It's not fair what Sam Harris did to William Lane Craig. To be made to endure the experience of a one second being a well respected academic type at your school of theology, and the next second you're proven to be a lying con-man/blithering lunatic running home to mama with a tear stained face and a thoroughly shat on reputation. Oh the shame.
Someone needs to speak up for the psychopaths :). It's possible they are both right. If there is no supreme being whos opinion on right and wrong matters more than ours, then morals are simply based on personal beliefs, which means there is no universal right or wrong.
If you are referring to Harris & Craig, then no. Their positions ore mutually exclusive.
"there is no universal right or wrong"
Not according to Harris' definition of morality. In any situation, the course of action that minimises suffering is the most moral. By extension, the course of action that maximises suffering is the most immoral. Your personal opinion does nothing to change the morality of the choices.
Surely one cannot flip the moral landscape for psychopaths, as WLC suggests - you cannot regard a psychopath as a healthy human. Moreoever, as Sam Harris said, their superficial "pleasure" at the likely suffering of others would not define a peak in our interconnected lives. Since we cannot flip this landscape, its "direction" forms a basis for an objective morality.
Craig is like a broken record. All he does is babble about "ground for objective morality". Absolutely meaningless drivel. White noise as Hitchens would say.
The flourishing of a species (something you can actually observe and measure, however precisely or imprecisely) is a better "foundation" for morality than a 6000 year old man made mythological asshole like Yahweh. Hands down. Any day of the week. Discussion over. Craig is FAR overrated.
If god exists, there may be other gods. He/she/It/they might have created the universe for some other beings, Zorgonians maybe, or possibly for cats. In which case he is not interested in our morality. God might have created us for some sick entertainment. In which case he would be "evil" and not the source of "objectivity". WLC must be frustrated that us atheists just don't get it. We are just not listening properly to what he is saying. We are just so without meaning and miserable Lol!
To all my fellow Christians out there, it is clear that we have been brain-washed this entire time. The atheists have a much better argument and I believe we have to give up our faith and start taking more science classes. Clearly atheists are smarter people and it is about time we start educating ourselves! It is time to come out of our little bubbles...
there is always a point where a religious person just backs up and because they have no better argument ,they just repeat themselves hoping that no one would follow up.what better place than an organized debate?
decency dictates that William Lane Craig should get a thumbs down.
There are not objective moral values, real good and real evil that apply to everyone, everywhere, at all times, cultures, etc... We create these values based on learning. Morals create rights and rights change, are limited and in free market economy, are basically an illusion. An objective thought that is global isn't yet achieved but with globalization we are getting to that point. Objective morals are seen in a democractic system when the subjective clash and a consensus is made.
Someone, please just answer this question for me? If we all believe there are objective moral values, real good and real evil that apply to everyone, everywhere, at all times, cultures, etc. then how do we know that?
Morals can be created through social contract that we are not all consciouslly aware of all the time but that can be brought to our awareness after certain events take place. A social contract does not have to follow that of a belief of God. This is especially evident within the basis of slavery and genocide within divine command. Many will say, "that's old testament, I don't believe it. I'm a Christian, not a jew." But is Genesis and the old testament not a basis to Christianity?
It's a clearly foundational attack at the idea of a supernatural objective base for morality that Harris presents. His argument is mistaken or misunderstood by the simple and close-minded religously upbrought.
How can good come from God if God doesn't exist. Therefore Harris destroyed the question "Does good come from God?", suggesting that God is man made. Also, he suggests and quite clearly defends that not only does good not come from God, but that evil comes from God (or the belief therein).
Whether Craig is being technical or not, Harris still did not offer any logical argument for the existence of moral objectivity without God as its foundation. Infact he swayed away from the topic and threw out the longest red herring of the night in which he spent 10 minutes dissecting the problem biblical God from a scientific standpoint. Great, but as Craig asserted numerous times, that wasn't the topic of debate. Harris was simply dodging the question atheists have dodged forever
@mitchellspenser89 The way I saw it Craig assumed he could narrow the topic of their debate in his opening speech. When Harris didn't follow the path Craig cut he was falsely accused by Craig of having wondered from the agreed topic. This is one of many high school debating tricks Dr. Craig used to mislead the audience.
Butthurt a bit? Dont worry. You ch-wistians will always have your Ark where millions of animals all managed to squeez on a single wooden boat. Alongside T-Rexes and Brachisaurs. If this isn't facepalming material, I truely do not know what is.
@Domzdream huh??? I'm not "butthurt" SH is...he got mind raped by WLC...plus I find your comment very telling as to what you think a Christian is...I'm not a creationist, sorry to break it to you..go find someone else that you think you've got fitured out Dumbzdream
Wow. Dumbzdream. Very mature. See. This is the very thing your poor christians reduce yourselves to- name calling. Anyway, that's not very jesus-esque of you. Not very loving. You're supposed to kiss my ass, turn your cheek, and say how much you love me.
You might, not believe in the Ark (which by the way you're cherrypicking which parts of the bible god actually got wrong and which you regard as ACTUAL fact. Which isnt fair really- not to your god at least. You know, it doesnt-
-doesnt reinforce your faith in your god's work.Not much faith there, Bob.
But you DO adhere to a Balrog in hell. The big winged demon with the cloven hooves and pointed tail in the pits of eternal fire (which by the way your god DID create, I researched that also in case you doubts more of your god's fab creations). It's mentioned several times in the bible.
@Flipver0 Making lots of 3 word replies doesn't make your insane claim any less insane!
Harris totally owned Craig if you know anything about debating. You're the kind of guy that would vote for Dubbya because of what he says. C'mon fess up, you voted for Dubbya (twice I bet) didn't you.....
@warren52nz Man, I don't know who Dubbya is but if he disagrees with you folks then he has got brains and I did not vote for his comments but one thing I know for sure is that Harris got owned like a child getting beat by his Dad. SPANK, SPANK SPANKYDEE SPANK SPANK. Game set and match. CRAIG WINS, FLAWLESS VICTORY.
The fact that murder and incest are the only two immoral constants throughout every civilisation suggests that Mr. Harris view, that morality is derived from a natural selection process, is more likely, rather than Mr. Lanes view that it was implanted by a divine force, more or less like a software program.
Morality is not objective like Mr. Lane sais, it is always been a moral of the majority. There is no other thing, except of, as i said, incest and murder, which is needed for sustainability.
Even if God is the source of objective morality we have no way of knowing what it is because he NEVER SHOWS UP! You can't get it from the Bible because I can find a place in the Bible where EATING YOUR OWN CHILDREN is allowed under certain circumstances!!! Where slavery and denigration of women and any number of other atrocities is condoned. So without God appearing to tell us right from wrong we have to decide for ourselves what's moral. As we always have
@Flipver0 "You are just hating. WLC is a class above Harris."
Not at all. I have no respect for WLC because of the "weaseley" way he debates. He always ignores the criticism and jumps into how there's no moral reference without God. It's a load of BS.Sam Harris is the voice of reason. What exactly did he say that you dispute AND WHY?
@warren52nz But he is right. Wasn't the debate about whether morality is natural or supernatural? So he stated that if atheism is true, then there will be no foundation for morality. That is correct. Harris refused to contest that claim
@Flipver0 "What exactly did Sam Harris say that you dispute AND WHY?"
.
Still waiting.... If you can't think of anything that Sam Harris said that's wrong, if you're just hiding behind your bible with your eyes shut and hands over your ears then I get it!
You want to believe what you want to believe.
But don't say stuff you can't support or we'll just laugh at you.
@warren52nz Sam Harris said: "You MOMMA"!!!!!!!! LOL. Just joking, I just disagree with the fact that you can have a solid foundation for morality as an atheist. Harris states that you can using science, which is not true.
@Flipver0 "the fact that you can have a solid foundation for morality as an atheist."
It's really very simple. Any social animal needs rules that allow the species to survive otherwise it will go extinct. Even ants have rules like this. It comes from Natural Selection.
Anyway, for every bit of morality in the Bible, there's at least one example of atrocious morals condoned by God and even ORDERED by God!
Have you actually READ the Bible?
The truth is we know what's good and bad instinctively.
Harris cannot escape moral relativism no matter how hard he tries, His prevaricated philanthropic science-morality amalgamation is likened to jumping headfirst into the metaphoric ocean of moral relativism and then trying to survive by swimming deeper. You chose the agitated waters of beguiled relativism now you are forced to either swim in them or get out. I agree with 07Aristotle "It is either moral relativism or moral objectivism. This is not a false dichotomy."
Another debate lost by one of the 4 Horsemen. Can't even answer simple questions. Craig has to continuously remind Harris that the questions are not being answered. Amazing how these "Brights" love to criticize Christianity, and always start doing this when they can't answer simple questions. They start their ramblings and start jumping to other topics that have nothing to do with the debate. Listen to Harris' initial comments as to the kind of opponent he was facing. Craig doesn't play around.
@ray7685 I always find it profoundly interesting how people equate Craig's professionalism and technical mastery of discourse as a point against theism. From the comments people post it would appear evident to me that the only way people would even humor Craig's position is if he were careless, technically unsound, and consistently veered off topic into tangents that were not supposed to be discussed in the particular debate.
@scar504 I agree. I don't think they understand things like professionalism and sound discourse. You find them profoundly intertesting, I happen to find them profoundly disturbing and (at times) somewhat disturbed as evidenced by their anger and consistent cursings and blatant disrespect.
@ray7685 Harris' points were absolutely on topic. It's one of Craig's tricks to accuse his opponents of going off topic, when in truth he just doesn't want to discuss what it is they bring up. Harris points out the moral contradictions in Christian doctrine, and Craig accuses him of going off topic. huh?
