On the Origin of Morality: The Sam Harris v Wm Lane Craig debate pt 2

reply to post by ghostfacekilah00


And that would be a logical fallacy and a strawman.

We hear all the time on ATS when people make strawman arguments. That's why Harris would lose if he misrepresented the Christian belief, while not mentioning the foundational doctrines. And he should have addressed the particular denomination Craig follows and appeal to that.

There are many Christians who believe in evolution so it becomes a difficult debate based on moral relativism within Christianity. If the debate was about morality from God, then Harris should have also mentioned the Jewish perspective about that. After all, it does originate from Judaism.

That's what I think, that if you narrow the perspective to compact many arguments into a small view, then it would become necessary to only mention which groups preach that morality. To make it broad based, then you have to mention everything, and there simply isn't enough time. Maybe the points were too much.

adjensen
I haven't watched this for a long time, but as I recall, Harris lost, hands down, because it's a debate and he doesn't know how to debate. William Lane Craig is a fantastic debater ...

I believed this when I first watched this debate, however I later found out that William Lane Craig used a number of interesting strategies, including misconstruing the debate title and topic from what was originally agreed. There was no signage to indicate he was wrong.

There are some interesting things around written up by people who were there.

adjensen
reply to post by windword

 

And, in this case, Harris did not do sufficient damage to Craig's points for an unbiased judge to deem him the winner.

This I agree with, but Harris later commented that he just decided not to bother engaging with Craig's strategy and to make his own points instead. If anyone thought they were watching two different debates they essentially were.

That said, William Lane Craig is a fantastic debater and scholar on this particular topic, I wouldn't say otherwise. He gives some of the best presentations for arguments for evidence of God and he is immensely quick, but on this outing it wasn't an even field.

reply to post by wildtimes

I've viewed the video twice already, before you posted it here I think I dropped it in a thread somewhere.

Harris gets pummeled here in front of the students when the questions begin after their presentations... Harris was a kin to watching a kid argue with their parents about taking out the trash.

Harris is lacking in the philosophical department, totally fails to understand "love" he then comes off with some comment about the God of Love, but the person in the audience just asked him about love.

weak...

there is one thing these atheistic evolutionists have in common... they all bring up Hell, it's the only thing they talk about when it gets down to the nitty gritty. They are terrified of Hell! even if no one has really threatened them with it lol.

They pick up on it from movies probably and are scared of the idea of eternal damnation so they think that is what all theists represent.

Most every single one of them, including Dawkins has a terrible case of being a type of learned fool, there is a mental block/disorder which they have in common. If a shrink was looking at it from a certain perspective, or heard the same things come out of all their mouths... they could probably put their finger right on the term I am looking for.

I'm working on it, because they all have this symptom, it is just intermingled with thought patterns and comes up at different times each time we are blessed with one of these atheistic public appearances.

SisyphusRide
there is one thing these atheistic evolutionists have in common... they all bring up Hell, it's the only thing they talk about when it gets down to the nitty gritty. They are terrified of Hell! even if no one has really threatened them with it lol.

They pick up on it from movies probably and are scared of the idea of eternal damnation so they think that is what all theists represent.

Most every single one of them, including Dawkins has a terrible case of being a type of learned fool, there is a mental block/disorder which they have in common. If a shrink was looking at it from a certain perspective, or heard the same things come out of all their mouths... they could probably put their finger right on the term I am looking for.

I'm working on it, because they all have this symptom, it is just intermingled with thought patterns and comes up at different times each time we are blessed with one of these atheistic public appearances.

edit on 5-12-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)

Or they might just be scared of there existence being snuffed out. Like it's a scary thought if on one hand you don't believe in any higher powers or afterlife, which means you're life is going to be over when you die. So what I believe happens is your survival mechanisms are crying out. They're fighting on some reptilian brain function saying "I don't want to be gone for good". So that would create fear, confusion and uncertainty. Most NDE people claim to be hovering over their bodies, they leave there bodies and often go on a strange journey. Often as they're caught just between our existence and some other dimension of the afterlife. But then end up being sent back to there body. And they end up getting revived and stuff like that. Most people don't get a near death experience though. Look at that fast and furious actor in hollywood. In a split second he's gone never to have a second chance to make things right. So I just think atheists should really evaluate why they don't at least consider the possibiliity of "all this universe" being created by some higher power, not just magically appearing out of thin air.

spartacus699
Most NDE people claim to be hovering over their bodies,

Yes that is some very interesting facts right there... I remember when atheists attacked this on something I was watching, and they said that all these people just learn it from one another or that they have heard it before and that is why they claim.

But alot of these people who is has happened to are not spiritual, a quality of being which is lacking in most of our atheist friends.

The topic is less discussed than the multiple threads on "does God exist" on various forums on the net and their similar videos on the youtube.

reply to post by wildtimes


and we have the gist of it here...

-William Lane Craig

Mr Harris claims it's psychopathic to believe in these things,

that remark is just as stupid as it is insulting, it is absurd to think that people like Professor Peter van Inwagen here at the University of Notre Dame is psychopathic. Or a guy like Doctor Tom Flint, who is as gracious a Christian Gentleman as I could have ever met, is psychopathic.

This is simply below the belt

and there we have it, the opposition is unprofessional, not composed and without honor in these debates. They always start their rebuttal with a wise crack, they never approach it honorably.

