Debate Teacher Reacts: William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2024
- This is the MOST VIEWED apologetics debate on RUclips! Why haven't I looked at this sooner? This is a debate between William Lane Craig and Sam Harris. The topic was: "Are the Foundations of Moral Values Natural or Supernatural?" Who was the better debater: Craig or Harris? Find out in this episode!
Link to the full debate: • The God Debate II: Har...
Get your Wise Disciple merch here: bit.ly/wisedis...
Want a BETTER way to communicate your Christian faith? Check out my website: www.wisedisciple.org
OR Book me as a speaker at your next event: wisedisciple.o...
Want to see me interview Dr. Clay Jones? Check it out here: • Video
Got a question in the area of theology, apologetics, or engaging the culture for Christ? Send them to me and I will answer on an upcoming podcast: wisedisciple.o...
One of the things that lead me to Christianity was listening to the New Atheists. Even though I knew next to nothing about theology, Christianity, or the other side of the argument. So many of their arguments seemed to be more along the lines of, "I'd like to speak to the manager. I don't like how your running things." I expected more from those who labled themselves the "brights" and the four horsemen of the new atheism. More like the four karens of the new atheism.
Have you heard of Peter Byrom ? He had a similar experince to you.
The four karens 😂😂😂😂
That’s a very good point! Thats all Harris does here. He’s so blinded that he can’t even see the point of this debate.
Haha! Same story.
Exactly. They are just about complaining about the God they don't think exists.
“Can we call the police? The topic is missing” 🤣🤣 incredible line lol.
Things you should never ask:
Never ask a woman her age
Never ask an atheist to defend his position
I understand this is meant as a joke, but I think as Christians, we should ask exactly that 😉
Christians should always ask women their age 😮
It's an un-defendable argument. An Atheist could NEVER give a "reasonable" defense of why they are Atheist...I've NEVER heard just one good argument. Ever.
Considering how atheists operate these days they'll just ad homonym y ou to de ath.
@@jepprey4953lol! Well played.
That speech from Harris meant to elicit pathos has been clipped and shared all over the internet (and continues to be shared in atheist circles). So, whether or not he "won" the debate really depends on what his goals were going into it. If this was a formal debate that was being scored by judges, Harris most certainly would have lost, but I suspect that isn't the kind of victory Harris was looking for.
You're probably right. Hitchens did the same thing (for, probably, the same reason).
The bar and standards for “winning” a debate is so Low to non existent amongst the internet atheist community.
Anyone with a little bit of common sense and a clear mind can see a “debater” that doesn’t even begin to interact with the debate topic or the other participant has already lost the debate, simply because there is no “debate” on pain of his actions.
But then again, when was internet atheism about anything intellectual to begin with? On nothing I must say. I would say they’re all style and no substance, but they don’t even have style, for it boils down to the simplistic approach of blaming everything short of bad whether and tooth ache on religion.
“I suspect that isn’t the kind of victory Sam is looking for”
Unfortunately, you are probably correct because apparently when you are looking for an excuse to justify torture and claim eugenics works on humans you will find one. Hence why Sam Harris and his fan base believe torture is moral and why Richard Dawkins and his fan base insist eugenics would work on humans, and that the belief that raping and murdering a child is immoral and evil, is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six. Harris actually brags that….
“I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity.”
(Sam Harris).
Harris who’s a determinist argues that there are “scientific” “neurological" grounds for supposing that his “moral” reasoning is logically correct and that we “ought” to be torturing people for collateral reasons. We all know which group of people he has in mind. Where he gets his “ought” from including “morality” under “determinism” when there’s no such thing as free will and choice if your completely determined by “matter” is beyond most normal people and most mere mortals. Are women and children exempt if they had information that was required by the state.?
“Torture is one of the ultimate abuses of state power, and the use of extreme violence that exploits the powerlessness of individuals subject to state control is anathema to the rule of law. It easily becomes a license to target anyone who is declared to be a threat” (Lutz Oette).
Furthermore according to the scientific populariser, utilitarian, pragmatist and moral subjectivist Richard Dawkins….
“It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds, It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.” ( Richard Dawkins).
Evolutionary biologists pointed out that it doesn’t works on humans or animals and that it was actually a scientifically illiterate and hurtful comment for Dawkins to make especially for the bereaved relatives of the Jewish Holocaust!!
“As an evolutionary biologist, it’s my responsibility to denounce this clown.
Richard Dawkins is now supporting eugenics, which is obviously indefensible.” (Dr Blommaert).
Equally, the prominent humanist Greg Hepstein from Harvard also thankfully condemned this statement for obvious reasons and responded.....
“So unacceptable for Richard Dawkins to tweet about eugenics without clearly condemning it. Dawkins is *supposedly* one of our exemplars of humanism & science outreach. Yet today he's given every manner of passive and active bigot an opening to "consider" persecution on steroids” (Greg Hepstein).
It’s hardly surprising that Dawkins was eventually stripped of his (Humanist of the Year Award) by no other than the (Association of Humanists), that’s a secular atheist organisation by the way!
According to the Association of Humanists…
“Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values,” (Association of Humanists).
Harris's moral good is the consequentialist sort-- the kind that uplifts the lives, generally, of sentient beings. And it's correct to assume that what you need to discover that moral good is fact-based learning-- discovering what leads or doesn't lead to the "flourishing" of sentient beings. Seem's far clearer and more direct than Craig's supernatural "God commands".
@@WiseDisciple But were they wrong for doing so? I find it odd that a lot of apologists make excuses for just how much evil conduct the Judeo-Christian god commits, both in the bible and in general theology. This is supposed to be a being that is all-powerful, but does absolutely nothing to stop the endless suffering of people both living and dead. Why make excuses for that? Moreover, why ever worship a being like that?
Sam Harris has one debate tactic: immediately start speaking past the person he is debating.
Sam Zoolander just makes strawmen and emotional appeal arguments.
@@aarronwilson5647Zoolander 😭😭
Well-spotted…
Not gonna lie…..during Dr. Harris’s rebuttal all I kept saying to myself is what is blud waffling about. It’s remarkable how even the most intelligent of us can just miss the mark completely. I honestly have no clue how he got to where he got to from the topic…
Man, that guy from night at the museum sure doesn’t like Christianity
lmao, no way😂
I was wondering who this guy reminds me of
He also didn’t handle this debate well.
