Sam Harris vs Hugh Hewitt Debate (Full Version) part 2 of 2

Sam Harris debates Hugh Hewitt. Full Interview.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• sam
• harris
• debate
• atheism
• End
• of
• Faith
• Pax
• Hugh
• Hewitt
• sam harris

[SoundzRite]

"I read your book very carefully".

The same way Hewitt listened to Sam in this debate.

The same way Hewitt apparently read his bible.

[CMVMic]

not that smart?? Im here saying to myself, Hewitt, are you that dumb? lol

[T4terrible]

hewitt is a pretentious twat! he says at the end that god has a influence on people lives despite all efforts to irradiate him. people only still believe in his because they are still indoctrinated into believing in him. if no-one ever mentioned god to him his entire life he would die an atheist, if god were real we would all be born theists. but were not,

[blaisingm]

Hewitt's final argument?! "Sam, your not that smart". REALLY?? Talk about an ad hominem attack.

[1ePoo]

My wish: face a person of absolute wit and intelligence and argue out all the ignorance that exists inside of me. School obviously didn't offer this for me.

[mattyisagod]

Hewitt is an intellectually bankrupt moron not worth the skin off Harris' knuckles

[xephyr1000]

Actually, Mr. Hewitt, Sam IS "that" smart. YOU, on the other hand, are batshit stupid.

[xephyr1000]

Christianity and Islam are both DEATH CULTS

[ClumsyRoot]

@wealthychef

I stand corrected.

[funcpl2741054]

who the hell is Hugh Hewitt, and why is someone as stupid as he on my computer?

[wealthychef]

@WarmongerWW3 I think you mean "dogmatic," not "religious." Anyhow, I know what you mean; Sam is clearly trying to evince a rational basis for morality, and thinks certain moral propositions, such as the evil of torturing a child, are obviously evil, and has constructed his moral framework carefully on a basis that preserves our moral intuition but enthrones rationality.

[wealthychef]

@ClumsyRoot I disagree. I think that Harris is trying to prove that religion is a dangerous force in the world, that belief in unprovable assertions cannot safely be used as a basis for morality, and I think he is succeeding.