I searched for "anime documentary" and watched the first or second video (I don't remember), I fell asleep and this is what I woke up to

People debating without labelling each other racist, nazis, bigots & getting canceled. The good old days

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:17 🎙️ *Introduction and Recognition of Sponsors* - Introduction to the God Debate event. - Recognition of the sponsors and supporters from the Notre Dame community. - Reading of a passage about the ongoing philosophical discussion. 03:03 🏛️ *Background of the Debate and Speaker Introductions* - Background information on the Center for Philosophy of Religion and its goals. - Introduction of the debaters, Sam Harris and William Lane Craig, and the moderator, Professor Mike Ray. - Brief overview of each speaker's credentials and areas of expertise. 07:20 🕰️ *Debate Structure and Ground Rules* - Explanation of the debate format, including speaking times for each debater. - Guidelines for audience participation in the question and answer session. - Strict enforcement of timekeeping and rules regarding applause and disruptive behavior. 08:01 🧠 *William Lane Craig's Opening Argument* - Craig argues that objective moral values and duties are grounded in God's nature. - Theism provides a foundation for moral values and obligations based on divine commandments. - Critique of atheistic perspectives on morality and the value problem. 19:04 🤔 *Critique of Sam Harris's Moral Landscape* - Craig challenges Sam Harris's attempt to ground morality in naturalistic terms. - Criticism of Harris's redefinition of moral terms and semantic approach to the value problem. - Examination of the implications of atheism on objective moral duties and moral responsibility. 25:23 📜 *The foundation of objective moral values and duties* - Objective moral duties are seen as a social construct rather than an objective reality. - Sam Harris's view posits that moral responsibility is determined by thoroughgoing determinism, leading to the absence of objective moral duties. - William Lane Craig argues that without God, there is no sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. 27:34 🧠 *The role of religion in shaping morality* - Sam Harris critiques the notion that belief in God is necessary for an objective morality. - He argues that morality can be understood in terms of human well-being, independent of religious frameworks. - Harris highlights a double standard in moral judgment, contrasting reactions to religious practices with concerns about secular morality. 32:29 🔬 *Science and morality* - Harris presents the concept of a "moral landscape" where morality is based on the well-being of conscious creatures. - He argues that moral truths can be understood through scientific inquiry, as they depend on facts about human well-being. - The discussion involves the intersection of science, philosophy, and ethics in understanding moral values. 46:30 🛡️ *Defending the foundation of objective moral values* - William Lane Craig restates his contention that God provides a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. - He clarifies the distinction between moral ontology and semantics, focusing on the grounding of moral values rather than their linguistic meaning. - Craig reaffirms the argument that without God, there is no adequate basis for objective moral values and duties. 48:06 📚 *Divine Command Theory and Objective Moral Values* - Moral values are grounded in God ontologically. - Moral duties are grounded by God's commandments, reflecting his nature. - Divine Command Theory is defended against objections, emphasizing its independence from specific religious texts. 49:41 🧠 *Objective Moral Values in Atheism* - Without God, there's no explanation for the existence of objective moral values. - Atheism fails to provide a basis for identifying the flourishing of conscious creatures as objectively good. - Dr. Harris's assertion that the property of being good is identical to creaturely flourishing lacks a defense. 55:19 ⚖️ *Absence of Moral Duties in Atheism* - Atheism lacks a basis for moral duties or obligations. - Moral obligations arise from imperatives of a competent authority, which is absent in atheism. - Without freedom of the will, there is no moral responsibility, rendering moral duties impossible in atheistic frameworks. 58:50 🕊️ *Critique of Theistic Moral Framework* - Criticism of the theistic moral framework's implications, particularly related to the concept of hell. - The argument questions the morality of a God who allows immense suffering, especially among innocent children. - The debate addresses the moral implications of religious doctrines, particularly regarding salvation and damnation. 