God Debate Sam Harris Vs. Rick Warren

[crowTrobot 2]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889148/site/newsweek/some interesting stuff. harris seems to be a bit more of a "spiritual" atheist thandawkins. warren moronically closes with pascal's wager.

[brvheart 1,752]

Rick Warren is not an intellectual, so this has no point.

[offset 0]

I'm on page 5. Warren is a much better debater than Harris IMO, despite most of his arguments being flawed.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Meh, I didn't think either were that great. Reading these very structured debate type things only angers me because they can never get deep into one issue. It would be better if they had a debate this long on each question asked. But I guess people don't have enough patience for that.

[Balloon guy 158]

I looked and couldn't find it but years ago I heard a debate on the radio between Walter Martin and Madeline O'Hara.Now that was a great debate.....mostly cause Dr. Martin cleaned her clock.edit: Now I know why I couldn't find it, mispelled her nameWalter Martin's debates Madalyn Murray O'Hairenjoy the google search

[crowTrobot 2]

I looked and couldn't find it but years ago I heard a debate on the radio between Walter Martin and Madeline O'Hara.Now that was a great debate.....mostly cause Dr. Martin cleaned her clock.edit: Now I know why I couldn't find it, mispelled her nameWalter Martin's debates Madalyn Murray O'Hairenjoy the google search

20+ year old debates that involve science in any way are pretty much irrelevant, and o'hair was too antagonistic to be a good debater anyway.

[Balloon guy 158]

20+ year old debates that involve science in any way are pretty much irrelevant, and o'hair was too antagonistic to be a good debater anyway.

The debate was more philisophical, but I don't blame you for not wanting O'hair representing your side.Ever notice when a woman changes the traditional spelling of her first name that she is usually a high maintance pain in the rear?

[Mattnxtc 0]

Rick Warren was only used b/c of the name recognition but if you wanted a real debate you wouldnt want him doing the debating. Hes in that new breed of "pastor" that is driving people away from what christianity preaches

[Flack_attack 0]

Worth reading.Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed in Sam and his "one with the universe" B.S. Rick Warren actually held his ground admirably for being a complete moron. However, I think his true colors come out in his statement "Shoot, if death is all there is, then im not helping anyone".Why do people need a reason to be good?

[crowTrobot 2]

Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed in Sam and his "one with the universe" B.S.

he was saying that god isn't necessary to explain "spiritual" feelings humans have. as yorke said unfortunately topics like that are way too complex to meaningfully debate in a few sentences.

[Flack_attack 0]

he was saying that god isn't necessary to explain "spiritual" feelings humans have. as yorke said unfortunately topics like that are way too complex to meaningfully debate in a few sentences.

Right. I was saying that I was suprised at his openness to a human spirit/soul.

[Balloon guy 158]

Worth reading.Why do people need a reason to be good?

Because sin is more fun?

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

Sam Harris? The original winner from StarSearch?

[jmkiser 0]

Because sin is more fun?

sin =\= good or evil to usyou will learn soon young... i mean old... i mean... well, however old you are, padawan:-P

[sknkd 0]

I have a great idea for a news story. Let's have one guy who believes something that millions of people believe and another guy who believes something millions of people believe and put them in a room together. They are on opposites sides of an issue that everyone cares about but it is impossible to come to a resolution through open debate. Ready? Set? Go!

[jmkiser 0]

I have a great idea for a news story. Let's have one guy who believes something that millions of people believe and another guy who believes something millions of people believe and put them in a room together. They are on opposites sides of an issue that everyone cares about but it is impossible to come to a resolution through open debate. Ready? Set? Go!

I don't think anyone expected there to be agreement through this debate. Many debates don't end with resolution from either side. The point of having this debate is to try and get the best answers to certain questions from both sides.The problem that I agree with is that neither really had the time to really hash each of the questions. Another annoying thing was the misinformation that Warren used on atheists and the idiotic comments about how immoral he would be if there was no god.I would love a debate between the likes of Harris and Dawkins with a Christian intellectual that actually understands and actually debates the topic instead of trying to "win" the conversation. And for the debate to be longer, too

[crowTrobot 2]

I would love a debate between the likes of Harris and Dawkins with a Christian intellectual that actually understands and actually debates the topic instead of trying to "win" the conversation.

like who? the problem is there IS no way to intellectually debate for the validity of christianity, or even for the certain existence of god. all *any* christian can do is try to subjectively "win" a debate by spouting grandiose but badly flawed philosophical arguments that the general public isn't smart or objective enough to see through, which is exactly what all of them do. collins etc would not do any better than this dude because ultimately they have nothing but blind faith to work with.

