Although Christopher Hitchens is my favorite of the so-called "Four Horseman" (which I've always found to be an odd name), it's my view that Sam Harris represents today's atheist best. He breaks the stereotype with his well-spoken, respectful, even-tempered and calm demeanor. Wish we had more of him.
My favorite line here, and there many, is: “Religions allows typically sane people, in the billions, to believe what only psychopaths could believe on their own.”
The line, "This to me is the true horror of religion-- it allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions what only lunatics could believe on their own," hits with a gravity and force that is beyond most of any pragmatic revelations i've ever heard. Above any other quote i've read or heard, this one is paramount in its clarity, truth and eloquence.
+BinaryPrime A fantastic and decisive summation, par excellence. Also like Steve Weinberg's quote " “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” Hitchens was brilliant, he is sorely missed
+Tom Rock There may well be examples outwith religion. But one only need to look to history and current affairs to see what a significant part religion has played in validating Weinberg's statement
@@simonhannah6743 If your proposition is true then you will both have evidence to verify it and you will no doubt be eager and driven to provide it as soon as possible, yes?
There is no rebuttal. The argument on suffering cannot be rebutted. Epicurus said it best, but Harris does an admirable job fleshing the argument out. The God that is all powerful and all knowing that allows suffering is the de facto cause of said suffering.
sean rodgers I hope this somewhat answers the question of suffering. @2014 I would also ask you to ponder on where suffering comes from. Humans create suffering, not God. Humans kill other humans. Humans who are in power in government decide not to feed the poor of their country resulting in many children dying. Suffering in the world is created by humans and is permitted by God to better reveal the spectrum of good and evil. Those who cause suffering are then punished in the afterlife by God. This rebuttal is not meant to be associated with any specific religion and is a basic principle for all sub and main religions.
Ok, for starters saying main religions is a disingenuous approach. The main monotheistic religions are extensions of the same tradition (Judaism) and their agreement is based on similarity, not overall moral authority. Ethics is not a popularity contest. Second, the Epicurean argument against an all powerful, omniscient and morally just God clearly demonstrates the contradiction involved. If God is all powerful and all knowing (as in the Abrahamic religions) he is clearly capable of stopping all suffering and evil from occurring and chooses not to. If the Garden of Eden had no serpent, or no tree of knowledge, there would be no sin. Not to mention the fact that an all powerful God leads logically to a deterministic universe. Blaming the objects of God's creation and rule system for their inherent faults makes no sense. If God truly made mankind perfect before the fall, why would they have made the wrong choice? You say governments have the power to feed the poor. In and of itself this statement is true. But if you blame an inherently flawed human authority for not making the right choice, how can you fail to blame an infallible supernatural authority for not caring for his creations? The answer is simply. You don't want to. Your bias forces you to purport nonsense about revealing the spectrum of good and evil without questioning why good and evil would be allowed by a perfect god in the first place.
Kevin Armstrong Not all suffering is caused by other humans. What about diseases caused by bacteria or virus's. How about cancer. Can you blame some person for a child suffering and dying a slow death from Leukemia or some other ailment. The simple answer is there is no god, these things happen because that is the way the world works. There is no morality to this, it just is. Wanting some "reason" for these things is human nature but there appears to be no reason for them.
The majority of suffering comes from other humans (wars, murder, bad decisions, exec.) The Torah, New Testament, and Qur'an claim the penalty for sin is death. If that is the case, then anyone who sins is subject to suffering and eventually death (i.e. your reference to Leukemia, Cancer, and other diseases). The good thing is, while going through this suffering, if you cling to your faith and not throw out God, you will get to enter heaven and have your suffering removed for eternity. God tests his strongest people with misfortune. Also, you're overlooking humanity's ability to reduce problems such as the few you mentioned (mainly disease). Billions, possibly trillions of dollars could be donated to disease control organizations and programs if the wealthy weren't so greedy. 1) Wanting some "reason" for these things is human nature but there appears to be no reason for them. This statement right here seems to be implying that human nature is flawed. Does this mean evolution has produced failure? I'll answer the question for you. No. It means our inherent nature is a tool for survival. It is what separates us from other species on Earth: purpose. Saying there is "no reason for them" is preposterous. The reason those things happen so often is, like I said, we are spending money on iPhones and the computers we are typing on instead of donating to the Red Cross or Childfund.org. Humans have developed logic and reasoning to apply to everyday thought processes and occurrences and now you are implying that there is no reason for these things. Hmmm... Our inability to help our own species with the abundance of money and resources is often overlooked when this topic is brought up so God is the first to blame. It's as if you saw someone on the street with Leukemia and blamed God instead of taking the initiative to take that person to the hospital.
Kevin Armstrong The biggest source of human caused suffering is done in the name of God and or religion (particularly the religion of liberalism and Government God). I am a doctor that has been forced into very early retirement due to the ACA and the devastation that legislation imposed on the USA healthcare system, especially the devastation incurred by the sick and poor. I assure you it is not the greedy rich that have caused the pathology which is infecting the USA healthcare system (not withstanding the sophistry of some rich that seek to enslave through entitlement = liberals); it is the fool that thinks that their health or the health of any poor sick person is the responsibility of the rich or anyone other than the sick person himself. If you think the poor should be helped then it is your responsibility to help them not whine that some evil rich person isn't helping. You certainly have no right to force me or anyone to help anybody - including surreptitiously through your man contrived right to vote. The purest incarnation of charity can not exist under God. No form of charity can exist under the law.
I listened to a radio interview last year with one of the New Orleans Hurricane Katrina survivors, she returned a few weeks later to her ruins of a house, neighbours lost, pets swept away, but the local pastor had rescued her plates she bought on holiday a few years before. He brought them out to her from his van when she returned to the ruined plot of land that used to be her family home. She embraced the pastor and declared it gods miracle, Hallelujah! Amongst all this devastation, over 1800 people lost their lives, tens of thousands made homeless, and she's praising god for saving her crockery. Ani't it just wonderful being a believer?
That's literally better than wallowing in misery. It's also better to have faith even in the face of unimaginable horror than to hold inconsistent views on morality.
@@MrDzoni955 Nonsense. People dont need a false profit for strength in tough times. Also, to think that your views on morality are any more consistent because they're God given is absurd.
@@MFink-oq5hy I'm smiling because I remember a Christian priest who decided to be killed by Nazis he took another man's place of death and this man was a father. Maximilian Kolbe. Who caused war? The atheists. Atheism is literally useful and abuseful it's exactly what Christianity is accused being useful to abuse the illiterate. The irony is the opposite! Oh wait that's what makes it ironic is that atheism can be a bunch of dumb rock!
What is this "Dr" quotation on Craig? He does have that title. You don't just sarcastically use it as if he wasn't one simply because you dislike his logic.
Phillip Scott You missed the point and simply gave a knee jerk reaction. He has the education to back his PhD and post-Doc. So yes, he's a Doctor of education. And he uses logic, it's just flawed and bias. The issue with logic is, even if you're wrong, that doesn't mean your thinking isn't logically based.
+True Sctosman I understand the point you're trying to make. However, these half-baked Christian Colleges are handing out Honorary Doctorate Degrees to creationists and diluting the meaning behind what it means to be a scientist or hold the title of "Doctor." Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of those who hold Creationist beliefs, hold honorary Doctorates or have gone to quick-term colleges to attain cheap degrees that truly hold no credibility in the realm of science. We determine the credibility of a scientist, based on his/her works, references, the evidence they provide/propose, etc. If you look at someone like Krauss or Hawking, their works are highly publicized, favoured, and referenced by a large portion of the scientific community. This, in reality, determines how successful your career is as a scientist, and arguably, those without similar records are less reputable. William Craig may possess the credentials, but he doesn't possess the backing. It doesn't outright refute his arguments, but it shows that he's not an authoritarian on subjects he claims he has credibility in.
Phillip Scott I didn't say that "he has an education, therefor intelligence", though it speaks volumes that he attended that long and was sufficient enough to graduate. What I said was rational was his means of arguing for his view point. It's wrong, but still logically put up fairly well. He formulates reasoning to believing in his religion fairly well compared to many others. The only one who's conflated things is you thinking "logical" means being able to proof his God. He can be wrong and have no proof and still formulated a fairly logical reasoning to believe based on rhetoric.
I sometimes think Harris was sent by God to show believers just how weak atheist 'arguments' are. Every atheist argument I've ever heard boils down to either 1) I don't see God sitting in my living room, therefore He doesn't exist, or 2) God didn't create the universe the way I would have, therefore He doesn't exist and what's more I hate Him. (Harris's 'argument' in this video is in the latter category.) Both are breathtakingly juvenile 'arguments' and can safely be dismissed by serious people.
Sam Goodnight What a strawman. The position of most atheists is not that “I’ve never seen god in person, therefore I know for a fact he doesn’t exist”, it’s simply “until sufficient evidence for the existence of a god is presented, I cannot conclude that one exists.” That is how a rational mind works, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Your second point doesn’t make any sense either. Nowhere does Sam claim “if I made the universe, this is how I would’ve done it”, he is simply pointing out that reality as we know it is in direct conflict with the idea of an omnipotent and benevolent god. That’s not an argument that god doesn’t exist, either. It’s an argument that god is either able but not willing or willing but not able.
@@sammygoodnight If god this God is omnipotent, and omniscient; why would he create Lucifer? Why would he set up the garden of Eden, knowing how all of these things were going to play out?
@@Jacob-ry3lu Thanks for your response. I accept your criticism and agree that my snarky characterizations atheist arguments look like strawmen. (I am confident I could demonstrate that they are actually accurate characterizations if the two broad categories of atheist arguments, but not in the space of a UA-cam comment, so I'll withdraw them.) But I would invite you to take a moment to consider the slippery subjectivity of your phrase "sufficient evidence." Do you at least recognize that the theist is someone who is convinced 'sufficient evidence" does exist? Also, as you said, if there's not "sufficient evidence," one cannot conclude there is a god. But neither can one conclude that there isn't. Therefore, "I don't know" or even "I doubt it" are the only rational answers. But those answers would require humility. In order to rationally claim the non existence of God on an evidentiary basis, one would have to not only debunk the dozens of arguments for God's existence, but also be certain that there is no other evidence you've overlooked. This can't be done.
If you're wondering what Dr Craigs response was in a nutshell. He desperately tried to win the crowd back over by saying Atheism is worse than Christianity
@Adriel Badillo typical delusional Christian response. Spouting off about things for which you have no evidence they are true. You simply believe in things written in an ancient book. Your faith is no different than the faiths of Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists. You all believe in things that are not evidently true. You are deluded.
Craig loses every debate, it's just that he will have a crowd of equally sheep minded people who bleat for him anyway. Anyone who has an argument founded on faith, in fact, has no argument at all.
If you can say with such confidence that Craig "loses" every debate without watching every debate, you may have accidently let yourself become a mouth piece.
+Earl Minime - The let me help...Every Athiest that comments here cannot hold out just one thought in their hands for us to see, yet we are expected to believe that their 'invisible' mind created those thoughts...and they call it Science. Now who has the imaginary issues? :D
9 років тому+33
Lance Marchetti No idea what you're talking about.
+Earl Minime As an atheist/skeptic who used to be a fundamentalist Christian, *I can tell you* that Harris' assertion about all Hindus going to Hell *is not Biblical.* That's because Paul said in Romans that God wrote morality onto people's hearts, and that those who have never been preached the Gospel but still "do the right thing" (aka live moral lives) will go to Heaven. EDIT: I *do* agree with Harris on his other points, though.
Earl Minime _I think it's a bit difficult to say what The Bible actually says._ Seeing as how the (Christian) Bible is *very large*, and an *anthology* full of both poetry, commentary and putative facts, your assertion about the whole anthology makes no real sense. Paul's letters are commentary, and pretty easy to understand. Romans 2:9-16 (and specifically verses 14-15) are darned specific: "14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them" _What matters is how people interpret it._ Specifically, it's which verses they choose to pay attention to, and which to ignore, which to treat literally and which to treat metaphorically. _ "The only way to heaven is through Jesus"._ Right. For people who have been preached the Gospel.
Mrs_pinky85 compared to that moron William craig he is, Dumbass presumes his religious beliefs are true, then uses it to argue morality comes from it, despite the bible being historically inaccurate, and it contradicts itself.
I cannot respect a belief which tells me I should apologize for being human. You have a right to your beliefs and I have a right to say that you do not own the moral high ground. I'm an atheist, and I'm a good person without your god
Vincent C. L. - if you should not have to “apologize for being human”, then neither should Hitler, Stalin or literally anyone else. Maybe better define your terms a bit more clearly, because thus far, you’re paving the way for a subjectively “moral” society, and that’s a very risky proposition.