@Hektor88 It is not a trick to bring someone back to the topic they are supposed to be originally discussing. Since when did this become a trick? If Harris doesn't want to discuss the topic of the dabate (as you say), then he shouldn't be debating Craig.
@ray7685 That's not what i meant. I meant Craig *accuses* people of doing that, whether or not they are. Harris was on topic the whole time: attacking the morality of the Christian god and the Christian doctrine was relevant. Craig didn't want to discuss it, probably cuz he has made some unpopular comments on the Israelites attack on the Canaanites (it was good because god commanded it). So, Craig accused Harris of going off topic. In reality, Harris was just avoiding Craig's verbal traps.
@ray7685 That's not what i meant. I meant Craig *accuses* people of doing that, whether or not they are. Harris was on topic the whole time: attacking the morality of the Christian god and the Christian doctrine was relevant. Craig didn't want to discuss it, probably cuz he has made some unpopular comments on the Israelites attack on the Canaanites (it was good because god commanded it). So, Craig accused Harris of going off topic. In reality, Harris was just avoiding Craig's verbal traps.
@ray7685 That's not what i meant. I meant Craig *accuses* people of doing that, whether or not they are. Harris was on topic the whole time: attacking the morality of the Christian god and the Christian doctrine was relevant. Craig didn't want to discuss it, probably cuz he has made some unpopular comments on the Israelites attack on the Canaanites (it was good because god commanded it). So, Craig accused Harris of going off topic. In reality, Harris was just avoiding Craig's verbal traps.
@ray7685 Exactly. People aren't understanding what the fuck the debate was about. It's "Does GOOD come from God", NOT "Does god exist". So essentially, HARRIS is actually the one avoiding the main topic of discussion, while Craig is sticking to it.
@roxtar55 But how can you place the blame on Harris if Craig is the one that changed the topic by stating that without God there can't be objective morals. Therefore placing Harris on the defense ,instead of it being Craig defending his view. It was a brilliant move by Craig. That's why he always goes first so he can direct where the debate goes. So you can't blame Harris for not sticking to the topic if he is challenged from the start to defend his view.
@KindaAwesomeVideos1 Idk i just think you all are fucking pussies and sheep in the herd. why must everything be theism and atheism? regardless, some day you will die. until you truly realize that, you are useless.
@roxtar55 "why must everything be theism and atheism?" Not everything has to be about atheism and theism. It can be if you make it that way. Are you saying I'm useless until I realize I will die some day? If so death is one thing you can be certain about, so I got that covered. Curious since you call theists and atheists sheep, you must have an interesting take on the topic of debate. So what do you think about it?
@roxtar55 Really? That's it? So let me get this straight you are a pussy if you are a follower but if you are a leader all of a sudden you are doing something meaningful? If that's the case then it makes no sense. Your herd's ideas could be complete bs and all you would be doing as the leader is help spread the bs by influencing your pussy followers to believe it. If you mean that there are people on both sides that follow blindly I would agree with you. But i doubt that's what you meant.
@ray7685 Exactly. People aren't understanding what the fuck the debate was about. It's "Does GOOD come from God", NOT "Does god exist". So essentially, HARRIS is actually the one avoiding the main topic of discussion, while Craig is sticking to it.
While I don't side with Dr. Craig, and while it's obvious that much of his thinking is questionable, he's undeniably a very smart man, gifted speaker and brilliant showman/debater. Dawkins would have been trounced by him. Hitchens would have done well rhetorically and logically, even though he would have babbled his way through 2/3 of his time without saying a thing of value. So it's nice to see that Harris did as well as he did. He's the only one on "the team" that wouldn't be embarrassing.
@amw1978dc actually, i think Hitchens kicked his ass. As you say, WLC is well polished, a professional debater, but is entirely weak on substance. Hitch cuts to the chase. Harris did great, I agree.
@adstanra Oh, yes, Hitchens did well in his debate. But I was speaking to the specific topic of this one, which was different than Hitchens v. Craig one. Thank "God" we have Harris. ;)
p.s. the youtube user who calls himself "drcraigvideos" is a coward. removing comments and banning users who disagree with dr. craig in ANY way?? Propaganda spreading COWARD. It's disgraceful.
I was blocked by this "drcraigvideos" guy, too. He is a desperate loser who is very insecure about his worldview. Maybe he wants to be with people like him so he doesn't feel like he is the only one fooling himself
@mouthyweasel quite true...as of this moment he has allowed a theists to call me a fucking ass....after I made one comment....then banned my response......which was very tame......someone aught to give him a lesson in morality.
Harris mentions the wickedness in the Bible which shows that the God Craig is talking about, the supposed source of goodness, cannot be the God of Bible. Craig's reply is a reference to a book which he says answers Harris and he kept on till the end of the debate referring to the God of the the Bible and the generic God interchangeably. Craig was asked repeatedly to justify himself but he escapes saying it is not the topic. This is intellectual dishonesty. How come he feels no embarrassment?
@STARBARTZZ I respect any atheist who comes to a debate willing to defend their ideas. I don't particularly care what philosophy any debater espouses; it's not a sporting match to me. I just want to see if their ideas can withstand scrutiny from another viewpoint. I just get really disappointed when atheists get passive-aggressive with their insults or they change the topic. Christopher Hitchens did that with Craig. Professor Dawkins...I don't know what his problem is. He's just plain mean.
I think what's lost in all these comments is that Harris didn't stick to the topic of the debate and didn't answer Craig's refutations. Harris broke the rules of the debate and went off on a rant against Christianity. Harris did not follow the rules of the debate. If atheists claim to be pro-reason and pro-logic, then why are you not attacking how unreasonable and illogical he became toward the end? It's clear as day: he DID NOT refute Craig and completely changed the topic. Therefore, he lost.
@holdenc96 WLC simply argued that morality must be grounded in a spacetimeless being ( whatever that is). SH argued that morality is grounded in conscious beings capable of suffering in a finite world. That would have been the end of the conversation if Harris had "stuck to the topic of the debate"...What people are interested in though, is how do we create a better world for humanity...Craig offers his version of Christianity and SH challenged him on that.
@adstanra Understood, but when two debaters come together and agree to an open debate, they agree on a topic, agree to present their arguments as to why they are right, why their opponent is wrong, and refute their opponents arguments. A debate i like a court case: you have to stick to the topic "Was the law broken or not and is there sufficient evidence?" You cannot change gears. That is what SH did. Atheists are supposed to be about reason and logic. In the face of both, SH lost the debate.
@holdenc96 I disagree.Sam Harris established the grounds of morality and argued that it is not a space timeless being. SH knows that part of WLCs moral philosophy involves the God of the bible...which involves hell as part of Gods justice. It would be stupid not to challange that. Would also be stupid not to point out the shaky ground that "God of love" is. People do not agree as to what that means. It is as soft a grounding as you can get..so Harris went after WLCs interpretation of that.
@adstanra That wasn't the topic of the debate. The debate was about the objectivity of morality and the grounds to believe in its objectivity. You HAVE to stick to the topic. Three times WLC confronted SH, completely refuting him, and three times SH completely ignored WLC's refutation. What does that tell ANY reasonable person? It tells him that SH lost the debate.
@holdenc96 SH made the case that morality is grounded in conscious beings capable of suffering. He asked the audience to imagine a world devoid of consciousness, where morality obviously does not apply. He argued that there are objective ways to improve human well-being.Morality apply to humans in a finite world. WLC claims it is grounded in a generic space timeless being . Do you think WLC gets his morality from this? We know BS when we see it. WLC lost.
@adstanra I repeat: WLC called SH out and demanded that he refute him on his glaring contradiction that SH hides by changing definitions, even citing SH's book. WLC did not do this just once, not twice, but three times. SH had three opportunities to state why his position was correct; three times, he did not. Instead, he, as WLC said, threw in a red herring. The "objective" way you cite was refuted is the very refutation I'm citing in WLC's counter argument. You're just repeating yourself.
@holdenc96 there was no refutation.If you would like to point out WLCs refutation, we could talk about it. I repeat,SH argued that morality applies to conscious beings capable of suffering in a finite world. Morality becomes a topic of discussion when these conditions are met, regardless of whether a spacetimeless being exists. WLCs argument is based on nothing but a groundless statement.SH pointed out the uselessness of this statement as a basis for morality.
@adstanra Watch from 14:10 part 3 of 9. WLC makes the distinction between moral semantics and ontology. He is concerned with moral ontology. He argues there is no objectively good reason on an atheistic worldview for creatures to flourish. He continues to say that SH is playing semantics by confusing pleasure/misery with good/evil. (cont. in part 4.) The argument that SH refuses to reply to is clearly stated in part 4 4:38.
@holdenc96 I understand semantics and ontology. The foundation of morality begins with conscious beings in a finite world struggling to survive. It matters not whether a space timeless being exists, but is set in finite space and time with conscious beings capable of happiness and suffering.The terms Good/Evil are inextricably linked to happiness/suffering of conscious individuals in a finite world.It cannot be more clear. WLCs argument is simply vacuous. Please state WLCs refutation
@adstanra I cited the video and even the time the refutation starts! The debate is about the existence of objective moral values, and WLC started the whole debate saying that SH actually agreed that objective moral values DO exist. Where they differ is the foundation, because an atheistic foundation is purely subjective, thus not objective. Did you even watch the entire debate? You're writing as if we're talking about two different things!
@holdenc96 SH clearly argued that morality is beyond subjectivity. He explained a number of times, that it is possible to think ones activities are improving human well-being, when they are actually not.After effectively establishing the foundation of morality,he argued that "once all biases" are removed and we are in the realm of pure logic and science, then we can determine which activities objectively effect human well-being. If YOU actually watched the debate, please do it again.
