earth + news footage
and ongoing E.T. presence.
futurecop2012i 9 months ago
Comment removed
mouthyweasel 9 months ago
@mouthyweasel
very nice analysis. by speaking first, Craig tries to frame what points can be discussed.
AD6043 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The only reason why no one in the room sees the elephant is because almost everyone (80%) in the room IS an elephant...
The reason why debates about delusion vs reason and rationality still exists is because delusion and irrationality dominates the world.
If all these delusions created a world in which none were suffering, physically or in spirit, I would gladly go along with it...
saburius 9 months ago
@mattetho In 100AD Jesus had only been dead for several decades, and christianity had a larger religion to compete with. There are more muslims and hindus today than there was 1000 years ago too. In developed nations religion is at an all time low (look at Europe, America, and some of Asia). The simple fact of the matter is that christianity has been proven incorrect on many points and educated people are less likely to believe in something that isn't supported by facts.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 10 months ago
@mattetho Illiteracy in Africa and most of Asia are stunningly high, it's simply a fact. At one point in history my ancestors (germans) were a pack of savages who ran around in loincloths and pelts and were considered savages by more developed societies. In say the UK or Japan someone would be an object of mockery if they claimed to belief that they were possessed or cursed, and yet in african society it's actually a crime in some places to "curse" people.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 10 months ago
Harris' notion of well being is vague and very often will contradict Darwin's theory
StopFear 10 months ago
@StopFear All things concerning society are vague, and change rapidly. You'll see that heaven and hell often change with the society they affix themselves to. This is the same for morality. Until recently, it was perfectly acceptable to have sexual relations with a 13 year old girl. Not only acceptable, almost encouraged by the religious. It also changed because of the religious, but this is just one example at how societies shape things. And Craig got absolutely owned in this debate.
SocialDissimulation 10 months ago
@SocialDissimulation "Until recently"
Actually in some parts of the world it's still seen as acceptable for older men to screw teenage girls, and even more societies see it as acceptable to marry them off to people without so much as asking their consent.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 10 months ago
@JACKtheRIPP3R189 Where they are religious, no? "almost encouraged by the religious", the whole point was on secularism.
SocialDissimulation 10 months ago
@SocialDissimulation I think you misunderstand me, i was reinforcing your point by illustrating that problems we view as belonging only to the past still exist. I fully agree with everything you said.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 10 months ago
@JACKtheRIPP3R189 Oh, I apologize. The until recently part was referring to secular nations pretty much instituting these laws, and yes, you (we) are absolutely right in the fact that this -still- is prevalent in non-secular nations.
SocialDissimulation 10 months ago
@StopFear What are you talking about? What does good and evil have to do with Darwin's theory at all?
GiantSandles 9 months ago
@StopFear So?
magnusjsolberg 9 months ago
Craig wins
StopFear 10 months ago
As Hitchens says, "If that's the best you can do, that's the best you can do." He is taken serious simply because that's the best believers can do. Craig is an unsophisticated, intellectually dishonest, hardly a high school debater. He is given no credit in any academic environment.
TheGreatFSM 10 months ago
@mattetho "atheism is dying and Christianty is growing all over the world" Sorry again, but the world in all developed countries is becoming secular. The only thing that is growing is Islam, given their high birth rates.
lfzadra 10 months ago
@mattetho "STUPID redneck" Sorry, but I´m not a redneck. As far as I know, most rednecks are christians. I live in the third world and I know what poverty is, and I know how powerful it is to move people towards religion. Once you get better education and higher standards of living, religion just fade away.
lfzadra 10 months ago
@mattetho "Asia and Africa in particular are experiencing massive growth in christianity" Yeap. Where hunger, despair and illiteracy prevails, superstition moves forward. You forgot that, except in the christian fundamentalist USA portion of the world, religion is fading in all developed countries.
"there are more christian academics then ever before" And there are more atheists philosophers than before, so, where´s your revolution?
lfzadra 10 months ago
@mattetho "all philosophy dictionaries and encyclopedias" I already quoted sources that contradicts your assertion. This proves that when you say that your definition of atheism is the only one accepted, you are the one making mistakes, not me.