Vincent C. L. Brother the day that you were Born you are already in the race it doesn’t matter if you believe or not I pray that God would lead you to the truth bro cause the world were at now is Wicked amen amen
Constant emotional appeals and the problem of sin that was obliterated 75 years ago is the “best points”? Says a lot. You people really need to learn what constitutes as logic and rationality.
''You know, something good happens to a christian, some, he feels some bliss while praying, say, or he see's some positive change in his life. And we're told god is good. Ok. But when children by the tens of thousands are torn from their parents arms and drowned..we're told that god is mysterious...Ok. This is how you play tennis without the net.'' Poignant!!
it is a weak argument by christians, i think most christians dont have a good answer for that question. But...if God was easily explained...or if God was visible, or if we could talk to Him...then there is no point of believing in a God.
ponchred I think you went a little bit to far. He was simply stating that if God appeared before us. he would no longer be a belief, it would no longer require faith.
@Jubei Yang I'm sure those Christians you're talking about don't know much about what they're talking. The problem isn't with Christianity rather it is with ignorance.
Great questions from Sam Harris, it would also be great to show Dr William Lane Craig's response to these challenging questions as well, we only hear one side of the spectrum.
@@jarlaxledaerthe4045 Sorry, but here, Sam dodged Craig's argument. Sam did not do a good job against him at all. Instead of judging by a portion of a video, u should watch the entire debate. The comment section on the debate video is vastly different from this one.
@@domrob3600 Yep I thought the exact same thing. But the topic of the “Debate” aside Sam has given those who care some very powerful insights. Very powerful indeed.
I never get tired of listening to this guy. I also loved listening to the late Christopher Hitchens and also Richard Dawkins but unlike these two Sam speaks in a language that resonates with ordinary people in away the latter two did/do not. He is one of he few hereos of the century and deserves every recognition. My ONLY criticism is that like CH & RD it seems they only seem to speak/debate in front of 'educated' audiences that are at least open minded. I would dearly love to see him deliver this to wider live audiences.
“Before i can get to the end of this sentence, some few children very likely will have died in terror and agony.” [deep breath] THEN STOP TALKING, DUDE! GEEZ, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
I once sat in on an AA meeting where someone talked about starting a restaurant. He kept saying "god did this for me", "god make this happen", "only god can do this" - I raised my hand and asked "Did god give you a loan? Come to the restaurant to eat? bestow the knowledge of cooking and managing your books? - YOU did those things, not god". He looked at me in stunned silence until someone changed the subject for him. I wasn't invited back.
The thing about addiction is that it has power of us. So giving it to a higher power is a self-admittance that you can't help yourself. That's why AA exists. Because addicts very often can't help themselves.
Brilliant, Mr. Harris, So well said about the moral degradation caused by a sadistic and reprehensible book as the bible, and the egocentric process that there god is taking care of them on a personal level. I was a catholic for 45 years and asked the same question of the morality of god, the bible of all gods made up out of human fears or to control people. I have been a atheist now 23 years, I have always felt we were created from stardust, and if I were to believe in a superior entity it would be nature the way the universe exists. No anthropomorphic entity somewhere in the cosmos watching this tiny little planet among the trillions of planets and hundreds of millions that could harbor intelligent life What only son did god give them. Dan Weaver
When good things happen, God is good, When bad things happen, God is mysterious and we cannot possibly expect to understand his plan... but we can understand when things are good and convenient to attribute that goodness to God. The ultimate double standard that I don't think can be rebutted. Either we understand God or we don't. That was a good point on Sam's part.
@@binsonthomas2158 can't believe that people are so stupid to believe in an omniscient celestial tyrant and think that he, the creator of the universe, wants to have a personal relationship with every single one of them.
I'll tell you what's stupid. To know the obvious fact that the universe does have a creator but to not admit it because you're too afraid to be accountable for your sins.
@@binsonthomas2158 , everybody is accountable for his sins in front of other human beings. Isn't that enough? And who created the universe and how? And who created the creator? Can you tell me?
It's laughable and tragic that so many people honestly believe morality comes from an ancient book, a book with some of the most immoral and horrific acts ever imagined and put to paper, acts caused, commanded or condoned by the fictional character, god. People who profess this belief either have never applied critical thinking to the reasons why they believe this, or they are at their core, thoroughly immoral people.
Actually, without God there is no moral values so nothing can be good or bad. So if you put out God, killing and suffering is completely relative because your opinion isn't worthier than other one. And saying that the society has an opinion is just discriminating. Without God you should live with absolutely tolerance if you don't there are values that you defend, if you defend values, they should exist, and if they exist and you defend them the only posibility is because they are besides your opinion, so they are objective. And there is no reason to thing that there is objective moral values without God.
"And there is no reason to thing that there is objective moral values without God." That's your assertion, but unfortunately is not only unsupportable and unsupported, but it's completely untrue. If morals were obtained from the bible we'd all think genocide, slavery and child sacrifice was a good idea. Did your god give animals morality too? "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus (341-270 BC)
***** Is this the god of the bible, the Christian god? The same god that supposedly condoned and carried-out mass murder and genocide? The same god that hates many of his own supposed creations? This bible is a source of morality? It's ludicrous to defend such a supposed being and such moral pronouncements that are found in the bible. I'm sure one can find many people today who have never read the bible and are as moral as anyone else. At one time, the bible might have been an accurate portrayal of the morality practiced by some particular groups of people. I'm so happy I can live in a better time.
Kzar Antila Christians defend that God can do everything that is logically posible, and also that God is omniscient so, He knows every posible consequence of every posible action. Therefore If God had 3 options and none of them were good, He could only choose the less bad. Because it would be imposible to select the 4th option. As God knows every posible consequence, in that particular group of circunstances, genocide was the best choice and the one with the best results. We can't know neither the future nor the posible futures, so you can't say that if they hadn't been killed the world would have been better.
You have never watched WLC if you think this- Crair rarely mentions god if the gaps- very ignorant comments and very uneducated- I thought atheists put them selves out to be free thinkers? Yet you believe the Big Bang just popped the universe into existence- hahaha so dumb
+Beu LaVergne Talking from ignorance hmm? You _do_ know that there is easy and free accessible tons of hard core facts and evidences about "everything" within the area of science that you shoot down because of your own personal beliefs, don't you... Just google it up. And _yet,_ in a remarkably obvious way - you simply laugh it all away with pure religious ignorance. Why you even dare call it _"a very uneducated and ignorant comment"_ is just... damn arrogant of you. Why don't you go do some research and put up some serious arguments and questions worth pondering on, instead of spewing out ignorance? Why don't you give it an effort to respond to what Sam Harris said in this video, where he's wrong? "Because Sam Harris simply _is_ wrong" is not an answer. Just like "God did it" is synonymous with "don't have the foggiest" and "because the bible says so" or "because He's always been there" (when questioning god's origin) are not valid answers. The biggy is that you never ask these questions. You simply don't care, because you seem satisfied with "God did it" as a sufficient answer to any answer you yourself can't explain, or can't provide an answer to. _How ignorant and very uneducated of you._ AND arrogant, because there are just so damn many things people _do_ know and understand damn well that you don't. Care to dig into it? No? What is the purpose of God who've always existed (as you guys says) before he created hunams? WLC constantly plays within the god of the gaps boundaries. "The ignorance area". The bible is so ridiculously wrong about so damn many things, he never ever cares to mention examples of them. _God keeping wind and hail in his storehouses at the ends of the world?_ No? Of course not. He also completely ignore to take into account everything that doesn't benefit his theories and claims - which usually works when talking to ignorants like yourself, but _not_ with educated free thinkers like Sam Harris and lesser - like most graduated atheists. We are free thinkers because we're not bound by a book that doesn't allow people to question it. Well we _do._ Throwing out a straw-man argument claiming _we believe the Big Bang just popped the universe into existence_ doesn't work either. It just makes you look dumb. Do so research and see what we actually _are_ saying, based on _what_ and _why_ we're confident about it. But first. Read your bible for what it says. Most american atheists are former christians. Most turned and became atheists _because_ they read the bible. Care to dig into it? No? Then stop posting dumb ignorant comments, because this is just low.
You know, what is the funniest bit is? He won't read the bible either. Ask him what god made Adam out of. Or who's Cain's wife. Or why Cain wanted a sign from god, so his parents wouldn't kill their only surviving son.
Marilyn Newman Most christians haven't read their bible, but because they know the many (carefully selected) verses and stories they've been told from early youth, they believe they know the bible fairly well. I, like most atheists was former christian believers who turned atheist _because_ I _read_ the bible, realizing how the many stories I knew was polished and/or edited in order to sound good, not to forget the many stories I was NEVER told for damn obvious reasons.. For example - I was never told the intertwining verse in the story of Moses in Egypt and the ten plagues. SEVEN TIMES(!!) is this verse mentioned: _But the Lord hardened the Pharaoh's heart and he would not let them go._ So in other words; God tells Moses to run to the pharaoh to state his demands. Meanwhile God makes the pharaoh unable to meet the demands,and the pharaoh (naturally) declines. God giggling "ha hah!!" and makes his move by fucking up everything - and so the story rolls. This is God being puppeteer, and in the setting among the many evil acts- every firstborn child is killed. The entire Genesis and Exodus is the story of God being an evil puppeteer, fucking up everything for the mere fun of it. An "Act of Kindness" is not on the list of actions. (Ex 34:6) _“The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,"_ God does indeed say quite a many things about himself. Just a pity his actions says something entirely different. Well I can say plenty of many (true) good things about Adolf Hitler. His actions though makes them all irrelevant. Christians can find plenty good verses about God, most of them are God's own words. His actions though makes all of them damn irrelevant. He makes both Hitler and Stalin look like _very cute_ young Irish alterboys.
I used to know a girl who got a job after being unemployed. She actually claimed that God favors her. That level of narcissism sickened me...and I am atheist.
+James Scobie I agree! I also find it disturbing that a friend of mine owed some back income taxes and negotiated a repayment plan with the IRS which they accepted. She thanked God that they accepted her offer. Really? Thank him for bad things and good things in your life? This is not a isolated incident either, people rationalize their whole life this way. I feel sorry for them.
+Steve Leyshon It's worse with junkies and drug addicts. They are not accountable for their actions. Only Jesus can judge them and God will always forgive them their sins. They will habitually let friends and family down at every turn but it's okay because God will still love them. Sickening.
I wish I could confirm my suspicion that, at 4:34, when Sam states, " this kind of faith is really the perfection of narcissism...", the hard *thump* we hear in the background is "dr" craig's clasped praying hands collapsing at the elbow and hitting the table in disgust. god. loves. me. dontchaknow? :D
ua-cam.com/video/mqQ3KwrnjBY/v-deo.html David Wood Thug Life- Schooling Sam Harris (ft. Walter White) The OG David Wood features in our special episode, schooling Sam Harris on Islam and the Virgin Birth.
Dr. Craig never did recover from Dr. Harris arguments in this clip. Craig - the master of circular logic was defeated in this debate, so much so, I almost felt sorry for him...
craig uses big words and phrases its all empty content.good speaker but full of shit.he clutches at straws how can any one as obviously as intelligent actualy believe the fairy story ,the bible ?
kim bye the silly part of the atheist perspective is to believe Sam's arguments born with him.... his arguments are already refuted. He just have fans.
Some of the most powerfully oratory ever in just over 10 min. Dr. Craig even admitted that he can't square the suffering that his imaginary god(but real to him) punished his creations with every second.
@@height5558 *HAHAHAHA. Keep telling yourself this. What a clown and buffoon you are. I guarantee you're an uncultured, unread and unenlightened fool.* 😆
I wrote an analysis of this debate for a school assignment. The problem I had with Dr. Harris's argument was that he kept bringing up points like these - largely irrelevant to what was actually being debated (What is the Foundation of morality?).
You can watch some of his other videos where makes a point that morality is inbuilt in the DNA. I can't use the eloquent language that he does but essentially he gives an example that the basic feelings like happiness, anger are felt by other animals as well. Chimps react negatively when they see unfair distribution of food etc.
+Jacob Ente Good for you for exploring these interesting questions for an assignment! This argument is a refutation of the idea that a perfectly moral god could even exist. It's related to the question because if a perfectly moral, all powerful god can't exist, then it can't be the foundation of our morality.
It is based on the same thing as the United States of America-"we the people". Do you remember this, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." We base our rights on powers that come from "consent of the governed"… That means us, the people. We decide!
Jorge Castillo I don't think so. Sam Harris' arguments never really address any of the points Dr. Craig made in the debate. Also, Dr. Craig presented a defeater for Dr. Harris' moral landscape idea.
***** "The rest of the enlightened community agrees." ---Who exactly makes up this community? Let me guess, are they atheists? Don't be silly. "Creationists are as children who've just learned to read English trying to argue Shakespeare with their teachers" ---Creationism is a relatively new political movement which began in America in the late 19th century with the growth of Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism was basically invented by an influential group of Harvard professors. A significant number of the early church fathers did not believe Genesis to be a literal account of the beginning of the world.