@holdenc96 also...WLC provides no reason to believe that morality must be grounded in a space timeless being.He simply states this as self evident. He also provides no reason to believe that the term Good should not be identical to the flourishing of conscious beings. As SH pointed out, I wonder what he thinks the term should be concerning, if not the flourishing of conscious beings. The definition of these terms follows naturally from conditions where conscious beings capable of suffering exist
@adstanra WLC in part 4, 4:38. Again, THREE times WLC presented this argument. THREE times SH did NOT respond! He threw in a red herring and changed the subject of the debate and went erratically maudlin about "the children praying to God...boo hoo hoo..." You are dense! I'll say it again: THREE TIMES WLC presented his "knockdown argument." THREE TIMES SH did NOT respond and threw in a red herring and changed the topic of the debate. This silly YouTube argument is over for me.
@holdenc96 It is obvious to any reasonable person that the term "good" is inextricably linked to the well being of conscious beings.This is a term that we use to describe things that enhance our well-being and is ultimately the result of conscious beings capable of suffering, regardless of the existence of a STL being.How else should we define moral/immoral?There might be other worlds governed by different laws of physics where different actions are deemed good by other conscious beings.
@holdenc96 2/2. WLCs argument is a vacuous statement that values must be grounded in an infinate being, which he arbitrarily defines as Good. He also failed to answer whether something is Good because God commands it , or is good for its own sake, perhaps because it benefits conscious beings (lol). WLC was killed in this debate and he avoided admitting that his God is the god of the bible and based upon iron age sacrificial morality. You seem reluctant to put his argument into your own words.
@lifelearnlovelive The reason he keeps repeating the same thing over and over again is because Sam basically dodges the premise of his argument over and over again. This a debate, not a talk at a coffee table. An argument most flow logicallly from its premise to its end rather than just using emotional "what feels right" type argument.
@namasteywhat you been trollin all these vids.. motherfucker... dont talk out of context. if his book was terrible it wouldnt be a best seller..now fuck off.
It seems that, while Craig is trying to win the debate by technicality, Harris is trying to have a discussion about how best to view morality in order to overcome both moral relativism and religious dogmatism.
Harris is takling about the concept of morality as it truly relates to reality, while Craig is talking about morality in a very fanciful sense that has no good practical application. It makes no sense to speak of morality in any other terms than the wellbeing of conscious minds.
@Walabinx I don't think Harris can escape moral relativism no matter what he does. It is either moral relativism or moral objectivism. This is not a false dichotomy.
It seems to me that the only objective morality that exists is survival. Humans must have been doing something right by not becoming exstinct yet. But other than that i can't see how claiming that there are absolute rights and wrongs holds any weight at all. We only agree on what is good and evil for cultural and historical purposes. Since humans are not machines Harris seems to be wrong and since morality changes Craig seems to be wrong.
Thank you for offering your theory of a sound foundation for the existence of my ethics. I've examined your evidence and found it specious and profoundly useless and baseless. Now leave us alone. Either prove your Yahweh exists, or just shut up and stop dangling weird red herrings in our way. I'm busy.
Nobody has to prove God exists if Objective morality exists. Objective morality proves God. What is with this new fringe of atheists who would follow Harris off a cliff. There's a reason that all of the brilliant minds of atheism rejected moral realism.
@acceptjesusorburn You're a complete ass. Does that also prove god? Because people can be asses, and people can be moral, etc. Being an ass is as arbitrary as being moral. So, I guess, because you're an ass, we have proof that Yahweh faked his own death so as to forgive you for sins you didn't actually commit so he doesn't have to send you to a hell he created (which also doesn't actually exist.)
Wake up and smell the shit you're shoveling. & if Dawkins said I'm busy, it's a coincidence.
Well if you think that morality is arbitrary then i guess you disagree with Sam Harris who acknowledges we have an objective set of moral ethics.
Almost all secular historians agree that Jesus was crucified "to death". Since you can't prove anything of what you've just said it apparent that you would rather blindly believe anything just to suit your agenda.
@acceptjesusorburn 1st: You misunderstand Harris' point, and his overall intention. Not surprising. 2nd, when I say that Yahweh faked his death, it's because GOD shouldn't be able to die, should "he"?. So... I guess he didn't die.... therefore, he faked it. hmm.
Harris acknowledges the fact that there are Objective morals.. not universal... OBJECTIVE. And this debate was a debate on moral ontology we don't need you to explain that to us his overall intention.
Death is the termination of biological functions that sustain a living organism.. so i guess he did die even though he may exist in a spiritual realm... Not suprising your so easily convinced by bad arguments though.
By saying humans are just machines, it betrays his mindset from which he cannot seem to escape - that human life has no intrinsic value and that value can only come from god
There IS such a thing as objective morality which Sam describes in eloquent detail but Craig conveniently defines his 'objectivity' strictly in accordance with his theism. So effectively Craig is simply defining himself as correct. The problem with this is that there are rather obvious reasons to reject this definition of objectivity, which Craig fails to address
Dr. Craig keep using the term "objective moral", like a kind of mantra.
There are no such thing as "objective moral", not even those supposedly dictated from god. God reveals himself to be very far away from "objective moral" in all texts. Chosen people, hate the homos, etc etc.
The "objective moral" of the universe will toast us all without second thoughts, remorse or even awareness of our existense, when the time comes.
But untill then I think I'll stick with Dr. harris proposal.
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!
Form the start until the and of debate it is clear that Sam Harris is illiterate in philosophy. And he ties to be a moral, existencial and even I would say metaphysical philosopher. One time in response to the question "why you don't debate theists?" Richard Dawkins said, that it would special status for them becouse of recognition by accepting their 'challange". It is clear that W. L. Craig makes that mistake with S. Harris.
Anybody who challenges theism comes across the intellectually dishonest Craig because theists put him forth as their best defender. This is the sole reason many intellectually honest people who outclasses Craig by far lower their standards and debate him, just like you can't pick the players of the other team.
The situation is very different in academia though where intellectual honesty matters. Craig was never able to find a place in any competitive academic environment ... cont
but only in Christian institutes some of which require all faculty and students to sign a pledge that they are Christians. I am not surprised to see a philosopher from such "academic" institutions are Craig-like.
Harris gave an example for the kinds of concerns you have. He explained why it is not moral for a doctor to use the organs of a man to save 5 other. You are ignoring the cascade effects of rape.
@mountain332 Wow, we've just come right back to the beginning. Empathy, solidarity, altruism etc. have their roots in evolution. The individual doesn't have to restrain themselves for the sake of others, but if they don't, the others will treat them accordingly. As an entire race, our moral compass is such that the survival of the race outweighs all else. OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T BE HERE. night buddy!
Again, imagine a race that can only live if we die. Is human survival good then? Where are your "objective" morals about killing human babies in that context?
Reverse it - what if we had to wipe out another sentient race in order to survive. Would it still be "objectively" wrong for us to kill them?
Where did I say it's the highest good? You're the one who introduced the concept of authority. Survival is a good - for us - but not necessarily the highest. I think it might be perhaps the most fundamental, and perhaps the highest good might be an ever-growing scope of consciousness and awareness, while still surviving of course.
1. the authority that you speak of is whether or not we survive. If so many people kill for pleasure that we die out - there is your authority. It was wrong. BUT, it was only wrong subjectively - for us - because we're dead. The universe doesn't care.
2. So what if we die out? From the objective viewpoint - correct. From the subjective viewpoint, I'd rather not thanks, hence my moral values.
3. Natural selection is the highest authority when authority is survival
@mountain332 Survival rule #1 - don't bloody kill yourselves off. Therefore, what's "the right direction"?.. don't murder. Subjective, but still with direction.
Why is it subjective? Eliminate all humans and ask yourself the same question. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Insert a competitor race that can only live if we die and ask them the same question.
Calling our own perspectives, as a race, "objective".. is at best limited and at worst arrogant.
@mountain332 if you were to pose the question - if Dr Mengele's experiments 1) necessarily had to cause human suffering, and 2) saved the entire human race, without which we would be wiped out forever... then my answer would be yes, his actions were right.
@mountain332 but to be fair and answer your question directly - I would say no, it doesn't make his actions right. Because there is no experiment he could have done that required human suffering that couldn't be done without human suffering.
@mountain332 that's a rather shallow application of the ethical question - does the end justify the means? And like I said, there is not fix-all to those questions. You have to assess the case in hand, and even with all the best intentions and all the greatest experience, not all people will agree on the outcome.
@mountain332 it sounds more like you have a position that you'll defend to the end without really considering things. Thanks for the discussion anyway but I'm feeling that it's not going anywhere.. have a good one
@mountain332 wrong, it has nothing to do with popularity, and everything to do with what gave us our morals in the first place - survival. The survival of the race is not helped in any way by the Nazi movement. It is however helped greatly by Bill Gates's philanthropic efforts with AIDS research, as one example. What promotes our survival and increased our wellbeing is good, while still being subjective.
Evolution, through survivability gave us our morals. And survival will guide us onwards
@mountain332 ... the sharing of resources, altruism, bla bla bla. Moral relativism isn't a license for amorality. It's taking the right position, acknowledging we aren't all important in the universe, and commencing the discussion of why our ingrained morals are still worthwhile nonetheless and how to improve them further.
@mountain332 yes, I do. Moral relativism in the scope of an entire race makes perfect sense.
Why do you think it bad to murder? Simply because if you didn't, you wouldn't have made it this far. The race wouldn't have made it this far. In fact there have probably been many tribes whose individual competitiveness and aggression DID outweigh their aversion to kill their own, and guess what? They're gone.