@@BipolarDistortion facts. But with all due respect, I don’t think I’ve ever seen Harris or Hitchens handle any debate well
Isn’t this the one where sam couldn’t stay on topic
🤔
Yes. Sam was dodging on purpose though, because he knew he couldn’t debate Dr. Craig on metaethics.
@@plzenjoygameosu2349 coming from a Christian, how would you justify that?
@@plzenjoygameosu2349 No, he did it specifically because he didn't want to play this ridiculous game.
@@ztrinx1 so why bother even showing up?? What a monumental waste of time...
Great review video. I really appreciate the way you instruct through the material. As a lay apologist myself and one certificated through Reasonable Faith, I found your material very helpful!
Awesome! Thanks so much for watching 😊
How do you become certified thru Reasonable Faith?
Nate, I just found out about your “debate break down/commentary” videos. I am really enjoying them. I have been reviewing debates and discussions on God, religion, morality, etc. for years. I like how you breakdown these videos strictly from a debate
I really struggle to listen to Harris debate. He just ignored the topic, lies about arguments, misrepresents Christian beliefs, tries to make Christians defend other religious beliefs and then is just demeaning and insulting. That's the strategy
Isn't the main problem that Harris is not a philosopher? Craig is a well respected scholar and philosopher with real credentials in this area. He's published in a number of academic philosophy journals. They aren't on a a par. I think they should have had him debate with an atheist who is also a well respected philosopher like him.
No.. Harris is very able to philosophise, but he knew WLC would destroy him so he didn't try it! If you watch Harris's debates most of the time Harris is skewering his opponents. Here though he steered clear of WLC's arguments.. One reason was 'cos he knew he'd get demolished. But another reason is he wants to focus on the dogma most people believe in that he thinks is most absurd, rather than the generic God concept.
@@boliussa I don't think Harris even made good arguments by atheist standards.
WLC is not well respected outside of Christian circles, lets be real here. WLC is not a serious academic in any real way what so ever.
Sean Carroll vs WLC! I will campaign for it until I get it.
We'll get there, we'll get there! LOL. Thanks for the suggestion! Keep the campaign alive :)
That was pretty embarrassing for wlc. I doubt a theist would want to watch it.
@@fentonmulley5895 Capturing Christianity had a good debate review on his channel for it
@@TheEpicProOfMinecraf and Digital Gnosis destroyed it
@@fentonmulley5895 I see. If you find Digital Gnosis to be your standard of intellect, feel free. There's not much I can do for you.
It's a great idea to analyze apologetics' debates, please keep making more. Thanks!
So at 17:00 is Harris ultimately saying that it doesn't matter what you do as long as you excel at it? That puts murderers on par with bakers. That's not morality, that's more like some sort of amoral human potentiality system. Thanks Nate for pointing out that feature in the debate.
Harris doesnt say that at all. It is implied that it will never happen. The murderer that excels at killing is not contributing to the general well being of humanity. Go a few comments up and you will find someone explaining it pretty well.
The dude is biased against Harris and makes no real attempt to understand the arguments.
@@berunto8186 17:00 "If evil turns out to be as reliable a path to happiness as goodness is, it would no longer be an especially moral landscape. Rather it would be a continuum of well-being upon which saints and sinners would occupy equivalent peaks."
So how exactly does Harris propose that evil could be considered as reliable a path as goodness is? This logic only works if both evil and goodness can be equally as contributive to the well-being of humanity, and frankly I don't see how something like evil which is the privation of goodness can have any kind of positive effect.
The absurdity of this quote only becomes more illogical with every successive reading.
Harris is not interested in engaging the topic. He is just trying to ridicule. In fact, Harris showed NO morality whatsoever. Your comparing him to "peeing" all over the stage was very spot on.
Now that you have done WLC's debates with both Hitchens and Harris, it seems only fitting that you should round out Craig's debates with the New Atheists and review WLC's debate with Richard Dawkins! Oh, wait a minute...
yeah because dawkins doesn’t debate clowns
@@kf8512 what makes him a clown?
@@kf8512 Yeah no. If WLC really was a clown, than Dawkins would be eager to debate him since Craig is such a popular Christian Apologist. If Craig really was a clown, Dawkins could debate him and destroy him in front of huge audience, and it would be a huge win for Atheism. Yet Dawkins doesn't. I wonder why 🤔🤔
@@kf8512 Dawkins _is_ the clown, bro.
@@petery6432 I think the answer is obvious:
“Buk, buk, buk, buk, buk, BGAAAK!!”
“Quick, Colonel Sanders, he went thataway!”😁
Nice notes!
Mr. Harris does wax eloquent for awhile, but he does indeed completely lose the track and just start attacking Christianity - or, at least, a strawman of it.
To answer, for example, just one of the notes he brought up: that of young children dying at an astonishing rate daily.
A powerful topic, to be sure, yet attacking Christianity over that misses the point.
Yet, even so, we have two ways to look at this if we take the two worldviews onstage (which is what Mr. Harris wants to do):
-Mr. Harris's view, which completely abolishes morality and places 'rapists and saints' as in the same category, and removes all hope for any justice after death
or
-Mr. Craig's view, of an omniscient Savior Who will perfectly judge all mankind after death
To paraphrase Professor John Lennox (a bit from memory, awhile since I saw the video below that covers the quote in full), in response to the idea that the universe is 'at bottom' moral-less, similar to Dawkins's spiel about the universe and its 'blind, pitiless indifference'
"Of course, if you take this path you do answer the question of suffering. It's meaningless.
But notice what this also does: it removes all hope.
The vast majority of people do not get justice in this life, and if [Dawkins's view] is correct, they'll never get it.
At the center of Christianity is a cross: and a God who did not just sit back and watch suffering, but has Himself entered into it.
And while it may not answer for us the problem of suffering: it provides a window into dealing with it. I've seen it provide real hope."
Mr. Harris's view says "What injustice!" when looking at death at such a scale.
He then uses this as a reason to adhere to a worldview that abolishes any possibility of temporal and eternal justice, and claims in ink that rape is morally equivalent to saintly behavior.
-----
John Lennox's talk "The Loud Absence" - brilliant I think, and it's from which I pulled the above paraphrase of Professor Lennox:
ruclips.net/video/MPm6Y-pANYI/видео.html&ab_channel=TheVeritasForum
*Dr. Craig. He is a professional philosopher, after all.
