Sam Harris debates Dennis Prager (conservative talk show host) [Archive]

yukoncpa

11-26-2006, 11:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You write: "If humanity can't survive without a belief in God, this would only mean that a belief in God exists. It wouldn't, even remotely, suggest that God exists." This statement is as novel as the one suggesting that Stalin was produced by Judeo-Christian values. It is hard for me to imagine that any fair-minded reader would reach the same conclusion. If we both acknowledge that without belief in God humanity would self-destruct, it is quite a stretch to say that this fact does not "even remotely suggest that God exists." Can you name one thing that does not exist but is essential to human survival?

[/ QUOTE ]

So Prager's proof of God can be summarized as follows: Humanity can't survive without a belief in the Judeo-Christian God. All things that are essential to human survival exist. Therefore, the Judeo-Christian God exists.

Speedlimits

11-27-2006, 02:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You write: "If humanity can't survive without a belief in God, this would only mean that a belief in God exists. It wouldn't, even remotely, suggest that God exists." This statement is as novel as the one suggesting that Stalin was produced by Judeo-Christian values. It is hard for me to imagine that any fair-minded reader would reach the same conclusion. If we both acknowledge that without belief in God humanity would self-destruct, it is quite a stretch to say that this fact does not "even remotely suggest that God exists." Can you name one thing that does not exist but is essential to human survival?

[/ QUOTE ]

So Prager's proof of God can be summarized as follows: Humanity can't survive without a belief in the Judeo-Christian God. All things that are essential to human survival exist. Therefore, the Judeo-Christian God exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Standard logical fallacy.

samsonite2100

11-27-2006, 04:11 AM

Further proof that no amount of reason and proof or lack thereof is sufficient to talk people out of wholly unreasonable belief systems.

siegfriedandroy

11-27-2006, 09:26 AM

while harris is somewhat eloquent, he speaks passionately about the evils of belief in God and the evils of religion, yet provides no legitimate alternative which can explain the existence of the universe and all its glory and mysteries. In addition, he hits my (already well discussed) pet peeve about morality within an atheistic world (and yes, the term 'atheist' is fine, as it is simply used to define those who believe in no god). He speaks very morally, and talks about the wickedness and stunted progress caused by religion over the ages. Yet he himself has no ultimate reason to believe any of these things are really 'evil' (as theists indeed do), and no reason to expect others to share his moral ideals. Others are free to believe that all these 'evils' are in fact good. Ultimately these subjective differences and 180 degree contrarian positions are no better one than the other.

It is amusing to me how so many 'moral' atheists (by this i mean those who, like most of you, who believe many of the same things to be evil that a theist believes are evil (ie murder, rape, etc)- yet in their universe good and evil are not ultimately even real ideas and do not actually exist at all), can yell and scream so loud about all the wicked, ignorant theists, etc, etc, ad infinitum, and yet in reality it is their own universe and its natural processes (which in my opinion is their 'god') that has created these theists by blind, purposeless chances which some argue could not possibly (the theists, if determinism is true) be or believe otherwise. Fairy tales.

vhawk01

11-27-2006, 09:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Further proof that no amount of reason and proof or lack thereof is sufficient to talk people out of wholly unreasonable belief systems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know that the debate exhibited that, but it did do a pretty good job of exposing the formats weaknesses and near-complete inability to foster any sort of reasonable discourse. One side is basically completely free to continue to obfuscate and misrepresent (and ignore) the things that they don't want to deal with and it is hard/impossible for the other side to either prevent this or even to adequately combat this.

As much as I enjoy a good debate, its a very limited forum for this type of thing. Internet message boards suffer from similar problems. If Sam Harris and Dennis Prager were to sit in a room together, with unlimited time and an impartial moderator, I think you would see Prager looking far more foolish and exposed...and he might actually learn something. He would have little other choice.

Prodigy54321

11-27-2006, 12:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
while harris is somewhat eloquent, he speaks passionately about the evils of belief in God and the evils of religion, yet provides no legitimate alternative which can explain the existence of the universe and all its glory and mysteries. In addition, he hits my (already well discussed) pet peeve about morality within an atheistic world (and yes, the term 'atheist' is fine, as it is simply used to define those who believe in no god). He speaks very morally, and talks about the wickedness and stunted progress caused by religion over the ages. Yet he himself has no ultimate reason to believe any of these things are really 'evil' (as theists indeed do), and no reason to expect others to share his moral ideals. Others are free to believe that all these 'evils' are in fact good. Ultimately these subjective differences and 180 degree contrarian positions are no better one than the other.