You can draw the same line of reasoning to protection of children, solidarity..
@mountain332 the beauty of where we find ourselves is that we can choose our moral future. And, I think, we will choose for the best, even if it might take longer than we'd like.
@mountain332 You judge with a combination of legal theory, ethics, public debate, governance and legislation, corporate strategy, social responsibility. Why should there be a fix-all? The idea is every day, we promote more well-being than the day before. It will never be perfect, and to propose that there is a perfect objective reality will only make complex conundrums even more difficult, like the classic - do you kill 1 to save 10. Do you murder 1 to save 10?
@mountain332 there is a wasp that lays its young in the brain of a cricket. The larvae then proceeds to eat the brains and insides of the cricket while it writhes in agony. If you could speak to each of those organisms, the crickets would call it a horrific, gruesome attack. The wasp would call it the most wonderful act it is capable of. The universe doesn't give a shit - what matters is that the young wasp has been born.
For both Harris and Craig to assume we are somehow beyond this..
@mountain332 ... which we have wrongly labelled as objective because we cant imagine a reality in which it could ever be disputed.
Indeed, morals make no sense when looking at things objectively. It is what drives the subject that gives morals their relevance. Stars don't give a damn if they explode. And incidentally, if they take out civilisations with them.
@mountain332 fair comment. my supporting argument is this: there is no objective morality. All our morality is subjective from the perspective of humans. The only true objective morality is what works. The universe only rewards that which persists and survives. It doesn't care how that is achieved. The objective moral truths posed by both sides e.g. the torture of children is actually not an objective moral truth but a subjective one....
@mountain332 I don't see how falsely assuming that an objective morality exists exactly qualifies as staying on the debate topic... but ok.
I'd say his best angle would have been to point to religion being our best efforts at morality and ethics for thousands of years and as a result, galvanised our instinctive urges for solidarity and empathy. However that would require him to acknowledge that it's now obsolete, which of course the silly old sheep is incapable of
William Lane Craig is a subtly, but deeply, tortured person. As he speaks at the end of this video, you can see that he has no idea what he's talking about, and doesn't believe it in the depths of his mind. He is a shell.. he's a finely tuned intellectual processing unit, that has beaten the person inside to a tiny spot, and that spot is peeking out in a pained facial expression here.
When the atheist says that morality is innate, Craig would reply that you have to have a moral grounding that is outside us and that is God. But that statement is useless. You mean the Bible? Then Craig would say God has written the moral code into our hearts. So, it's innate then. But Craig just adds God into that fact as an explanation of its origin. There we go again: God versus Evolution in the morality sphere. Human morality evolved, doesn't that tell you anything?
@inityminiwur Great conclusion. I would add that should there be any God that anyone should pay heed commandments to, it would be the embodiment of the sublime experience or state that Harris argues is the basis for objective morality.
@inityminiwur Actually, I don't believe Craig would oppose evolution, he opposes naturalistic atheism (yes, there's a difference). He wouldn't oppose innate morality either, but he believes it was universally given by God. And God holds all people everywhere for all time accountable for moral decisions--that's objective morality.
@mkwheeland87 How should this god judge people in other times and cultures who thought they followed the will of a god when they were acting in a way that we would consider immoral today? Like when they punished people for "blasphemy". And this is still going on today in the Islamic world. And why would a god allow people to think they act according to the will of a god when they commit crimes against humanity? Wouldn´t it be immoral of a god to allow this?
@mkwheeland87 Even Hitler believed in a god and seemed to think he was doing something good and necessary. Of course he was mentally ill and a sociopath (which contradicts the belief in that a god gives everyone an innate normal morality) but I don´t think Hitler himself understood that he was evil. Why would a god allow people to be like him and to not understand that they are making morally bad decisions?
@mkwheeland87 Hitler managed to get the majority of the Germans (who were mainly Christians like most other Europeans) with him and they obviously didn´t understand what a morally bad decision they made in electing him and supporting him. The KKK members also don´t seem to understand how morally bad their view on human rights are and they can testify about how proud they are and about the holiness they feel when burning a cross.
@mkwheeland87 I can´t help wondering where the signs are for a morality derived from a god if a god allows people to get fooled into thinking atrocities are morally right. And when some people (sociopaths) don´t have the ability to develope what the rest of us consider a normally functioning conscience.
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!
This debate was essentially the Euthyphro dilemma. Strange that it came up only once, and even then only briefly. Harris takes it in my opinion. Craig's was an exercise in obfuscation.
Any validity of Craig's 'foundational/framework/grounding' argument REQUIRES Yahweh's existence to be a FACT. Otherwise it's just toothless drivel. And, of course that's all his argument can ever be until he DOES prove Yahweh's existence. (which he's careful to avoid with his, "That's not the topic of tonight's debate.") Proving Yahweh's existence obviously can't be done. So... drivel. and defeat. more than that... Craig has Harris' foot lodged deep in his ass.
@mouthyweasel -----"Any validity of Craig's 'foundational/framework/grounding' argument REQUIRES Yahweh's existence to be a FACT. Otherwise it's just toothless drivel."
Very interesting that your comment has been marked as spam.
Suppose God is sadistic and he maximizes the general well being in the universe by toying with human beings and other animals.
TheOldBeef 1 hour ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's not fair what Sam Harris did to William Lane Craig. To be made to endure the experience of a one second being a well respected academic type at your school of theology, and the next second you're proven to be a lying con-man/blithering lunatic running home to mama with a tear stained face and a thoroughly shat on reputation. Oh the shame.
mouthyweasel 7 hours ago
Comment removed
mouthyweasel 12 hours ago
Someone needs to speak up for the psychopaths :). It's possible they are both right. If there is no supreme being whos opinion on right and wrong matters more than ours, then morals are simply based on personal beliefs, which means there is no universal right or wrong.
jakeallstar1 3 weeks ago
@jakeallstar1 "It's possible they are both right"
If you are referring to Harris & Craig, then no. Their positions ore mutually exclusive.
"there is no universal right or wrong"
Not according to Harris' definition of morality. In any situation, the course of action that minimises suffering is the most moral. By extension, the course of action that maximises suffering is the most immoral. Your personal opinion does nothing to change the morality of the choices.
Md2802 2 weeks ago
Surely one cannot flip the moral landscape for psychopaths, as WLC suggests - you cannot regard a psychopath as a healthy human. Moreoever, as Sam Harris said, their superficial "pleasure" at the likely suffering of others would not define a peak in our interconnected lives. Since we cannot flip this landscape, its "direction" forms a basis for an objective morality.
edga69 1 month ago
Craig won this. Hands down. Harris must just quit this debating thing . He is whack. Well done WLC
Flipver0 1 month ago
Craig is like a broken record. All he does is babble about "ground for objective morality". Absolutely meaningless drivel. White noise as Hitchens would say.
Modinthalis 1 month ago
@Modinthalis That's kind of the topic of the debate
mbelma6329 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The flourishing of a species (something you can actually observe and measure, however precisely or imprecisely) is a better "foundation" for morality than a 6000 year old man made mythological asshole like Yahweh. Hands down. Any day of the week. Discussion over. Craig is FAR overrated.
mouthyweasel 1 month ago
Comment removed
mouthyweasel 1 month ago
There's not a chance in Christian hell that Craig is right about anything. The more I listen the guy, the more psychotic he seems.
mouthyweasel 1 month ago
If god exists, there may be other gods. He/she/It/they might have created the universe for some other beings, Zorgonians maybe, or possibly for cats. In which case he is not interested in our morality. God might have created us for some sick entertainment. In which case he would be "evil" and not the source of "objectivity". WLC must be frustrated that us atheists just don't get it. We are just not listening properly to what he is saying. We are just so without meaning and miserable Lol!
27182818R 2 months ago
To all my fellow Christians out there, it is clear that we have been brain-washed this entire time. The atheists have a much better argument and I believe we have to give up our faith and start taking more science classes. Clearly atheists are smarter people and it is about time we start educating ourselves! It is time to come out of our little bubbles...
tollington14 2 months ago
there is always a point where a religious person just backs up and because they have no better argument ,they just repeat themselves hoping that no one would follow up.what better place than an organized debate?
decency dictates that William Lane Craig should get a thumbs down.
rouzbehazshab 3 months ago
There are not objective moral values, real good and real evil that apply to everyone, everywhere, at all times, cultures, etc... We create these values based on learning. Morals create rights and rights change, are limited and in free market economy, are basically an illusion. An objective thought that is global isn't yet achieved but with globalization we are getting to that point. Objective morals are seen in a democractic system when the subjective clash and a consensus is made.
lutzkn 4 months ago
Someone, please just answer this question for me? If we all believe there are objective moral values, real good and real evil that apply to everyone, everywhere, at all times, cultures, etc. then how do we know that?
sethdbeebe 4 months ago
You cannot choose which parts of a book you want to believe and which parts you want to ignore.
lutzkn 4 months ago
Morals can be created through social contract that we are not all consciouslly aware of all the time but that can be brought to our awareness after certain events take place. A social contract does not have to follow that of a belief of God. This is especially evident within the basis of slavery and genocide within divine command. Many will say, "that's old testament, I don't believe it. I'm a Christian, not a jew." But is Genesis and the old testament not a basis to Christianity?
lutzkn 4 months ago
It's a clearly foundational attack at the idea of a supernatural objective base for morality that Harris presents. His argument is mistaken or misunderstood by the simple and close-minded religously upbrought.
lutzkn 4 months ago
How can good come from God if God doesn't exist. Therefore Harris destroyed the question "Does good come from God?", suggesting that God is man made. Also, he suggests and quite clearly defends that not only does good not come from God, but that evil comes from God (or the belief therein).
lutzkn 4 months ago
Craig's elementary school logic: There can be no objective morality without god, there is objective morality, therefore god exists.