[sknkd 0]

like who? the problem is there IS no way to intellectually debate for the validity of christianity, or even for the certain existence of god. all *any* christian can do is try to subjectively "win" a debate by spouting grandiose but badly flawed philosophical arguments that the general public isn't smart or objective enough to see through, which is exactly what all of them do. collins etc would not do any better than this dude because ultimately they have nothing but blind faith to work with.

Well, that is due to the subject matter, not because of the Christian arguing. God is an abstract concept that can only be described philosophically. Atheism is also only an abstract philosophical concept. If you believe in God or no-God it takes Faith to stick by your conclusion. Atheists can be just as passionate about their convictions as the Religious. A true Atheist is just a skeptic, not someone who has come to their own conclusion and make martyrs out of people doing no harm, no matter what is truth.

[crowTrobot 2]

Well, that is due to the subject matter, not because of the Christian arguing. God is an abstract concept that can only be described philosophically.

it IS due to christians (and those of other specific theologies) arguing. whether they try to deny it or not, theistic apologists in these debates virtually always hold to a fairly specific definition of god. people who think of god in a more abstract non-specific way typically don't bother with debates of this nature because they don't have fundamentalist (or financial) agendas.

Atheism is also only an abstract philosophical concept. If you believe in God or no-God it takes Faith to stick by your conclusion. Atheists can be just as passionate about their convictions as the Religious.

most people who call themselves atheists don't "believe" there is no god. they've concluded that is the most likely possibility based on evidence. you can argue semantics if you want, but for most people who call themselves atheists there is no abstract philosophy or faith involved at all.

A true Atheist is just a skeptic, not someone who has come to their own conclusion and make martyrs out of people doing no harm, no matter what is truth.

not sure what you're talking about specifically, but most atheists DO see religious fundamentalism as harmful. if all theists just believed in a generic undefined god there would be no reason for these debates and they wouldn't happen.

[sknkd 0]

it IS due to christians (and those of other specific theologies) arguing. whether they try to deny it or not, theistic apologists in these debates virtually always hold to a fairly specific definition of god. people who think of god in a more abstract non-specific way typically don't bother with debates of this nature because they don't have fundamentalist (or financial) agendas.

That is true. People with rational beliefs usually do not enter into those kinds of debates. Both these people had an agenda, Sam Harris was selling his book and Rick was selling Jesus. You are seeing it one sided. It is impossible to prove or disprove God through reason so they use example to prove their point. In this article, for example, Sam Harris said Zeus and other Gods were not real; therefore, the Christian God is not real. Rick Warren said that prayers were answered therefore, God does exist. One side isn't using fact and the other is not. Both side use suppositions based on their own preconceived notions because it is a circular debate. If somehow you had a time machine and proved there was no Jesus, Muhammad, and you could watch the evolution of species that is still not proof that there isn't a God. So I'll say what I said in the other post: The subject matter is too abstract to have a subjective debate over. You either believe it or don't if you want to argue.

most people who call themselves atheists don't "believe" there is no god. they've concluded that is the most likely possibility based on evidence. you can argue semantics if you want, but for most people who call themselves atheists there is no abstract philosophy or faith involved at all.

But some Christians choose Christianity based on their evidence. That doesn't make them any more or less right. Not all faith is blind and surely, the faith that Atheists put in the belief there is no God is not blind. You cannot say, "There is no God" with all certainty but you can say, "I believe there is no God" and be completely certain. There is a big difference and it isn't semantics.

not sure what you're talking about specifically, but most atheists DO see religious fundamentalism as harmful. if all theists just believed in a generic undefined god there would be no reason for these debates and they wouldn't happen.

Most people find fundamentalism harmful. Specifically, I was refering to the need of telling someone who believes in God that there is no God.