It is amusing to me how so many 'moral' atheists (by this i mean those who, like most of you, who believe many of the same things to be evil that a theist believes are evil (ie murder, rape, etc)- yet in their universe good and evil are not ultimately even real ideas and do not actually exist at all), can yell and scream so loud about all the wicked, ignorant theists, etc, etc, ad infinitum, and yet in reality it is their own universe and its natural processes (which in my opinion is their 'god') that has created these theists by blind, purposeless chances which some argue could not possibly (the theists, if determinism is true) be or believe otherwise. Fairy tales.

[/ QUOTE ]

A world without a god does have morality..you are right that there is no "ultimate" good and evil, but rather it is subjective and relative to the individual..but for one reason or another the great majority of people have similar basic ideas of what is right and wrong, good and evil...

the nature of religion, as well as faith in general, undermines this morality.

it is not an "ultimate" morality that he is abhorred is being undermined, since no "ultimate" morality exists, but rather, the morality that is being undermined is morality to the extent that it does indeed exist.

thylacine

11-27-2006, 12:28 PM

siegfriedandroy said:[ QUOTE ]
while harris is somewhat eloquent, he speaks passionately about the evils of belief in God and the evils of religion, yet provides no legitimate alternative which can explain the existence of the universe and all its glory and mysteries. In addition, he hits my (already well discussed) pet peeve about morality within an atheistic world (and yes, the term 'atheist' is fine, as it is simply used to define those who believe in no god). He speaks very morally, and talks about the wickedness and stunted progress caused by religion over the ages. Yet he himself has no ultimate reason to believe any of these things are really 'evil' (as theists indeed do), and no reason to expect others to share his moral ideals. Others are free to believe that all these 'evils' are in fact good. Ultimately these subjective differences and 180 degree contrarian positions are no better one than the other.

It is amusing to me how so many 'moral' atheists (by this i mean those who, like most of you, who believe many of the same things to be evil that a theist believes are evil (ie murder, rape, etc)- yet in their universe good and evil are not ultimately even real ideas and do not actually exist at all), can yell and scream so loud about all the wicked, ignorant theists, etc, etc, ad infinitum, and yet in reality it is their own universe and its natural processes (which in my opinion is their 'god') that has created these theists by blind, purposeless chances which some argue could not possibly (the theists, if determinism is true) be or believe otherwise. Fairy tales.

[/ QUOTE ]

complete

and

utter

BULLSH!T

/images/graemlins/mad.gif

siegfriedandroy

11-27-2006, 01:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
siegfriedandroy said:[ QUOTE ]
while harris is somewhat eloquent, he speaks passionately about the evils of belief in God and the evils of religion, yet provides no legitimate alternative which can explain the existence of the universe and all its glory and mysteries. In addition, he hits my (already well discussed) pet peeve about morality within an atheistic world (and yes, the term 'atheist' is fine, as it is simply used to define those who believe in no god). He speaks very morally, and talks about the wickedness and stunted progress caused by religion over the ages. Yet he himself has no ultimate reason to believe any of these things are really 'evil' (as theists indeed do), and no reason to expect others to share his moral ideals. Others are free to believe that all these 'evils' are in fact good. Ultimately these subjective differences and 180 degree contrarian positions are no better one than the other.

It is amusing to me how so many 'moral' atheists (by this i mean those who, like most of you, who believe many of the same things to be evil that a theist believes are evil (ie murder, rape, etc)- yet in their universe good and evil are not ultimately even real ideas and do not actually exist at all), can yell and scream so loud about all the wicked, ignorant theists, etc, etc, ad infinitum, and yet in reality it is their own universe and its natural processes (which in my opinion is their 'god') that has created these theists by blind, purposeless chances which some argue could not possibly (the theists, if determinism is true) be or believe otherwise. Fairy tales.