I could use the same "logic" and insert any statement to create this circular logic to prove anything.
Craig merely asserts that there can be no objective morality without this "authority figure" god.
Craig has to PROVE his premise FIRST that there can be no objective morality without god. Simply repeating this throughout the debate proves nothing.
tybrady64 4 months ago in playlist Sam Harris vs William Craig
Whether Craig is being technical or not, Harris still did not offer any logical argument for the existence of moral objectivity without God as its foundation. Infact he swayed away from the topic and threw out the longest red herring of the night in which he spent 10 minutes dissecting the problem biblical God from a scientific standpoint. Great, but as Craig asserted numerous times, that wasn't the topic of debate. Harris was simply dodging the question atheists have dodged forever
mitchellspenser89 5 months ago
@mitchellspenser89 The way I saw it Craig assumed he could narrow the topic of their debate in his opening speech. When Harris didn't follow the path Craig cut he was falsely accused by Craig of having wondered from the agreed topic. This is one of many high school debating tricks Dr. Craig used to mislead the audience.
jajmjbylso 4 months ago
@mitchellspenser89 really? he wrote a whole book about it for goodness sake...
joavim 3 months ago
A clear win for Harris! An easy win.
Domzdream 5 months ago 9
@Domzdream a clear win on red herrings...
beto88keys 2 months ago
@beto88keys
Awww.
Butthurt a bit? Dont worry. You ch-wistians will always have your Ark where millions of animals all managed to squeez on a single wooden boat. Alongside T-Rexes and Brachisaurs. If this isn't facepalming material, I truely do not know what is.
Domzdream 2 months ago
@Domzdream huh??? I'm not "butthurt" SH is...he got mind raped by WLC...plus I find your comment very telling as to what you think a Christian is...I'm not a creationist, sorry to break it to you..go find someone else that you think you've got fitured out Dumbzdream
beto88keys 2 months ago
@beto88keys I meant to type "figured out" hehe.
beto88keys 2 months ago
@beto88keys
Wow. Dumbzdream. Very mature. See. This is the very thing your poor christians reduce yourselves to- name calling. Anyway, that's not very jesus-esque of you. Not very loving. You're supposed to kiss my ass, turn your cheek, and say how much you love me.
You might, not believe in the Ark (which by the way you're cherrypicking which parts of the bible god actually got wrong and which you regard as ACTUAL fact. Which isnt fair really- not to your god at least. You know, it doesnt-
Domzdream 2 months ago
@beto88keys
-doesnt reinforce your faith in your god's work.Not much faith there, Bob.
But you DO adhere to a Balrog in hell. The big winged demon with the cloven hooves and pointed tail in the pits of eternal fire (which by the way your god DID create, I researched that also in case you doubts more of your god's fab creations). It's mentioned several times in the bible.
You DO believe in a 'Balrog', do you not?
Domzdream 2 months ago
@Domzdream HA! Please
mbelma6329 1 month ago
@Domzdream Harris got killed
Flipver0 1 month ago
@Flipver0 Making lots of 3 word replies doesn't make your insane claim any less insane!
Harris totally owned Craig if you know anything about debating. You're the kind of guy that would vote for Dubbya because of what he says. C'mon fess up, you voted for Dubbya (twice I bet) didn't you.....
warren52nz 1 month ago
@warren52nz Man, I don't know who Dubbya is but if he disagrees with you folks then he has got brains and I did not vote for his comments but one thing I know for sure is that Harris got owned like a child getting beat by his Dad. SPANK, SPANK SPANKYDEE SPANK SPANK. Game set and match. CRAIG WINS, FLAWLESS VICTORY.
Flipver0 1 month ago
The fact that murder and incest are the only two immoral constants throughout every civilisation suggests that Mr. Harris view, that morality is derived from a natural selection process, is more likely, rather than Mr. Lanes view that it was implanted by a divine force, more or less like a software program.
Morality is not objective like Mr. Lane sais, it is always been a moral of the majority. There is no other thing, except of, as i said, incest and murder, which is needed for sustainability.
Verrsus 6 months ago
Here's the problem with WLC's argument.
Even if God is the source of objective morality we have no way of knowing what it is because he NEVER SHOWS UP! You can't get it from the Bible because I can find a place in the Bible where EATING YOUR OWN CHILDREN is allowed under certain circumstances!!! Where slavery and denigration of women and any number of other atrocities is condoned. So without God appearing to tell us right from wrong we have to decide for ourselves what's moral. As we always have
warren52nz 6 months ago 6
@warren52nz You guys really are hung up on the Old Testament, arent you?
mbelma6329 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mbelma6329 "You guys really are hung up on the Old Testament, arent you?"
Not at all. It's just the low hanging fruit. 8^)
Even Jesus talks about how to manage your slaves.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Look if the Bible is what Christians say it is it shouldn't have shit like that in it!!!
Moral compass my ass....
warren52nz 1 month ago
@warren52nz Thats so wrong and dumb
Flipver0 1 month ago
@warren52nz There is no problem with the argument. You are just hating. WLC is a class above Harris.
Flipver0 1 month ago
@Flipver0 "You are just hating. WLC is a class above Harris."
Not at all. I have no respect for WLC because of the "weaseley" way he debates. He always ignores the criticism and jumps into how there's no moral reference without God. It's a load of BS.Sam Harris is the voice of reason. What exactly did he say that you dispute AND WHY?
warren52nz 1 month ago
@warren52nz But he is right. Wasn't the debate about whether morality is natural or supernatural? So he stated that if atheism is true, then there will be no foundation for morality. That is correct. Harris refused to contest that claim
Flipver0 1 month ago
@Flipver0 Harris won because in the end, Harris was making sense, and Craig was very obviously playing "the game."
Hektor88 4 weeks ago
@Flipver0 "So he stated that if atheism is true, then there will be no foundation for morality"
So what you're saying is that the only reason you don't rape, murder and commit adultery is because you think God will punish you if you do?
I get my morals from common sense and a symbiotic relationship with my fellow man.
Do you own slaves? Why not? Jesus was OK about it and even told you how to treat them.
The fact that you disagree with Jesus is because you have a modern sense of right and wrong!
warren52nz 4 weeks ago
@Flipver0 "What exactly did Sam Harris say that you dispute AND WHY?"
.
Still waiting.... If you can't think of anything that Sam Harris said that's wrong, if you're just hiding behind your bible with your eyes shut and hands over your ears then I get it!
You want to believe what you want to believe.
But don't say stuff you can't support or we'll just laugh at you.
8^)
warren52nz 1 month ago
@warren52nz Sam Harris said: "You MOMMA"!!!!!!!! LOL. Just joking, I just disagree with the fact that you can have a solid foundation for morality as an atheist. Harris states that you can using science, which is not true.
Flipver0 1 month ago
@Flipver0 "the fact that you can have a solid foundation for morality as an atheist."
It's really very simple. Any social animal needs rules that allow the species to survive otherwise it will go extinct. Even ants have rules like this. It comes from Natural Selection.
Anyway, for every bit of morality in the Bible, there's at least one example of atrocious morals condoned by God and even ORDERED by God!
Have you actually READ the Bible?
The truth is we know what's good and bad instinctively.
warren52nz 4 weeks ago
Harris cannot escape moral relativism no matter how hard he tries, His prevaricated philanthropic science-morality amalgamation is likened to jumping headfirst into the metaphoric ocean of moral relativism and then trying to survive by swimming deeper. You chose the agitated waters of beguiled relativism now you are forced to either swim in them or get out. I agree with 07Aristotle "It is either moral relativism or moral objectivism. This is not a false dichotomy."
neonleonification 6 months ago
Another debate lost by one of the 4 Horsemen. Can't even answer simple questions. Craig has to continuously remind Harris that the questions are not being answered. Amazing how these "Brights" love to criticize Christianity, and always start doing this when they can't answer simple questions. They start their ramblings and start jumping to other topics that have nothing to do with the debate. Listen to Harris' initial comments as to the kind of opponent he was facing. Craig doesn't play around.
ray7685 6 months ago
@ray7685 I always find it profoundly interesting how people equate Craig's professionalism and technical mastery of discourse as a point against theism. From the comments people post it would appear evident to me that the only way people would even humor Craig's position is if he were careless, technically unsound, and consistently veered off topic into tangents that were not supposed to be discussed in the particular debate.
scar504 6 months ago
@scar504 I agree. I don't think they understand things like professionalism and sound discourse. You find them profoundly intertesting, I happen to find them profoundly disturbing and (at times) somewhat disturbed as evidenced by their anger and consistent cursings and blatant disrespect.
ray7685 6 months ago
@ray7685 Harris' points were absolutely on topic. It's one of Craig's tricks to accuse his opponents of going off topic, when in truth he just doesn't want to discuss what it is they bring up. Harris points out the moral contradictions in Christian doctrine, and Craig accuses him of going off topic. huh?
Have a good one.
Hektor88 5 months ago
@Hektor88 It is not a trick to bring someone back to the topic they are supposed to be originally discussing. Since when did this become a trick? If Harris doesn't want to discuss the topic of the dabate (as you say), then he shouldn't be debating Craig.
ray7685 5 months ago
@ray7685 That's not what i meant. I meant Craig *accuses* people of doing that, whether or not they are. Harris was on topic the whole time: attacking the morality of the Christian god and the Christian doctrine was relevant. Craig didn't want to discuss it, probably cuz he has made some unpopular comments on the Israelites attack on the Canaanites (it was good because god commanded it). So, Craig accused Harris of going off topic. In reality, Harris was just avoiding Craig's verbal traps.