Matthew Hughes "Craig makes the same fucking points every time he debates morality though." ---Sure, he is a public speaker. He has his talking points.
Matthew Hughes "He never brings anything new to the table." ---I don't know about that. He usually gives reasons for God's existence, so maybe it seems like he is repeating himself. "He gives us the same talking points in literally every debate." ---Right, he is a public speaker with a speech he has planned. I am sure that Harris/Dawkins have talking points that they bring up during speeches, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. "If youve listened to 1-2 of Craigs debates you already know all his views" ---Is this a problem? Couldn't this point to Dr. Craig's ability to speak cogently? " and additionally why they arent necessarily convincing" ---His positions aren't convincing because you understand them after listening to a few of his speeches? I don't understand this. "Most of his arguments are pandering arguments" ---If by "pandering" you mean "logically deductive", then I would agree with you. "nothing to convince people intellectually because he isnt convinced intellectually. " ---No, I think he believes what he says and is convinced that there are good reasons to believe what he believes.
Matthew Hughes "but he wants to touch on the same talking points in every debate" ---All of these debates you have seen Dr Craig repeat himself in, do they have a similar topic of discussion? " When I hear somebody like Hitchens or Harris for example, I learn something new almost every time." ---I have watched their debates, and I am sure that they might change a few points, but overall they both hit the same talking points most of the time. I suspect you are only accusing Dr. Craig of doing what other debaters/speakers do because you don't like what he argues for. "Craig said he was convinced by the holy spirit, not through argumentation" ---Isn't he just being honest? It's not like he just demands everyone do the same. He gives arguments. He isn't relying on fideism. "is not an argument for the Christian God like he claims." ---I am one hundred percent sure that Dr. Craig has never claimed that Kalam Cosmological argument proves the Christian God. I have heard him say that this argument could be used by anyone who believes in a very generic idea of God.You know that this argument originated from the Islamic world? "Yet he continues to use the argument over and over again and pretends its such a good argument when its been explained to him that even given that these three premises are true" ---First of all, there are two premises and a conclusion. Second of all, he keeps using it because atheist objections, up to this point, have been hilariously bad. "(which people argue they arent necessarily and i can explain why if you like)" ---If you want. I have heard atheist objections and they aren't so great. "Does he revise this argument? Does he admit hes wrong?" ---Well, no, obviously he hasn't. Would you revise something that you thought was true? "No, he just uses it and the only people who think its a good argument are the people who already believe in Craigs conclusion. " ---This syllogism isn't circular, so I don't know what you mean about already believing conclusions. If you mean that people only accept it because they already believe in God, then you are making a severe mistake. The exact opposite could be charged at you. I could say that you only disbelieve in Dr. Craig's conclusion because you don't believe in God. Actually I wouldn't imitate your line of reasoning because it is fallacious. You don't disprove belief or claim by explaining why a person believes that belief of claim to be true. Even if it where the case that people only accepted Dr Craig's conclusions because they already believe in God, or even because they really think that Dr. Craig is a swell guy, that wouldn't mean that Dr Craig's conclusions are wrong. This is the genetic fallacy. You don't disprove beliefs be explaining their origins
@@MFink-oq5hy cos a lot of atheists are off the wall. Without christianity they become radical leftsits or neo nazi. More christanity helps save western civilizatioin.
In this debate Harris was meant to affirm that objective morality can be discovered by the scientific method. How does anything he said in this video affirm that notion? If the answer is nothing, it stands to reason that it could possibly be the worst point he made in this debate. Remember, the debate has a topic and you are meant to engage the topic...
He does. Just not in this particular clip. Here he is responding to WLC's idea of divine command theory. If you watch the entire debate, Sam gives a lengthy & detailed argument for secular objective morality. One that, I might add, I have never heard refuted.
I am seriously disappointed you removed the Lord of the Rings analogy. Yes, it was a joke that the crowd didn't get and didn't laugh at, but by removing it you are no better than the William Lane Craig fans who remove Sam Harris's best points from their video. Your editing greatly comprises your integrity as an honest human being.
The person who posted this did point out that it had been edited out (which is honest. There's enough info here to be able to find it online) I was also impressed at the request for people to have a good go at debating against the points made. This whole video encourages critical thinking from the audience on an important issue, keeping it at a length most people will be comfortable with.
the 10 minutes that changed my life....the 10 minutes i started reading and searching.....thank u for enlightened me.... i missed it. raised as christian...now an atheist. THANK U SAM
The most depressing part is I already know what Craig is going to say. "How can you even have a standard to call something evil or moral?" In other words he didn't even listen.
He will not listen because he has been brainwashed into believing that Jesus is real. People who suffer from childhood trauma, very rarely get over it. Imagine been told from a young age that Jesus is real, and that Jesus is God. That stuff gets in your DNA and forms everything of what you become. How can someone who is lost in belief betray themself. That is why be careful what you believe, because it can affect your entire perception, until the day you die, unless you uproot those old beliefs, but if not, you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of your parents.
Why would you put quotation marks around the "Dr." in Dr. Craig? The man has two doctorates, one from the University of Birmingham and the other from the University of Munich. However you feel about his views, it's absurd to doubt his credentials.
WLC overwhelming win this debate and it was Kbr close- and he has always win against these atheists because they don't know philosophy- and most of the scientists don't know logic as well as one would think-- you do know that in these debates a lot of times ppl vote in who won? Craig win this by at least 20%
Wow dude ,, not trying to be a jerk here but you are really ignorant of so many things on the issue of science and atheism so i am going to bring it down to your level. If a Snake could talk without vocal cords why do we need them ?
This speach gets better every time I hear it. There's so much nuance in that new things comes to life every time I hear it. Wow, that must have been WLC's worst burn ever.
@@saxon8981 English is my third language, so I take liberties in sometimes getting things wrong! Still I'm spelling better than 90% of Americans on this platform. I hope you don't mind me having that conviction?
It's not questioning. It's the sins. There are a bunch of different examples in the Bible where questioning is treated with respect. Nice misattribution and mischaracterization
‘Divine command theory’ is a classic example of the religious tying themselves in knots to explain away the indefensible. The fact that WLC sprouts this clap-trap with a straight face staggers me.
I don't see the ad hom. It's also not an off-topic emotional blabber. He's showing, by example, the morality of god - if he exists. It's a combination of the problem of evil and the scrutinizing the ways of getting saved. No one in their right mind would call the rules god made up to be 'moral'; except if your definition of morality is: whatever god says goes. Which is true, but then morality is nothing more then blind obedience Btw, by now, if you're counting points, it's more a billion to zero. Well, if you go by the god of the bible, quran or any other current religion in the world.
Shangori "Christian people is so inmoral, therefore God can't be the base for morality" That's ad hominem and off-topic too. Why? Bill Craig wasn´t defending the judeo-christian God, but saying that a "God" is the best explanation and base for morality. Harris knew that, but, instead of providing a good argument, he was more interested in evangelizing people to convert them to atheism with the emotional blabering. Worst part of all, Harris was talking in the bases of an existing god, a inmoral one, but existing. In that context the thinking like yours "No one in their right mind would call the rules god made up to be 'moral'; except if your definition of morality is: whatever god says goes. Which is true, but then morality is nothing more then blind obedience" How can you prove what is moral and what is not? If your saying that a god exist (an timeless, changless, inmatirial, personal, all mighty and wise) how can you compare to his thinking?
Yosh Gar So Yosh, according to Craig, God is the best explanation for the existence of good and evil. But I think I don't quite understand his point yet. Would you tell me if God could define it the other way around so that causing suffering would be good and making others happy would be evil? Is that what Craig means?
Here's the definition of an ad homien: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. "an ad hominem response" Seemed like you needed it pal. "Christian people is so inmoral, therefore God can't be the base for morality" - At what point in the video did he deliver that line. You're making a straw man of the entire video, and then knocking it down. Well done...Yosh Gar 1 -Sam Harris 0.
Yosh Gar You shouldn't put quotes around something that is not a quote.... You need to be more specific about this apparent ad hominem. I suspect what you really mean is that you are offended and thus personally hurt by what Sam says, but that's not an ad hominem attack... sorry.
I listened to Dr. Harris twice.... I can't find any argument with anything he said. For the record, I was born into a southern Baptist family, but now I'm a born again atheist....
John, the issue with Harris's position is that it's self-defeating. In his worldview we have no free will, so choice, and what makes us agents is no more than an illusion. In such a world there's no right and wrong, there's not even an ought, there is only an unchangeable IS, and you are an expression of it without any choice. Evil people thus aren't 'evil'. 'Evil' is just an illusion. He has NO ground for being a moral person. Morality is also an illusion. I say being because there are grounds for acting in a way that is perceived moral, but that's not the same as being moral.
@@tankeepeng4426 you're an idiot. If god is omniscient, then he knows who's going to hell and who isn't even before those people were born. This means that Sam Harris and other atheists were damned by God before they were even born, therefore God is a sadomasochistic asshole. What a pitiful god he is.
Mario Chartouni isn’t it ironic that you deny the salvation that you wish god gave to others? How do you know those people in India wouldn’t do the same as you? It’s an intellectually dishonest argument!
With all due respect, Mike, may I make a suggestion. Instead of just putting forward feelings and opinions on the internet, take the time to step back and do some research, and see whether you are prepared to be open enough to learn from experts in other fields - and whether that influences your feelings and opinions for the future. Try reading "Moral Minds: How Nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong" by Marc D Hauser. Try reading Victor Stenger's "God and the Folly of Faith", even if you're not particularly interested in physics and some of it would leave you cold. If you don't learn anything at all from either of those books, about morals and history and reason and psychology - and religion - you would have to be completely closed to your own self-development as a human being. Alternatively, if you have some cosy idea of one Christian God inspiring his followers through the example of Jesus to set up one "correct" consistent religion, try reading S G F Brandon's "The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church", to get some idea of the extent to which the very first generation of apostles and disciples were effectively at each other's throats over alternative interpretations of the original gospel. That book is nothing to do with any "new atheists" "anti-religion" propaganda - it's from years ago and is a serious learned work of history and literary analysis of the New Testament. Read, learn, think, evolve. Life and the universe are far more fascinating than the culturally restricted hand-me-downs from primitive tribes who had to live in a pre-scientific world and come up with the best excuses they could for why things matter or seem unjust. We know more now, honestly we do, and we can make a better world without ancient dogmas, once we learn to let them go.
You are just appealing to the authority of some books, imstead just porting that obvious argument against his. Of course, maybe you don't have that argument to refute anyone.
Wow, a calm, collected response to utter nonsense. If these people who are striking mad about Sam Harris speeches were to read up on history and science...then they would cease to be ignorant and, therefore, not be mad at Sam Harris speeches anymore. There is no such thing as a well read, educated person who denies evolution and believes the bible is 'literal truth'. The smarter the less religious.
The title says ""best point in the debate"". It is an excerpt from the debate. Once we have watched the whole thing we sometimes enjoy highlights. Craig has no highlights because he is an imbecile.
@@skyeangelofdeath7363 that's not a very constructive response. Name calling is a playground tactic. Surely you can rise above that, even if you do disagree. It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. BTW. The title has been changed. All the best.
Harris and Hitchens are critical of religion in a different way from others like Krauss, Dawkins, Stenger, etc. Their critiques are generally focused not on the arguments for the existence of God, rather they're focused on the morality of religious sanctions and on the general moral framework that is entailed if you believe that God's commands are inherently and absolutely good. The different approaches aim to show why we should reject theism but Harris is concerned with the rejection of religion as opposed to God in that his arguments are generally not about God's existence, first causes, ontology, etc. but rather are about the model of morality that slithers forth if we take God seriously, and the real-world consequences of doing so. Two different prongs to the atheistic argument that work well together.
As it would seem, among the Four Horsemen, Dennett and Dawkins represent the side that challenges whether God exists, whereas Harris and Hitchens attack[ed] the very concept of God. Hitchens frequently defined himself as an anti-theist, which meant, he claimed, that he wouldn't want a God to exist and nor should anyone else if they look at his track record in the bible.
Sam hits all the high points ...The suffering, unanswered prays, talking to imaginary friends, taking coincidence and attributing it to a higher power, transposing other gods showing the utter futility that your even praying to the right god ... This is one of my favorite clips ...
Not only did Craig win this debate, but the person who titled this video doesn't seem to realize that it's *Harris'* name we'd be more justified in putting "Dr." in quotations by. He has a B.A. in Philosophy, whereas Craig has a doctorate.
who can deny the cruelty or hypocrisy found in the bible and the koran? Sam is so cool when he makes his points... I hope he keeps fighting the good fight...
So Harris' claim is that God doesn't exist because of the pain and suffering we see throughout history. The question follows, then how do we instinctively know that these things are bad if there is no moral objective standard (i.e. God). If God truly doesn't exist and we're just evolved from something, at what point did it become an objective standard that human life is important and has value?