"utterly and completely destroyed" Most philosophers nowadays are atheists. Naturalists/materialists mostly. Not one will agree with your restrictive definition of the word or with your assertion that "atheism is dead". Fail again.
lfzadra 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mattetho Would love to hear your evidence for God and would like to know which parts of Harris' argument you consider to be "fluff". Your reply is eagerly awaited.
jonwalksred 10 months ago
@mattetho Would love to hear your evidence for God and would like to know which parts of Harris' argument you consider to be "fluff". Your reply is eagerly awaited.
jonwalksred 10 months ago
@mattetho "redefinition of the word atheism" You are redefining the word to reduce it to just positive atheism. I already quoted sources. Pretty standard stuff. You quoted none. Keep trolling.
"goldfish and cat are atheists" Precisely.
"one step closer to theism" And you are one step closer to believe in Santa Claus.
"view that there is no God" I don´t believe that there´s a god, but can´t prove it. You can´t prove that there´s a god. Under your definition, you are an agnostic.
lfzadra 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science just cannot derive and 'ought' from 'is' no matter how Harris looks at it. Craig made so many clear points that Harris did not rebut - AT ALL. And the interesting thing is I see the Atheist cheerleaders saying riduclous statements such as. "I thought Craig had this debate in the bag. Then Harris started talking." Foolish!
xchampx 10 months ago
@lfzadra bull card as though one of us has an up on the other by it. I dont' argue about evolution or the big bang (for the most part) I will argue about certain ideas we get from what we do know that are not founded. I'm not calling them unintelligible, but I will say they are unscientific and not founded on absolutes or measurements. Those things which I have issues with and I've yet to have anyone intelligibly answer my questions, somehow hurling insults about how dumb i am not to
mellybellyjf 10 months ago
@lfzadra man I just put them down! of course I try not to hurl insults in general but that one has never crossed my mind. What working definition of atheist do you tend to go by? Are you an atheist? I missed earlier parts of the conversation here obviously. What historical an scientific data negates these Biblical accounts? I actually love science and history; however, this is where our personal lens comes in if we are honest with our selves and dont' try and play the empirical
mellybellyjf 10 months ago
meaning MORE LIKELY than not (counter to what you said) you believe in the need for forgiveness of sin etc.
Now, I'm curious though, honestly, i've never had someone say atheist is an insult. I know people who don't like atheists but I've never heard it in itself deemed insulting. I know many who proudly boast that title. I tend to have more respect for diests and agnostic because I feel there is more honesty in that title but I've never hurled out the term "you atheist" and thought
mellybellyjf 10 months ago
any validity to the adam and eve account then I would say I have no problem with the use of the word fundie, because those are in fact fundamentals of the faith which in themselves negate your statistical assertion that Most christians don't believe in this knocking out original sin. Your argument in this case would be correct that Christ did nothing, but since your remarks are towards christians your numbers would be off because to be a Christian means you've acknowledged a need for Christ
mellybellyjf 10 months ago
@lfzadra I guess you are answering my definition question while quoting my statistics question? 1)there are plenty of christians out there are are not a part of the "christian right" which is a typical fuel for the negative use of the word "fundie". And, there are a lot more "christians" who are not a part of the christian right than are. That is why I wanted to clarify which you are talking about. But , since you are standing by the thought that to be a fundie is to believe there is
mellybellyjf 10 months ago
@mattetho "both spell and comprehend what the term Hypocrite means."
Thank you. I do enjoy constructive criticism. Although I don't believe I used the word incorrectly.
Regardless of the philosophical definition of the term, the word 'atheism' is most commonly used to describe someone without a belief in a God. That is the position most 'atheists' hold and that the position that should be addressed.
Pinage 10 months ago
@mattetho The Wikipedia article quotes sources, including Encyclopædia Britannica, that are more credible than you or even Craig, a known misquoting maniac. The funny thing about this word - atheism - a broad term with several meanings, is that only theists philosophers like Craig insist that the word has only one meaning. The reason is obvious. When you know that you can´t sustain your position, appeal to semantics to impress your opponents. Useless, of course.
lfzadra 10 months ago
Sam Harris has done a GREAT JOB with his first speech in this debate. Really excellent stuff. If WLC had a friggin' SOUL he would wither in shame and leave the stage.