@@petery6432 Dr. Harris too. Oh that's right, theology is the one true title.
As always, appreciate your thoughts Derek! I'll check Lennox's talk out too!
@@ztrinx1 Imagine taking time out of your day and life to whiteknight for Sam Harris
I just found your channel. I'm truly enjoying it
I hear that Harris got paid handsomely for this "Debate". Harris lost this debate really bad and I mean really bad.
Lmao no I actually watched the whole thing, his opponent did a little dance of semantics, he constructed a two axom premise that allowed him to even forgo his belief in God. He spent more time saying "I proved this" and "I disproved that" instead of actually providing proofs, and his proofs were extremely weak , extremely outdated and far too reliant on Intuition rather than objectivity, you are clearly so heavily indoctrinated by your cult that u only hear what you want to hear, it was pretty clear that Sam laid his argument in reality while Dr. Craig was relying on philosophy parlor tricks that true logicians scoff at
@@jugheadsick13 Remember Sam rejects free will.
He was. He was paid very well to pathologically rant against something that doesn't exist according to him.
@@robinrobyn1714 will remind you only one of them as an imaginary friend..............though the more i hear WLC more i think he is an atheist
@@paulrichards6894 The imaginary friend that you are pathologically fixated on arguing against?
Sounds like you are clueless
Sam Harris practically made me a Christian thank you mr sam
Your bias against anyone who questions religion couldn't be any more clear.
Harris’ only response to Craig:
“SQUIRREL!!!”
I loved that movie. Great review! (I told you Harris got massacred).😁👍
LOL!
Your opinion is trash.
The only resonable response to Craig is vacuous ignorant sophistry.
@@WiseDisciple Sir, how does that discount any of the points Harris made about suffering and the objectively evil conduct of the Christian god?
@@jakec9522 what is your standard of objective good and evil?
Thank you, that was an excellent breakdown. Your knowledge in debate was very insightful, please do more.
Harris simply argues his same points over and over again, completely bypassing any sort of debate context. These very same points were made in his book, "Letter to a Christian Nation." The guy needs to find some new material.
Although Harris was obviously going completely off topic in his rebuttal period, but arguably even worse than that was the fact that he was begging the question against Christianity/theism almost every time he opened his mouth. Asserting your opinions isn't making a cogent argument.
I think if someone is not willing to engage in a certain topic, it's probably because they know they are wrong.
your react series has been really helpful in understanding things that flew over my head, please do a video on Craig v Krauss
You're not teaching debate. You're arguing theology. You're proselytizing.
Hey Nate, great review! There was one big statement by Harris that you didn't comment on that I found especially poignant and contradictory. Around the 21 minute mark he starts presenting a hypothetical case involving a tsunami, which he is using to relate to the millions of children under 5 that will die this year. However, when looping that into his atheistic interpretation around 22:15 he says, "Any god who would allow children by the millions ... either can do nothing to help them or doesn't care to. He is therefore either impotent or EVIL." Given the entire foundation of his argument, admitted or not, the subjective nature of his moral fabric SHOULD prevent him from making statements so conclusive as that. At best, to avoid further compromising his already sandy debate foundation, he should have said something like "he is therefore, IN MY OPINION, either impotent or evil." SMH.
It really is astounding that they say things like that. It's speaking out of both sides of the mouth
Quick bias check my man. When covering Craig's opening statement you said "he threw a few jabs at Sam's position in the process", then not even 2 minute later in Sam's opening you say "Sam is attacking the Christian God".
No, he isn't. It isn't possible to attack something you don't believe exists. He is attacking the position held by his opponent.
LOL.
Agree.
Sam Harris beautifully exposed himself and showed us two things - once again.
1. Total lack of class.
2. Lack of intelligence
Anyone who is able to think a bit, would have at least attempted to engage the topic. He was not even able to understand what the topic is let alone engage it.
Those who doubt this, watch his performance in panel discussion with Jordan Peterson. Harris did not know where the heck he was. He was absolutely not capable to comprehend what J. Peterson and other fellow were saying. He is just not on that level, I am sorry. He proved it in this debate with WLC beyond any shade of doubt.
"Can we call the police, the topic is missing"😂😂😂
As an educator it’s so exciting to listen your videos!
Thanks Charlie! Appreciate the encouragement 😊
Yeah cuz biased teachers are useful. Ugh. Get your head outta your butt.
I just started watching your videos. I am a high school teacher as well. I really appreciate your demeanor and intelligence! Thank you for doing what you do.
my man what ? you bought a book just in case to verify the statement. 16:20 wow ! Thats how i can be sure how invested you are not just about the debate but also about seeking the truth. you know what that means ? That means , you just earned a life long subscriber to this channel . I mean wow. Just Wow.
Sadly Sam Harris never seems to comprehend the depth necessary to understand Christianity...or William Lane Craig...
Harris wants to change the subject because he doesn't have an answer to Craig's argument of moral objective foundation. Harris sees Craig's argument as an unclimbable mountain, and instead struggles going downhill with his own
As others have said, Harris better understood "winning" this debate. When I watched this the first time, I thought Craig "won", maybe, 65/35. But, if you take Craig's responses out of context, they sound trite and academic.
Harris better understood how this debate would be viewed, and he created 12 to 15 minute set pieces that have gone viral. Stand-alone, these are far more compelling than snippets of Craig.
So, in debate, Craig won. In the war of ideas, Harris won.
How did he win the war of ideas? Please correct me if I'm wrong but u seem to be grading based on popularity rather than solid points. Popularity should never be the scale to weigh the worth of ideas, ask Galileo.
@@arcguardian Yes, in a war of ideas, either the majority in a democracy or, in other system, the autocrat wins. So, there is no nobility to giving a valiant effort, but not convincing people.
Ultimately, the concepts that Harris and Craig were debating were purely conceptual. They were also unfalsifiable. So, since no proof is available, it is precisely the ability to convince that is important.
Actually Criag entirely falsified Harris position almost at the start when he pointed out that Harriss use of the terms good and evil were equivocation...which is a logical fallacy...which destroys Harris entire premise
@@arcguardian This. Harris won nothing more than the popularity contest among internet materialists. Shocking stuff
Sam Harris is a brilliant neuroscientist. That's the wheelhouse he needs to stick to. He's a great conversationalist but his "arguments," against theism, specifically Christianity, are really just regurgitated quotes from his books, which he is latently trying to sell by doing these debates.