01:11:11 📜 *Refutation of Red Herrings* - Objective moral values exist because God's essence is good. - The problem of evil and other objections are red herrings distracting from the debate. - Evil actually proves the existence of God as it necessitates objective moral values. 01:17:44 🧠 *Scientific Objectivity and Moral Grounding* - Science relies on axiomatic assumptions, including moral axioms. - Objective moral values can be grounded in well-being without the need for God. - Human experiences, including profound ones, are accessible without resorting to religious claims. 01:25:57 🔍 *Summary and Concluding Arguments* - God provides a foundation for objective moral values and duties due to his inherent goodness. - Atheism lacks a coherent basis for objective moral values and duties. - The debate extends beyond Christianity, as similar arguments could be applied to other religions like Islam. 01:33:20 📜 *Critique of Christian scripture and morality* - Sam Harris critiques the Christian scriptures, highlighting the narrow worldview and moral inconsistencies of its authors. - The authors of the Bible had limited access to scientific information and moral perspectives, making their worldview incompatible with modern understanding. - Harris argues against the notion that biblical teachings provide timeless moral guidance, advocating for a morality based on contemporary knowledge and inquiry. 01:35:03 🌍 *Building a global civilization based on secular morality* - Harris emphasizes the need for a global civilization grounded in secular morality. - He challenges sectarian moral denominations and advocates for honest inquiry as the tool for moral progress. - The goal is to create a world where thegreatest number of people can live fulfilling lives, free from the constraints of religious dogma. 01:37:41 🤔 *Exploring the grounding of morality and the problem of evil* - Harris discusses the grounding of morality and the problem of evil in the context of religious belief. - He argues that objective moral values and duties don't necessarily require a religious foundation. - Harris questions the necessity of religion for moral grounding and highlights the role of subjective well-being in moral considerations. 01:42:23 🌐 *Understanding moral ontology and epistemology* - William Lane Craig clarifies the distinction between moral ontology and epistemology. - He asserts that while moral growth and development occur over time, the foundation of objective moral values and duties remains unchanged. - Craig defends the necessity of God as the source of objective morality, arguing against naturalistic explanations for moral values. 01:54:03 🌍 *Morality and Interconnectedness* - Morality is rooted in our intuitions about the sanctity of human life, trust, and community. - Killing everyone would eradicate suffering but also nullify all possibilities of happiness and experience. - Our happiness is interconnected with the happiness of others, and we are not separate individuals but part of a community. 01:55:38 🕊️ *Perspectives on Different Religions* - Dr. Craig discusses reasons for believing in Christianity over Islam based on historical evidence. - There are points of commonality between Christianity and Islam, but fundamental differences exist, particularly regarding Jesus. - Dr. Harris poses challenges to Christianity but returns to the debate topic on the objectivity of morality. 01:57:15 🤔 *The Basis of Objective Morality* - Dr. Harris argues for objective morality based on the recognition of suffering and movement towards the sublime. - Objective paradigms, including morality, require axiomatic judgments that are not self-justifying. - The spectrum of human experience informs the understanding of what is morally preferable. 02:00:14 🔄 *Is Statements vs. Ought Statements* - The distinction between "is" statements and "ought" statements is crucial for understanding moral obligations. - Dr. Harris challenges the notion that morality stems solely from the commands of a competent authority. - He raises concerns about divine command theory, linking it to psychopathy and moral relativism. 02:03:48 🤝 *Consensus and Moral Values* - Dr. Craig discusses the relevance of consensus in moral debates, distinguishing it from doctrinal issues. - Disagreements about moral perceptions are viewed as epistemological rather than ontological. - He argues for a transcendent basis for moral values rooted in a being of goodness beyond human nature and cultural shifts. Made with HARPA AI

