RE : Dr. Sam Harris vs. "Dr." Craig BEST POINT IN THE DEBATE!

HighPoweredLasers has posted a section of the debate by Sam Harris without posting Craig's response so here it is.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Dr.
• Sam
• Harris
• William
• lane
• Craig
• DEBATE
• does
• God
• exist
• Darwin

[Mermaid4321]

if you have no substantial response, just call the other guy's points "red herrings." Or just say the points aren't "relevant" for that particular debate. Pathetic. 

[skaloon]

@aaronstately

there are 2 meanings of objective. it's a failing of language. we can objectively determine what is good for us in our society using reason - this would be the Sam Harris objective morality as oppose to a subjective 1 groups morality not taking in to account the whole society or world (which ever the case). however, in grand scheme it's subjective human only morality. it's all about perspective - even god's morality is subjective from his stand point.

[aaronstately]

@skaloon What you said makes no sense at all.

From subjective, objective does not come.

Either there is objective moral values, or there are not. There is no Quasi state of subjective being objective as you have stated....or maybe there is as you think there is.

[skaloon]

@aaronstately

you don't get what Sam Harris means when says objective morality. WLC means objective in universal sense (grand, god created). Sam Harris is talking about objective morality in human society only - even though it's subjective morality, cause it's only for humans, but we humans can objectively determine what's better for us - hence objective morality. for example, we can objectively claim that sky is blue, however, in grand scheme this claim is subjective.

[aaronstately]

@skaloon What? Harris agrees that Objective moral values do excist. Why would he argue that they didnt. He wrote a book about it.

The point of the Debate/argument is there source.

Harris book descibes a source that is not objective.

WLC describes a source that is objective, but unprovable, but still very possible.

Im in shock that you portray that you wathced the debate...then claimed he should have argued against objective moral values.

[zdunichme]

Its sad coming here and listening to this idiot knowing he poisons weak mind on a daily basis.

[HellRehab]

Craig blathers on about how we find morality (interesting topic) but I can't get past his superstitious beliefs which he's confirmed. (Exorcism, demons, stinking corpses walking and other myths from the biblical materials.)

Read your "bible" out of interest in religion, but stop thinking the supernatural stuff is actually real. Stop justifying the slaughtering of the Canaanites and their children.

It's the 21st century. If and when Craig joins it I might take him more seriously. Sorry.

[MrToby9999]

Craig says: "You believe in God because God as the supreme good is the appropriate object of adoration and love" He obviously hasn't read the BIble... I can't believe Craig is really that ignorant!

[changeinjoy]

It was extremely frustrating that Harris seemed to avoid discussing the question for debate - almost at all costs.

For me, the last nail in the coffin was Harris claiming that his position on morality (as centered on well-being) was simply axiomatic. This was the direct statement that he simply wasn't going to defend his moral system in a debate on moral systems.

[skaloon]

still i hated that Harris didn't focused on WLC arguments more. they are so easily refuted. his book "moral landscape" is new philosophical idea at it's baby steps. it should not have been in this argument at all. what sam harris should have focused - is that objective and absolute morality do not exists.