Hektor88 5 months ago
@ray7685 That's not what i meant. I meant Craig *accuses* people of doing that, whether or not they are. Harris was on topic the whole time: attacking the morality of the Christian god and the Christian doctrine was relevant. Craig didn't want to discuss it, probably cuz he has made some unpopular comments on the Israelites attack on the Canaanites (it was good because god commanded it). So, Craig accused Harris of going off topic. In reality, Harris was just avoiding Craig's verbal traps.
Hektor88 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ray7685 That's not what i meant. I meant Craig *accuses* people of doing that, whether or not they are. Harris was on topic the whole time: attacking the morality of the Christian god and the Christian doctrine was relevant. Craig didn't want to discuss it, probably cuz he has made some unpopular comments on the Israelites attack on the Canaanites (it was good because god commanded it). So, Craig accused Harris of going off topic. In reality, Harris was just avoiding Craig's verbal traps.
Hektor88 5 months ago
@ray7685 Exactly. People aren't understanding what the fuck the debate was about. It's "Does GOOD come from God", NOT "Does god exist". So essentially, HARRIS is actually the one avoiding the main topic of discussion, while Craig is sticking to it.
roxtar55 5 months ago
@roxtar55 But how can you place the blame on Harris if Craig is the one that changed the topic by stating that without God there can't be objective morals. Therefore placing Harris on the defense ,instead of it being Craig defending his view. It was a brilliant move by Craig. That's why he always goes first so he can direct where the debate goes. So you can't blame Harris for not sticking to the topic if he is challenged from the start to defend his view.
KindaAwesomeVideos1 3 months ago
@KindaAwesomeVideos1 Idk i just think you all are fucking pussies and sheep in the herd. why must everything be theism and atheism? regardless, some day you will die. until you truly realize that, you are useless.
roxtar55 3 months ago
@roxtar55 "why must everything be theism and atheism?" Not everything has to be about atheism and theism. It can be if you make it that way. Are you saying I'm useless until I realize I will die some day? If so death is one thing you can be certain about, so I got that covered. Curious since you call theists and atheists sheep, you must have an interesting take on the topic of debate. So what do you think about it?
KindaAwesomeVideos1 3 months ago
@KindaAwesomeVideos1 Well at some point you have to say, hey, yunno, either im gonna be part of the fuckin herd, or im gonna run the herd.
roxtar55 3 months ago
@roxtar55 Really? That's it? So let me get this straight you are a pussy if you are a follower but if you are a leader all of a sudden you are doing something meaningful? If that's the case then it makes no sense. Your herd's ideas could be complete bs and all you would be doing as the leader is help spread the bs by influencing your pussy followers to believe it. If you mean that there are people on both sides that follow blindly I would agree with you. But i doubt that's what you meant.
KindaAwesomeVideos1 3 months ago
@KindaAwesomeVideos1 No one said anything about followers or leaders. Run your shit or get your shit run. Thats all there is to it.
roxtar55 3 months ago
@roxtar I'm gonna pm you. Im gonna need more than 500 characters to explain this to you.
KindaAwesomeVideos1 3 months ago
@KindaAwesomeVideos1 Come down to my shop. I will send you the address.
roxtar55 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@roxtar55 Also you never told me your thoughts on Does Good Come From God.
KindaAwesomeVideos1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ray7685 Exactly. People aren't understanding what the fuck the debate was about. It's "Does GOOD come from God", NOT "Does god exist". So essentially, HARRIS is actually the one avoiding the main topic of discussion, while Craig is sticking to it.
roxtar55 5 months ago
I love watching Craig embarrass himself.
bloodties1 6 months ago
While I don't side with Dr. Craig, and while it's obvious that much of his thinking is questionable, he's undeniably a very smart man, gifted speaker and brilliant showman/debater. Dawkins would have been trounced by him. Hitchens would have done well rhetorically and logically, even though he would have babbled his way through 2/3 of his time without saying a thing of value. So it's nice to see that Harris did as well as he did. He's the only one on "the team" that wouldn't be embarrassing.
amw1978dc 7 months ago
@amw1978dc actually, i think Hitchens kicked his ass. As you say, WLC is well polished, a professional debater, but is entirely weak on substance. Hitch cuts to the chase. Harris did great, I agree.
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra Oh, yes, Hitchens did well in his debate. But I was speaking to the specific topic of this one, which was different than Hitchens v. Craig one. Thank "God" we have Harris. ;)
amw1978dc 6 months ago
@amw1978dc ah yes......true.
adstanra 6 months ago
p.s. the youtube user who calls himself "drcraigvideos" is a coward. removing comments and banning users who disagree with dr. craig in ANY way?? Propaganda spreading COWARD. It's disgraceful.
mouthyweasel 7 months ago 2
@mouthyweasel
I was blocked by this "drcraigvideos" guy, too. He is a desperate loser who is very insecure about his worldview. Maybe he wants to be with people like him so he doesn't feel like he is the only one fooling himself
AD6043 7 months ago 2
@mouthyweasel quite true...as of this moment he has allowed a theists to call me a fucking ass....after I made one comment....then banned my response......which was very tame......someone aught to give him a lesson in morality.
adstanra 7 months ago
Comment removed
mouthyweasel 7 months ago
Harris mentions the wickedness in the Bible which shows that the God Craig is talking about, the supposed source of goodness, cannot be the God of Bible. Craig's reply is a reference to a book which he says answers Harris and he kept on till the end of the debate referring to the God of the the Bible and the generic God interchangeably. Craig was asked repeatedly to justify himself but he escapes saying it is not the topic. This is intellectual dishonesty. How come he feels no embarrassment?
AD6043 7 months ago
@AD6043 He publicly advocates an imaginary friend. He is far beyond any sense of embarassment.
deathtris 7 months ago
Comment removed
AD6043 7 months ago
@STARBARTZZ I respect any atheist who comes to a debate willing to defend their ideas. I don't particularly care what philosophy any debater espouses; it's not a sporting match to me. I just want to see if their ideas can withstand scrutiny from another viewpoint. I just get really disappointed when atheists get passive-aggressive with their insults or they change the topic. Christopher Hitchens did that with Craig. Professor Dawkins...I don't know what his problem is. He's just plain mean.
holdenc96 8 months ago
I think what's lost in all these comments is that Harris didn't stick to the topic of the debate and didn't answer Craig's refutations. Harris broke the rules of the debate and went off on a rant against Christianity. Harris did not follow the rules of the debate. If atheists claim to be pro-reason and pro-logic, then why are you not attacking how unreasonable and illogical he became toward the end? It's clear as day: he DID NOT refute Craig and completely changed the topic. Therefore, he lost.
holdenc96 8 months ago
@holdenc96 WLC simply argued that morality must be grounded in a spacetimeless being ( whatever that is). SH argued that morality is grounded in conscious beings capable of suffering in a finite world. That would have been the end of the conversation if Harris had "stuck to the topic of the debate"...What people are interested in though, is how do we create a better world for humanity...Craig offers his version of Christianity and SH challenged him on that.
adstanra 7 months ago
@adstanra Understood, but when two debaters come together and agree to an open debate, they agree on a topic, agree to present their arguments as to why they are right, why their opponent is wrong, and refute their opponents arguments. A debate i like a court case: you have to stick to the topic "Was the law broken or not and is there sufficient evidence?" You cannot change gears. That is what SH did. Atheists are supposed to be about reason and logic. In the face of both, SH lost the debate.
holdenc96 7 months ago
@holdenc96 I disagree.Sam Harris established the grounds of morality and argued that it is not a space timeless being. SH knows that part of WLCs moral philosophy involves the God of the bible...which involves hell as part of Gods justice. It would be stupid not to challange that. Would also be stupid not to point out the shaky ground that "God of love" is. People do not agree as to what that means. It is as soft a grounding as you can get..so Harris went after WLCs interpretation of that.
adstanra 7 months ago
@adstanra That wasn't the topic of the debate. The debate was about the objectivity of morality and the grounds to believe in its objectivity. You HAVE to stick to the topic. Three times WLC confronted SH, completely refuting him, and three times SH completely ignored WLC's refutation. What does that tell ANY reasonable person? It tells him that SH lost the debate.
holdenc96 7 months ago
@holdenc96 SH made the case that morality is grounded in conscious beings capable of suffering. He asked the audience to imagine a world devoid of consciousness, where morality obviously does not apply. He argued that there are objective ways to improve human well-being.Morality apply to humans in a finite world. WLC claims it is grounded in a generic space timeless being . Do you think WLC gets his morality from this? We know BS when we see it. WLC lost.
adstanra 7 months ago
@adstanra I repeat: WLC called SH out and demanded that he refute him on his glaring contradiction that SH hides by changing definitions, even citing SH's book. WLC did not do this just once, not twice, but three times. SH had three opportunities to state why his position was correct; three times, he did not. Instead, he, as WLC said, threw in a red herring. The "objective" way you cite was refuted is the very refutation I'm citing in WLC's counter argument. You're just repeating yourself.
holdenc96 7 months ago
@holdenc96 there was no refutation.If you would like to point out WLCs refutation, we could talk about it. I repeat,SH argued that morality applies to conscious beings capable of suffering in a finite world. Morality becomes a topic of discussion when these conditions are met, regardless of whether a spacetimeless being exists. WLCs argument is based on nothing but a groundless statement.SH pointed out the uselessness of this statement as a basis for morality.