“If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that they should value it?” “If someone doesn’t value logic, what logic argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” VERY well said and the root of the problem.

Sam harris continually used the words such as terrain, bedrock, landscape so my conclusion to this debate is that he is a minecraft veteran.

When ever I fall asleep on youtube, I always wake up to some part of this video.

"Threatening an atheist with hell is like threatening to punch them in the aura." that's hilarious

"When something good happens, then God is good but when some agony happens then God is mysterious" Pure sensible statement by Harris

I hate this format of debate, I'd rather see Sam and William Lane Craig respond to each other on the spot. I feel it would have held each debater more accountable. This format just seems disconnected and is frustrating to follow.

Timestamps: opening speech (20 min) 7:53 [William Lane Craig] 27:42 [Sam Harris] rebuttal (12 min) 46:36 [William Lane Craig] 58:38 [Sam Harris] rebuttal no. 2 (8 min) 1:10:26 [William Lane Craig] 1:17:48 [Sam Harris] closing speech (5 min) 1:25:58 [William Lane Craig] 1:31:10 [Sam Harris] questions 1:37:11

The fact that someone has replied to this debate 12 years after , shows how good it was . Good on you SAM

2:00:06 - 2:03:40 - This was great! They should've let them go one on one Most of the time they were just talking past each other

"If someone can prove me wrong and show me my mistake in any thought or action, I shall gladly change. I seek the truth, which never harmed anyone: the harm is to persist in one's own self-deception and ignorance." ~ Marcus Aurelius

Comments are pretty simple. Atheists: I came here to see sam Harris win and he won. Theists: I came here to see WLC win and he won.

Amazing to realize this is accessible for free!

"We have hit philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid quesiton," what a way to put it

Sam Harris' right eyebrow can literally lift a dumbbell.

“You have 20 min for an opening statement” “Now you have 10 min for a rebuttal” “5 min for a rebuttal” “You have 2 min to answer” “30 seconds for a rebuttal” “You now have 10 seconds for a closing statement” “2 seconds for a rebuttal” “You have 0.5 seconds for last rebuttal” “0.01 milliseconds for closing remarks” “You have 0.000000E-999999999999999 nanoseconds to get TF OUTTA HERE !!!”

Craig: "Objective moral good is grounded intrinsically in the goodness of God but I am not here to argue about God. My reason to believe this stuff is because I believe in a good God, but I'm not here to argue about God, but instead about the qualities of God that ensure objective moral goodness that comes from him, but I also won't be objective about God. Remember everybody, there is a moral good because God is good, but we're not here to talk about the existence of God." Sippery like an eel.

I dont understand what dr craig is saying at 1:26:31 . “God is a being worthy of worship…therefore he must be good”. What is the criteria to determine if a being is worthy of worship, and where does that criteria come from?

7:51 - Lane Craig 26:40 - Sam Harris 46:40 - Lane Craig 58:38 - Sam Harris 1:10:00 - Lane Craig 1:17:50 - Sam Harris 1:25:55 - Lane Craig 1:31:08 - Sam Harris 1:37:10 - Questions

Kudos to U. of Notre Dame for keeping comments open on this excellent debate. There are other, similar debates held at lesser institutions to be found on youtube, where comments have been closed.

The invention of literature was a significant development in human history that has had a profound impact on culture and emotional development. Literature refers to written or spoken works that are valued for their artistic and emotional qualities, as well as their ability to communicate ideas, values, and beliefs. Literature serves many purposes, one of which is to provide a sense of order and structure to human experience. Through literature, people can explore complex themes and issues, as well as find meaning and purpose in life. Literature also allows for the expression of diverse perspectives and experiences, which can promote greater cultural understanding and empathy. In addition to providing cultural and emotional benefits, literature also plays a role in cognitive development. Reading and engaging with literature requires critical thinking and interpretation, which can enhance analytical skills and creative thinking. Overall, the invention of literature has been a significant contributor to the development of human culture and emotional intelligence, and continues to play an important role in shaping our understanding of the world and ourselves.

I feel like we were robbed of a great debate. I wish there would have been a cross examination. Or at the very least, that both would have been required to respond to the same question during the Q&A portion. What a shame...

I'm glad that there are atheists and theists alike who are willing to entertaining an opinion without accepting it. This seems like a rare thing nowadays.

Two ships passing each other silently on a cloudy night. No intersection in argument.

That was wonderful. The respect you spoke with each other was inspiring. Thank you, Alex and Sam.

One is trying to make clear, logical arguments that stack on top of each other, the other is just throwing elaborate rhetorical blinding grenades that make his fan base feel good. You can find out which is who by trying to summarize each man's line of argument without watching the video a second time. Fairly easy in one case, impossible in the other.