GetMeThere1 10 months ago
Harris is such a polished speaker. can listen all the time.
anananwar 10 months ago
They would say what other God in history got down out of the heavens (real or imagined) when he didn’t have to for his own wellbeing, and was willing to place himself in a position to feel physical pain and emotional the way all humanity has for those he created, even if they hated the idea or hated Him at the time.
mellybellyjf 10 months ago
@lfzardra We are no less eternal than He is according to the bible, but that does not negate the reality of the physical during our time here on earth does it? We still feel joy, pain, suffering and die physically at the end of it all. So to the person who believes this the idea that he did nothing(based on his eternal existence) would be faulty.
mellybellyjf 10 months ago
Onto your questions:
1) “Jesus can´t die, he is God himself. An since he can´t die, what exactly the highlander of the heavens did for us and for what?”
a. IF God came to earth in flesh AND you believed this (based upon the bible) THEN it would stand to reason you are eternal as well, though having a finite beginning. So, the argument you pose is irrelevant at the onset.
mellybellyjf 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mellybellyjf "it would stand to reason you are eternal as well" Granted. Now please explain which sacrifice Jesus did. If you are eternal, this life is meaningless, so you can dischard it, no big deal.
"to place himself in a position to feel physical pain" If he want to forgive us, all he need to do is to forgive. All his pain was unncessary.
lfzadra 10 months ago
@lfzardra How come you hardly hear this term used at scientists who cling to the fundamental principles that govern the physical universe when interpreting the data they take in? They are fundies, as well they should be…Objectively speaking it is what it is. However, if we disagree with those fundamentals then our interpretation of what this means bleeds through in our attitude during discussion.
mellybellyjf 10 months ago
Comment removed
mellybellyjf 10 months ago
Comment removed
mellybellyjf 10 months ago
@lfzardra people that I would not classify as "fundies" who believe there is historical relevance to the genesis account- specifically within the original sin account . Without that fundamental belief you could hardly call yourself a “Christian” because you would have no need for Christ. 2) Also, I would like to know your definition of “fundie” because if you simply mean to cling fundamentals of something, in all honestly it is not inherently bad to be a “fundie”.
mellybellyjf 10 months ago
@lfzadra Not debating the validity of the scriptures with you since you obviously don't believe. This is not what I'm bringing to the table. Just for conversations sake though, I'll discuss it as is from a biblical perspective- which is what must be done for perspective sake with the arguments you presented: 1) I'd like to know where you get your statistics when you state “all Christians, except the fundies, accept this” There are many! *I don't know the exact statistics*
mellybellyjf 10 months ago
@mellybellyjf "where you get your statistics when you state “all Christians" I don´t need any statistics. Logic and reasoning alone is enough. If you believe that Adam & Eve history (which includes the original sin) occurred, denying all historical and scientific evidence of the contrary, you are a fundamentalist. It´s not a nice word, but atheist is not nice either.
lfzadra 10 months ago
At 3:00 Dr. Craig is thinking: "Oh, I´m a misquoting bastard. I love to repeat what others said out of context, or even repeat things that my opponents never said in order to score points. I´m so good at it that nobody notice. At least not the ignorant audience that thinks that I allways win debates. Souls must be saved at all costs, even if the price is intellectual integrity."
lfzadra 10 months ago
it would be life saving in the eternal if it turned her from whatever crime she had committed.
again I do not agree with those actions but I think there is a logical argument that can be raised, much like the lady he referenced speaking to about burkas etc. and that the argument is not necessarily a bad one on basis of pure logic.
mellybellyjf 10 months ago
interpretation of the data which has little to do with objectivity- as much as we want to assert it does.
In a preface, I do not believe in Islam or Allah; however, in an argument IF what they believe is right and true THEN in fact doing such a thing would be morally good even by the scientific definition that Sam offers because at that point we are stepping into a view that adds the element of eternity to our existence and while that might be painful in the moment for her to experience
mellybellyjf 10 months ago
I don't agree that little girls should have battery acid thrown in their face, but *playing devils advocate here* To say that by science we can say this is objectively wrong also means that somehow science has managed to 100% beyond the shadow of a doubt prove there is no God whatsoever- in this case definitively no allah. While one can argue the probability of such things we can not argue the absolutes of such a statement by science without then stepping into our own philosophical
mellybellyjf 10 months ago
Sams version of morality is as attractive as him in drag. Sam is doing excatly what Craig predicted, he is taking the words good and evil and changing them to fit his model of morality. It's a herd mentality and what's good for the group is good for the individual.