adstanra 7 months ago
@adstanra Watch from 14:10 part 3 of 9. WLC makes the distinction between moral semantics and ontology. He is concerned with moral ontology. He argues there is no objectively good reason on an atheistic worldview for creatures to flourish. He continues to say that SH is playing semantics by confusing pleasure/misery with good/evil. (cont. in part 4.) The argument that SH refuses to reply to is clearly stated in part 4 4:38.
holdenc96 7 months ago
@holdenc96 I understand semantics and ontology. The foundation of morality begins with conscious beings in a finite world struggling to survive. It matters not whether a space timeless being exists, but is set in finite space and time with conscious beings capable of happiness and suffering.The terms Good/Evil are inextricably linked to happiness/suffering of conscious individuals in a finite world.It cannot be more clear. WLCs argument is simply vacuous. Please state WLCs refutation
adstanra 7 months ago
@adstanra I cited the video and even the time the refutation starts! The debate is about the existence of objective moral values, and WLC started the whole debate saying that SH actually agreed that objective moral values DO exist. Where they differ is the foundation, because an atheistic foundation is purely subjective, thus not objective. Did you even watch the entire debate? You're writing as if we're talking about two different things!
holdenc96 7 months ago
@holdenc96 SH clearly argued that morality is beyond subjectivity. He explained a number of times, that it is possible to think ones activities are improving human well-being, when they are actually not.After effectively establishing the foundation of morality,he argued that "once all biases" are removed and we are in the realm of pure logic and science, then we can determine which activities objectively effect human well-being. If YOU actually watched the debate, please do it again.
adstanra 7 months ago
@holdenc96 also...WLC provides no reason to believe that morality must be grounded in a space timeless being.He simply states this as self evident. He also provides no reason to believe that the term Good should not be identical to the flourishing of conscious beings. As SH pointed out, I wonder what he thinks the term should be concerning, if not the flourishing of conscious beings. The definition of these terms follows naturally from conditions where conscious beings capable of suffering exist
adstanra 7 months ago
@adstanra WLC in part 4, 4:38. Again, THREE times WLC presented this argument. THREE times SH did NOT respond! He threw in a red herring and changed the subject of the debate and went erratically maudlin about "the children praying to God...boo hoo hoo..." You are dense! I'll say it again: THREE TIMES WLC presented his "knockdown argument." THREE TIMES SH did NOT respond and threw in a red herring and changed the topic of the debate. This silly YouTube argument is over for me.
holdenc96 7 months ago
@holdenc96 It is obvious to any reasonable person that the term "good" is inextricably linked to the well being of conscious beings.This is a term that we use to describe things that enhance our well-being and is ultimately the result of conscious beings capable of suffering, regardless of the existence of a STL being.How else should we define moral/immoral?There might be other worlds governed by different laws of physics where different actions are deemed good by other conscious beings.
adstanra 7 months ago
@holdenc96 2/2. WLCs argument is a vacuous statement that values must be grounded in an infinate being, which he arbitrarily defines as Good. He also failed to answer whether something is Good because God commands it , or is good for its own sake, perhaps because it benefits conscious beings (lol). WLC was killed in this debate and he avoided admitting that his God is the god of the bible and based upon iron age sacrificial morality. You seem reluctant to put his argument into your own words.
adstanra 7 months ago
@lifelearnlovelive The reason he keeps repeating the same thing over and over again is because Sam basically dodges the premise of his argument over and over again. This a debate, not a talk at a coffee table. An argument most flow logicallly from its premise to its end rather than just using emotional "what feels right" type argument.
Hustada 8 months ago
@namasteywhat you been trollin all these vids.. motherfucker... dont talk out of context. if his book was terrible it wouldnt be a best seller..now fuck off.
chinamanspeakenlis 8 months ago
It seems that, while Craig is trying to win the debate by technicality, Harris is trying to have a discussion about how best to view morality in order to overcome both moral relativism and religious dogmatism.
Harris is takling about the concept of morality as it truly relates to reality, while Craig is talking about morality in a very fanciful sense that has no good practical application. It makes no sense to speak of morality in any other terms than the wellbeing of conscious minds.
Walabinx 8 months ago 33
@Walabinx I don't think Harris can escape moral relativism no matter what he does. It is either moral relativism or moral objectivism. This is not a false dichotomy.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
It seems to me that the only objective morality that exists is survival. Humans must have been doing something right by not becoming exstinct yet. But other than that i can't see how claiming that there are absolute rights and wrongs holds any weight at all. We only agree on what is good and evil for cultural and historical purposes. Since humans are not machines Harris seems to be wrong and since morality changes Craig seems to be wrong.
klindred 8 months ago
Thank you for offering your theory of a sound foundation for the existence of my ethics. I've examined your evidence and found it specious and profoundly useless and baseless. Now leave us alone. Either prove your Yahweh exists, or just shut up and stop dangling weird red herrings in our way. I'm busy.
mouthyweasel 8 months ago 25
@mouthyweasel
"I'm busy." ohhh we've got a dawkins immitator,
Nobody has to prove God exists if Objective morality exists. Objective morality proves God. What is with this new fringe of atheists who would follow Harris off a cliff. There's a reason that all of the brilliant minds of atheism rejected moral realism.
acceptjesusorburn 7 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn You're a complete ass. Does that also prove god? Because people can be asses, and people can be moral, etc. Being an ass is as arbitrary as being moral. So, I guess, because you're an ass, we have proof that Yahweh faked his own death so as to forgive you for sins you didn't actually commit so he doesn't have to send you to a hell he created (which also doesn't actually exist.)
Wake up and smell the shit you're shoveling. & if Dawkins said I'm busy, it's a coincidence.
mouthyweasel 7 months ago
@mouthyweasel
Well if you think that morality is arbitrary then i guess you disagree with Sam Harris who acknowledges we have an objective set of moral ethics.
Almost all secular historians agree that Jesus was crucified "to death". Since you can't prove anything of what you've just said it apparent that you would rather blindly believe anything just to suit your agenda.
acceptjesusorburn 7 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn 1st: You misunderstand Harris' point, and his overall intention. Not surprising. 2nd, when I say that Yahweh faked his death, it's because GOD shouldn't be able to die, should "he"?. So... I guess he didn't die.... therefore, he faked it. hmm.
Nice try.
mouthyweasel 7 months ago
@mouthyweasel
Harris acknowledges the fact that there are Objective morals.. not universal... OBJECTIVE. And this debate was a debate on moral ontology we don't need you to explain that to us his overall intention.
Death is the termination of biological functions that sustain a living organism.. so i guess he did die even though he may exist in a spiritual realm... Not suprising your so easily convinced by bad arguments though.
acceptjesusorburn 7 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn You're just not a smart person. It's okay. The world needs morons, too. Good luck, son.
mouthyweasel 7 months ago
@mouthyweasel You're too fast for the rest of us.
acceptjesusorburn 7 months ago
Comment removed
mouthyweasel 8 months ago
By saying humans are just machines, it betrays his mindset from which he cannot seem to escape - that human life has no intrinsic value and that value can only come from god
mutbutyt 8 months ago
There IS such a thing as objective morality which Sam describes in eloquent detail but Craig conveniently defines his 'objectivity' strictly in accordance with his theism. So effectively Craig is simply defining himself as correct. The problem with this is that there are rather obvious reasons to reject this definition of objectivity, which Craig fails to address
mutbutyt 8 months ago
Dr. Craig keep using the term "objective moral", like a kind of mantra.
There are no such thing as "objective moral", not even those supposedly dictated from god. God reveals himself to be very far away from "objective moral" in all texts. Chosen people, hate the homos, etc etc.
The "objective moral" of the universe will toast us all without second thoughts, remorse or even awareness of our existense, when the time comes.
But untill then I think I'll stick with Dr. harris proposal.
soskid 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"UFO Disclosure A Global Deception Conspiracy " A video compilation on
YOUTUBE reveals informaton by astronauts, military personnel,
American presidents, politicians. The compilation contains aired news
UFO footage, reveals knowledge of life beyond Earth, hidden free
energy technology + the current ongoing E.T. presence which is
being hidden from the public for over 50 years + more.
futurecop2012i 8 months ago
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 4
Form the start until the and of debate it is clear that Sam Harris is illiterate in philosophy. And he ties to be a moral, existencial and even I would say metaphysical philosopher. One time in response to the question "why you don't debate theists?" Richard Dawkins said, that it would special status for them becouse of recognition by accepting their 'challange". It is clear that W. L. Craig makes that mistake with S. Harris.
Anciokas 8 months ago
@Anciokas
Anybody who challenges theism comes across the intellectually dishonest Craig because theists put him forth as their best defender. This is the sole reason many intellectually honest people who outclasses Craig by far lower their standards and debate him, just like you can't pick the players of the other team.
The situation is very different in academia though where intellectual honesty matters. Craig was never able to find a place in any competitive academic environment ... cont
AD6043 8 months ago
@Anciokas
...
but only in Christian institutes some of which require all faculty and students to sign a pledge that they are Christians. I am not surprised to see a philosopher from such "academic" institutions are Craig-like.
AD6043 8 months ago
@mountain332
Harris gave an example for the kinds of concerns you have. He explained why it is not moral for a doctor to use the organs of a man to save 5 other. You are ignoring the cascade effects of rape.
AD6043 8 months ago
@mountain332 Wow, we've just come right back to the beginning. Empathy, solidarity, altruism etc. have their roots in evolution. The individual doesn't have to restrain themselves for the sake of others, but if they don't, the others will treat them accordingly. As an entire race, our moral compass is such that the survival of the race outweighs all else. OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T BE HERE. night buddy!