Take a shot every time Craig says “objective moral values”

The debate starts at 7:20 .

We're certainly not obligated to pull over if a priest tells us to, so what's your point Dr. Craig?

I can never be sure if I’m watching Dr. Craig or David Lee Roth.

I read these comments and wonder what people were doing while these gentlemen were talking. It wasn't listening to them I can tell you that much.

I feel like I am watching two different lectures and my phone keeps jumping back and forth between the two.

From a scientific perspective, our understanding of reality is based on empirical evidence and observation, and is subject to ongoing revision and refinement as new data becomes available. Our senses provide us with information about the world, but they are not infallible, and can be subject to illusion or misinterpretation. Dreams and fantasies are products of the human imagination, and are not necessarily grounded in reality. However, they can have important psychological and emotional significance, and may serve as a means of exploring and expressing our desires, fears, and aspirations. In conclusion, the nature of reality and the limits of human knowledge and perception are complex and multifaceted topics that are subject to ongoing debate and exploration. While we may never have a complete understanding of the nature of reality, we can continue to explore and learn more about the world around us through scientific inquiry and philosophical reflection.

In summary, Harris offers a way to measure and observe what we may agree is human flourishing, but, as Craig points out, this provides no basis for an objective moral obligation and still relies on what we subjectively intuit or agree upon.

"if someone doesn't value evidence what evidence can you give them to show them hey should"

Dang this video came out nine years ago and the UKposts algorithm is only recommending it to me now .🤦🏻‍♂️

