Sam Harris quietly takes down and chokeholds jewish theist
- Thread starter 3rd Raikage
- Start date
3rd Raikage
Member
Sam Harris about the debate with William Graig:
Craig is arguing from legalism: to have moral laws, he thinks, one must have moral authority, and the only validly objective moral authority would be a perfectly good and just god of some sort. Yeah ok.
Also here's a rather interesting view on WLC as a debater and why Dawkins for example refuses to debate with him:
Basically this shows how skewed WLC is as an debater and it's sad that a person like that can fool you into believing he won the debate.
Craig is arguing from legalism: to have moral laws, he thinks, one must have moral authority, and the only validly objective moral authority would be a perfectly good and just god of some sort. Yeah ok.
Also here's a rather interesting view on WLC as a debater and why Dawkins for example refuses to debate with him:
You must be registered for see links
Last edited:
Anyway, what exactly is the point of such threads? There are literally thousands of such videos viral, you're not going to make a thread for each of them, are you? Just use it in your signature or on your profile intro, no need to waste a thread on this, 'specially that you could have just posted it in one of the threads already made for the topic...
But whatever.
But whatever.
3rd Raikage
Member
And damage control from Sam's blog counts as something valuable? Whatever, I have the following to say about his accusations. WLC went first because he's the affirmative side. It's a general rude that the affirmative side in a debate goes first and then the negation because otherwise the negative side would have to address claims not yet brought out thus disrupting the flow of a debate from both a logical and practical perspective.
As for his supposed skewing topic, Craig simply deployed terms which are decisive for his points. Without rebbuting them the affirmative side stays standing. There is nothing self-respective about it. It's a common custom as Stephen Law too posed the EGC to Craig in their debate.
As for the topic, it was is God necessary for morality so Craig stuck with it while Harris did not. As I said already, he wasted a whole rebuttal on off topic matters, but yeah you ignore that like everything else I said...
Still, even if I were to grant you all this the points I make remain untouched. Craig did win the debate, as per general vote (you can think they're all decieved sheep or you can just admit that WLC performed better as he did). You're still ignoring everything I said in my threads and in these last 2 posts and have shifted the topic to Craig's credibility. Good job.
3rd Raikage
Member
Harris never forgot that Craig’s interpretation of the topic wasn’t the actual topic. They were supposed to be debating “Is Good from God?” and it’s completely ridiculous to claim that questions like “does God exist?” and “if there were a God, what could we infer about his character?” are irrelevant to that question. Similarly, it isn’t at all obvious that the “God” there can only be referring to some very abstract god, and not the god that Craig actually believes in. So I do not think that Sam went offtopic. He just didn't go along for the game WLC was playing. Most, like you, didn't get that.
I can't imagine why anyone could imagine WLC won, even if Harris hadn't said a word. WLC's position is absurd. He basically assumes all the facts he needs as evidence. Hence to prove that God is necessary for morality:
a) for a morality to constitute morality it must be universal
b) such a morality much therefore have some ground
c) God is the ground of all morality
Notice that for WLC it doesn't matter if someone doesn't believe in God and if that person is highly moral because the grounds of their morality is from God. It doesn't even matter if there are thousands of religions for any meaningful moral grounds they have are derived, in distorted form, from God.
Craig simply defined God as good and argued from inside the “theological bubble” (aka “CraigWorld”) whereas Harris argued from the Real World and discussed scientific examples of human behaviour about which religion has little, if anything, useful to say.
All in all since morality is an evolutionary by product I know the Sam is on the right side of the question, therefore this shouldn't have even been up for debate. it's impossible for William Lane Craig to 'win' because his entire arguments rests on an unprovable premise. One can think all they want of whatever they want, it won't make the term "supernatural" any more sensical.