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
Again, imagine a race that can only live if we die. Is human survival good then? Where are your "objective" morals about killing human babies in that context?
Reverse it - what if we had to wipe out another sentient race in order to survive. Would it still be "objectively" wrong for us to kill them?
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
Where did I say it's the highest good? You're the one who introduced the concept of authority. Survival is a good - for us - but not necessarily the highest. I think it might be perhaps the most fundamental, and perhaps the highest good might be an ever-growing scope of consciousness and awareness, while still surviving of course.
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
1. the authority that you speak of is whether or not we survive. If so many people kill for pleasure that we die out - there is your authority. It was wrong. BUT, it was only wrong subjectively - for us - because we're dead. The universe doesn't care.
2. So what if we die out? From the objective viewpoint - correct. From the subjective viewpoint, I'd rather not thanks, hence my moral values.
3. Natural selection is the highest authority when authority is survival
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
@mountain332 Survival rule #1 - don't bloody kill yourselves off. Therefore, what's "the right direction"?.. don't murder. Subjective, but still with direction.
Why is it subjective? Eliminate all humans and ask yourself the same question. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Insert a competitor race that can only live if we die and ask them the same question.
Calling our own perspectives, as a race, "objective".. is at best limited and at worst arrogant.
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
Comment removed
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
@mountain332 again you are ignoring our history in evolution and survival. These rules you speak of are in place and have been for billions of years.
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
@mountain332 if you were to pose the question - if Dr Mengele's experiments 1) necessarily had to cause human suffering, and 2) saved the entire human race, without which we would be wiped out forever... then my answer would be yes, his actions were right.
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
@mountain332 but to be fair and answer your question directly - I would say no, it doesn't make his actions right. Because there is no experiment he could have done that required human suffering that couldn't be done without human suffering.
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
@mountain332 that's a rather shallow application of the ethical question - does the end justify the means? And like I said, there is not fix-all to those questions. You have to assess the case in hand, and even with all the best intentions and all the greatest experience, not all people will agree on the outcome.
Hence, morality is subjective.
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
@mountain332 it sounds more like you have a position that you'll defend to the end without really considering things. Thanks for the discussion anyway but I'm feeling that it's not going anywhere.. have a good one
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
@mountain332 according to you, a football team couldn't be said to be running in "the right direction" using subjective language.
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
@mountain332 wrong, it has nothing to do with popularity, and everything to do with what gave us our morals in the first place - survival. The survival of the race is not helped in any way by the Nazi movement. It is however helped greatly by Bill Gates's philanthropic efforts with AIDS research, as one example. What promotes our survival and increased our wellbeing is good, while still being subjective.
Evolution, through survivability gave us our morals. And survival will guide us onwards
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
@mountain332 ... the sharing of resources, altruism, bla bla bla. Moral relativism isn't a license for amorality. It's taking the right position, acknowledging we aren't all important in the universe, and commencing the discussion of why our ingrained morals are still worthwhile nonetheless and how to improve them further.
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
@mountain332 yes, I do. Moral relativism in the scope of an entire race makes perfect sense.
Why do you think it bad to murder? Simply because if you didn't, you wouldn't have made it this far. The race wouldn't have made it this far. In fact there have probably been many tribes whose individual competitiveness and aggression DID outweigh their aversion to kill their own, and guess what? They're gone.
You can draw the same line of reasoning to protection of children, solidarity..
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
@mountain332 the beauty of where we find ourselves is that we can choose our moral future. And, I think, we will choose for the best, even if it might take longer than we'd like.
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
@mountain332 You judge with a combination of legal theory, ethics, public debate, governance and legislation, corporate strategy, social responsibility. Why should there be a fix-all? The idea is every day, we promote more well-being than the day before. It will never be perfect, and to propose that there is a perfect objective reality will only make complex conundrums even more difficult, like the classic - do you kill 1 to save 10. Do you murder 1 to save 10?
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
@mountain332 ... moral relativism, isn't that much different from people of old thinking we were in the centre of the universe.
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
@mountain332 there is a wasp that lays its young in the brain of a cricket. The larvae then proceeds to eat the brains and insides of the cricket while it writhes in agony. If you could speak to each of those organisms, the crickets would call it a horrific, gruesome attack. The wasp would call it the most wonderful act it is capable of. The universe doesn't give a shit - what matters is that the young wasp has been born.
For both Harris and Craig to assume we are somehow beyond this..
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
@mountain332 ... which we have wrongly labelled as objective because we cant imagine a reality in which it could ever be disputed.
Indeed, morals make no sense when looking at things objectively. It is what drives the subject that gives morals their relevance. Stars don't give a damn if they explode. And incidentally, if they take out civilisations with them.
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
@mountain332 fair comment. my supporting argument is this: there is no objective morality. All our morality is subjective from the perspective of humans. The only true objective morality is what works. The universe only rewards that which persists and survives. It doesn't care how that is achieved. The objective moral truths posed by both sides e.g. the torture of children is actually not an objective moral truth but a subjective one....
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
@mountain332 I don't see how falsely assuming that an objective morality exists exactly qualifies as staying on the debate topic... but ok.
I'd say his best angle would have been to point to religion being our best efforts at morality and ethics for thousands of years and as a result, galvanised our instinctive urges for solidarity and empathy. However that would require him to acknowledge that it's now obsolete, which of course the silly old sheep is incapable of
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
Comment removed
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
William Lane Craig is a subtly, but deeply, tortured person. As he speaks at the end of this video, you can see that he has no idea what he's talking about, and doesn't believe it in the depths of his mind. He is a shell.. he's a finely tuned intellectual processing unit, that has beaten the person inside to a tiny spot, and that spot is peeking out in a pained facial expression here.
sidewinderxx 8 months ago
When the atheist says that morality is innate, Craig would reply that you have to have a moral grounding that is outside us and that is God. But that statement is useless. You mean the Bible? Then Craig would say God has written the moral code into our hearts. So, it's innate then. But Craig just adds God into that fact as an explanation of its origin. There we go again: God versus Evolution in the morality sphere. Human morality evolved, doesn't that tell you anything?
inityminiwur 9 months ago
@inityminiwur Great conclusion. I would add that should there be any God that anyone should pay heed commandments to, it would be the embodiment of the sublime experience or state that Harris argues is the basis for objective morality.
dreamingWisdom 8 months ago
@inityminiwur Actually, I don't believe Craig would oppose evolution, he opposes naturalistic atheism (yes, there's a difference). He wouldn't oppose innate morality either, but he believes it was universally given by God. And God holds all people everywhere for all time accountable for moral decisions--that's objective morality.
mkwheeland87 8 months ago in playlist Apologetics
@mkwheeland87 How should this god judge people in other times and cultures who thought they followed the will of a god when they were acting in a way that we would consider immoral today? Like when they punished people for "blasphemy". And this is still going on today in the Islamic world. And why would a god allow people to think they act according to the will of a god when they commit crimes against humanity? Wouldn´t it be immoral of a god to allow this?
katnils 8 months ago
@mkwheeland87 Even Hitler believed in a god and seemed to think he was doing something good and necessary. Of course he was mentally ill and a sociopath (which contradicts the belief in that a god gives everyone an innate normal morality) but I don´t think Hitler himself understood that he was evil. Why would a god allow people to be like him and to not understand that they are making morally bad decisions?
katnils 8 months ago
@mkwheeland87 Hitler managed to get the majority of the Germans (who were mainly Christians like most other Europeans) with him and they obviously didn´t understand what a morally bad decision they made in electing him and supporting him. The KKK members also don´t seem to understand how morally bad their view on human rights are and they can testify about how proud they are and about the holiness they feel when burning a cross.
katnils 8 months ago
@mkwheeland87 I can´t help wondering where the signs are for a morality derived from a god if a god allows people to get fooled into thinking atrocities are morally right. And when some people (sociopaths) don´t have the ability to develope what the rest of us consider a normally functioning conscience.
katnils 8 months ago
Timekeeper was Erin Ray not AronRa
chucknorris136 9 months ago
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 9 months ago
Comment removed
mouthyweasel 9 months ago
This debate was essentially the Euthyphro dilemma. Strange that it came up only once, and even then only briefly. Harris takes it in my opinion. Craig's was an exercise in obfuscation.
boluke26 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Any validity of Craig's 'foundational/framework/grounding' argument REQUIRES Yahweh's existence to be a FACT. Otherwise it's just toothless drivel. And, of course that's all his argument can ever be until he DOES prove Yahweh's existence. (which he's careful to avoid with his, "That's not the topic of tonight's debate.") Proving Yahweh's existence obviously can't be done. So... drivel. and defeat. more than that... Craig has Harris' foot lodged deep in his ass.
Harris: 1 - Craig: 0
mouthyweasel 9 months ago
@mouthyweasel -----"Any validity of Craig's 'foundational/framework/grounding' argument REQUIRES Yahweh's existence to be a FACT. Otherwise it's just toothless drivel."
Very interesting that your comment has been marked as spam.
katnils 9 months ago
@katnils Ha! Yeah. Try as they might, they can not fight the rants of the mouthyweasel : )
mouthyweasel 9 months ago
I just experienced the euphoria of watching my first pornographic movie as a kid by the end of this debate.
Just8eatit 9 months ago
What Craig doesn't get, and Sam Harris kind addressed but didn't drive into the gut, is this:
We, as human beings, have a wide array of motivations to choose from, when it comes to our moral views and actions:
-empathy vs. sadism, or glee vs. shared joy
-conformism and peer pressure vs. contrarian
-competition vs. collaboration
-concern for personal consequences
-following an authority of power, out of concern for consequences
-following an authority of perceived quality and virtue, ....
twooffour 9 months ago