[/ QUOTE ]

complete

and

utter

BULLSH!T

/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

great response. in my view, it is complete and utter truth. how's that for a counter?

siegfriedandroy

11-27-2006, 01:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
while harris is somewhat eloquent, he speaks passionately about the evils of belief in God and the evils of religion, yet provides no legitimate alternative which can explain the existence of the universe and all its glory and mysteries. In addition, he hits my (already well discussed) pet peeve about morality within an atheistic world (and yes, the term 'atheist' is fine, as it is simply used to define those who believe in no god). He speaks very morally, and talks about the wickedness and stunted progress caused by religion over the ages. Yet he himself has no ultimate reason to believe any of these things are really 'evil' (as theists indeed do), and no reason to expect others to share his moral ideals. Others are free to believe that all these 'evils' are in fact good. Ultimately these subjective differences and 180 degree contrarian positions are no better one than the other.

It is amusing to me how so many 'moral' atheists (by this i mean those who, like most of you, who believe many of the same things to be evil that a theist believes are evil (ie murder, rape, etc)- yet in their universe good and evil are not ultimately even real ideas and do not actually exist at all), can yell and scream so loud about all the wicked, ignorant theists, etc, etc, ad infinitum, and yet in reality it is their own universe and its natural processes (which in my opinion is their 'god') that has created these theists by blind, purposeless chances which some argue could not possibly (the theists, if determinism is true) be or believe otherwise. Fairy tales.

[/ QUOTE ]

A world without a god does have morality..you are right that there is no "ultimate" good and evil, but rather it is subjective and relative to the individual..but for one reason or another the great majority of people have similar basic ideas of what is right and wrong, good and evil...

the nature of religion, as well as faith in general, undermines this morality.

it is not an "ultimate" morality that he is abhorred is being undermined, since no "ultimate" morality exists, but rather, the morality that is being undermined is morality to the extent that it does indeed exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

The nature of faith and religion undermines the (strangely similar) subjective morality? ...don't know what this means.

jogsxyz

11-27-2006, 02:24 PM

How were scientists able to convince the church that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around?

jogsxyz

11-27-2006, 02:26 PM

If it can't be explained, it must be god. SAR are an illusionist.

Prodigy54321

11-27-2006, 02:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
while harris is somewhat eloquent, he speaks passionately about the evils of belief in God and the evils of religion, yet provides no legitimate alternative which can explain the existence of the universe and all its glory and mysteries. In addition, he hits my (already well discussed) pet peeve about morality within an atheistic world (and yes, the term 'atheist' is fine, as it is simply used to define those who believe in no god). He speaks very morally, and talks about the wickedness and stunted progress caused by religion over the ages. Yet he himself has no ultimate reason to believe any of these things are really 'evil' (as theists indeed do), and no reason to expect others to share his moral ideals. Others are free to believe that all these 'evils' are in fact good. Ultimately these subjective differences and 180 degree contrarian positions are no better one than the other.

It is amusing to me how so many 'moral' atheists (by this i mean those who, like most of you, who believe many of the same things to be evil that a theist believes are evil (ie murder, rape, etc)- yet in their universe good and evil are not ultimately even real ideas and do not actually exist at all), can yell and scream so loud about all the wicked, ignorant theists, etc, etc, ad infinitum, and yet in reality it is their own universe and its natural processes (which in my opinion is their 'god') that has created these theists by blind, purposeless chances which some argue could not possibly (the theists, if determinism is true) be or believe otherwise. Fairy tales.

[/ QUOTE ]

A world without a god does have morality..you are right that there is no "ultimate" good and evil, but rather it is subjective and relative to the individual..but for one reason or another the great majority of people have similar basic ideas of what is right and wrong, good and evil...

the nature of religion, as well as faith in general, undermines this morality.

it is not an "ultimate" morality that he is abhorred is being undermined, since no "ultimate" morality exists, but rather, the morality that is being undermined is morality to the extent that it does indeed exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

The nature of faith and religion undermines the (strangely similar) subjective morality? ...don't know what this means.

[/ QUOTE ]

religion and faith adds factors to a person's moral reasoning that are imaginary..for instance, what an old scripture says is wrong...this undermines the morality that has developed within them, as well as hinders their ability to come to the most reasonable conclusion of what is actually most beneficial

samsonite2100

11-27-2006, 03:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
while harris is somewhat eloquent, he speaks passionately about the evils of belief in God and the evils of religion, yet provides no legitimate alternative which can explain the existence of the universe and all its glory and mysteries. In addition, he hits my (already well discussed) pet peeve about morality within an atheistic world (and yes, the term 'atheist' is fine, as it is simply used to define those who believe in no god). He speaks very morally, and talks about the wickedness and stunted progress caused by religion over the ages. Yet he himself has no ultimate reason to believe any of these things are really 'evil' (as theists indeed do), and no reason to expect others to share his moral ideals. Others are free to believe that all these 'evils' are in fact good. Ultimately these subjective differences and 180 degree contrarian positions are no better one than the other.

It is amusing to me how so many 'moral' atheists (by this i mean those who, like most of you, who believe many of the same things to be evil that a theist believes are evil (ie murder, rape, etc)- yet in their universe good and evil are not ultimately even real ideas and do not actually exist at all), can yell and scream so loud about all the wicked, ignorant theists, etc, etc, ad infinitum, and yet in reality it is their own universe and its natural processes (which in my opinion is their 'god') that has created these theists by blind, purposeless chances which some argue could not possibly (the theists, if determinism is true) be or believe otherwise. Fairy tales.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain to me why it's an atheist's job to justify your own view of absolute morality to you in atheistic terms. This is the same false argument Harris talks about wherein theists make unreasonable presumptions about God/the Universe/morality, and then declare atheism unreasonable for being unable to refute them.

madnak

11-27-2006, 03:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How were scientists able to convince the church that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around?

[/ QUOTE ]

Years and years of arguments like these, the deaths of the people who had been taught otherwise, and the slow introduction of new information into the minds of the newer generations.

In terms of progress, evolution isn't exactly slow - it's very rapid. Only, we expect results much faster today than in the middle ages. Give it a few hundred years, you'll be seen in the very same light as those who thought the sun revolved around the earth.

Which isn't necessarily to insult you. There were plenty of intelligent people who believed all those "backward" things, and the social environment at the time was very different - some authorities with unquestioned power, secure in their positions, were just plain wrong. Yet they remained trusted and secure in their positions until they died.

kurto

11-27-2006, 04:57 PM

(Personal Story)

Didn't know where else to put this. But it kind of ties in.

Spent the Thanksgiving with my family including my brother whose a born-again Christian. As usual, he brought up his faith and tried to convince me to believe as he does to save my soul.

At one point he asked what problems I have with the Bible. I pointed out that Slavery was a real problem.

Him: "The Bible doesn't support slavery". So I pointed out a few passages regulating slavery.

After a few moments of making 'troubled' faces, he explained to me that it was a different time and everyone had slaves back then.

"So, it was right?" He then said that it wasn't right but the people were writing rules that insured the slaves were treated better.

"The people?" I asked. "The people or God?" He seemed confused. "Are these man's rules or God's rules? I thought you said the Bible was God's words."

"That's right... The Bible is the Word of God."

"So God says its okay if you beat your slaves, just so long as you don't beat them so bad that they can get up a day later?"

"That's right."

"And its okay to rape women?"

"The Bible doesn't say that."

So when I show him verses about forcing women to be your wife and another about the penance required (sacrifice an animal) if you rape a betrothed slave... he seemed confused.

"Well, God must have had his reasons."

"So... let me be clear. You're okay with slavery? And you think its okay to make war with a neighboring country then force the women to become your wife? And you're okay with raping women slaves?"

LONG PAUSE.... "God has his reasons."

So-- To defend his religion (and the Bible) my brother agreed that slavery and rape were okay.

West

11-27-2006, 07:42 PM

Haven't watched the debate, have only read 'Letter to a Christian Nation', but isn't Harris generally speaking to the evils of the theistic religions (Christianity/Judaism/Islam), and not all religion??

You don't have to believe in a Supreme Being to believe in objective morality, or that morality isn't meaningless.

Prodigy54321

11-27-2006, 09:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
siegfriedandroy said:[ QUOTE ]
while harris is somewhat eloquent, he speaks passionately about the evils of belief in God and the evils of religion, yet provides no legitimate alternative which can explain the existence of the universe and all its glory and mysteries. In addition, he hits my (already well discussed) pet peeve about morality within an atheistic world (and yes, the term 'atheist' is fine, as it is simply used to define those who believe in no god). He speaks very morally, and talks about the wickedness and stunted progress caused by religion over the ages. Yet he himself has no ultimate reason to believe any of these things are really 'evil' (as theists indeed do), and no reason to expect others to share his moral ideals. Others are free to believe that all these 'evils' are in fact good. Ultimately these subjective differences and 180 degree contrarian positions are no better one than the other.