Also btw for a guy who supposedly is a good debater it's funny how he has to resort to strawman:
Harris’ first rebuttal
We are being offered a psychopathic and psychotic moral attitude… it is psychopathic because this is a total detachment from the well-being of human beings. It so easily rationalises the slaughter of children. OK, just think about the Muslims at this moment who are blowing themselves up, convinced that they are agents of God’s will. There is absolutely nothing that Dr Craig can say against their behaviour, in moral terms, apart from his own faith-based claim that they’re praying to the wrong God. If they had the right God, what they were doing would be good, on “divine command theory”.
Now, I’m obviously not saying that all that Dr Craig or all religious people are psychopaths and psychotics, but 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 [my emphasis].
Craig’s second rebuttal:
[Harris] also says it’s “psychopathic” to believe these things. Now, that remark is just as stupid as it is insulting. It is absurd to think that Peter Van Inwagen here at the University of Notre Dame is psychopathic, or that a guy like Dr Tom Flint, who is as gracious a Christian gentlemen as I could have ever met, is psychopathic. This is simply below the belt.
Harris’ second rebuttal:
Well, perhaps you’ve noticed Dr Craig has a charming habit of summarising his opponent’s points in a way in which they were not actually given, so I will leave it to you to sort it out on Youtube. Needless to say, I didn’t call those esteemed colleagues of his psychopaths, as I made clear.
We are being offered a psychopathic and psychotic moral attitude… it is psychopathic because this is a total detachment from the well-being of human beings. It so easily rationalises the slaughter of children. OK, just think about the Muslims at this moment who are blowing themselves up, convinced that they are agents of God’s will. There is absolutely nothing that Dr Craig can say against their behaviour, in moral terms, apart from his own faith-based claim that they’re praying to the wrong God. If they had the right God, what they were doing would be good, on “divine command theory”.
Now, I’m obviously not saying that all that Dr Craig or all religious people are psychopaths and psychotics, but 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 [my emphasis].
Craig’s second rebuttal:
[Harris] also says it’s “psychopathic” to believe these things. Now, that remark is just as stupid as it is insulting. It is absurd to think that Peter Van Inwagen here at the University of Notre Dame is psychopathic, or that a guy like Dr Tom Flint, who is as gracious a Christian gentlemen as I could have ever met, is psychopathic. This is simply below the belt.
Harris’ second rebuttal:
Well, perhaps you’ve noticed Dr Craig has a charming habit of summarising his opponent’s points in a way in which they were not actually given, so I will leave it to you to sort it out on Youtube. Needless to say, I didn’t call those esteemed colleagues of his psychopaths, as I made clear.
You might not realize it, but this thread is not about you or your threads. This is actually my thread. Therefore the topic only got changed when you posted the links to your threads. I'm talking about Sam Harris, so I'm staying on topic.
Last edited:
The actual topic was Is basis for morality Natural or Supernatural. This isn't "Craig's topic" this is the official topic. Again, I have no reason to believe any accusations Harris lays out just as you wouldn't believe me if I were to quote WLC who too has made remarks (but again, let's ignore that). It is indeed irrelevant to talk about whether there is a God or not as His existence is treated as a separate topic all together and the questions about morality take place on a hypothetical scenario thus making the question of what "is" the case irrelevant.
Your lack of imagination isn't my concern. And that's not an accurate presentation of Craig's argument. You're falling pretty low considering how you're accusing Craig of mispresenting his opponets' points. At this point, it's unlikely that you've even watched Craig's parts of the debate and it seems like you're going around based on what Harris says. (You wouldn't be the first to do that.)
Again, downright lies on your (and Harris' side). Craig's Divine Command Theory isn't at all a semantic game as Harris called it but an observation of a fundamental property of the concept being discussed. You can say that it has problems but to call it arguing from definitions is to fail spectacularly at coprehending Craig's arguments.
lol and you dare call Craig circular when you're here starting from the unjustified assumption that Craig's points are irrational so no matter what he says or does he cannot win. Good job at being close minded.
This is hardly a mispresentation as Harris made a laughable distinction between someone who acts in a psychopatic way and someone who is a psychopath. If one is to believe these things that are psychopathic then one is to be a psychopath. Harris makes a lame disclaimer but even if we were to let it slip it would still be no less of an insult nor a stupid (and quite useless) remark. You mentioned arguing from semantics? There's your example right there.