Glen Scrivener vs Matt Dillahunty on "Unbelievable!" please.
No! Please no more Dillahunty! He's so intellectually dishonest
@@DefenderoftheCross Well, yeah he is, but that's why he does so bad in that debate.
Thanks, got it on the list!
@@WhatsTheTakeaway So why get more of MD being a broken record who isn't convinced of anything?
@@JoshMcSwain Well, he is one of the more influential atheists on RUclips. Many atheists really believe he wins his debates. I've been saying for quite awhile that Dillahunty has never actually debated, he concedes all of them.
Also, many atheists tout Matt's morality scheme, and Scrivener does a good job dismantling it.
Enjoyed your video, brother!
JEROME!! Thank you sir!
The anti-God crowd usually exposes themselves for their anger toward God Himself. I think it clouds their arguments with impassioned nonsense that they think should give them a pass to actually discuss applicable information.
In an apologetics class I teach, we use the last rebuttal to understand rhetoric, and how there’s a difference in understanding a topic and grabbing the heartstrings of people. When your heartstrings are being tugged, you can’t understand logically. And so as Christians, we have to realize when we’re speaking with people we’re actually dealing with heart issue, not head necessarily head.
Harris' worst offence is his representation of Tolkien's mythos.
I think a much better debate on this topic is the one between William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan.
You're right! Check this out: ruclips.net/video/kvQas0AA-Ds/видео.html
@@WiseDisciple Nice! Thanks for the link!
Debates are a waste of time because they function similarly to popularity contests. The person who resonates with the audience the most is the person who wins. Who is going to resonate the most with the audience? It depends entirely upon who is in the audience and what their preconceived notions are. Why bother with such nonsense?
Are you illiterate? The purpose of the debate is for two disagreeing people to present their cases to an ambivalent room as food for thought, an exercise testing the strength of their respective positions.
@@briggy4359 An ambivalent room? Lol. Bless your heart.
@@user-hn9qw7ou8d yeah, I attend debates to consider what both people have to say. Very few debates are out of the realm of earnest consideration.
You seem to have a high view of yourself
What I see from Sam Harris, is he is angry at God and wants to "parent" God.
Harris went totally Red Herring there: "God this, God that, Christians this, Christians that..."
Doctor Harris, in this debate and others, presented almost nothing other than rhetoric. I appreciate the point you made about how he wasn't even taking the effort to accurately represent Christian doctrine in his rhetoric. And I think
this is telling about the calm ethos you said he was presenting. Even the most baseless and incoherent rhetoric can sound amazing when spoken calmly with a good vocabulary.
Why present a coherent argument in favor of your position when you can convince people to think what you say is true simply because you're good at rhetoric. I think this very clearly shows the measure of animosity that Harris has for religion, specifically the Christian's god.
WLC doesn't present ant other thing than rhetoric neither. He does empty claims based on faith, that's it.
You're right on the money! From approximately 20:00 to about 33:00 he is just preaching the word of "Harris" hoping that emotion is going disguise that he brought nothing to the debate. It was pretty embarrassing.
"I have just met you, and I love you!"
-Dug
LOL!
I find your review to be brilliant. Gladly subscribed.
I am so glad I found your channel on a old debate, but it’s still in the newness of how to debate. Studying to be apologist in the LGBT community. These videos are absolutely essential in learning how to debate. God is truly using you in more ways than you know Affecting a lot of people out here like me who need this. Thank you for your obedience.
17:00. Regarding murderers being on the same level as saints morally...unfathomable right? Is it not true that, in Christianity, the most vile person can shed all responsibility for their acts by a simple act of contrition and spend eternity in paradise with the saints? Christianity also puts good people and evil people on the same level, so long as everyone takes actions that perpetuate the religion. Sam makes the clear differential between moral and physical well being, which is a valid point.
😂 They sent the wrong Dr. Harris, the topic was lost.
The characteristics Craig attributes to his god are a fantasy. And I take exception with all his propositions. Why does a god existing mean morals are objective? And here is the key, how did you determine your god is moral?
Everyone agrees morality exists? Yeah, the word exists. But we don't all agree on the definition of morality. If you think slavery is moral (like yahweh), then we don't define morality the same. Theists don't have a solid foundation for "morality", they just claim they do.
"There are no moral obligations to obey without a god." I've heard that, and it always ends there. Let's look at just what those morals are you people are claiming is the foundation for objective morals. THAT is what Harris was doing. He's showing the absurdity of Craig's position.
Having a (make believe) god doesn't give you a foundation. First off, you need to show a god exists. But then you have to determine the the god is moral. And for xians, they can do neither.
You say Harris misrepresented xianity. Where?
lol, Divine Command Theory. smh. Cults always have these little tricks to cover their cognitive dissonance. Harris is nailing the point around this time. He is showing how ridiculous Craig's propositions are. This is why Harris won. Craig is making empty claims and Harris debunked them.
Once we agree on a definition of morality, we can start figuring out what is objective. But even then, most will still be situational.
It's funny how you're chastising Harris for not addressing Craig's points. But not Craig for not addressing Harris's points. I think Harris did address Craig's points. "If there's a god we have a solid foundation." Not if it's the xian god.
If you define morality as whatever your god says, then no one who disagrees with that can win in your eyes. The actual foundation claimed must be examined; not just declared to be so. Your god's morality is barbaric. And that's why we go with secular morality. It the theists who are on the low road with respect to morality. If you reply, start with how you define morality. Otherwise, we might not be talking about the same thing.
Thank you. I was initially very interested when I stumbled upon this video. I was looking for an objective dissection of a classic debate. What I found was an blatantly biased observer supporting his contemporary. You said it better than I could have. Its a shame that the contents creator did not reply. You know that he almost certainly read the comment. most with such a low subscriber count often read every comment.
@@jess_n_atx I’m sure he is terrified of charlidog. Who wouldn’t be? I mean it’s charlidog. Charlidog did an excellent job asserting PhD level logic. And you recognized it. So you are ALMOST as impressive as charlidog
You have to stick to the topic on a debate. WLC doesn’t need to chase rabbit trails that don’t amount to anything. Harris gave a monologue about a bunch of nothing. Shows your bias
@@akn0187rmb Craig made a bunch of empty claims. Harris debunked them with evidence.
Demonstrate your god. Show valid evidence. Until then, we will always win. How can we lose against someone selling invisible unicorns? That's all you are, theist.