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 08:01 🤔 Dr. Craig and Dr. Harris agree that objective moral values exist independently of human opinion. 14:23 🌍 Dr. Craig argues that theism provides a solid foundation for objective moral values rooted in God's nature. 18:11 🦁 Dr. Craig questions atheism's ability to ground objective moral values due to the lack of inherent worth in a naturalistic worldview. 21:34 🔄 Dr. Craig criticizes Sam Harris's attempt to redefine "good" and "evil" as human well-being and argues that it lacks objective grounding. 22:57 🔄 Dr. Craig challenges the idea that atheism can provide a source for objective moral duties, highlighting problems with naturalism and determinism. 27:34 🤝 Sam Harris acknowledges the importance of a secular foundation for morality and expresses concern about the erosion of secular morality. 29:13 🚀 Sam Harris suggests that understanding morality in terms of human well-being can provide a basis for making ethical claims about behavior and ways of life. 29:28 🌍 Sam Harris discusses the controversy surrounding denigrating the Taliban's worldview at a scientific meeting. 30:24 🤯 Sam Harris engages in a debate about cultural practices with a colleague, illustrating differing viewpoints on morality. 32:16 👥 Harris critiques the double standard in ethics, where someone with a scientific and philosophical background is detached from real suffering. 33:27 🔬 Harris argues that science can address questions of right and wrong, dispelling the notion that science can't address moral values. 36:10 🤔 Harris presents the idea that consciousness and well-being are essential components of a moral landscape. 37:53 🏔️ Harris argues that the "worst possible misery for everyone" defines the minimum standard for moral goodness. 39:43 🇦🇫 Harris critiques the Taliban's culture as an example of a society that fails to maximize human well-being. 45:14 🧠 Harris challenges the distinction between facts and values, asserting that science and values are intertwined. 49:41 ⛪ Craig defends the notion that objective moral values and duties are grounded in the existence of God. 51:55 🔀 Craig critiques Harris's assertion that the good life is equated with conscious creatures' flourishing. 53:55 ⚖️ Craig argues that Harris's claim that goodness is identical to creaturely flourishing is logically incoherent. 55:19 🛡️ Moral obligations and prohibitions arise from competent authority. Atheism lacks such authority for moral commands. 56:01 🤖 Without God, there is no foundation for moral imperatives or duties, resulting in moral nihilism. 56:44 🛡️ Atheism lacks ontological foundations for objective moral values and duties, contrary to theism. 57:36 🤖 Atheism cannot establish objective moral values and duties without God as the moral lawgiver. 58:50 🛡️ Atheistic moral framework faces challenges in justifying moral accountability and value. 59:18 🤖 The problem of evil and the problem of unevangelized do not refute the existence of God's moral framework. 01:04:30 🛡️ Christianity is seen as a cult of human sacrifice rather than a religion that repudiates it. 01:05:11 🤖 Theistic moral framework is criticized for rationalizing atrocities and immoral behavior based on divine command theory. 01:05:50 🛡️ The existence of evil can be seen as an argument for God's existence due to the grounding of objective values. 01:06:44 🤖 Atheism's lack of foundation for objective moral values and duties is questioned. 01:07:26 🛡️ Moral reasoning within atheism is challenged for not being grounded in any objective foundation. 01:18:00 🤖 An objective morality based on science can rely on certain value assumptions similar to other scientific fields. 01:20:43 🛡️ Science can address both epistemological objectivity (openness to data) and ontological objectivity (objective aspects of subjective facts). 01:22:04 🌍 Sam Harris emphasizes valuing well-being and avoiding suffering, asserting that objective value is based on the well-being of conscious creatures. 01:23:17 🧘 Atheists can experience self-transcending love, ecstasy, and awe; they don't reject profound experiences but refrain from making unjustifiable claims about the cosmos. 01:24:51 🔬 Understanding our situation and deeper possibilities should align with the spirit of science; sectarian claims from various religions might not capture the true essence. 01:29:12 🙌 Objective moral values and duties don't necessarily require religious belief; moral growth and development are possible without a belief in a specific God. 01:31:52 🕊️ Sam Harris questions the problem of religious diversity, showing that the same arguments for Christianity could be applied to Islam or any other religion. 01:37:06 ⚖️ The debate covers the foundation of objective moral values, with Dr. Craig asserting they rely on God, while Sam Harris argues they can exist independently of a divine source. 01:47:23 🌟 Sam Harris discusses miracles and their context in different religions. 01:48:20 📚 Miracle stories in Christianity have ancient origins with textual discrepancies; other religions also have miracle claims with living eyewitnesses. 01:49:16 🧐 Disparity in belief regarding miracles like Jesus' among billions and more recent ones like Sai Baba among millions challenges intellectual consistency. 01:49:55 🌐 Harris is open to evidence of miracles, but notes the subjectivity and inconsistency of such claims across different belief systems. 01:50:37 🏳️‍🌈 A question on divine revelation and morality highlights differing perspectives on moral issues like homosexuality based on religious beliefs. 01:51:50 🌍 Harris and Craig discuss the possibility of this being the worst possible world and moral implications of destroying consciousness. 01:56:04 🕌 Craig defends his Christian beliefs by differentiating Christianity from Islam, citing historical and theological reasons for his stance. 01:57:01 🔄 Harris responds to Craig's distinction between "is" and "ought" statements, arguing that morality can arise from well-being considerations. 01:58:27 🔄 Harris counters divine command theory with concerns of psychopathy, suggesting an inherent difficulty in deriving morality solely from authority. 02:01:12 📜 Harris questions Craig's reliance on divine command theory, highlighting the potential for moral atrocities based on divine authority. 02:03:48 🛐 Craig defends the notion that a foundation for moral values lies in a transcendent source, irrespective of doctrinal consensus among religious groups.

It is true that the distribution of resources, opportunities, and comforts is not equal across humanity, and that many people face significant challenges and hardships due to a variety of factors such as poverty, discrimination, or lack of access to education and healthcare. This uneven distribution of resources and opportunities can result in significant disparities in quality of life and well-being across different populations. However, it is important to recognize that progress and development are not static or fixed, but are constantly evolving and changing over time. While it is true that some people may benefit more than others from the current state of development, it is also true that progress has been made in many areas that have improved the lives of people around the world. For example, improvements in healthcare, education, and technology have helped to reduce poverty, increase life expectancy, and enhance communication and collaboration across borders. It is important to continue working towards greater equity and fairness in the distribution of resources and opportunities, while also recognizing the progress that has been made and continuing to build upon it. This requires a collaborative and proactive approach that involves governments, organizations, and individuals working together to create a more just and equitable world. However, it is important to recognize that progress and development are not static or fixed, but are constantly evolving and changing over time. While it is true that some people may benefit more than others from the current state of development, it is also true that progress has been made in many areas that have improved the lives of people around the world. For example, improvements in healthcare, education, and technology have helped to reduce poverty, increase life expectancy, and enhance communication and collaboration across borders. we are alone in the wold, what you see is real, dreams are based on elusion and fantasies humans will love to come into existence, ails and wonderland will never exist, read between the lines.