I don't care what you think your thread is about. You posted a video of Harris supposedly owning a guy and a guy came in saying that religious people always lose to atheists. I came in and pointed him to my threads as showing atheists losing to a religious person (still not a word directed at you nor your thread) and then you come in talking about how my points in those very threads fail for this or that reason. Now after being criticised you're introducing a whole different topic of Harris and Craig (which was never even hinted at in the OP) so congradulations, you have derailed your own thread.
Now since you insist on not replying to any of my actual points and would rather spend time wanking Harris and throwing shades at WLC's credibility I'll be taking my leave. Good night.
I have nothing against atheism just like I have nothing against any religion out there, but some atheist people or sadly the majority act like a part of cult or something they're kinda the new version of vegans but of the belief system, like I except them in the near future to come and whistle u in the ear slowly as ur walking down the road " I am an atheist so I am better than u ", literally almost every comment in these YT videos are atheists acting like a bunch of nazis like their belief( if I can call it that way ) is supreme and anyone who believes in anything else is immediately a moron or idiot or whatever, as far as proof goes u can check the comments of that very video... like the fact that u need constantly to shove it into peoples mouth that ur better just because u dont believe in god or something makes u just as obnoxious as an angry vegan ranting how meat eaters deserve the electrical chair.
Just to clarify I have nothing against ur thread nor normal atheists who can hold a good mannered discussion about religion/atheism I am just talking about the way it is presented by its followers in a discussion which is most of the time a really ignorant approach... not saying that there arent people who are obnoxious from christians or muslims but as far as reading comments goes atheists are the worst by quite a margin.
P.S I am not here to argue their points **** that arguing religion/atheism is just pointless and quite frankly I dont care.
Just to clarify I have nothing against ur thread nor normal atheists who can hold a good mannered discussion about religion/atheism I am just talking about the way it is presented by its followers in a discussion which is most of the time a really ignorant approach... not saying that there arent people who are obnoxious from christians or muslims but as far as reading comments goes atheists are the worst by quite a margin.
P.S I am not here to argue their points **** that arguing religion/atheism is just pointless and quite frankly I dont care.
3rd Raikage
Member
Then you can leave this thread anytime you want and make your own thread where you can define the topic. It's that simple. Don't act like a child about it.
You seem frustrated but let me tell you this as it seems you still don't get this: What you said in your essays changes nothing. There's as much philosophical evidence for god as there is for the flying spaghetti monster and the pink unicorn. So there's no point in debating it.
That being said it's also clear to me that if you have to justify your belief with 10 000 word essays then it really goes to only show you are desperate. I get that religious person sees philosophy as their last fortress where they can make a stand for religion, but really when there are believers of pink unicorn making that same stand with the same arguments it's nothing new.
Lastly I would like to see the day when religious person proves me that earth is a creation and thus needs a creator.
Last edited:
Btw welcome back, Hawker!
3rd raikage account made within 3 days of the main:
After a 5 yrs hiatus, 3rd raikage starts posting again on the 28th of august; Hawker logs in for the last time the next day:
Same argument about the uselessness of philosophy, flying spaghetti monster, and earth being a creation or not:
3rd raikage account made within 3 days of the main:
You must be registered for see images
After a 5 yrs hiatus, 3rd raikage starts posting again on the 28th of august; Hawker logs in for the last time the next day:
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
Same argument about the uselessness of philosophy, flying spaghetti monster, and earth being a creation or not:
You must be registered for see images
Well, everyone knows who I am, and it's no secret. The difference is I don't and never made threads to bash anyone's beliefs, religious or atheist. In fact the difference is that Hawker got banned for that, and I got banned for criticizing the staff that they don't take prompt action against people like that. Aaaand I guess I'm gonna get banned for this in 3...2...1.
Last edited:
Or the staff secretly likes me