Empathy. Seeing a situation through the eyes of the person it's happening to. Not everyone has this trait, however. Some people can only see how things effect them. When you have empathy, you can identify with how a person feels, you can sympathize with them and knowing how this would effect you keeps you from hurting them. When humanity was really young and everything sucked, our species had to be aggressive to survive. Empathy would have killed us if we felt that way about wild animals. Now that we're the alpha species, our aggression and brutality isn't on a hair-line trigger anymore.
The universe is a hostile place and it doesn't care about morality, we know killing is wrong becuase we feel physical pain which is a survival mechanism. A tsunami or an earthquake is bad only for us for the same reason. Good an evil are human concepts.
firetopman So at one point everything sucked and life was survival of the fittest. But then someone, some group of people started to feel bad for others? just out of the blue. Hhhmm
***** Is that even remotely what I said? Of course we didn't just learn to empathize out of the blue, we had to learn it as we progressed. The reason why we're so detrimentally different from how we started out is because we learned from generation to generation how to interact with each other more peacefully. Just like slavery. We started out with slavery being justified and right to slavery being completely immoral and wrong. This is because after centuries of two separate communities slowly interacting, and to this day still struggling to find common ground, we have learned from each other that we ARE in fact equal in freedoms, rights, and humanity.
Sam Harris makes the best case ever for not believing in the nonsense of a supernatural being. WLC has to be without any scrap of logical thought to continue to believe in the crap he preaches.
+Michael Sleight - If you don't believe in The Bible accounts as being genuine historical accounts, then you need to go and burn all books in your school/library, that talk about Socrates, Homer and Roman Caesars (to name a few but you could add any ancient historical event/figure to the list), because there's less manuscripts (copies of the originals) for these historical figures and empires, than there are for Jesus Christ and The Bible events in general.
Mickymillersson the Bible does? Are you sure about that? Or is that what people think is meant? The Bible is not supposed to be the exact words of Christ or anyone else. Not that some of them aren’t exact.
The reason it says "Dr" is this ..."Dr' Craig has degrees in philosophy and theology... Dr Harris has a degree in philosophy just as "Dr" Craig does but what sets them apart is Harris has a Ph.D in neuroscience.
Why is "Dr." in quotes for this video for Dr. Craig? He has a Ph.D. from the University of Birmingham in England, and a Doctor of Theology degree from the University of Munich in Germany (two doctorates). Are you saying those institutions' doctoral degrees have no value? The first sign of bias (and often a weak argument) is to resort to ad hominem argumentation. Dr. Craig's arguments speak for themselves--he has plenty of videos on UA-cam.
It's not a shame. The real shame is that you have access to the entire debate in front of your face (the internet device you're using); however, you've opted to ridicule the content in a comment section, rather than spending three secs using a search engine. Any clip -- I'm sure this isn't the first time you've seen one -- is used to emphasize the poignancy of this particular idea(s). Why must this be explained?
The argument of the existence of evilness is an old one. It's also too simple. Blame the ones who are evil instead of blaming an " invisible " one, it's a part of your mission. If anyone thought that God will appear stopping some evilness he'll be wrong; he'll be believing in a fantasy god, not the god of the religion I know; the religion that puts the whole responsibility on us. I think a Christian isn't the best one to debate an atheist.
Yes you are right in some point but remember that your God created every thing that includes Evil,You Christian's all ways do that when it come's to the bad thing's we do we are responsible not your God but when we do good thing's God is responsible,You have to remember that you Christian's claim that God created every thing so that mean's he is responsible for every thing that includes Evil,rape and murder and stop trying to get around this
God created neutral abilities and things, and taught us sometimes by nature and sometimes by the religion what's good and what's bad, which usually makes us the responsible ones of many bad events in our world, and also raises a lot of interpretations of a single event, I believe there won't be anything at the end but justice, and that there's actually nothing but justice already, but it's just that we won't always be able to see it happening, and I believe we will be able to someday, the hereafter Some examples: Healthy humans are naturally able to have sex, only rapists, who know that they're doing bad things, rape. Great powers around the world had money and control, so they, instead of helping the rest of the world, they made the rest suffer. On the other hand you can find the kind people, the modest ones, and noble humans, made of the same organisms and cells. Choice of the human being takes a serious part of responsibility. I'm not a Christian by the way
StraightAhead135 icba with the god debate at all, but I would like you to reconsider the part about Great powers around the world had money and control so they made the rest suffer, because not a single human in modern history has ever hurt another human just to hurt them. I dont mean to imply that people should make others suffer for some greater good, but there is always something that triggers the action and it is never the need to hurt someone, and very often people mean to improve the situation by that something, much often than is usually believed.
StraightAhead135 ok i am sorry if i called you a christian but if you believe in God you are just as bad as the rest of them to me belief in a god it so stupid
Dr. Harris is such a breath of fresh air. He seems to be a very gentle man. He is articulate and well spoken, and seems to be in great control of his emotions. Growing up in a very strict Christian home, and now on the verge of atheism (or at the very least, agnosticism), this speech struck me to the core. It's very disheartening when you finally grow up (mentally) and understand that your entire life's worth of belief was in a sadistic sky fairy who raped a thirteen year old girl and told her she would bare the Messiah. I hope that free thinking, educated individuals around the world can look to Dr. Harris as an example of what atheism and humanism should look like in our modern world.
For one minute I feeled sorry for Dr. Craig. He is getting butchered. I knew the arguemnts before, ut sam Harris speaks them perfectly structured and clear.
Hey uploader, do you have a PhD in philosophy? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to be accepted into a docotrate program, and write best-selling books on the topic of philosophy of religion? Then why are you diminishing Craig's accomplishments by putting quotes around his title "Dr."? Seems like a cheap shot to dismiss Craig before hearing anything he has to say. Sounds irrational.
It's because of the poignancy of this particular portion of the debate. I'm sure you can agonizingly power through a 3 second Google search to find the entire debate.
I'm an agnostic and I know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, compassion and hate, and care and suffering. I know how to treat people with kindness and respect, and to not judge them based on creed, color, sexuality or political stance. I get my morality from within my internal beliefs about how I think we should treat each other, and this is based on my experiences in life and initially from the values with which I grew up, in a non-religious household. Could someone of faith please tell me from a moralistic standpoint what more could religion do for me if I am already this way?
+Lelouch Di Britannia I would argue that the problem then is that we have mountains of evidence for the existence of morality, yet we have zero evidence of the existence of God. Some believe in God, and some do not, but both sides know that morality exists because both sides can see it in action everyday. Therefore your claim that morality cannot exist without God is based solely on your personal belief in God, and not on some form of universal logic that can be accepted by anyone, especially non-believers. Yet a non-believer doesn't need any faith at all to see the very same morality that can be seen by a believer. Clearly you do not need God in the equation if the answer for both sides is exactly the same. If morality can not exist without God, then where does morality for a non-believer come from? Furthermore, if God created morality then why did he only apply it to humans? Why do the laws of nature operate without any kind of morality even though God created those too?
Sam Harris -- a modern day youthful Socrates. How lucky we are to have him in our presence. His razor-sharp and crystal clear logic and articulation pull us out of the dark cave of ignorance and superstition and servility and into the sunlight of reason and understanding. I have nothing but total respect and admiration for this man's intellect and courage.
Since I watch a lot of evangelical sites I take this clip and post it there. I think it is the best undermining of foundational arguments religionists I have seen.
Although Christopher Hitchens is my favorite of the so-called "Four Horseman" (which I've always found to be an odd name), it's my view that Sam Harris represents today's atheist best. He breaks the stereotype with his well-spoken, respectful, even-tempered and calm demeanor. Wish we had more of him.
do you understand the four horseman of the bible?
Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
David E Ya in Revelation. I think it's just odd to me because this was a name that was also used by a wrestling faction back in the WCW days. lol
i did not know that. you also heard it talked about in the movie "the pale rider"
David E Yep, there was a similar reference on the movie, "Tombstone". One my favorite movies.
the four horsemen is off the " Kill'em All" album
My favorite line here, and there many, is:
“Religions allows typically sane people, in the billions, to believe what only psychopaths could believe on their own.”
listening in January 2020
not exactly what he said
7:03
@@artealain that makes absolutely no good amount sense
Only wanna hear what your weak arse mind will allow. It's not your fault, you are only a reflection of your own dilutions.🤔
The line, "This to me is the true horror of religion-- it allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions what only lunatics could believe on their own," hits with a gravity and force that is beyond most of any pragmatic revelations i've ever heard. Above any other quote i've read or heard, this one is paramount in its clarity, truth and eloquence.
+BinaryPrime A fantastic and decisive summation, par excellence. Also like Steve Weinberg's quote " “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” Hitchens was brilliant, he is sorely missed
Oh yes? what d'ya recommend?
+John Smith anything original?
+John Smith You are too profound for our times bro! Go back to your daily novels ;)
+Tom Rock There may well be examples outwith religion.
But one only need to look to history and current affairs to see what a significant part religion has played in validating Weinberg's statement
It makes me really sad that it's so hard for people to understand this.
my sister is sad because I wont be a christian like her
Christ is real
@@simonhannah6743 You are a certified idiot!!!
@@simonhannah6743 If your proposition is true then you will both have evidence to verify it and you will no doubt be eager and driven to provide it as soon as possible, yes?
@@GeoCoppens That doesn't help.
There is no rebuttal. The argument on suffering cannot be rebutted. Epicurus said it best, but Harris does an admirable job fleshing the argument out. The God that is all powerful and all knowing that allows suffering is the de facto cause of said suffering.
sean rodgers I hope this somewhat answers the question of suffering. @2014
I would also ask you to ponder on where suffering comes from. Humans create suffering, not God. Humans kill other humans. Humans who are in power in government decide not to feed the poor of their country resulting in many children dying. Suffering in the world is created by humans and is permitted by God to better reveal the spectrum of good and evil. Those who cause suffering are then punished in the afterlife by God. This rebuttal is not meant to be associated with any specific religion and is a basic principle for all sub and main religions.
Ok, for starters saying main religions is a disingenuous approach. The main monotheistic religions are extensions of the same tradition (Judaism) and their agreement is based on similarity, not overall moral authority. Ethics is not a popularity contest. Second, the Epicurean argument against an all powerful, omniscient and morally just God clearly demonstrates the contradiction involved. If God is all powerful and all knowing (as in the Abrahamic religions) he is clearly capable of stopping all suffering and evil from occurring and chooses not to. If the Garden of Eden had no serpent, or no tree of knowledge, there would be no sin. Not to mention the fact that an all powerful God leads logically to a deterministic universe. Blaming the objects of God's creation and rule system for their inherent faults makes no sense. If God truly made mankind perfect before the fall, why would they have made the wrong choice? You say governments have the power to feed the poor. In and of itself this statement is true. But if you blame an inherently flawed human authority for not making the right choice, how can you fail to blame an infallible supernatural authority for not caring for his creations? The answer is simply. You don't want to. Your bias forces you to purport nonsense about revealing the spectrum of good and evil without questioning why good and evil would be allowed by a perfect god in the first place.
Kevin Armstrong Not all suffering is caused by other humans. What about diseases caused by bacteria or virus's. How about cancer. Can you blame some person for a child suffering and dying a slow death from Leukemia or some other ailment. The simple answer is there is no god, these things happen because that is the way the world works. There is no morality to this, it just is. Wanting some "reason" for these things is human nature but there appears to be no reason for them.
The majority of suffering comes from other humans (wars, murder, bad decisions, exec.) The Torah, New Testament, and Qur'an claim the penalty for sin is death. If that is the case, then anyone who sins is subject to suffering and eventually death (i.e. your reference to Leukemia, Cancer, and other diseases). The good thing is, while going through this suffering, if you cling to your faith and not throw out God, you will get to enter heaven and have your suffering removed for eternity. God tests his strongest people with misfortune. Also, you're overlooking humanity's ability to reduce problems such as the few you mentioned (mainly disease). Billions, possibly trillions of dollars could be donated to disease control organizations and programs if the wealthy weren't so greedy.
1) Wanting some "reason" for these things is human nature but there appears to be no reason for them.
This statement right here seems to be implying that human nature is flawed. Does this mean evolution has produced failure? I'll answer the question for you. No. It means our inherent nature is a tool for survival. It is what separates us from other species on Earth: purpose. Saying there is "no reason for them" is preposterous. The reason those things happen so often is, like I said, we are spending money on iPhones and the computers we are typing on instead of donating to the Red Cross or Childfund.org. Humans have developed logic and reasoning to apply to everyday thought processes and occurrences and now you are implying that there is no reason for these things. Hmmm... Our inability to help our own species with the abundance of money and resources is often overlooked when this topic is brought up so God is the first to blame. It's as if you saw someone on the street with Leukemia and blamed God instead of taking the initiative to take that person to the hospital.