Let's say we don't have objective moral values, what is the problem? Most people seem to agree about and act according to a large set of universal values without the need to ground them in any objective truth or foundation. This is really the argument that I'm struggling with.

Harris- Morality only applies to the well-being of conscious creatures, and some kinds of actions consistently help or hurt beings. Good is what helps beings, and would exist without God. Craig- Atheism has no objective reason to care about the well-being of conscious creatures, while Theists do because God tells them to. Good is what God says it is, so it could not exist without God, because Gods desires determine Good. Basically, two different definitions of good lead to different conclusions, but Harris's conclusions are valid weather god exists or not, while Craigs conclusions are only valid if a God exists which defines Good as doing what he says.

Mental health professionals often call hearing voices 'Auditory Hallucinations'. A hallucination is something you See, Taste, Smell or Hear, that other people cannot. If you hear voices, this means you hear something that other people cannot. There are different types voices. Everyone's experiences are different. So if you hear a voice in your head, you should check with your Mental health professional just to be “SAFE”

Isn't it so invigorating to listen to extremely intelligent people in a debate!!! The amount of respect is just...i have no words

Sounded like they were having completely different debates lol

Craig: And in studying, you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!

Moral obligations are a result of minimization of conflict at the collective level (coded in society through laws).

1:26:29 This is a super mega circular argument, however. “God is good because he is a being worthy of being worshipped.” Yea but why is God a being worthy of being worshipped? Craig is just saying God is good because he is good

“No one has ever attempted to attack the philosophical underpinnings of medicine” 2022 “Hold my beer”

Craig is so limited in his thinking on morality."No morale accountability with out god". He is very wrong. He is totally discrediting strength of character and personal integrity. Owning ones self, ones own actions, ones own consequences ( good and bad) , how to make amends, to be self questioning, grow in self honesty and to improve on ones self. You do not need a god (his or any other) to achieve these things. That is what most atheists are like. That is why we call our selves humanists, free thinkers and the like. It is not just what is good for ourselves but what will be good and for all. Our jails in North America are full of people that believe in a Christine religion. With religion it seems to bring on a intolerance, casting judgement and the need to control each other in very unreasonable ways. I find Craig s argument very limiting to the true strengths in the human race. Not all Christians are like this. More people of faith are not so arrogant ( their faith and their way is the way for every one), live their lives more like non faith people. They both want to live as good, progressive humans. Neither are so binary in their thinking as Craig is.

Evolution is the origin of 'moral values'. Most higher species demonstrate examples of group cooperation, altruism, compassion, generosity and community action. All these are evolutionary adaptions that significantly increase the survivability of both the group and thus the individuals. There's even 'internal pressure' towards group cooperation, where those who don't participate are alienated in many ways. There's no question 'moral values' are an 'evolutionary adaptation'. What's 'good' about 'moral behavior' is species' increased likelihood to survive! Once this is understood, the true concept of 'moral behaviour' makes total sense.

Craig clearly didn't listen to anything Sam said Just kept jumping around the facts with "objective moral values and duties"

The comment section hurts to read but for some reason I do it anyways.

Note to moderators; Dont applaud into the microphone.It's not about you!

The kid talking about god coming to him is amazing I love him. I want to hug the kid talking about gay marriage.

Craig: *Oh damn I don't have a reasonable answer to this question* This is not the topic of today's debate.

"If you wake up tomorrow morning, thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes, is gonna turn them into the body of Elvis Presley, you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about the body of Jebus, you're just a Catholic". ^ gold

My kid got an Objective Moral Value in his Happy Meal today.

