Harris vs Craig...

[Memeticemetic]

An absolute must watch for those who have not yet come across it. Two hours well spent.

 

[Talono]

I watched that today. Good to watch but nothing really came out of it (like most debates).

 

[RedYellow]

Christians fail at having any kind, of moral high ground by arguing that ONLY divine incentive would offer them a reason to respect the wellbeing of their fellow human. It is that simple, and it is a moral atrocity is to say that the purpose of morals is not to serve humans, who need it, but rather a God who should already have everything he needs.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I love how Craig accuses Harris of redefining "good" to mean "of benefit to thinking beings" or something similar while he himself redefines "good" as "what god said." I know which definition I'd rather have people around me use.

From that point on it didn't even seem necessary to watch the debate.

 

[RedYellow]

It always amuses me that it's theists who are the ones looking for reasons to abandon morality in a given situation, while most atheists don't need to be influenced by external factors to view morality in a consistent way. In other words, if someone like me suddenly believed in God tomorrow, my views on murder or rape wouldn't change at all, I would still think they were wrong. But could the same be said of the theist? Probably, yes, but this would run contrary to their claim that a basis for morality is excluded from all worldviews but their own.

Also, I though it was funny when Craig pointed out that Islam is wrong because it is based on an historical inaccuracy, (denying jesus crucifixion) when the bible could just as easily be dismissed by claiming that there was a global flood, when we can clearly see that there are people living today who have cultures that predate the flood and should have been wiped out by it. ( I noticed also that Craig took an opportunity of restricted discussion at the end to throw in his bold assertion that jesus' crucifixion was uncontested by historians. Coward.)

 

[Laurens]

I hate William Lane Craig he's such a devious little shit

 

[Memeticemetic]

So, here's a question for those who have watched the debate: who won? Obviously, 'round these parts most of us are heavily biased against Craig, so try to step back from that bias and objectively determine who made the better case?

Normally when I watch Craig debate, though I find him repugnant, I am forced to admit that he came out on top. Not so, this time; and I was shocked since I wouldn't consider public speaking to be Harris' strong suit. But he was willing to fight dirty, and that made all the difference. One of the main reasons Craig can get away with his tactics is because he retreats to a position of weak deism right off the bat and the majority of his arguments come from there. Harris wouldn't let him get away with that and he mercilessly attacked Craig's actual position, not his stated one. At about an hour in, Harris destroys Craig's composure by calling Christianity a 'death cult'. Rewatch Craig's floundering response afterwards, it's a thing of beauty to watch. Any time he accuses his detractors of desperation, he is loudly proclaiming just how desperate he is feeling. Harris' response to the rant? A quick, dismissive joke, a concise summary of Craig's faulty reasoning, and then a solid case for why we want to use science as a method for moral decision making.

 

[Laurens]

So, here's a question for those who have watched the debate: who won? Obviously, 'round these parts most of us are heavily biased against Craig, so try to step back from that bias and objectively determine who made the better case?

Normally when I watch Craig debate, though I find him repugnant, I am forced to admit that he came out on top. Not so, this time; and I was shocked since I wouldn't consider public speaking to be Harris' strong suit. But he was willing to fight dirty, and that made all the difference. One of the main reasons Craig can get away with his tactics is because he retreats to a position of weak deism right off the bat and the majority of his arguments come from there. Harris wouldn't let him get away with that and he mercilessly attacked Craig's actual position, not his stated one. At about an hour in, Harris destroys Craig's composure by calling Christianity a 'death cult'. Rewatch Craig's floundering response afterwards, it's a thing of beauty to watch. Any time he accuses his detractors of desperation, he is loudly proclaiming just how desperate he is feeling. Harris' response to the rant? A quick, dismissive joke, a concise summary of Craig's faulty reasoning, and then a solid case for why we want to use science as a method for moral decision making.

His only skill is being good at debating, in doing so he is a devious, slimy, wretched little scrotum bag and when I watch him I really want to bite into his flesh because he makes me so infuriated. :lol:

 

[TheJilvin]

Craig's 8 minute rebuttal was sufficiently retarded so as to make me stop wanting to watch the debate. All of the things he hastily labelled as "irrelevant" were in fact *incredibly* relevant. His response to the accusation of semantic gymnastics is a silly joke. His 5 minute rebuttal was *completely* idiotic. A lot of fairly intelligent theists I know have reverence for Craig. Actually, I believe that I even conceded that Craig had won a debate about the historical method in application to the Gospel claims of Jesus's resurrection against Bart Ehrman. His showing was simply embarrassing during this one. :lol:

 

[Deleted member 619]

The man's a fuckwit. I see he still makes the blundering category error with regard to atheism having a truth value, and the utterly stupid inability to note that 'objective moral values' containing the words 'objective' and 'values' constitutes an oxymoron.

As for refuting the argument he insists is unrefuted, that's easy; any morality predicated on the whim of a single individual, divine or not, is necessarily subjective, thus on Kraig's view, objective morality, let alone his incongruous 'objective moral values', is impossible.

 

[RedYellow]

Well, I typically will let the theist have the word 'objective' as a pacifier so that I can further demonstrate that it doesn't make a difference.

I don't think they really know what they're defending, because on the one hand they believe that God meant for us to have the free will to be sinful, but on the other hand, it seems like their argument for the necessity of objective morals is to prevent this. Making things objectively right or wrong doesn't 'solve' the problem of murder for example. I point out to them that, even if I conceded that God existed, and that morality was objective, I could still just decide I didn't care about the fate of my soul and continue eating babies, and the only thing that would change would be that I would be subject to eternal punishment, which again, solves nothing for anyone. The fate of my soul cannot have meaning to God, who is apparently by definition perfect and complete no matter what I choose.

Thus, objective morality has no ultimate meaning, I can just keep asking, "What is the purpose of serving God? What is the purpose of being saved from hell? What is the purpose of purpose?"