Theism411 10 months ago
tell it like it is sam
robertmck12 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your apparent knowledge and anger at Judeo-Christianity is insolent and childish, much like Mr Harris' assertions. There are very educated scholars out there that have been exploring these issues and many are easily reconcilable. Before you and others get on your little keyboards with your quippy little talking points why don't you explore the opposition's best arguments, unless you are content maintaining your ignorant perspectives. Its like an idiotic Godless circle jerk.
timoleatherman 10 months ago
i hate how the christians keep thumbing down the top comments
santosscribbles 10 months ago
@mattetho From Wikipedia:
"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist"
So Craig is 100% incorrect. I can be an atheist by simply denying the belief in God. I can´t prove that God does not exist, but the same goes with Unicorns. I´m an Atheist. And we both are Aunicornists.
lfzadra 10 months ago
@mattetho - accepted Jesus that person would go to hell for ETERNITY! ….ETERNITY! So, just because that person was born in the wrong place to the wrong parents that were of a different culture they are destined to spend ETERNITY in hell. That is APPALLING, and the very idea of it offends every ounce of my being! People’s belief systems are circumstantial.
dafontenot 10 months ago
@mattetho - Can you tell me how vicarious redemption is moral? For instance; A child rapists could actually go to heaven before a nurse whose saved hundreds of lives and has lived a completely moral life. If the child rapist goes to prison and accepts Jesus as his saviour, repents, and is baptized, then according to the Bible that rapist can spend ETERNITY in heaven. However, if someone were born in Japan, lived a moral life, and worked/volunteered at a hospital helping the needy, but never
dafontenot 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mattetho - Webster's definition of atheism - a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
dafontenot 10 months ago
@mattetho - "I’d like to suggest that this vision of life can not possibly be true." If you think for one second that he doesn't get paid for these debates you are extremely naive. He benefits financially somehow from these debates.
dafontenot 10 months ago
Example: Scripture, by virtue, was written by people in history that had less assets, knowledge, and common sense than anyone in this room. In fact, no one in this room even knows someone that has a world view that is as narrow as was the men writing the scripture of the Holy Bible. And, most of these men had a moral world view that was comparative to an Afghan warlord today. And yet religious people insist that they had everything they needed to understand the nature of the world and cosmos."
dafontenot 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fidesquaerensintel89 "Why ought I pursue avoiding the "worst possible misery"?" Let´s put you in the worst possible misery for everybody fot just 5 minutes. After that you will finally understand why you ought to avoid stupid questions.
lfzadra 10 months ago
Harris' rebuttal is just terribly weak. It's as impotent as WLC's earlier attempt to defend the proposition that God can be a source for morality.
WLC's made one cogent point--why, in an objective sense, should we value the well-being of sentient beings? Harris' response boils down to 'we know that suffering is bad intuitively'. Then he goes off trying to justify using 'well-being' when it's definition isn't entirely clear. WTF? No one challenged the use of 'well-being', why waste time?
Hooya2 10 months ago
@mattetho
Haha your students probably also believe that dinosaurs walked with man, the earth is 10,000 years old, and Noah got all his animals to copulate on a boat...not much credibility there.
mikecwc 10 months ago
What the heck is Sam going on about? -______-
FIFAStreetaddict 10 months ago
I thought Craig had this debate in the bag. Then Harris started talking.
Pinage 10 months ago 42
@Pinage yeah then
started talking wah wah woo
ofssk 10 months ago
@ofssk an honest friendly advice, my friend. instead of acting bitchy and complaining all the time, face the situation and try to get used to the pain in your butt. take it easy.
AD6043 10 months ago
@AD6043 how did you get a bitchy complaint out of that ? dear oh dear
ofssk 10 months ago
@Pinage Harris? He's the one not wearing a tie... right? The guy whoimmediately lost the debate after he didnt even attempt to rebut a single of the devastating points in Craig's opener
relarerfhjk 9 months ago
@relarerfhjk Craig didn't have any real points. He said god is the source of morality and assumes everyone believes in his version of the Christian god. Well, the Taliban Muslims that Harris brings up follow a god too, and their view of morality is totally different than Craig's own, yet they're as religious as anyone. So which god is it that provides absolute morals? And how can Craig prove it?