@@jess_n_atx would it be better if he didn't disclose his affiliations? His arguments are there, you can repudiate them if you wish.
Why do morals need an objective basis and when has an objective moral basis ever been demonstrated anywhere much less in Xianity?
It hasn't, they just claim there is an objective basis and when asked to demonstrate it they either run and hide or say something stupid like "is it morally ok to torture babies for fun?" Which isn't demonstrating anything but the fact that we agree that its no ok to torture babies.
This isn’t a high school debate! In a real debate like this, you don’t have to stick to the topic! You can talk about whatever you want!
Sam Harris has always been the runt of the New Atheist group. I've never been very impressed by his rhetorical skills. He has a horrid habit of re-using the same talking points. As you pointed out, his anti-Christian rebuttal ignores the entirety of WLC's arguments.
In fact, Dawkins and Hitchens weren't much better. People laud Hitchens, but his only real gift was biting one liners.
There are atheist philosophers who do a much better job than any of those 3...they still don't convince me though.
William Lane Craig wins here.
Please balance your sound levels, the playback is too quiet, and you are too loud.
I am learning so much!
Awesome! Thanks so much for watching!
No clue how you come to this conclusion at 7:10, like to me when you say that you've simply ignored Harris arguement completely and show your very tilted bias. I will watch rest of this video but this has already out a very sour taste in my mouth about your objectives here.
Can you look at Craig vs Ehrman?
So basically Harris is mad about God because God don't do or not so what he thinks?🤷🏽♂️
Yeah, it’s like- WHO are you mad at?!? Do YOU get bitter & make abstracts on someone that DOESN’T Exist?? I don’t think so… 😏
~27:00 - I think this illustrates the problem with the theist perspective. If you don't think that we can judge God on a non religious moral system then what's the point of even having this discussion first place? You've defined objective morality in such a way that it requires God which is fine for you but obviously no atheist is going to accept that definition.
Also, I don't see why the fact that murderers and rapists can be seen as on the same moral level as saints is that detrimental to Harris' case. Can't we just say that it only applies to humans with normal psychology? Just like we don't say its immoral for a lion to kill an animal we could say that the actions of humans that derive significant well being from killing and raping are amoral and we can just lock them up in the same way that we'd lock up a lion that was terrorising a town.
Dude did you even listen to Harris? I guarantee you couldn't steelman him. How is it not antithetical to have a bias when analyzing logic? Your body language is pretty indicative of bias defense also.
“Dude did you even listen to Harris. I guarantee you couldn’t steelman him”
Ho the irony!! Dude Sam Harris’s arguments are self owns on multiple levels. Harris’s world view is unbelievably easy to critique and refute!! Because he hides behind the cloak of neuroscience and uses a long list of logical fallacies and unproven pseudo science in order to virtue signal and demonise moderate religious expression. He’s not actually a practising neuroscientist and is viewed by prominent academics as a bad philosopher which is why any first year philosophy student could “steelman” him no problem. Noam Chomsky won’t even discuss Sam Harris!!
Because Harris is purposely divisive constantly appeals to logical fallacies and digresses particularly when he can not answer a simple question related to morality. Like his associate Richard Dawkins he makes a six figure sum selling certainty to materialists/atheists.
Harris’s long list of rhetorical statements and straw mans against the philosophy of religion would make Joseph Stalin look intellectually honest!! Furthermore, Harris’s virtue signalling and cringe worthy attacks on faith using a long list of appeals to emotion fallacies and cherry picking fallacies to demonise and stereotype an whole group of people in front of an audience of academics was an embarrassment. He is clearly not a practising neuroscientist or genuine philosopher!! Harris starts with the…
(Appeal to Emotion Fallacy)
(The Straw man Fallacy)
(The Cherry Picking Fallacy, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence)
(The Quoting out of context Fallacy, Quote mining Bible verses fallacy)
(The appeal to novelty fallacy, also called argumentum ad novitatem, the Old is Bad Fallacy)
(The Fallacy of Non Sequitur, irrelevancy fallacy, The Bible contains controversial verses if you ignore hermeneutics and quote mine so it logically follows materialism/atheism is true fallacy)
(The Fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion, Not answering the question fallacy)
(Red Herring Fallacy)
(Is/ought Fallacy)
(Appeal to Extremes Fallacy, related to Cherry picking fallacy and quote mining fallacy)
(The Stone Fallacy)
(The Deterministic Fallacy, a tautologous fallacy)
(The Maternalism and scientism of the Gaps Fallacy, (The Explanatory Abstractions and Fallacy of Misplaced concreteness Fallacy)
(The Merelogical Fallacy, we are just a brain fallacy, the fallacy of composition, the whole is less than the sum of its parts fallacy)
(The Enchephalocentrism Fallacy, the assumption that it has been proven beyond doubt that the mind is synonymous with the brain fallacy)
(The Homunculus Fallacy, the belief that “genes” can be “selfish” or the attributing quasi-pseudo intentionality to the parts of persons fallacy, you dance to your DNA fallacy, you are just a brain and you are just random atoms and brain chemicals fallacy)
(Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy, ad hominem and mockery fallacy)
(The Appeal to Nature Fallacy, something is good because it is “just” nature fallacy)
(The Appeal to Naturalism Fallacy, the reductive fallacy or bottom up fallacy)
(Appeal to Pseudo Scepticism Fallacy, the dogmatic materialism fallacy, eliminative materialism fallacy)
(The Appeal to Outrage Fallacy, ignoring the nuances and evidence of a concept and appealing to its more controversial aspects feigning outrage fallacy)
(The No True Scots Man Fallacy, The Stalin, Hitler, Mau and Pol Pot weren’t really atheists fallacy, The paedophiles Sartre and Foucault weren’t really atheists fallacy).
(Two Quo Quay Fallacy, appeal to hypocrisy fallacy)
(The Reverse Tautology Fallacy. The moral absolutes are an illusion and a supreme ontological ground for morality and universal paradigmatic truth is impossible fallacy)
(The Genetic Fallacy, the fallacy of irrelevance, the truth of a proposition is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context fallacy, related to the quote mining and cherry picking verses out of historical, social and cultural context fallacy)
(The Psychologists Fallacy,)
The list goes on!!