Kevin Armstrong
The biggest source of human caused suffering is done in the name of God and or religion (particularly the religion of liberalism and Government God). I am a doctor that has been forced into very early retirement due to the ACA and the devastation that legislation imposed on the USA healthcare system, especially the devastation incurred by the sick and poor. I assure you it is not the greedy rich that have caused the pathology which is infecting the USA healthcare system (not withstanding the sophistry of some rich that seek to enslave through entitlement = liberals); it is the fool that thinks that their health or the health of any poor sick person is the responsibility of the rich or anyone other than the sick person himself. If you think the poor should be helped then it is your responsibility to help them not whine that some evil rich person isn't helping. You certainly have no right to force me or anyone to help anybody - including surreptitiously through your man contrived right to vote. The purest incarnation of charity can not exist under God. No form of charity can exist under the law.
I listened to a radio interview last year with one of the New Orleans Hurricane Katrina survivors, she returned a few weeks later to her ruins of a house, neighbours lost, pets swept away, but the local pastor had rescued her plates she bought on holiday a few years before. He brought them out to her from his van when she returned to the ruined plot of land that used to be her family home. She embraced the pastor and declared it gods miracle, Hallelujah! Amongst all this devastation, over 1800 people lost their lives, tens of thousands made homeless, and she's praising god for saving her crockery. Ani't it just wonderful being a believer?
That's literally better than wallowing in misery. It's also better to have faith even in the face of unimaginable horror than to hold inconsistent views on morality.
@@MrDzoni955
Nonsense. People dont need a false profit for strength in tough times. Also, to think that your views on morality are any more consistent because they're God given is absurd.
@@MFink-oq5hy I'm smiling because I remember a Christian priest who decided to be killed by Nazis he took another man's place of death and this man was a father. Maximilian Kolbe. Who caused war? The atheists. Atheism is literally useful and abuseful it's exactly what Christianity is accused being useful to abuse the illiterate. The irony is the opposite! Oh wait that's what makes it ironic is that atheism can be a bunch of dumb rock!
@@MrDzoni955 yup you're right.
Wow you atheists sure love being miserable huh?
What is this "Dr" quotation on Craig? He does have that title. You don't just sarcastically use it as if he wasn't one simply because you dislike his logic.
Phillip Scott
You missed the point and simply gave a knee jerk reaction. He has the education to back his PhD and post-Doc. So yes, he's a Doctor of education. And he uses logic, it's just flawed and bias.
The issue with logic is, even if you're wrong, that doesn't mean your thinking isn't logically based.
Phillip Scott
That has nothing to do with being logical or about his title as a "Dr".
+True Sctosman I understand the point you're trying to make. However, these half-baked Christian Colleges are handing out Honorary Doctorate Degrees to creationists and diluting the meaning behind what it means to be a scientist or hold the title of "Doctor."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of those who hold Creationist beliefs, hold honorary Doctorates or have gone to quick-term colleges to attain cheap degrees that truly hold no credibility in the realm of science.
We determine the credibility of a scientist, based on his/her works, references, the evidence they provide/propose, etc. If you look at someone like Krauss or Hawking, their works are highly publicized, favoured, and referenced by a large portion of the scientific community. This, in reality, determines how successful your career is as a scientist, and arguably, those without similar records are less reputable.
William Craig may possess the credentials, but he doesn't possess the backing. It doesn't outright refute his arguments, but it shows that he's not an authoritarian on subjects he claims he has credibility in.
Austin Thomas
He doesn't hold a belief in creationism. He may not have a phd in physics, but he does in another field. I believe it's philosophy.
Phillip Scott
I didn't say that "he has an education, therefor intelligence", though it speaks volumes that he attended that long and was sufficient enough to graduate. What I said was rational was his means of arguing for his view point. It's wrong, but still logically put up fairly well. He formulates reasoning to believing in his religion fairly well compared to many others.
The only one who's conflated things is you thinking "logical" means being able to proof his God. He can be wrong and have no proof and still formulated a fairly logical reasoning to believe based on rhetoric.
This is Harris's most excellent rebuttal.
Hitchens like in its blunt savage truth.
"Harris is an intellectual balck belt"
- Joe Rogan.
tlen keeb gotta love Rogan
I sometimes think Harris was sent by God to show believers just how weak atheist 'arguments' are. Every atheist argument I've ever heard boils down to either 1) I don't see God sitting in my living room, therefore He doesn't exist, or 2) God didn't create the universe the way I would have, therefore He doesn't exist and what's more I hate Him. (Harris's 'argument' in this video is in the latter category.) Both are breathtakingly juvenile 'arguments' and can safely be dismissed by serious people.
Sam Goodnight What a strawman. The position of most atheists is not that “I’ve never seen god in person, therefore I know for a fact he doesn’t exist”, it’s simply “until sufficient evidence for the existence of a god is presented, I cannot conclude that one exists.” That is how a rational mind works, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Your second point doesn’t make any sense either. Nowhere does Sam claim “if I made the universe, this is how I would’ve done it”, he is simply pointing out that reality as we know it is in direct conflict with the idea of an omnipotent and benevolent god. That’s not an argument that god doesn’t exist, either. It’s an argument that god is either able but not willing or willing but not able.
@@sammygoodnight If god this God is omnipotent, and omniscient; why would he create Lucifer? Why would he set up the garden of Eden, knowing how all of these things were going to play out?
@@Jacob-ry3lu Thanks for your response. I accept your criticism and agree that my snarky characterizations atheist arguments look like strawmen. (I am confident I could demonstrate that they are actually accurate characterizations if the two broad categories of atheist arguments, but not in the space of a UA-cam comment, so I'll withdraw them.)
But I would invite you to take a moment to consider the slippery subjectivity of your phrase "sufficient evidence." Do you at least recognize that the theist is someone who is convinced 'sufficient evidence" does exist?
Also, as you said, if there's not "sufficient evidence," one cannot conclude there is a god. But neither can one conclude that there isn't. Therefore, "I don't know" or even "I doubt it" are the only rational answers. But those answers would require humility.
In order to rationally claim the non existence of God on an evidentiary basis, one would have to not only debunk the dozens of arguments for God's existence, but also be certain that there is no other evidence you've overlooked. This can't be done.
If you're wondering what Dr Craigs response was in a nutshell. He desperately tried to win the crowd back over by saying Atheism is worse than Christianity
Imagine making moral judgments for 10 mins when your worldview only allows for subjective morality.
lol ikr
No lol there is object morality
Exactly
There is no thing as objective morality, especially not one coming from self acclaimed priesthood communicating with god.
@@grolstum211 can you justify morality and reasons why to be good human being by which standards?
This is why Dr. Harris is my hero.
P.s. look at dr. Craig’s face afterwards.... he knows what a hard act to follow he has
He also realizes, when presented with logic and reason, just how stupid his own beliefs are.
@Adriel Badillo typical delusional Christian response. Spouting off about things for which you have no evidence they are true. You simply believe in things written in an ancient book. Your faith is no different than the faiths of Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists. You all believe in things that are not evidently true. You are deluded.
Craig loses every debate, it's just that he will have a crowd of equally sheep minded people who bleat for him anyway.
Anyone who has an argument founded on faith, in fact, has no argument at all.
If you can say with such confidence that Craig "loses" every debate without watching every debate, you may have accidently let yourself become a mouth piece.
Ben Stiller is right!
Haha
LOL.
Hahahah!
Damn I was wondering where I saw him before
He was talking nonsense. Shouldn't he begin to study again?
I've probably watched this particular Sam Harris clip 20 times before. I never tire of it, it's fucking flawless all the way through.
How about watch the debate to see Harris get slaughtered
Lol seems really flawless to me
Not really it must makes him look like an asshole
Every christian commenting here tells us that Harris is wrong, but none tell us why.
+Earl Minime - The let me help...Every Athiest that comments here cannot hold out just one thought in their hands for us to see, yet we are expected to believe that their 'invisible' mind created those thoughts...and they call it Science. Now who has the imaginary issues? :D
Lance Marchetti
No idea what you're talking about.
Conna Rogers Yup.
+Earl Minime As an atheist/skeptic who used to be a fundamentalist Christian, *I can tell you* that Harris' assertion about all Hindus going to Hell *is not Biblical.* That's because Paul said in Romans that God wrote morality onto people's hearts, and that those who have never been preached the Gospel but still "do the right thing" (aka live moral lives) will go to Heaven.
EDIT: I *do* agree with Harris on his other points, though.
Earl Minime _I think it's a bit difficult to say what The Bible actually says._
Seeing as how the (Christian) Bible is *very large*, and an *anthology* full of both poetry, commentary and putative facts, your assertion about the whole anthology makes no real sense.
Paul's letters are commentary, and pretty easy to understand.
Romans 2:9-16 (and specifically verses 14-15) are darned specific: "14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them"
_What matters is how people interpret it._
Specifically, it's which verses they choose to pay attention to, and which to ignore, which to treat literally and which to treat metaphorically.
_ "The only way to heaven is through Jesus"._
Right. For people who have been preached the Gospel.
He's not wrong, he's right
Religion served it's purpose.
Now it's up to us.
What you have texed sir is the smartist text i've ever seen.
@@robertwelch5402
Just because it's a haiku?
Sam Harris is truly a brilliant man. Respect.
Same here, buddy. I agree.
TheLakewind I also agree.
I disagree
Mrs_pinky85 compared to that moron William craig he is,
Dumbass presumes his religious beliefs are true, then uses it to argue morality comes from it, despite the bible being historically inaccurate, and it contradicts itself.
Compare to most of people here he is much smarter.
Craig should’ve just left. You can’t follow that…
I cannot respect a belief which tells me I should apologize for being human. You have a right to your beliefs and I have a right to say that you do not own the moral high ground. I'm an atheist, and I'm a good person without your god
lol your thoughts and intentions you like to hide prove otherwise, conscience testifies.
Vincent C. L. - if you should not have to “apologize for being human”, then neither should Hitler, Stalin or literally anyone else.
Maybe better define your terms a bit more clearly, because thus far, you’re paving the way for a subjectively “moral” society, and that’s a very risky proposition.
Vincent C. L. Brother the day that you were Born you are already in the race it doesn’t matter if you believe or not I pray that God would lead you to the truth bro cause the world were at now is Wicked amen amen
@@kitaquinas3806 simply put man amen
@@kitaquinas3806 ramen
Constant emotional appeals and the problem of sin that was obliterated 75 years ago is the “best points”? Says a lot. You people really need to learn what constitutes as logic and rationality.
''You know, something good happens to a christian, some, he feels some bliss while praying, say, or he see's some positive change in his life. And we're told god is good. Ok. But when children by the tens of thousands are torn from their parents arms and drowned..we're told that god is mysterious...Ok. This is how you play tennis without the net.''
Poignant!!
it is a weak argument by christians, i think most christians dont have a good answer for that question. But...if God was easily explained...or if God was visible, or if we could talk to Him...then there is no point of believing in a God.
ponchred I think you went a little bit to far. He was simply stating that if God appeared before us. he would no longer be a belief, it would no longer require faith.
@Jubei Yang I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
@Jubei Yang yeah, incase you missed my first point. I'm not actually against Christianity.
@Jubei Yang I'm sure those Christians you're talking about don't know much about what they're talking. The problem isn't with Christianity rather it is with ignorance.
Great questions from Sam Harris, it would also be great to show Dr William Lane Craig's response to these challenging questions as well, we only hear one side of the spectrum.
@@jarlaxledaerthe4045 Sorry, but here, Sam dodged Craig's argument. Sam did not do a good job against him at all. Instead of judging by a portion of a video, u should watch the entire debate. The comment section on the debate video is vastly different from this one.
@@jarlaxledaerthe4045 Proof?Give examples instead of spouting just anything.
@@domrob3600 isnt he a creationist? Even if not, him defending the authenticity of such an illogicalbook makes him immediately silly
@@Armendosmaciato, I'm not aware that he is a creationist.
@@domrob3600 Yep I thought the exact same thing. But the topic of the “Debate” aside Sam has given those who care some very powerful insights. Very powerful indeed.
I never get tired of listening to this guy. I also loved listening to the late Christopher Hitchens and also Richard Dawkins but unlike these two Sam speaks in a language that resonates with ordinary people in away the latter two did/do not. He is one of he few hereos of the century and deserves every recognition. My ONLY criticism is that like CH & RD it seems they only seem to speak/debate in front of 'educated' audiences that are at least open minded. I would dearly love to see him deliver this to wider live audiences.
“Before i can get to the end of this sentence, some few children very likely will have died in terror and agony.”
[deep breath] THEN STOP TALKING, DUDE! GEEZ, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
I once sat in on an AA meeting where someone talked about starting a restaurant. He kept saying "god did this for me", "god make this happen", "only god can do this" - I raised my hand and asked "Did god give you a loan? Come to the restaurant to eat? bestow the knowledge of cooking and managing your books? - YOU did those things, not god". He looked at me in stunned silence until someone changed the subject for him. I wasn't invited back.