It is not the case form the majority theists.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Most scientists can't even agree on what it actually means to be spiritual. And religious experts certainly dont agree on the matter. They each apply a different significance to it.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


please provide facts and links and comments to your claim...

do you speak for "most" scientists?

reply to post by SisyphusRide


I'm on my phone.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Actually it's ok man... I know you can not provide the information and facts I request.

There has been no poll done, and there are just way too many different fields of science, a poll would have difficulty getting around.

Wherever you read that, or heard that is only but one persons opinion, which you have made it your own. This is not a very scientific way to go through life, because claims require evidence to ascertain facts.

It is possible that you speak for maybe 3 or 4 theoretical something or other biologists who debate theists on topics in order to try and make a living? See a scientists is one who actually works with materials and uses the scientific method, a chemist is a true scientists. The scientists you refer to live in a fantasy world which resides on a blackboard and in their own mind.

There are many branches of science...

reply to post by SisyphusRide


So you're reduced to baiting now.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


no... Evolution baby, Evolution!

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Then you can stop with the underhanded posts.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


you should think before you speak... it would save threads all this trash, which I am guilty of past a second response.

fighting fire with fire, pay no mind...

"Even a fool, when he holds his peace, is counted wise: and he that shuts his lips is esteemed a man of understanding."

www.wikihow.com...

if you come up with that evidence so we may be presented with the facts, please do post so the whole thread may see, and so posterity may be enlightened by truth.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

The term spirituality lacks a definitive definition,[1][2] although social scientists have defined spirituality as the search for "the sacred," where "the sacred" is broadly defined as that which is set apart from the ordinary and worthy of veneration.[3]
The use of the term "spirituality" has changed throughout the ages.[4] In modern times, spirituality is often separated from Abrahamic religions,[5] and connotes a blend of humanistic psychology with mystical and esoteric traditions and eastern religions aimed at personal well-being and personal development.[6] The notion of "spiritual experience" plays an important role in modern spirituality, but has a relatively recent origin.[7]

en.wikipedia.org...

Now you can stop playing the passive aggressive game.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Most scientists can't even agree on what it actually means to be spiritual. And religious experts certainly dont agree on the matter. They each apply a different significance to it.

Why would it be up to a scientist to explain spirituality to begin with, if science is merely a study of the natural? Spirituality is supernatural belief and experience, which many scientists do believe.

But to expect a scientist to define the supernatural will just end up placing too much reliance on their own subjective experiences, which you discount to begin with. So I think trying to play "scientists define..." card is like ducking the arguments.

Religious experts, no matter the religion, base it in the supernatural, subjective experience. But the obvious question becomes, why does it fall on the religious experts to define spirituality also, because that is subjective to the individual.

What you miss in this particular aspect, is that every spiritual person is an expert in their own spirituality. Wildtimes and I may not agree on particulars, but each of us is an expert in our experience of the supernatural.

You can't define a subjective experience by an objective view. And that is why science, atheism and evolution thoughts are spiritual, because it descends back to the subjective experience. Let me give you an example, Richard Dawkins said in a debate that "I was born a lucky accident". Well, he believes his subjective experience of whom he was born to was lucky. Now where does the idea of lucky come from? A spiritual place. And it is his own subjectivity he was claiming from.

So Richard Dawkins, without intending to, could not escape the spiritual. And therefore makes his subjective experience something he is an expert in. But the accusations from Richard Dawkins are that we use circular logic. But his own spirituality, in that he was a lucky accident, is not something that was scientifically explained. He had to rely on his own interpretation of a spiritual matter, which he embraced.

That's why science, even though it studies the natural, cannot escape the supernatural or spiritual. And that is why atheism is spiritual, because even though it attempts to dismiss spirituality, ends up at the same level of personal, subjective experience about the lives of the scientists attempting to dismiss it. Every atheist says they "CHOOSE" not to believe in a god. But in that choice, they have to give credence that it is their own subjective, personal view and experience. That's what spiritual people also say, they "CHOOSE" to believe.

The only way to escape spirituality is to completely deny any aspect of your intellect, personality or core beliefs, turning all of that over to saying you are simply a walking bag of bones without any thought processes of your own and no life experiences. But when it comes to belief, it is always, every time, subjective and personal. And that is something science cannot measure. Atheism is spirituality. Your subjective beliefs cannot be measured and your life experiences and memories reside solely within you.

Waiting for science to measure and define you, must include everything about you, is a losing battle.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

The term spirituality lacks a definitive definition,[1][2] although social scientists have defined spirituality as the search for "the sacred," where "the sacred" is broadly defined as that which is set apart from the ordinary and worthy of veneration.[3]
The use of the term "spirituality" has changed throughout the ages.[4] In modern times, spirituality is often separated from Abrahamic religions,[5] and connotes a blend of humanistic psychology with mystical and esoteric traditions and eastern religions aimed at personal well-being and personal development.[6] The notion of "spiritual experience" plays an important role in modern spirituality, but has a relatively recent origin.[7]

en.wikipedia.org...

Now you can stop playing the passive aggressive game.

you barely got a sample...

Wiki eh?

you know what I am requesting, the terms of the true scientific data have been laid out, it requires a poll, not opinions, facts, not user entered wikipedia false rewriting of history internet webpage.

get with it...

WarminIndy
Why would it be up to a scientist to explain spirituality to begin with, if science is merely a study of the natural? Spirituality is supernatural belief and experience, which many scientists do believe.

this is exactly what I was thinking...