Did you even listen to Harris ? Just one of these fallacies can be used to “steel man” Harris. His whole proselytizing and preaching was a non sequitur as he totally avoided answering the question and clearly could not ground morality in a strictly reductive materialistic paradigm that excludes metaphysical realities. Because morality is clearly a metaphysical presupposition that can not be grounded-or justified in a strictly reductive materialistic paradigm that clearly excludes metaphysical realities. I’m not appealing to popularity but the consensus even among atheist philosophers is that “you can’t get an (ought) out of an (is)” even if you appeal to logic. Because a strictly reductive materialistic paradigm clearly excludes metaphysical realities. At least be a consistent materialist/atheist.
“You can’t get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume)
“logic is an illusion” (Nietzsche)
“Genes can not be selfish or unselfish, anymore than atoms can be jealous, elephants abstract or biscuits teleological” (Mary Midgley).
Great quote from one of my favourite Humanist philosophers there.
Nevertheless, Harris’s basic argument was that scientism and materialism of the Gaps can tell us what courses of action lead to human flourishing, happiness and so on. So far so good!!
However, this is clearly not very good as eliminative materialism is question begging of the highest degree as no one even knows what “matter” is. Equally, the “natural sciences” can not prove anything as they are provisional and can only infer to what (is). It’s a constantly changing landscape regarding what (is) not what (ought) to be. So Harris clearly doesn't establish that science can answer moral questions. Furthermore, the natural sciences clearly can't tell us what “human flourishing” etc even consists in. Its pretty obvious that the natural sciences can tell us something. But at most all the “natural sciences” can provide us with is what Emanuel Kant referred to as the hypothetical imperatives (for example, if you want X, then obviously do Y). But it can not dictate categorical imperatives (do Y). It can’t dictate “oughts”. Now, Harris has studied philosophy so I think it's charitable to say that he should knows this. However, honesty doesn’t pay a six figure sum but selling certainty does.
Furthermore, according to the expert linguist and brilliant cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky…
“There are only two ways of looking at eliminative materialism (the idea that all things reduce to solid substance). One is that it is total gibberish until someone tells us what matter is. Until someone tells us what eliminative materialism is there can’t be such a thing as eliminative materialism and no one can tell us what matter is”. (Noam Chomsky).
@@georgedoyle7971 did that feel good to type? It must have because there are a bunch of grammatical errors throughout your comment.
@@fentonmulley5895
“Bunch of grammatical errors”
“did that feel good to type”
Ho the irony!! Sorry but you start a sentence with a (capital) letter buddy. “(D)id that feel good to type”?
Not “did that feel good to type” lol!!
At least use proper “grammar” if your going to be pathetic enough to use “grammatical errors” to troll someone’s comment lol (Gotcha!!). That was comedy gold and is hilarious.
Do you actually have any logical coherent arguments or points to make beyond total self refuting b..sht or not?
Believe it or not I’ve actually got a new brand of pen right here on my desk it’s called the (Fenton pen) it’s got no point!!
You actually checked to see if you did use proper grammar didn’t you lol?. “(D)id that feel good”!!
(Gotcha!! twice)
Did that feel good to check?
“Did that feel good”
Ho the irony!! Did that unbelievably lame rebuttal “feel good”? Especially when you panicked and quickly checked to see if you’d made a “grammatical error” lol. That was a self own on multiple levels!!
“(D)id it feel good” lol?
You really outwitted me there with the grammar fairy argument!!
Q; How many theists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Answer; Two!! One person to actually change the lightbulb and one person to videotape the job so militant atheists can’t say that the accidental arrangement of the blind, mindless, meaningless magical “nothing” just did it!! Or even worse the accidental arrangement of the magical cosmic tea leaves just did it!!
(Grammar fairy fallacy): Or the (trivial objections fallacy) as it’s commonly known in debate. It’s nothing more substantive than an informal logical fallacy to add to the fundie atheists long list of logical fallacies. Basically irrelevant and sometimes sophomoric objections are made to divert the attention away from the topic that is being discussed. It speaks volumes because it is often used when an argument is clearly difficult to oppose to hide the fact that you are completely stumped and have lost the debate.
Do you have any actual evidence or not that this self refuting, strictly reductive, causally closed, effectively complete, atheistic, nihilistic b..sht is true or not? I just (lack a belief) that the magical “nothing” created everything!! Or even worse I just (lack a belief) that the accidental arrangement of the magical cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea created categorical imperatives, truth itself, absolute value claims, absolute ought claims, morals and ethics. the prescriptive laws of logic, (Conscious agents and free will that is rationality itself, absolutes, universals and categorical imperatives) inductive reasoning, empiricism, universals, identity over time, the one and the many, the myth of the given, art, poetry, literature, music, beauty, meaning, purpose, empathy, compassion and ultimately love!!
When are you guys going to understand that it’s just a (lack of belief) until you can prove a universal negative!! It’s just a (lack of belief) until you can prove that the magical “nothing” just did it!! Or even worse the accidental arrangement of the magical cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea just did it!!
Sorry but I’m biased against beliefs that are synonymous with the belief in magic! I tend to doubt that they are rational!!
(Relativism, strictly reductive materialism, militant atheism or philosophical naturalism):
“The belief that the absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth!!”
“The belief that if i just screamed loud enough [there is no such thing as sound] then sound will cease to exist!!”
The belief that [no one took no time to turn nothing into everything] squeezing the whole universe inside something smaller than this tiny dot [.].
“The belief that the most luxurious slide into the VOID and into oblivion is the highest ideal and virtue of the human being”
Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, nihilistic, fatalistic and self refuting….
Did I mention that by sheer coincidence I’ve actually got a new brand of pen right here on my desk called a (Fenton pen) it’s got no point!!
Sam’s argument here is surprising for an atheist. He actually believes in God but argues that he is a moral monster. Lol!
"He actually believes in God but argues that he is a moral monster. Lol!" Why are you lying? No, he does not.
@@LGpi314 I was being sarcastic!
@@jawdroppingbeautybyjulie61 It is hard to see the sarcasm in the comment section. I add /S
@@LGpi314 naturally.
@@jawdroppingbeautybyjulie61 "naturally" WHAT!?!?!
I've got to say, you're articulate. But quite deliberately misleading in your explanations, and selectively so. How much of your own bias spills into your reviews?
17:32 Grossly oversimplifying points is not how you win debates. Serial killers and rapists are clearly evil because they induce suffering onto others and it doesn't take belief in god to see that this is wrong. You're conveniently missing the entire point of Sam's argument.