*Tips fedora...
Wow you’re a cool dude. Please tell us more of your exploits.
I suspect this happens a lot to you.
Ross Carlson that's what's wrong with AA.... total sheep mentality. Takes the power out of the hand's of the individual.
The thing about addiction is that it has power of us. So giving it to a higher power is a self-admittance that you can't help yourself. That's why AA exists. Because addicts very often can't help themselves.
Brilliant, Mr. Harris, So well said about the moral degradation caused by a sadistic and reprehensible book as the bible, and the egocentric process that there god is taking care of them on a personal level. I was a catholic for 45 years and asked the same question of the morality of god, the bible of all gods made up out of human fears or to control people. I have been a atheist now 23 years, I have always felt we were created from stardust, and if I were to believe in a superior entity it would be nature the way the universe exists. No anthropomorphic entity somewhere in the cosmos watching this tiny little planet among the trillions of planets and hundreds of millions that could harbor intelligent life What only son did god give them. Dan Weaver
the way I look at things around me and understand what he is speaking about, its a shame lots of people don't see it
When good things happen, God is good, When bad things happen, God is mysterious and we cannot possibly expect to understand his plan... but we can understand when things are good and convenient to attribute that goodness to God. The ultimate double standard that I don't think can be rebutted. Either we understand God or we don't. That was a good point on Sam's part.
I'm amazed that we (supposedly intelligent) 21st century humans are still debating about this silly cave-man era superstitious nonsense.
Exactly. How can people be so stupid to be atheists! Can't believe it.
@@binsonthomas2158 can't believe that people are so stupid to believe in an omniscient celestial tyrant and think that he, the creator of the universe, wants to have a personal relationship with every single one of them.
I'll tell you what's stupid. To know the obvious fact that the universe does have a creator but to not admit it because you're too afraid to be accountable for your sins.
i think we will get there one day hopefully
@@binsonthomas2158 , everybody is accountable for his sins in front of other human beings. Isn't that enough? And who created the universe and how? And who created the creator? Can you tell me?
It's laughable and tragic that so many people honestly believe morality comes from an ancient book, a book with some of the most immoral and horrific acts ever imagined and put to paper, acts caused, commanded or condoned by the fictional character, god. People who profess this belief either have never applied critical thinking to the reasons why they believe this, or they are at their core, thoroughly immoral people.
Usually both. The one leads to the other.
Actually, without God there is no moral values so nothing can be good or bad. So if you put out God, killing and suffering is completely relative because your opinion isn't worthier than other one. And saying that the society has an opinion is just discriminating. Without God you should live with absolutely tolerance if you don't there are values that you defend, if you defend values, they should exist, and if they exist and you defend them the only posibility is because they are besides your opinion, so they are objective. And there is no reason to thing that there is objective moral values without God.
"And there is no reason to thing that there is objective moral values without God."
That's your assertion, but unfortunately is not only unsupportable and unsupported, but it's completely untrue. If morals were obtained from the bible we'd all think genocide, slavery and child sacrifice was a good idea.
Did your god give animals morality too?
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus (341-270 BC)
*****
Is this the god of the bible, the Christian god? The same god that supposedly condoned and carried-out mass murder and genocide? The same god that hates many of his own supposed creations? This bible is a source of morality? It's ludicrous to defend such a supposed being and such moral pronouncements that are found in the bible. I'm sure one can find many people today who have never read the bible and are as moral as anyone else. At one time, the bible might have been an accurate portrayal of the morality practiced by some particular groups of people. I'm so happy I can live in a better time.
Kzar Antila
Christians defend that God can do everything that is logically posible, and also that God is omniscient so, He knows every posible consequence of every posible action. Therefore If God had 3 options and none of them were good, He could only choose the less bad. Because it would be imposible to select the 4th option. As God knows every posible consequence, in that particular group of circunstances, genocide was the best choice and the one with the best results.
We can't know neither the future nor the posible futures, so you can't say that if they hadn't been killed the world would have been better.
Well said Sam! Despite all of Craig's blather, his apologetics can be summed up very succinctly as in: "God said it, I believe it, that makes it so".
You have never watched WLC if you think this- Crair rarely mentions god if the gaps- very ignorant comments and very uneducated- I thought atheists put them selves out to be free thinkers? Yet you believe the Big Bang just popped the universe into existence- hahaha so dumb
+Beu LaVergne Talking from ignorance hmm? You _do_ know that there is easy and free accessible tons of hard core facts and evidences about "everything" within the area of science that you shoot down because of your own personal beliefs, don't you... Just google it up. And _yet,_ in a remarkably obvious way - you simply laugh it all away with pure religious ignorance. Why you even dare call it _"a very uneducated and ignorant comment"_ is just... damn arrogant of you. Why don't you go do some research and put up some serious arguments and questions worth pondering on, instead of spewing out ignorance? Why don't you give it an effort to respond to what Sam Harris said in this video, where he's wrong?
"Because Sam Harris simply _is_ wrong" is not an answer. Just like "God did it" is synonymous with "don't have the foggiest" and "because the bible says so" or "because He's always been there" (when questioning god's origin) are not valid answers.
The biggy is that you never ask these questions. You simply don't care, because you seem satisfied with "God did it" as a sufficient answer to any answer you yourself can't explain, or can't provide an answer to.
_How ignorant and very uneducated of you._ AND arrogant, because there are just so damn many things people _do_ know and understand damn well that you don't. Care to dig into it? No?
What is the purpose of God who've always existed (as you guys says) before he created hunams?
WLC constantly plays within the god of the gaps boundaries. "The ignorance area". The bible is so ridiculously wrong about so damn many things, he never ever cares to mention examples of them. _God keeping wind and hail in his storehouses at the ends of the world?_ No? Of course not. He also completely ignore to take into account everything that doesn't benefit his theories and claims - which usually works when talking to ignorants like yourself, but _not_ with educated free thinkers like Sam Harris and lesser - like most graduated atheists. We are free thinkers because we're not bound by a book that doesn't allow people to question it. Well we _do._
Throwing out a straw-man argument claiming _we believe the Big Bang just popped the universe into existence_ doesn't work either. It just makes you look dumb. Do so research and see what we actually _are_ saying, based on _what_ and _why_ we're confident about it.
But first. Read your bible for what it says. Most american atheists are former christians. Most turned and became atheists _because_ they read the bible. Care to dig into it? No? Then stop posting dumb ignorant comments, because this is just low.
You know, what is the funniest bit is? He won't read the bible either. Ask him what god made Adam out of. Or who's Cain's wife. Or why Cain wanted a sign from god, so his parents wouldn't kill their only surviving son.
Marilyn Newman
Most christians haven't read their bible, but because they know the many (carefully selected) verses and stories they've been told from early youth, they believe they know the bible fairly well.
I, like most atheists was former christian believers who turned atheist _because_ I _read_ the bible, realizing how the many stories I knew was polished and/or edited in order to sound good, not to forget the many stories I was NEVER told for damn obvious reasons..
For example - I was never told the intertwining verse in the story of Moses in Egypt and the ten plagues.
SEVEN TIMES(!!) is this verse mentioned:
_But the Lord hardened the Pharaoh's heart and he would not let them go._
So in other words; God tells Moses to run to the pharaoh to state his demands. Meanwhile God makes the pharaoh unable to meet the demands,and the pharaoh (naturally) declines. God giggling "ha hah!!" and makes his move by fucking up everything - and so the story rolls.
This is God being puppeteer, and in the setting among the many evil acts- every firstborn child is killed.
The entire Genesis and Exodus is the story of God being an evil puppeteer, fucking up everything for the mere fun of it. An "Act of Kindness" is not on the list of actions.
(Ex 34:6)
_“The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,"_
God does indeed say quite a many things about himself. Just a pity his actions says something entirely different.
Well I can say plenty of many (true) good things about Adolf Hitler. His actions though makes them all irrelevant.
Christians can find plenty good verses about God, most of them are God's own words. His actions though makes all of them damn irrelevant. He makes both Hitler and Stalin look like _very cute_ young Irish alterboys.
TOM NEEDHAM obviously you’ve never actually listened or read his positions.
“And then God made a scapegoat for all the apologists of the future, and said: ”
Ed Gepixel
Yup, the great religious "get out of jail free" card.
I used to know a girl who got a job after being unemployed. She actually claimed that God favors her. That level of narcissism sickened me...and I am atheist.
+James Scobie I agree! I also find it disturbing that a friend of mine owed some back income taxes and negotiated a repayment plan with the IRS which they accepted. She thanked God that they accepted her offer. Really? Thank him for bad things and good things in your life? This is not a isolated incident either, people rationalize their whole life this way. I feel sorry for them.
+Steve Leyshon It's worse with junkies and drug addicts. They are not accountable for their actions. Only Jesus can judge them and God will always forgive them their sins. They will habitually let friends and family down at every turn but it's okay because God will still love them. Sickening.
Nick Gherz
Afrina Rachmadina good for u man
With that level of narcissism, she'd make a great Satanist.
I am not going to church no more. I’m free!
I wish I could confirm my suspicion that, at 4:34, when Sam states, " this kind of faith is really the perfection of narcissism...", the hard *thump* we hear in the background is "dr" craig's clasped praying hands collapsing at the elbow and hitting the table in disgust.
god. loves. me.
dontchaknow?
:D
It's Sam's hand hitting the microphone attached to his jacket.
Stanley Pan
Aah, you've ruined it for him now.
*chuckle* nah, but it would have been cool :)
Thank you for providing evidence.
This is the kind of shit that makes people cringe at atheists.
hahahah, very good ;)
ua-cam.com/video/mqQ3KwrnjBY/v-deo.html David Wood Thug Life- Schooling Sam Harris (ft. Walter White) The OG David Wood features in our special episode, schooling Sam Harris on Islam and the Virgin Birth.
Dr. Craig never did recover from Dr. Harris arguments in this clip.
Craig - the master of circular logic was defeated in this debate, so much so, I almost felt sorry for him...
sure, but since nothings slicker than shit...
craig uses big words and phrases its all empty content.good speaker but full of shit.he clutches at straws how can any one as obviously as intelligent actualy believe the fairy story ,the bible ?
kim bye the silly part of the atheist perspective is to believe Sam's arguments born with him.... his arguments are already refuted. He just have fans.
This is one of Sam's best segments I've seen.
one cannot rebutt logic and or reason... he provides us a hold on reason that Hitchens brought to us. thanks you Mr. Harris
Some of the most powerfully oratory ever in just over 10 min. Dr. Craig even admitted that he can't square the suffering that his imaginary god(but real to him) punished his creations with every second.
Nails the moral argument for me.
Brilliant man. Wipes the floor with Craig. I wish him a long life so he can produce more of this kind of stuff.
Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris totally destroyed Craig. Craig is no match for them
@@ATOK_ lol Dawkins is too much of a coward to even face him, Hitchens got beat so bad he died, and Harris did the worst out of all three.
@@height5558 really?😂
@@ATOK_ really.
@@height5558 *HAHAHAHA. Keep telling yourself this. What a clown and buffoon you are. I guarantee you're an uncultured, unread and unenlightened fool.* 😆
Logic and reason always wins YOLO!
I wrote an analysis of this debate for a school assignment. The problem I had with Dr. Harris's argument was that he kept bringing up points like these - largely irrelevant to what was actually being debated (What is the Foundation of morality?).
well these points are to discredit dr craigs sense of morality
You can watch some of his other videos where makes a point that morality is inbuilt in the DNA. I can't use the eloquent language that he does but essentially he gives an example that the basic feelings like happiness, anger are felt by other animals as well. Chimps react negatively when they see unfair distribution of food etc.
+Jacob Ente Good for you for exploring these interesting questions for an assignment! This argument is a refutation of the idea that a perfectly moral god could even exist. It's related to the question because if a perfectly moral, all powerful god can't exist, then it can't be the foundation of our morality.
It is based on the same thing as the United States of America-"we the people". Do you remember this, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." We base our rights on powers that come from "consent of the governed"… That means us, the people. We decide!
He's a completely sensible bloke, Sam Harris. Theists on the other hand are completely delusional
Craig knows he's fked
Jorge Castillo I don't think so. Sam Harris' arguments never really address any of the points Dr. Craig made in the debate. Also, Dr. Craig presented a defeater for Dr. Harris' moral landscape idea.
*****
"The rest of the enlightened community agrees."
---Who exactly makes up this community? Let me guess, are they atheists? Don't be silly.
"Creationists are as children who've just learned to read English trying to argue Shakespeare with their teachers"
---Creationism is a relatively new political movement which began in America in the late 19th century with the growth of Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism was basically invented by an influential group of Harvard professors. A significant number of the early church fathers did not believe Genesis to be a literal account of the beginning of the world.