Conversely, Harris illustrates quite well what morals are and how we decide what is moral or not.
BigMikeMcBastard 9 months ago 24
@BigMikeMcBastard "Craig didnt have any real points" Talk about wilful blindness! You really did not see how Craig forensically annihilated Harris's arguments for grounding objecctively morality in nature?. Harris couldnt answer A SINGLE ONE of Craig's points. How does science get from "is" to "ought"? No answer. Why is human wellbeing objectively,morally good? No answer. Harris is a determinist yet "ought-implies-can"? No answer.How can evolutionary social mechanisms be moral values? No answer
relarerfhjk 9 months ago
@relarerfhjk Here's the problem. Craig says that the only way to get objective morals is from a perfect, omnipotent, etc moral arbiter. Well, that doesn't necessarily follow at all and he simply said it without proving it, but more importantly, none of the gods of any religion even come close to being morally perfect. He kept dodging that enormous flaw by saying it wasn't what he was there to debate, well, fine, but everyone knows he's a Christian, and the Christian god is as evil as the next.
BigMikeMcBastard 9 months ago
@relarerfhjk So Craig's assertion that the Christian god is morally perfect and the source of perfect morals is clearly incorrect. On the other hand, Harris said that "good" relates to well-being and that the moral landscape, while there are many peaks and valleys, ultimately has to do with the well-being of people. I think a morality grounded in that kind of a manner is far, far more compelling than a divine moral objectivity which is absolute "just because", as Craig essentially says.
BigMikeMcBastard 9 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard really? you atheists are so blindly biased to you own view it is ridiculous. Craig had a great solid point that was plenty backed up, harris avoided a great majority of what he said...without God we are no more than animals, is it wrong for lions to kill zebras?no, is wrong for whatever it was to forcibly impregnate the female?no, why do humans have any say in morality when we are just smart animals? that is according to atheism, his argument is condradictory and unintelligent
benjaminja77 6 months ago
@benjaminja77 You did listen to Harris, didn't you? Harris suggests a morality based off of the well-being of conscious creatures. Does rape and murder contribute to the well-being of society? No, they do not. In the moral framework Harris proposes, then, we have grounds for saying those actions are "bad".
Conversely, what if a particular God commands rape or murder? Are you willing to say that if you felt God told you to do rape or kill, as he did to Moses, that act is automatically good?
BigMikeMcBastard 6 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard You simply haven't understood Craig's argument. He's arguing that IF God does not exist, there is no objective morality. This debate isn't about demonstrating that such a God exists or that he prescribes Christian morality. Why is it so difficult for atheists to understand that Craig is talking within the parameters of the debate? Aren't you supposed to be sophisticated?
His arguments completely destroyed Harris. He exposed Harris' "morality" as pure evasion and wordplay.
Dauphin35 5 months ago
@Dauphin35 I've understood his argument just fine thanks, and I'm not aware that I'm "supposed" to be anything, but don't discard your stereotypes on my account.
As I said, Craig's argument falls flat on its face once you extrapolate it to reality. Which god's word is the one that is the objectively moral one? Where I'm sitting, every single holy book we have is riddled with immoral garbage that most of its adherents conveniently ignore. Craig cannot account for this, and it's why he dodges it.
BigMikeMcBastard 5 months ago
@Dauphin35
The topic of the debate was "Is good from God?".
So all Harris had to do is show that a "good god" does not exist and Craig is defeated. That is why he invoked the Problem of Evil, which Craig didn't respond to. Craig is a crafty debater and he employs many tactics that some consider to be cheap. Check out what Sam said on his blog:
w w w (dot) samharris (dot) org/blog/item/the-god-debate/
I would also note that Craig's definition of......
revo1974 3 months ago
@revo1974
Wrong.Arguing whether God exists would be a different debate to the subject.So Craig suggested very fairly,that the debate be If God does exist,If God does not exist.. And thus we don't need to believe in a God to have the debate.Craig's framing was very fair and logical,and if Sam didn't agree then he should've stated logically why he didn't agree and at the outset.Sam just gave his normal lecture a if Craig wasn't there,that is not a debate. Sam lost And i'm an Atheist saying that
boliussa 2 months ago
@boliussa
The debate topic was "Is good from God", right?