It is amusing to me how so many 'moral' atheists (by this i mean those who, like most of you, who believe many of the same things to be evil that a theist believes are evil (ie murder, rape, etc)- yet in their universe good and evil are not ultimately even real ideas and do not actually exist at all), can yell and scream so loud about all the wicked, ignorant theists, etc, etc, ad infinitum, and yet in reality it is their own universe and its natural processes (which in my opinion is their 'god') that has created these theists by blind, purposeless chances which some argue could not possibly (the theists, if determinism is true) be or believe otherwise. Fairy tales.

[/ QUOTE ]

complete

and

utter

BULLSH!T

/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

great response. in my view, it is complete and utter truth. how's that for a counter?

[/ QUOTE ]

SAR I remember having an exchange with you to the same effect..but the roles were reversed /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I hope you see how comments of certainty or sheer statement with no actual argument are pointless and offer nothing of value

ojc02

11-28-2006, 02:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
while harris is somewhat eloquent, he speaks passionately about the evils of belief in God and the evils of religion, yet provides no legitimate alternative which can explain the existence of the universe and all its glory and mysteries. In addition, he hits my (already well discussed) pet peeve about morality within an atheistic world (and yes, the term 'atheist' is fine, as it is simply used to define those who believe in no god). He speaks very morally, and talks about the wickedness and stunted progress caused by religion over the ages. Yet he himself has no ultimate reason to believe any of these things are really 'evil' (as theists indeed do), and no reason to expect others to share his moral ideals. Others are free to believe that all these 'evils' are in fact good. Ultimately these subjective differences and 180 degree contrarian positions are no better one than the other.

It is amusing to me how so many 'moral' atheists (by this i mean those who, like most of you, who believe many of the same things to be evil that a theist believes are evil (ie murder, rape, etc)- yet in their universe good and evil are not ultimately even real ideas and do not actually exist at all), can yell and scream so loud about all the wicked, ignorant theists, etc, etc, ad infinitum, and yet in reality it is their own universe and its natural processes (which in my opinion is their 'god') that has created these theists by blind, purposeless chances which some argue could not possibly (the theists, if determinism is true) be or believe otherwise. Fairy tales.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue quite the opposite. Theists are the ones with questionable morals. No thought has gone into their definition of right and wrong, they just blindly follow what's written in a random millenia old book (which actually has some seriously questionable moral stances, eg slavery, which Harris pointed out). Do you think slavery is a good thing SAR?

Your suggestion that atheists can have no morals is patently ridiculous. This entire forum (when we're not attempting the Herculean task of trying to use logical discourse on people who's entire world view hinges on the illogical) is a discussion among a lot of atheists about their morals and ethics.

MaxWeiss

11-29-2006, 09:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
while harris is somewhat eloquent, he speaks passionately about the evils of belief in God and the evils of religion, yet provides no legitimate alternative which can explain the existence of the universe and all its glory and mysteries. In addition, he hits my (already well discussed) pet peeve about morality within an atheistic world (and yes, the term 'atheist' is fine, as it is simply used to define those who believe in no god). He speaks very morally, and talks about the wickedness and stunted progress caused by religion over the ages. Yet he himself has no ultimate reason to believe any of these things are really 'evil' (as theists indeed do), and no reason to expect others to share his moral ideals. Others are free to believe that all these 'evils' are in fact good. Ultimately these subjective differences and 180 degree contrarian positions are no better one than the other.

It is amusing to me how so many 'moral' atheists (by this i mean those who, like most of you, who believe many of the same things to be evil that a theist believes are evil (ie murder, rape, etc)- yet in their universe good and evil are not ultimately even real ideas and do not actually exist at all), can yell and scream so loud about all the wicked, ignorant theists, etc, etc, ad infinitum, and yet in reality it is their own universe and its natural processes (which in my opinion is their 'god') that has created these theists by blind, purposeless chances which some argue could not possibly (the theists, if determinism is true) be or believe otherwise. Fairy tales.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, there's just no nice way to say this.

1. You're an idiot.

2. The evils of religion can, even without recorded history, be derived from the very nature of faith itself. Truly believing something without being able to prove or even DEFINE it, is absurd and a mockery to an intelligent person. Combine that with multiple people who believe different things, all without evidence or definition, and then throw in the fact that they all think everybody else who doesn't believe is evil (or good, but still going ot hell anyway) and it's quite clear how destructive a force this is. Without or without organized religion. With or without all the good things it does. With or without the comfort it can provide.

P
e
r
i
o
d
.