So you've created your own moral framework then. If it "induces suffering in others", it's wrong and vice versa, correct? What is the grounding of your system? Why ought we to follow it? This is the nature of the debate, which you may have missed.
Sam Harris certainly has his own morality from within. He unfortunately rambles and his sarcasm accomplishes the opposite of what he intends.
It would be so much better if, PRIOR, to the start of the debate, strict ground rules were explicitly laid down -' There will be no pathological ranting against something that doesn't exist according to the individual!! The debater will restrict his answers SPECIFICALLY to the topic of this debate. If not, he will be stopped and reminded of the rules of the debate '.
Yes, it would be great if a moderator could referee the responses. I'm not certain about interrupting a presenter, but a comment afterwards like, "Said rebuttal loses points because it did not engage the opponent and is irrelevant to the topic of the debate," is something that should be considered.
Some years ago, James White debated Roger Perkins on the Godhead (White is trinitarian whereas Perkins is Oneness). The moderator was an atheist who was a parliamentarian with the Australian legislature. While partisans consistently laud the guy who sings their song as the winner, the moderator, who had no dog whatsoever in the fight, said afterwards that Perkins was the clear winner. Those in White's camp would vehemently disagree, but people have a hard time separating their beliefs from the presentation of those beliefs.
17:00 no, they would *not* be moral equivalents. Harris is literally saying the opposite of that. Harris said in the quote that : it would no longer be a moral landscape. What a fascinating misunderstanding.
How would you define moral landscape?
Except that distinction is entirely arbitrary since he's not making an argument why one would be the moral landscape and the other wouldn't. His arguments are just a complete mess.
That confusion is entirely due to Harris’s jumbling nonsense. He can’t decide it being a objectivist metaethics, which his promotion of it being an ethical naturalist view would be, or an entirely subjectivist metaethics.
I don’t think he even knows the difference. But either way the fault is Harris’ cuz he wants it to be both.
They are literal moral equivalents, he is saying that if it was found through science that there is no such thing as an objective good or evil and what we only consider to be morally good and evil is what derives happiness to the individual, then the saints would be as moral as rapists, thieves, murderers, and psychopaths.
To simplify, if happiness is the measure of good and evil, then a happy rapist is morally equivalent to a happy saint.
He said that rapists and saints would "occupy the same peaks" in that moral landscape. Meaning they would be equivalents.
Sam's appeal to emotions and the problem of pain are the only arguments I have ever seen him give. And every debate or even discussion I've seen him have he will not respond to the issues at hand and play in the same sandbox as his interlocutor. Sam Harris is a bad faith conversation partner and should never be debated. Sam has one trick and this is it.
WHAT!?!?! WLC is scripting M0R0N who nowadays refuse to debate anyone who does not have a PhD.
“Theology is ignorance with wings.”
― Sam Harris
Agree with him or not I felt from just from A debate stand point that Craig was more precise, and had a better points. Harris just babbled . Didn’t refute any of Craig’s points. Wasn’t impressed
Harris was doing his typical bully pulpit routine. Pretty embarrassing, actually.
Jay Dyer and Matt Dillahunty please.
Thank you! Got it on the list :)
Would like to see Jay Dyer versus Dilahunty too. I know Dilahunty doesn’t actually come to debate as he just appeals to the “I’m not convinced” (Pseudo scepticism Fallacy). Nevertheless, Jay was calm all the way through the debate and did a good job of pointing out Matt Dilahuntys metaphysical presuppositions and how they are not consistent with his world view. Matt got pretty angry at one point. The effectiveness of the transcendental argument when it’s used properly would be a good one to review to be honest.
If belief in god is required to establish objective moral values, what is the objective evidence for god’s existence? And if we had objective evidence for a god, what objective evidence do we have to establish his/hers/it’s moral values? Alternatively, could not a person believe in a god and also believe morality as a product of nature? In what sense would god have anything to do with morality to that person? To put it another context, if you accept god created grizzly bears, are you then required to believe there are objective moral values for grizzly bears? Could not one accept that god simply allows bears to figure that out themselves? Craig never presented objective evidence for a god, nor how objective morals values could come from such a belief.
Harris' only statement should be.....God's actions, Craig's actions, Trump's actions, Stalin's actions, my actions.. yeah they're ALL THE SAME. Nothing matters. It's all good...oh wait, there is no good, or bad. Nothing Matters.
It's so concerning because some people will listen to this and say "Sam destroyed Craig utterly" so concerning. Unfortunately some of those academics think the same way.
Sam did destroy WLC in this debate, it really isn't even close. All this crying about SH not staying on topic is insanely dishonest. How many times did WLC reference the Christian god or Christianity in his opening alone? It was several different times. WLC is a Christian, the vast majority of the people in the audience are Christian. SH was well with in his right to go after Christianity and he completely shredded the Christian world view.
@@jacoblee5796😂😂😂😂 oh how delusional
I remember listening closely to this debate, a few years ago, and it was SO obvious who the winner was. It's truly amazing that there are many people out there who are so unable to see BEYOND the rhetorical tactics, and accurately ascertain who the real winner is. (It's sad as well, I suppose.) Thanks for doing this Debate Teacher Reacts video Nate!
BY DEFINITION objective morality must come from an external source. That is what is meant by objective. There is no point in trying to debate a definition. So Harris shows that although there is no evidence that a god exists, even if one did exist there would be no guarantee this god’s objective morality would be good - except, again, by definition. He also puts forth a framework for a morality that more closely matches our concepts of good and bad than that of Islam or Christianity in many instances.
Why does Craig say playsure, instead of pleasure.
He didn’t engage? The topic is: Is morality natural or supernatural. Harris perfectly explained that morality is not supernatural, can be identified/measured/explained through a scientific lens AND provides further evidence that glorifying/defending/arguing morality through a religious lens, therefore as dictated by the supernatural being they believe in, would be reprehensible. What I find hilarious is that religious people immediately get defensive when someone questions their beliefs. At the same time I find it sad that these same people, at least many of them, have been scared so badly that they are afraid if they do question their beliefs they will be eternally punished. You seem so triggered by the factual and REAL questions he poses. They are arguments as to why morality can’t be supernatural and why supernatural beliefs have no place in discussions about morality.
Sam Harris is one of the least intellectually honest and consistent people alive.