In your reply to me you said: "So Craig suggested very fairly,that the debate be If God does exist,If God does not exist."
Sam tried to show that god does not exist and therefore good cannot come from god.
Sam also did respond to some of the thing Craig said, he didn't completely ignore him like you suggest.
revo1974 2 months ago
@revo1974
"Sam tried to show that god does not exist and therefore good cannot come from god." Yes i'm aware of that or perhaps he was arguing against the christian god, but either way, that is my point. If the debate was Does God exist, then fine, but it wasn't.If Sam did as you say he did, then he changed the subject of the debate to Does God Exist. WLC's formulation as I said it and as you quoted me,is perfect as a framework, and if Sam disagreed with it, he should've said so at the start.
boliussa 2 months ago
@Dauphin35
.....the term "objective" is not shared by the vast majority of philosophers. Both were arguing for a different type of objective morality. Sam addressed this as well.
revo1974 3 months ago
@Dauphin35
Well i'm an Atheist and I understand. I agree, Sam lost. Sam was destroyed. Sam was evasive. I usually like Sam but here he failed. As to why it is difficult for Atheists to understand.. I think most Theists and Atheists are thick, most people are, and when there's too much logic, their minds cloud over!
boliussa 2 months ago
@Dauphin35
And as I keep telling my dim witted fellow Atheists, if Sam didn't agree with what Craig said, If God exists,if God doesn't exist, then he should've said it at the outset. But it was a very fair formulation.Since debating whether God exists would've been a different debate.This debate was meant to be all relevant to Sam's book. And funnily enough, Sam has admitted elsewhere, that strictly speaking Science CANNOT determine moral values. I heard him speak! I find Sam the best of the 4.
boliussa 2 months ago
@boliussa "And as I keep telling my dim witted fellow Atheists"??!!?? What's it like to be a poorly disguised christian troll?
ptango101 2 months ago
@ptango101
I told you you've lost the plot!!!! You were never capable of responding to logic anyway, I shouldn't have bothered with you, though I barely did anyway, I just told you that you lost the plot. I am a strong atheist by the way. That's gone over your head already hasn't it.. How can an Atheist agree with WLC's logic in this debate. HEHEHE don't worry your little head about it. You can read what I commented and if you don't understand it then so be it.
boliussa 2 months ago
@ptango101
and if it makes you feel any better (not that i'm trying to make you feel better or worse), but if it makes you feel better, I think most christians wouldn't get it either, and probably most atheists wouldn't.. i'm not restricting dim wittedness to Atheists. But to human beings, and humans are meant to be the smarter conscious creatures!
boliussa 2 months ago
@boliussa You're being narcissistic, delusional and deceptive all at that the same time. That must take up a lot of energy.It also seems you are overcompensating for something. Do you live with erectile dysfunction?
ptango101 2 months ago
@boliussa sorry mate. I am just being nasty now. Look, If you really want to argue a point with me I am happy to do it but please be honest about where you are coming from. Lying in the name of Jesus is still lying.
ptango101 2 months ago
@ptango101
I deny Jesus and God and I can see WLC won this debate and i've given reason why. Am I hurting your brain too much now.. I think so.. or perhaps not since you can't even process what i've written to the point where your brain would hurt!
boliussa 2 months ago
@boliussa Whatever silly person. Go away now please.
ptango101 2 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard Actually, Craig (so far as ep3 at least) has not said that the christian god is necessary - just that God is necessary. Now, we know that people become like the god they worship - so, if the Taliban are doing horrible things, do not blame God, blame Allah. And, yes, I said Allah. A task for you: look up why the symbol of Islam is the crescent moon, and find out who Allah was *before* Mohammed got ahold of him.
quakerman7 3 months ago
@Pinage - Your first thought was correct. Your emotional about harris.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs *You're* emotional about Harris.
Pinage 9 months ago
@Pinage - You see, you are emotional about me.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs You're right. I'm in love with you. Will you marry me?
Pinage 9 months ago
@Pinage - On one condition, you stop this love affair with Harris. He's no good for you.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs I promise to be faithful!
Pinage 9 months ago
Comment removed
Woodmur 10 months ago