Matthew Hughes "Craig makes the same fucking points every time he debates morality though."
---Sure, he is a public speaker. He has his talking points.
Matthew Hughes "He never brings anything new to the table."
---I don't know about that. He usually gives reasons for God's existence, so maybe it seems like he is repeating himself.
"He gives us the same talking points in literally every debate."
---Right, he is a public speaker with a speech he has planned. I am sure that Harris/Dawkins have talking points that they bring up during speeches, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
"If youve listened to 1-2 of Craigs debates you already know all his views"
---Is this a problem? Couldn't this point to Dr. Craig's ability to speak cogently?
" and additionally why they arent necessarily convincing"
---His positions aren't convincing because you understand them after listening to a few of his speeches? I don't understand this.
"Most of his arguments are pandering arguments"
---If by "pandering" you mean "logically deductive", then I would agree with you.
"nothing to convince people intellectually because he isnt convinced intellectually. "
---No, I think he believes what he says and is convinced that there are good reasons to believe what he believes.
Matthew Hughes "but he wants to touch on the same talking points in every debate"
---All of these debates you have seen Dr Craig repeat himself in, do they have a similar topic of discussion?
" When I hear somebody like Hitchens or Harris for example, I learn something new almost every time."
---I have watched their debates, and I am sure that they might change a few points, but overall they both hit the same talking points most of the time. I suspect you are only accusing Dr. Craig of doing what other debaters/speakers do because you don't like what he argues for.
"Craig said he was convinced by the holy spirit, not through argumentation"
---Isn't he just being honest? It's not like he just demands everyone do the same. He gives arguments. He isn't relying on fideism.
"is not an argument for the Christian God like he claims."
---I am one hundred percent sure that Dr. Craig has never claimed that Kalam Cosmological argument proves the Christian God. I have heard him say that this argument could be used by anyone who believes in a very generic idea of God.You know that this argument originated from the Islamic world?
"Yet he continues to use the argument over and over again and pretends its such a good argument when its been explained to him that even given that these three premises are true"
---First of all, there are two premises and a conclusion. Second of all, he keeps using it because atheist objections, up to this point, have been hilariously bad.
"(which people argue they arent necessarily and i can explain why if you like)"
---If you want. I have heard atheist objections and they aren't so great.
"Does he revise this argument? Does he admit hes wrong?"
---Well, no, obviously he hasn't. Would you revise something that you thought was true?
"No, he just uses it and the only people who think its a good argument are the people who already believe in Craigs conclusion. "
---This syllogism isn't circular, so I don't know what you mean about already believing conclusions. If you mean that people only accept it because they already believe in God, then you are making a severe mistake.
The exact opposite could be charged at you. I could say that you only disbelieve in Dr. Craig's conclusion because you don't believe in God. Actually I wouldn't imitate your line of reasoning because it is fallacious. You don't disprove belief or claim by explaining why a person believes that belief of claim to be true. Even if it where the case that people only accepted Dr Craig's conclusions because they already believe in God, or even because they really think that Dr. Craig is a swell guy, that wouldn't mean that Dr Craig's conclusions are wrong. This is the genetic fallacy. You don't disprove beliefs be explaining their origins
The only people that are worse than Craig are the people that give him money!
LIke ME, an atheist by the way.
@@boliussa
Why would you do such a thing?
@@MFink-oq5hy cos a lot of atheists are off the wall. Without christianity they become radical leftsits or neo nazi. More christanity helps save western civilizatioin.
In this debate Harris was meant to affirm that objective morality can be discovered by the scientific method. How does anything he said in this video affirm that notion?
If the answer is nothing, it stands to reason that it could possibly be the worst point he made in this debate. Remember, the debate has a topic and you are meant to engage the topic...
He does. Just not in this particular clip. Here he is responding to WLC's idea of divine command theory. If you watch the entire debate, Sam gives a lengthy & detailed argument for secular objective morality. One that, I might add, I have never heard refuted.
I am seriously disappointed you removed the Lord of the Rings analogy. Yes, it was a joke that the crowd didn't get and didn't laugh at, but by removing it you are no better than the William Lane Craig fans who remove Sam Harris's best points from their video.
Your editing greatly comprises your integrity as an honest human being.
A few got it, but, yeah, not sure why he edited it out.
The person who posted this did point out that it had been edited out (which is honest. There's enough info here to be able to find it online) I was also impressed at the request for people to have a good go at debating against the points made. This whole video encourages critical thinking from the audience on an important issue, keeping it at a length most people will be comfortable with.
the 10 minutes that changed my life....the 10 minutes i started reading and searching.....thank u for enlightened me.... i missed it. raised as christian...now an atheist. THANK U SAM
I'm glad for you man
Really happy for you man!
The most depressing part is I already know what Craig is going to say.
"How can you even have a standard to call something evil or moral?"
In other words he didn't even listen.
What exactly is your objection to that? Do you not see the problem with what Sam is saying?
He will not listen because he has been brainwashed into believing that Jesus is real. People who suffer from childhood trauma, very rarely get over it. Imagine been told from a young age that Jesus is real, and that Jesus is God. That stuff gets in your DNA and forms everything of what you become. How can someone who is lost in belief betray themself. That is why be careful what you believe, because it can affect your entire perception, until the day you die, unless you uproot those old beliefs, but if not, you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of your parents.
Why would you put quotation marks around the "Dr." in Dr. Craig? The man has two doctorates, one from the University of Birmingham and the other from the University of Munich. However you feel about his views, it's absurd to doubt his credentials.
if I were in doctor Craig's place, I would've ran out of the room and never returned.
Good thing Dr. Craig is in his own place instead of you; this sort of debate is no place for cowardice.
+Mike Harper yeah no need to get all emotional and snappy over this. I was kidding. Chill.
what debate?
WLC overwhelming win this debate and it was Kbr close- and he has always win against these atheists because they don't know philosophy- and most of the scientists don't know logic as well as one would think-- you do know that in these debates a lot of times ppl vote in who won? Craig win this by at least 20%
Wow dude ,, not trying to be a jerk here but you are really ignorant of so many things on the issue of science and atheism so i am going to bring it down to your level. If a Snake could talk without vocal cords why do we need them ?
This speach gets better every time I hear it. There's so much nuance in that new things comes to life every time I hear it. Wow, that must have been WLC's worst burn ever.
speech*
@@saxon8981 English is my third language, so I take liberties in sometimes getting things wrong! Still I'm spelling better than 90% of Americans on this platform. I hope you don't mind me having that conviction?
@@Krappman i do mind actually. You are probably some Jew loving barely functioning heathen
I really do not understand how anybody could listen carefully to this, and still believe in any man made religion...
It goes under two identities... brainwashed or delusion.
How do you convince someone who is brainwashed that they have been brainwashed?
you're talking about Harris right,?
Torino Deguzman Not me. Religious = brainwashed or delusional. It's crazy to believe in ancient mythology as real.
Atheists call people brainwashed and then all they do is quote Dawkins and Harris like good little sheep
@@PikUpYourPantsPatrol So, after all that enlightment from Sam Harris , it just evaporated in your brain...??
I would encourage everyone to listen to this. And to listen to others responses.
Eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions gods infinite love - Bill Hicks
Because he LOVES you!
flutertutr He loves everyone, That’s why he allows cardinals and priests to rape little innocent children.
It's not questioning. It's the sins. There are a bunch of different examples in the Bible where questioning is treated with respect. Nice misattribution and mischaracterization
Here's my rebuttal of S. Harris's argument:
LOL.
I agree with your rebuttal.
Excellent rebuttal. It seems that you acknowledge that Sam Harris's argument is merely a fallacious appeal to emotion, and thus needs no rebuttal.
Dylan Stewart I'd like to hear yours without appealing to religious text as a source of rationality for his points.
why the restriction? "without appealing to religious text"? Seems arbitrary
Thank god I'm an atheist and thank Sam, Richard and Christopher for being logical and rational. There is no hope for the religiously insane.
You're up Dr. Craig. I can't wait to hear this!
‘Divine command theory’ is a classic example of the religious tying themselves in knots to explain away the indefensible. The fact that WLC sprouts this clap-trap with a straight face staggers me.
It's called consistency, something atheists have a severe problem with.
So.. is an ad hominem based argument and an off topic emotional blabering the best point in the debate? Well done Harris... atheists 1 - God 0
I don't see the ad hom. It's also not an off-topic emotional blabber. He's showing, by example, the morality of god - if he exists. It's a combination of the problem of evil and the scrutinizing the ways of getting saved.
No one in their right mind would call the rules god made up to be 'moral'; except if your definition of morality is: whatever god says goes. Which is true, but then morality is nothing more then blind obedience
Btw, by now, if you're counting points, it's more a billion to zero. Well, if you go by the god of the bible, quran or any other current religion in the world.
Shangori "Christian people is so inmoral, therefore God can't be the base for morality" That's ad hominem and off-topic too. Why? Bill Craig wasn´t defending the judeo-christian God, but saying that a "God" is the best explanation and base for morality. Harris knew that, but, instead of providing a good argument, he was more interested in evangelizing people to convert them to atheism with the emotional blabering.
Worst part of all, Harris was talking in the bases of an existing god, a inmoral one, but existing. In that context the thinking like yours "No one in their right mind would call the rules god made up to be 'moral'; except if your definition of morality is: whatever god says goes. Which is true, but then morality is nothing more then blind obedience" How can you prove what is moral and what is not? If your saying that a god exist (an timeless, changless, inmatirial, personal, all mighty and wise) how can you compare to his thinking?
Yosh Gar So Yosh, according to Craig, God is the best explanation for the existence of good and evil. But I think I don't quite understand his point yet. Would you tell me if God could define it the other way around so that causing suffering would be good and making others happy would be evil? Is that what Craig means?
Here's the definition of an ad homien:
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"an ad hominem response"
Seemed like you needed it pal.
"Christian people is so inmoral, therefore God can't be the base for morality" - At what point in the video did he deliver that line.
You're making a straw man of the entire video, and then knocking it down.
Well done...Yosh Gar 1 -Sam Harris 0.
Yosh Gar You shouldn't put quotes around something that is not a quote.... You need to be more specific about this apparent ad hominem. I suspect what you really mean is that you are offended and thus personally hurt by what Sam says, but that's not an ad hominem attack... sorry.
"Athiest" Shouldn't be a word, because it just means "normal" or "not batshit fucking crazy."
I listened to Dr. Harris twice.... I can't find any argument with anything he said. For the record, I was born into a southern Baptist family, but now I'm a born again atheist....
I think he was uh stating reality lol
Congratulations! Hopefully it didn't take you as long as it took me.
It's hard to find argument with anything he says because he says NOTHING. "This is how you play tennis without the net."...WTF.
John welcome to the beautiful world of truth, takes a huge amount of courage to do AND say what you just did...enjoy ;)
John, the issue with Harris's position is that it's self-defeating. In his worldview we have no free will, so choice, and what makes us agents is no more than an illusion. In such a world there's no right and wrong, there's not even an ought, there is only an unchangeable IS, and you are an expression of it without any choice. Evil people thus aren't 'evil'. 'Evil' is just an illusion.
He has NO ground for being a moral person. Morality is also an illusion. I say being because there are grounds for acting in a way that is perceived moral, but that's not the same as being moral.
I have lots of respect for his intellect.
he use his intellect to fool people , teaching the doctrine of demon.
We are discussing the doctrine of God, there is no doctrine of grammar., only the right use of grammar , you need to go and learn your english !
welcome to the gate of hell, the door is wide open, gnashing of teeth is all about, Sam harris is there too !
@@tankeepeng4426 you're an idiot. If god is omniscient, then he knows who's going to hell and who isn't even before those people were born. This means that Sam Harris and other atheists were damned by God before they were even born, therefore God is a sadomasochistic asshole. What a pitiful god he is.
Mario Chartouni isn’t it ironic that you deny the salvation that you wish god gave to others? How do you know those people in India wouldn’t do the same as you? It’s an intellectually dishonest argument!
With all due respect, Mike, may I make a suggestion. Instead of just putting forward feelings and opinions on the internet, take the time to step back and do some research, and see whether you are prepared to be open enough to learn from experts in other fields - and whether that influences your feelings and opinions for the future. Try reading "Moral Minds: How Nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong" by Marc D Hauser. Try reading Victor Stenger's "God and the Folly of Faith", even if you're not particularly interested in physics and some of it would leave you cold. If you don't learn anything at all from either of those books, about morals and history and reason and psychology - and religion - you would have to be completely closed to your own self-development as a human being. Alternatively, if you have some cosy idea of one Christian God inspiring his followers through the example of Jesus to set up one "correct" consistent religion, try reading S G F Brandon's "The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church", to get some idea of the extent to which the very first generation of apostles and disciples were effectively at each other's throats over alternative interpretations of the original gospel. That book is nothing to do with any "new atheists" "anti-religion" propaganda - it's from years ago and is a serious learned work of history and literary analysis of the New Testament. Read, learn, think, evolve. Life and the universe are far more fascinating than the culturally restricted hand-me-downs from primitive tribes who had to live in a pre-scientific world and come up with the best excuses they could for why things matter or seem unjust. We know more now, honestly we do, and we can make a better world without ancient dogmas, once we learn to let them go.