Will it be posible some time in the future for people to state arguments based on reason..?

Knock knock. Who's there? Jesus Christ. What do you want? I want to save you! Save me from what? Save you from myself if you don't let me in!

10 years on and you can really see how the conversation has moved on. Thank you for the discussions that have led us to learning

Don’t act like you don’t recognize that brilliant introduction from the undergraduate student.

Are used to men are not talking about the objectivity of morals, instead they are talking about a wide consensus, in regard to certain morals. Consensus is not a synonym for objectivity.

I absolutely enjoyed this debate. The speakers were very knowledgeable and did a remarkable job. Thanks for putting this on you tube. Much appreciated

If someone doesn't value evidence what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? Game, set, and match. If these religious sheep had "ANY" proof whatsoever, they would shove it in our face. The problem is that they simply can't accept that they were lied to as children

as I was listening to this, Euthyphro's Dilemma kept popping up in my mind - and to paraphrase: are things good b/c God says they are good, or does God say so b/c they are good?...if only b/c God says so, then good and evil are "subject" (not objective) arbitrarily to God's whims - and God in the Bible has been known to change his mind...I mean, if God changed his mind and inverted what we know to be "the law written into our hearts" and told you to murder your children for no other reason than divine command (God's rationale is a "mystery"), what would you do?...if God is omnipotent, then he is under no constraints not to do so...but if God says something is good b/c it is good, then it admits of an objective morality even transcendent of God...study all the "omnis" of god, and you'll find these Christian apologists' arguments indefensible...they simply cannot concede that they have lost the argument concretely as we observe reality, i.e., simply no evidence of a omnibenevolent God, but they have also lost the argument conceptually in the abstract...I don't see "children of God"; I just see children - most well-meaning and sincere mind you...belief doesn't make you a morally upright person as Chritianity plainly teaches; your behavior determines whether you're morally upright...incidentally, WLC is simply wrong: all the Christians I know when you see through the veneer of vacuous platitudes, they're only in it for the fire insurance...emotionally extorting someone into a relationship is not the characteristics of a loving "God the Father"; it's evidence of a "Godfather", a mafia don...religion smacks of racketeering: create the problem, then sell you the cure.

Throughout history, God has NEVER punished 'the wicked'. The victims have ALWAYS been the innocent, including his own Chosen People who have suffered more than anyone. Nobody sincerely worships this monster, they only grovel to him for mercy...

WHO WON??? WHO'S NEXT??? YOU DECIDE!!! EPIC DEBATE BATTLES OF MORALITY!!!!!!

Bro I am an atheist and I really like Harris' views of morality, but I have to admit that he kept running away from debating Craig's initial argument.

He keeps turning pages but I'm convinced that every single page of Craig's notes just says "Objective moral values and duties".

If you'd lose your morals as soon as god was taken away from you, you never had them.

Pro tip: Actually listen. Listen to both without offence or fear. And return to your 'self' at the end.

Skip the long-winded introductions. Opening statements begin at 00:07:52

From Sam Harris's first statement, I was expecting him to make arguments that would really challenge my point of view. He made none! He simply sidestepped the purpose of the debate and made grandstanding claims for which he had no foundations. The point of the debate was about foundations of morality. Sam, however, just made arguments about Christianity being bad, a claim which he has no foundation to back up. I was expecting more from a premier atheist intellectual. Dr Craig was brilliant and simply shredded him. I see why Dawkins doesn't want to debate him.

The question is: Why so many are opposing to the main advice from Jesus Christ: to strive always for goodness, wisdom, justice... perfection? *_"Be perfect therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect"_* Matthew 5, 48 Most probably, because just as it is easier to destroy something useful than to make/build something useful, in the same way it is easier to be evil=stupid than to be good=wise.

Hitchens is more entertaining but I think Harris is slightly better at building convincing logical arguments in such a way that it results in a powerful and clear conclusion, Hitchens is strong at individual points but not as good at the big picture

in countries with only religious morals we see an awful lot of hate and loathing.