Harris talks too much about Christian or the belief of Gods
And he just sounds like a person who has a personal problem with god
It’s really sad and unfortunate. Even Harris knows that he lost this debate, but there are so many out there that think Sam Harris won because of how cute and humorous his rhetoric is.
Who?!
It only makes sense in your head and to no one else. This video is cherry-picked to show bias.
@@LGpi314 What on earth are you talking about.. i've no idea what you are saying you think only makes sense in whoever's head. If you think Sam Harris won that debate then you should state your reason addressing the very obvious stated reasons why he didn't. I personally am an atheist and sam harris fan and before the debate I thought Sam had a chance, but seeing the debate, Sam clearly ducked WLC's arguments and Sam even wrote an article saying something along the lines of that he ducked them, as a tactic , because he didn't want to get sucked into WLC's world, where he would lose! SH has praised WLC as a debater. SH really insulted everybody there.. And i'm a big fan of SH, i've followed his work, he has been very influential in my whole way of thinking. I also like WLC also an influence..
@@boliussa Harris did win if you would actually watch the full debate and not rely on Apologetics telling you that.
@@LGpi314 You didn't even comprehend what I wrote. I watched it back when it happened, that's years before this review. (You didn't even manage to grasp that), I also told you about what Sam wrote of the debate after it. You aren't understanding this at all are you. And you are clearly unable to reply to the reasons stated for why SH lost. SH disappointed people and was forced to explain himself to his fans. He knew he didn't address WLC's arguments, it was an intentional move on his part!
For all that believe in a GOD or God or Gods ...the question that you can not escape is that all religions that worship these imaginary beings are created by man. And are subject to strong illigitamacy. If a man created it, it is already flawed and therefore nullified on its face. THE FOUR HORSEMAN have at least tried to speak to our logical minds, And not our feelings.
I honestly would’ve appreciated it if you would’ve showed William lanes rebuttal to that wild straw men tangent, of Sam Harris but at the same time I hope William Lane stood on topic.
Thanks for the content, I find christians and other religious people taking this same strategy like Harris, we need to remember truth is the ideal not our current or preconceived notions, or even accepted doctrines based on our modern reading of ancient documents, we can all of us do better.
You speak as if you have the right answer without asserting a position. That’s where your opinion loses value in the court of public discourse
Nate its a plesure to listen to your analysis
I just find them for a first time
great
thanks
Famous part starts at 21:13
Harris does EXACTLY this with his long-winded, gish-gallup word salads that completely deflect ALL THE TIME, and I have absolutely ZERO respect for the man.
I understand that Craig wanted to narrow down the origin of morality to a perfect God and defend that but Craig does not believe in a generic God but the Christian one. I think that it is fair game for Harris to point out the problems he sees with this.
Exactly, I agree that Harris did not engage with the deistic argument of Craig, but I think he did it with the intention of not fighting a fight he knows lacks the specifics. What he said about Islam for instance was what connected his argument with Craig’s rebuttal. Because if Craig is correct in his arguments then he cannot say the horrors of Islam are wrong in any sense.
" taught debate at the high school here in Los Vegas" really thats your level expertise? The high school??? There aren't more than one?
I appreciate this analysis
Harris behaved like a child throwing a fit in this debate. He clearly has personal issues with the Christian faith because this is how he handled literally every debate about religion. He attacks relentlessly the God of the Bible regardless of the subject matter. It's such an immature way of handling what could be a productive debate.
And this is why Dawkins will not debate Craig. He is an EXCEPTIONAL laser debater.
@@Truth397 I’ve seen Bart many times in debate. He is not a good debater. What’s evident to me is that he is very emotional and rhetorical in his speech. Craig stays laser focused on the debate topic and Bart is all over the place and it all comes down to his roadblock dealing with suffering. He has a very surface level understanding of the Bible, despite being a biblical scholar. He has totally missed the underlying theme of the Bible, which is humanity time and time again goes against God’s commands and causes their own suffering. God, in His love for us, sent His one and only son, Jesus, to suffer in our place. Those who accept Jesus, just as one would accept a parachute before jumping off a plane, will be saved.
@@jawdroppingbeautybyjulie61 not a good debater? Are you kidding me. He won a national award for debating. You clearly so in love with Jesus and his 2 sidekicks that you fail to see
@@jawdroppingbeautybyjulie61 god sent his son for his own mess ups.
@@Truth397 no I am not kidding. Craig is the superior debater. I’m not sure what national debate award you are talking about but it doesn’t change my opinion. He is highly emotional, seems to look down his nose at every opponent, and relies heavily on the rhetorically impressionable. He continues to present his argument that the historicity of the Bible is questionable because of inconsistencies between authors. As Craig states, these inconsistencies do nothing to undermine the key narrative: that Jesus performed miracles, He had a significant following, He was killed by Roman and Jewish authorities, and His tomb was later found empty. Bart continues to discount consensus of both Christian and secular historians by saying that because the resurrection deals with theological beliefs that the historical event of Jesus’s life, death and resurrection are not really historical at all. You are right. I am absolutely in love with Jesus as you should be, too. We are slaves to sin. Each and every one of us hides contempt in our hearts for all that is righteous. God loves us still. “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!” Romans 5:8-10. Why would you reject God’s grace and salvation through Jesus Christ? Is it because you hold contempt for self-righteous, so called Christians? I completely understand. But just like a skydiver clings to his parachute, as humans who sin we should cling to our savior. If I was jumping from an airplane, my belief in the parachute is inconsequential. It’s my “acceptance” of the parachute, that saves me. If I deny wearing it, I fall to my death. Jesus is the way the truth and the life! No one comes to the father except through Him. John 14:6. There is no other way. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Romans 1:20. It is very sad. Bart has chosen to follow his own understanding and reject His savior. And on top of this He attempts to dissuade others from believing. “Trust in the LORD with all your heart; and lean not unto your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct your paths.” Proverbs 3:5-6 I take the time to write you because Jesus has changed my life in astounding ways. I’m not rich with money as Joel Osteen promises (false gospel btw) but I am rich in his blessings and mercy. My life is not easier it’s harder but He has made Himself known and I will spend my entire life telling others of His love for me.
@@Truth397 how did God “mess up” as you say?
His hatred of the God of the Bible is palpable and his choice. In every argument, off topic as they were, he failed to account for human choice, error, sin and consequences. I feel for him. What a dark, terrible world he lives in.
Calling Sam Zoolander a doctor will never cease to amaze me.