You are just appealing to the authority of some books, imstead just porting that obvious argument against his.
Of course, maybe you don't have that argument to refute anyone.
Wow, a calm, collected response to utter nonsense. If these people who are striking mad about Sam Harris speeches were to read up on history and science...then they would cease to be ignorant and, therefore, not be mad at Sam Harris speeches anymore. There is no such thing as a well read, educated person who denies evolution and believes the bible is 'literal truth'. The smarter the less religious.
Misleading title.
A debate is when both sides are represented.
The title says ""best point in the debate"". It is an excerpt from the debate. Once we have watched the whole thing we sometimes enjoy highlights. Craig has no highlights because he is an imbecile.
@@skyeangelofdeath7363 that's not a very constructive response. Name calling is a playground tactic. Surely you can rise above that, even if you do disagree.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
BTW. The title has been changed.
All the best.
Not name calling. Craig is an imbecile, literally.
"Its a sort of strange loving god that makes salvation dependent upon believing in him in bad evidence" Best quote of the debate imo.
Harris and Hitchens are critical of religion in a different way from others like Krauss, Dawkins, Stenger, etc. Their critiques are generally focused not on the arguments for the existence of God, rather they're focused on the morality of religious sanctions and on the general moral framework that is entailed if you believe that God's commands are inherently and absolutely good. The different approaches aim to show why we should reject theism but Harris is concerned with the rejection of religion as opposed to God in that his arguments are generally not about God's existence, first causes, ontology, etc. but rather are about the model of morality that slithers forth if we take God seriously, and the real-world consequences of doing so. Two different prongs to the atheistic argument that work well together.
As it would seem, among the Four Horsemen, Dennett and Dawkins represent the side that challenges whether God exists, whereas Harris and Hitchens attack[ed] the very concept of God. Hitchens frequently defined himself as an anti-theist, which meant, he claimed, that he wouldn't want a God to exist and nor should anyone else if they look at his track record in the bible.
Sam hits all the high points ...The suffering, unanswered prays, talking to imaginary friends, taking coincidence and attributing it to a higher power, transposing other gods showing the utter futility that your even praying to the right god ... This is one of my favorite clips ...
Not only did Craig win this debate, but the person who titled this video doesn't seem to realize that it's *Harris'* name we'd be more justified in putting "Dr." in quotations by. He has a B.A. in Philosophy, whereas Craig has a doctorate.
who can deny the cruelty or hypocrisy found in the bible and the koran? Sam is so cool when he makes his points... I hope he keeps fighting the good fight...
There is no hypocrisy in quran, if one do not read a book carefully and comment on it then he is ignorant and nothing else.
Sam Harris breaks the spell again
So Harris' claim is that God doesn't exist because of the pain and suffering we see throughout history. The question follows, then how do we instinctively know that these things are bad if there is no moral objective standard (i.e. God). If God truly doesn't exist and we're just evolved from something, at what point did it become an objective standard that human life is important and has value?
Empathy. Seeing a situation through the eyes of the person it's happening to. Not everyone has this trait, however. Some people can only see how things effect them. When you have empathy, you can identify with how a person feels, you can sympathize with them and knowing how this would effect you keeps you from hurting them. When humanity was really young and everything sucked, our species had to be aggressive to survive. Empathy would have killed us if we felt that way about wild animals. Now that we're the alpha species, our aggression and brutality isn't on a hair-line trigger anymore.
The universe is a hostile place and it doesn't care about morality, we know killing is wrong becuase we feel physical pain which is a survival mechanism. A tsunami or an earthquake is bad only for us for the same reason. Good an evil are human concepts.
firetopman So at one point everything sucked and life was survival of the fittest. But then someone, some group of people started to feel bad for others? just out of the blue. Hhhmm
***** Where's the evidence that our perception of moral and aesthetic values have been programmed by evolution?
***** Is that even remotely what I said? Of course we didn't just learn to empathize out of the blue, we had to learn it as we progressed. The reason why we're so detrimentally different from how we started out is because we learned from generation to generation how to interact with each other more peacefully. Just like slavery. We started out with slavery being justified and right to slavery being completely immoral and wrong. This is because after centuries of two separate communities slowly interacting, and to this day still struggling to find common ground, we have learned from each other that we ARE in fact equal in freedoms, rights, and humanity.
So how did the actual debate go? As opposed to one clip?
ua-cam.com/video/yqaHXKLRKzg/v-deo.html
Sam constantly says "think about that/this" in his speeches.
Sorry Sam, religious persons do not think, they just don't want to.
he should think what the hell he is talking about !
Sam Harris makes the best case ever for not believing in the nonsense of a supernatural being. WLC has to be without any scrap of logical thought to continue to believe in the crap he preaches.
+Michael Sleight - If you don't believe in The Bible accounts as being genuine historical accounts, then you need to go and burn all books in your school/library, that talk about Socrates, Homer and Roman Caesars (to name a few but you could add any ancient historical event/figure to the list), because there's less manuscripts (copies of the originals) for these historical figures and empires, than there are for Jesus Christ and The Bible events in general.
But the histories never pretend to tell us the exact words of the characters. The bible does. That is the big big big difference. Think about it!
Mickymillersson the Bible does? Are you sure about that? Or is that what people think is meant? The Bible is not supposed to be the exact words of Christ or anyone else. Not that some of them aren’t exact.
"Dr" craig earned his degree from an accredited institution, so give him credit for his title!
The reason it says "Dr" is this ..."Dr' Craig has degrees in philosophy and theology... Dr Harris has a degree in philosophy just as "Dr" Craig does but what sets them apart is Harris has a Ph.D in neuroscience.
Why is "Dr." in quotes for this video for Dr. Craig? He has a Ph.D. from the University of Birmingham in England, and a Doctor of Theology degree from the University of Munich in Germany (two doctorates). Are you saying those institutions' doctoral degrees have no value? The first sign of bias (and often a weak argument) is to resort to ad hominem argumentation. Dr. Craig's arguments speak for themselves--he has plenty of videos on UA-cam.
Shame the uploaded didn't include the response.
This!
Sam's position does nothing to answer his own issues.
I heard Dr. Craig's response.
It didn't matter.
Max Falto unfortunately, Harris not once responded to the claims of his opposition.
It's not a shame. The real shame is that you have access to the entire debate in front of your face (the internet device you're using); however, you've opted to ridicule the content in a comment section, rather than spending three secs using a search engine.
Any clip -- I'm sure this isn't the first time you've seen one -- is used to emphasize the poignancy of this particular idea(s). Why must this be explained?
Sam rocks!
The argument of the existence of evilness is an old one. It's also too simple. Blame the ones who are evil instead of blaming an " invisible " one, it's a part of your mission. If anyone thought that God will appear stopping some evilness he'll be wrong; he'll be believing in a fantasy god, not the god of the religion I know; the religion that puts the whole responsibility on us.
I think a Christian isn't the best one to debate an atheist.
Yes you are right in some point but remember that your God created every thing that includes Evil,You Christian's all ways do that when it come's to the bad thing's we do we are responsible not your God but when we do good thing's God is responsible,You have to remember that you Christian's claim that God created every thing so that mean's he is responsible for every thing that includes Evil,rape and murder and stop trying to get around this
God created neutral abilities and things, and taught us sometimes by nature and sometimes by the religion what's good and what's bad, which usually makes us the responsible ones of many bad events in our world, and also raises a lot of interpretations of a single event, I believe there won't be anything at the end but justice, and that there's actually nothing but justice already, but it's just that we won't always be able to see it happening, and I believe we will be able to someday, the hereafter
Some examples: Healthy humans are naturally able to have sex, only rapists, who know that they're doing bad things, rape. Great powers around the world had money and control, so they, instead of helping the rest of the world, they made the rest suffer. On the other hand you can find the kind people, the modest ones, and noble humans, made of the same organisms and cells. Choice of the human being takes a serious part of responsibility.
I'm not a Christian by the way
StraightAhead135 icba with the god debate at all, but I would like you to reconsider the part about Great powers around the world had money and control so they made the rest suffer, because not a single human in modern history has ever hurt another human just to hurt them. I dont mean to imply that people should make others suffer for some greater good, but there is always something that triggers the action and it is never the need to hurt someone, and very often people mean to improve the situation by that something, much often than is usually believed.
StraightAhead135 ok i am sorry if i called you a christian but if you believe in God you are just as bad as the rest of them to me belief in a god it so stupid
freeloadx3 I could judge you by the really bad atheists I know along the history too
Whatever, you're supposed to make an argument
Why did you remove the LOTR reference? I thought it was pretty funny
Woah Bradley Cooper really killed it in this debate
This is Pure Gold.
His opening line of "9 million children dying before their fifth birthday" is convincing enough to know this invisible man has never and doesn't exist
Dr. Harris is such a breath of fresh air. He seems to be a very gentle man. He is articulate and well spoken, and seems to be in great control of his emotions. Growing up in a very strict Christian home, and now on the verge of atheism (or at the very least, agnosticism), this speech struck me to the core. It's very disheartening when you finally grow up (mentally) and understand that your entire life's worth of belief was in a sadistic sky fairy who raped a thirteen year old girl and told her she would bare the Messiah.
I hope that free thinking, educated individuals around the world can look to Dr. Harris as an example of what atheism and humanism should look like in our modern world.
I love Dr. Harris! How can anyone successfully beat him in any debate? Good job sir!
Lol you mean his plea to emotion? He pro abortion so it’s of deception here to firm up his own side position don’t you think.
@@jaredyoung5353 plea to emotion? more like plea to logic
For one minute I feeled sorry for Dr. Craig. He is getting butchered.
I knew the arguemnts before, ut sam Harris speaks them perfectly structured and clear.
Bro this was a debate. Why didn't you put the answer of WLC?
Like most religious theists, they ignore such defeats or say, "god is mysterious"...
@@MrMdrscream Show this "proof" that Dr Craig stated this
@@domrob3600 = Have you never heard a religious apologist answer a question?
It's always the same BS. ;-)
Hey uploader, do you have a PhD in philosophy? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to be accepted into a docotrate program, and write best-selling books on the topic of philosophy of religion? Then why are you diminishing Craig's accomplishments by putting quotes around his title "Dr."? Seems like a cheap shot to dismiss Craig before hearing anything he has to say. Sounds irrational.
I dont know if god could re-butt this!LOL
I think God killed him self when he heard this :)
This guy owns.
WLC is certainly a worthy opponent for Sam Harris.
Lol so it is just Sams point without the rest of the debate or the response. Solid stuff "High"PoweredLasers.
It's because of the poignancy of this particular portion of the debate. I'm sure you can agonizingly power through a 3 second Google search to find the entire debate.
I'm an agnostic and I know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, compassion and hate, and care and suffering. I know how to treat people with kindness and respect, and to not judge them based on creed, color, sexuality or political stance. I get my morality from within my internal beliefs about how I think we should treat each other, and this is based on my experiences in life and initially from the values with which I grew up, in a non-religious household. Could someone of faith please tell me from a moralistic standpoint what more could religion do for me if I am already this way?
+Lelouch Di Britannia I would argue that the problem then is that we have mountains of evidence for the existence of morality, yet we have zero evidence of the existence of God. Some believe in God, and some do not, but both sides know that morality exists because both sides can see it in action everyday.
Therefore your claim that morality cannot exist without God is based solely on your personal belief in God, and not on some form of universal logic that can be accepted by anyone, especially non-believers. Yet a non-believer doesn't need any faith at all to see the very same morality that can be seen by a believer. Clearly you do not need God in the equation if the answer for both sides is exactly the same.
If morality can not exist without God, then where does morality for a non-believer come from? Furthermore, if God created morality then why did he only apply it to humans? Why do the laws of nature operate without any kind of morality even though God created those too?
Religion is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance - Neil degrass tyson
Sam gets the obvious W
Sam Harris -- a modern day youthful Socrates. How lucky we are to have him in our presence. His razor-sharp and crystal clear logic and articulation pull us out of the dark cave of ignorance and superstition and servility and into the sunlight of reason and understanding. I have nothing but total respect and admiration for this man's intellect and courage.
😂😂. You must be joking, this man is a Mickey mouse philosopher who himself has an unfounded position of reductive materialism.
Since I watch a lot of evangelical sites I take this clip and post it there. I think it is the best undermining of foundational arguments religionists I have seen.
I just spent the entire video making faces of astonishment and intense satisfaction as he goes deeply below the belt.