I don't understand Craig coming out, in something called "The God Debate" saying, "I'm not here to prove God is real, but assuming he is, everything I'm about to say is objectively true and morality is based on him" Presupposing God and morality being linked to him as a foundation for a debate doesn't leave much room for conversation, at least in my opinion.

1:02:03 This point always bothered me as a child; these people, unaware of Christ, are condemned to HELL but not the repentant criminal? No thanks 🤷🏾‍♂️😂

10:30 I'm not getting over how much Craig truly sounds like Microsoft Sam.

they aren't addressing eachother's points and it makes me mad

"Worthy of worship" - mini-word salad typical of Craig

Nurnberg principles: "The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: (a) Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). (b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. (c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan." Thus, instigation of war crime and crimes against humanity (including instigating to murder and slave labour of civilians) is against international criminal law. Deuteronomy Chapter 20: "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. 16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites-as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God." Samuel 15: "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

My favourite participants in this debate were the pedantic moderator and his beloved time keeper.

What a way to introduce the discussion😳

Belief in ferry tales and hobgoblins does not move us forward as a society. The dogma stated by religions tend to limit our understanding of the way things work in a normal society; they hobble the free thinking format of our normal understanding

Whether that kid at 1:50:01 was joking or not, there's people out there who legitimately believe that God comes to them and tells them things. Craig dismissing the kid and his experience with God is evidence that 1. Craig can pick and choose when someone is serious or not about their experiences with God, and that 2. If he's joking, the difference between fake experiences and supposed real experiences are blurred.

It sounded to me like Craig was trying to win the debate, while Harris was actually trying to speak to and convince the audience, not so much respond to Craig's points.

7:20 Start

Imagine for a moment we could suspend the practice of religion and faith for a period of 18 years. Once that period is over and you reintroduce religion to all people of adult age how many do you think will embrace it? My belief is very few. Indoctrination in children is a powerful thing as well as the desire to honor our family in the way we were raised to. God was the solution to a problem we no longer have.

Craig: Gods on holy and loving nature… God: Destroy all that they have and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.

On 10-27-20 I went to a pentecostal church. I have a long testimony as to why I came to church. Long story short I was a drug addict for 14 years. The day before I went to church I was begging God to heal me. He told me if I came to church the next day He would heal me. I went to church . went straight to the alter and said " God you told me if I came to you today , you would heal me. Here I am Lord." I immediately started speaking in tongues. Then was baptized in Jesus name for the remission of sins. After this I was immediately free from addiction. My mind was completely healed of lonliness, depression, misery and much more. Jesus is real. Acts chapter 2 verse 38. It happened to me. It's very real. I was born again. It's real. Jesus is real. I have understanding now. He uncovered my eyes and unplugged my ears. Thank you Jesus. Everyone needs the Holy ghost !

Yup, if God doesn't exist then there is no objective morality in it's core. But who said that we need one? Maybe we should stop being cowards and accept that we build our future and ideas, and that we don't need an imaginary creature to do that for us. Accepting that is the real moral responsibility. To rationalize it with some ideology beings is running away from that responsibility.

25:27 Morality _is_ a social construct. Without humans and other social creatures, whence cometh morality? Give me an example of morality without any sentiment beings involved. (36:03) he covers this.

1:50:00 is the best part of the entire debate.

Dr. Craig lost because he didn't even attempt to prove the existence of his deity and instead based his entire argument on a deity he has no evidence even exists. Not sure why he is viewed as a challenge to atheists as his arguments could not be any weaker or based on circular reasoning, mixed in with every known logical fallacy.

Could someone explain to me how one can pontificate on the source of something that he refuses to define?

Values and morals should come from know right from wrong and to hurt or not to hurt others. Or also loving oneself or loving others.

The Q&A went off the rails for a second there.

At 1:26:00, when accused by Harris to merely define God as good, Craig attempts a logical argument. Listen for the following "logical" argument (you have to hear it to believe he's actually saying it): 1. God is a being worthy of worship 2. Any being not worthy of worship is not God 3. Therefore [an implication of the form 1 & 2 => 3] God must be perfectly good. I have not had much formal education in logic, but ... DAMN!