[crowTrobot 2]

In this article, for example, Sam Harris said Zeus and other Gods were not real; therefore, the Christian God is not real.

he said no such thing. he was simply implying that there is no evidence for any specific fundamentalist version of god, and most religiously-inclined people in the USA believe in the specific christian god because that version is tied to our culture.

One side isn't using fact and the other is not. Both side use suppositions based on their own preconceived notions because it is a circular debate.

philosophically it's circular, but most atheists don't draw conclusions from philosophy - they draw conclusions from science. in terms of science atheists ARE using facts and theists are not.

If somehow you had a time machine and proved there was no Jesus, Muhammad, and you could watch the evolution of species that is still not proof that there isn't a God. So I'll say what I said in the other post: The subject matter is too abstract to have a subjective debate over. You either believe it or don't if you want to argue.

again, these debates aren't actually about a generic god. they are specifically about fundamentalist views of god.

Not all faith is blind and surely, the faith that Atheists put in the belief there is no God is not blind. You cannot say, "There is no God" with all certainty but you can say, "I believe there is no God" and be completely certain. There is a big difference and it isn't semantics.

you missed the point - it is semantics of the term atheist. the vast majority of atheists do not say either "there is no god" or "i believe there is no god" with all certainty. they have simply concluded that is most likely to be the case based on empirical evidence. unlike religious fundamentalism there is no faith-based certainty involved. harris is no exception.

Specifically, I was refering to the need of telling someone who believes in God that there is no God.

that's absolutely not what harris (or dawkins) is doing. they are targeting fundamentalism specifically.

[Wingmaster05 0]

Right. I was saying that I was suprised at his openness to a human spirit/soul.

the whole point of being open to something is because it is genuinely possible. He has seen the evidence for 'emotional growth', to avoid using a better term, from mediatative states and forms of prayer. With the current theories out there, a soul is a possiblity and he was highlighting that because the question asked directly.I thought the 'debate' was good in that it gives you the primers for each stance. And of course, no one expected either of them to budge more than an inch, but each side was fairly represented, imo. For those Christians who thought Warren was a bad choice, why is that?

[Wingmaster05 0]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889148/site/newsweek/some interesting stuff. harris seems to be a bit more of a "spiritual" atheist thandawkins. warren moronically closes with pascal's wager.

I thought it was humorous the way their photographs were arranged. Warrren the pastor, peering sage like into the distance, and Harris, head cocked forward, looking quasi evil.

[PlayingPossum 0]

WARREN: Sam makes all kinds of assertions based on his presuppositions. I'm willing to admit my presuppositions: there are clues to God. I talk to God every day. He talks to me. HARRIS: What does that actually mean? WARREN: One of the great evidences of God is answered prayer. I have a friend, a Canadian friend, who has an immigration issue. He's an intern at this church, and so I said, "God, I need you to help me with this," as I went out for my evening walk. As I was walking I met a woman. She said, "I'm an immigration attorney; I'd be happy to take this case." Now, if that happened once in my life I'd say, "That is a coincidence." If it happened tens of thousands of times, that is not a coincidence. There must have been times in your ministry when you've prayed for someone to be delivered from disease who is not—say, a little girl with cancer. WARREN: Oh, absolutely. So, parse that. God gave you an immigration attorney, but God killed a little girl.WARREN: Well, I do believe in the goodness of God, and I do believe that he knows better than I do. God sometimes says yes, God sometimes says no and God sometimes says wait. I've had to learn the difference between no and not yet. The issue here really does come down to surrender. A lot of atheists hide behind rationalism; when you start probing, you find their reactions are quite emotional. In fact, I've never met an atheist who wasn't angry. HARRIS: Let me be the first. "So, parse that, God gave you an immigration attorney but killed a little girl." Fairly well approximates the utter nonsense that always follows from these types of debates. I thought that was probably the best part of the exchange, and from the interviewer apparently. LOL.And then, Warren closes with Pascal's Wager, which has only been thoroughly refuted to all but the most feeble of religious apologists for 100's of years.Rick, last thoughts? WARREN: I believe in both faith and reason. The more we learn about God, the more we understand how magnificent this universe is. There is no contradiction to it. When I look at history, I would disagree with Sam: Christianity has done far more good than bad. Altruism comes out of knowing there is more than this life, that there is a sovereign God, that I am not God. We're both betting. He's betting his life that he's right. I'm betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble.