Where Does Morality Come From? | With Sam Harris 

Yeah. Ben is intelligent, but not on the level of Sam Harris' intelligence.

Yeah, it is a video posted by him for what purpose? To show an instance where his argument won over Sam's? I think not. He conveniently ends the video on one of his points, omitting Sam's rebuttal. Is this supposed to suggest you won the argument? Maybe if I was an idiot. Good job, Ben. Keep up the dishonest work.

@@SLCSStrengthCoach Ben found out that developing a MAGA focused product sells better than playing it straight up.

@@SLCSStrengthCoach yeah but still Sam came out winning for me even if there was some malicious editing

​@@HearBobbyRoar Sam Harris makes JP look like a dummy. And JP is smart.

​@Acceleration Quanta Practically all experts will disagree with you. Although you're not exactly being a subjectivist, there's a thing in philosophy called 'student subjectivism' or 'student relativism', which is a phenomenon teachers noticed of most students starting out being subjectivists about morality, and almost all of them being cured of it by the end of their studies.

​@Acceleration Quanta It's not a fallacious argument, if you're referring to my argument from authority. I've long been saying that it should be renamed to 'an argument from FALSE authority' so as not to confuse people. What experts think is simply what you would think if you were the expert. I am not so much telling you what others think, as I am telling you what you think, or at any rate a more knowledgeable version of you. David Hume is a great philosopher and should not be taken lightly of course, but I disagree that he proved what you say. To me, what you're claiming does indeed fall under nihilism. I can prove everything that you asked, but it will take a long time. What I can prove to you more easily I guess is that you cannot be a nihilist. You cannot see anything in the world as deprived of value. It's just talk. You don't honestly believe in it. What you're saying is that, from the disembodied 'objective' point of view, nothing matters morally speaking (which is practically the same as saying that nothing matters, since 'mattering' is a normative issue). Well, to use a Thomas Nagel phrase and book title, you are adopting what he calls 'the view from nowhere'. From a rock's point of view, nothing matters, that much I agree with. Problem is, there is no such point of view. And you, unless you're an AI, have a point of view. It's impossible for you to be a nihilist. Go ahead, try it. Look at anything around you, and try to look at it 'objectively', and tell me what you see. I do mean this literally: try and do it and get back to me! Oh and btw the ought/is distinction, which again causes fascination to students and for a long time I considered it an unassailable truth, I started doubting it after a lot of thinking, and then I discovered that other philosophers did too, for instance Hilary Putnam. Among other things, he wrote an essay titled 'The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy'. But that's just grazing the surface. Btw I'm a staunch atheist, just so you don't think I'm coming at this from some brainless mystical angle. I would have no problem accepting moral nihilism if that's what the evidence showed.

​@accelerationquanta5816Ok star wars intellectual

It’s cause he makes money from it lol

@accelerationquanta5816 Hi Acceleration “David Hume disproved moral realism in the 1700s in A Treatise of Human Nature" is a fallacious appeal to authority. :) However, David Hume did not say it was impossible to get an ought from an is. He said it couldn't be done with the moral systems he was familiar with, namely Western philosophy with its theist/deist backgrounds. Western theist attempts to ground moral obligation always run into the problem of prior obligation which cannot be solved by appealing to the way theist’s ground moral obligation on obeying the commands/will of their preferred god. Theists can’t answer, with a reason that can’t be dismissed out of hand or denied, the question “Why ought I obey the alleged commands of their alleged god?” A Western theist worldview can’t get an ought from an is as Hume noted, but I think he suspected that a secular worldview can. Hume was not familiar with Eastern secular thought on moral obligation and moral values as at that time, unlike us now, he could not go into a bookshop in England or Scotland and buy the translated works of the Confucianists, Taoists and Buddhists. That wouldn’t happen until after he died. Though there is circumstantial evidence that he had some awareness of some Buddhist ideas obtained from talking to the Jesuits he socialised with in France while writing his Treatise. Over 2,000 years before Hume put forward the is/ought issue, the Confucianists had an answer as their secular worldview did not have an is/ought problem as they didn't have the crushing baggage of Western religions. The Confucianists were not only philosophers, they were also very practical political scientists and understood that morality is a practical political solution to a practical political problem - how do we live socially and live socially as harmoniously as possible. Morality is fundamentally a political issue of power relationships; it is a group issue and not fundamentally a theological or philosophical personal self-issue. This is a major difference between Western and Eastern approaches to moral obligation and moral values. Confucianism is still guiding the Chinese and since the Politburo in Beijing has realised that it needs Confucianism to deal with the corruption and cronyism in Chinese Communism, it has come back to the fore after a century or so of English and then Commie suppression. The Confucianists basically said - social living is necessary therefore we ought to follow the rules of social living, rules we know as the commonly held moral values encompassed in the Confucian Golden Rule of Don't do to others what you don't want done to you. Morality is not a solo gig, it’s about the group. Like many other animals, but more so than other animals, human babies cannot be self-sufficient and will soon die unless other humans live socially with them. Children and adults cannot be truly self-sufficient, we always rely on co-operating with others. What we commonly call self-sufficiency or self-made people are always instances where those individuals rely on the efforts of many other people to achieve their sufficiency. Evolution through natural selection gave our very distant human ancestors the abilities of empathy and reasoning which enabled them to work out the rules for social living. It takes a village to raise a child is an observation probably as old as human society. Social living enables individuals to survive and prosper, materially and emotionally. The secular worldview grounds moral obligation in the necessity of social living which gives us an ought from an is. An ought requires a condition of necessity otherwise it doesn’t follow logically. In order to refute the necessity of social living, a person would have to explain how they, as a new born baby, could survive to grow to be the child who grew to be the adult who uses social media, without living socially with others during all those years. And, it is a practical and logical contradiction to use social media to try to prove that social living is not necessary because social living is necessary for social media. If Hume had been born 200 years later, I think he would have written quite differently as he would not have been oppressed by the church and its religious thought police and he would have got the university professorship that his genius suited him for and he would have had access to a world wide source of knowledge and ideas.

politicians aren't smart enough

if politicians debated like this noone would vote for them because most people wouldn't understand what they are saying.

Fully agree. The Trump Biden debates before the 2020 elections were disasters

Politicians won't debate like this because most Americans would not watch it. Much of our political debates are meant to be confrontational as they are meant mostly to rally their support base. This is the culture in The United States, most Americans already form their beliefs and opinions, and ignore any information that might challenge those existing beliefs. Its called cognitive dissonance.

Trump makes a lot more sense then Ben Sh*piro

Yes I agree, he softly points out all his BS.

I love Sam because he it the most religious atheist there is. And he is also a pretty nice and funny guy it seems.

@@theohuioiesin6519 the most religious atheist?

@@theohuioiesin6519 you should probably look up both of those words

unlike ben lmfao

for once? This is normal. What happens between people on facebook and twitter isen't, it's a bubble.

Harris is pretty much always like this, regardless who his audience or partner/opponent is. Ben, however? No. He's only being more honest here because he knows he cannot pull his favourite go-to rhetorical tricks with Harris, just like he did with Tyson before. Note how Harris points out how Aquinas' and Augustine's ideologies contributed to the inquisition's murderous qualities. And instead of addressing *that* point, Ben deflects and notes how "instrumental" those beliefs were to scientific development. Yes.... only because science *had* to emerge to counter the very wrong and incoherent and inaccurate teachings of religion. He *could* admit that yes, those beliefs of Aquinas and Augustine -- to torture or execute heretics -- are immoral, but he can't, because that would ago against his presuppositions about religious morality. He does the same thing in his defense of the biblical slavery. Doesn't address its presence in the old testament, and then generally notes, "oh well, a bunch of cultures did it..." which is just a blatant ad populum fallacy. I'm just so happy that Harris actually says like, oh let's back up a bit, which is something very very very very few people ever say to Shapiro because he tries to steamroll discussions.

Calmness from one side at least

@@Sanxioned1 Absolutely spot on. Shapiro is backpedaling and equivocating in the face of Harris' relentless facts and logic. I think Ben is used to, as you said, "steamrolling" his interlocutors, and is thrown off his game here. Also, Harris' argument is much stronger.

@@Sanxioned1 lol science "had" to emerge? Really now, so why didn't science emerge over the course of thousands of years of aboriginal culture or with the Inuit, or the melanesians in the pacific who were still cutting off people's heads for sport well into the twentieth century? Why didn't Science emerge during the thousands of years of pre-christian Celtic history in Britain, or among the Teutonic tribes?? You're full of it.

the core of debating or arguing is not just expressing opinions who are opposed to each other with respect but to seek for the truth though dialogue. at the end of the dialogue if the participants gained nothing from the opposing idea then the dialogue is fruitless.

two things shipiro doesn't know how to do. be respectful or debate

The public schools are not interested in fair and respectful debates

@@MrGoldhandles did you even watch? Both guys were extremely respectful

@@MrGoldhandles lol what?

Even though I disagree a lot with Ben Shapiro, I do like listening to his debates and discussions

They have a common enemy in Islam and Sam has been increasingly supportive of Israel, plus for all Ben's faults, he does seem fairly genuine. So makes sense they can sit down and have a respectful chat about reality.

Although Ben does sound like he’s been inhaling helium, I must say. JK

Was there ever any animosity between Sam and Ben?

Have you actually tried out Sam Harris moral system?

@@RA-ie3ss Yes. Why your question?

@Whatever3232323 If you actually did you would have understood that his basis for morality is insufficient.

@@RA-ie3ss No, it is not insufficient at all. To base morality on god is insufficient, arbitrary and circular-reasoning.

@@Whatever3232323 Wheres the atheist moral system? Wheres the atheist communities? You want to live in denial I get it but its been 20 years now and this isn't theory anymore. We aren't going through an atheist inspired moral enlightenment.

Exactly….. Sam has TDS, bad

The left does not like to discuss with opposing views is why we don't have real thought on many issues. Harris is more open minded so he will talk to anyone that is on his intellectual level.

@@SpongeGod-YawehPants The crazy leftists are a small but loud minority of the left. Leftists are supposed to be liberal not woke puppets. The reality is there is more common ground between the honest left and the honest right. Each of us has a left brain and a right brain. That is why we would be stronger if we work together. The new left is out to destroy any cohesion with continual manipulation and division through scams like climate change, open borders, racism, gun control, Jan 6th, Russia collusion, even the current Roe v Wade overturn, and I could list more. I think there are powerful interests behind the new left which is why these losers are even given a moments notice. I am on the right but I don't believe in magic, I am college educated (doesn't mean as much as you think), not religious but I have problems with saying there is no overall theme to existence.

Muh conversation

@Pharisee Spot If you are a leftist and willing to discuss issues you probably don't have current woke lefty views. Everything those people push are scams like climate change, open borders, racism, gun control, Jan 6th, Russia collusion, even the current Roe v Wade overturn, and I could list more. Pick one let me know which one you buy and why?

@Pharisee Spot Ok, so you think CO2 is dangerously changing the climate? And we should spend trillions to stop it and completely stop using fossil fuels asap? What's your arguments for these lefty talking points?

Well God explicitly gives rules on how to beat your slaves and how to sell your daughters, does that make it any better?

@@NotoriousMinion Did you not read my comment? As I said Sam Harris falsely attributed this verse to Jesus and also misquoted it too, both true statements. You just confirmed both statements by posting the verse and then went on to make another totally baseless claim with no evidence whatsoever.

I lost most in 2016...his TDS was already through the roof back then.

Western Roman Empire fell more because of its economic and financial problems, plus the pressure of migrating populations. A lot of the emerging fragments were soon Christian but not all of them. I find Visigothic Spain particularly interesting. We know that Visigothic nobility intermarried with old Roman families who owned most of the land. They wanted to inherit the land, not conquer it.

@@immortaljanus There were problems that came with the Visigothic migration though. They had clashing religious views with the Romans. The Visigoths were Arian Christians while the Romans were Trinitarian, which later on contributed to making the Iberian peninsula so politically and religiously divided that it was easy for the Arabs and Berbers to invade and take over.

Hey, don't let history get in the way of his argument.

Sam stretches history on a few points in this short clip to be consistent with his narrative. For instance, his comment about Galileo was refuted by Alex O'Connor (cosmic skeptic) on his channel a while back.

What Harris meant is that if Shapiro wants to ascribe the "good" we have in our culture to Christianity/Judaism, then he has too ascribe the "bad" to it as well. You can't cherry pick the good and the bad options. It's all connected.

Like most things when individuals have been persecuted by the "Church" it often was political or personal reasons that drove high level clerics to act. See St. Joan of Arc, burned at the stake after being declared a witch. But really she was simply too popular and an accomplished military leader and represented a threat to the powers that were both inside and outside the church driving those folks to sin. Of course later the Church has recognized her canonization. There's always more to the story; the Church has always supported scientific advancement to understand God's creation (which he created intelligible in the first place)

Didn’t god say don’t covet your neighbour?

I totally agree, I think people completely blow that episode out of proportion. Non-religious people seem to have a tendency to judge religions based on the actions of the followers, which IMHO is just not a valid way of evaluating religious beliefs. Religions should be primarily evaluated on what they teach, and I don't think there is any scripture mandating persecution over differing astrological conclusions.

When Galileo explained that his heliocentric theory of the solar system was not intended to challenge or supplant the Judeo-Christian view of creation, his censure was lifted and his pension was restored. For a detailed explanation, see Karl Keating's " Catholicism v Fundamentalism. 😊

@@cb6562 *Religions should be primarily evaluated on what they teach* I'm going to compare this to postmodern/leftist ideology. They teach inclusion and non-racism, yet the manifestation of it is very different. it is this way because of the multi-facted influences on the human condition and needs there of, most of which is unconscious.

It is a little worse if you scroll down lol.

@@lordverulam2492 well shit....

@@KaYem_inc yeah lol there is always those few...

there's a full 2018 interview that this is from linked in the description

Sam Harris and William Lane Craig had a debate on morality’s foundation as well. It is well worth you time.

Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris debating Morality. If you can pay attention it's absolutely thrilling.

Then watch Atheist-RU-vidrs who have it as a Job to cover this.

No it wasn't. Lol....Sam Harris never answers questions he's asked. Which part of this did u find interesting? Do u even understand what they're talking about? Cause I sure as hell have no clue what Harris is going on about...this is his thing....he dodges questions during debates and goes off on his own about how much he doesn't like religion.

Very well written.

What about Muslims? And Christians in the past before modern civilisation?

Sam knows that he just knows Ben isn’t well versed in apologetics … now if they start debating Socialism U would see the Ben we all Know lol And also most things in society that everyone enjoys where built On religion and they don’t even realize it. Most people don’t even realize the only reason Monogamy seems Right is because Christianity was the Engine for it and really spread it all over the world that’s why a lot of non Christian countries have Multiple wives…

How about when your God himself( I can assume you are a Jew or Christian) ordered Joshua to attack several cities and massacre all men, women, children, and even animals? How about when Your God himself flooded the whole earth and left only a few alive? Don't you think that these types of actions gave very good reason to some genuinly believers to start holy wars and just do the same that their gods had done?! because people always try to be like their gods (to be godlike), so why shouldn't have they massacred whoever in their view was the enemy of their god?

Remember the qoute which says that it takes religion for a good person to do evil deeds coz he or she believes that they are acting on behalf of God.

Some of us prefer to play with our prey before we feast.

janisim dont fight on war of course they are of "peace" weak argument! Harris is janisim

but it's not, and you went back to your life, and so did I.

@@ejw1234 what do you mean

@@someonenotcringy2064 I meant that it won't ever be this way on network news because everything is programmed so tightly due to scheduling, advertising, etc. I agree this content and style has way more substance. We go on with our lives, nothing changes, except we watch more podcasts, while mainstream scratches their head as to why their shows/ratings have plummeted.

As a professed Christian, can you please explain what was constructive about the conversation? I'd say it was instructive, but constructive?

@@spotthelies I thought it was constructive because two people with fundamentally different worldviews were able to share their thoughts with respect for one another.

Totally agree. Wonderful discussion.

Sam: "Historically a real war of Ideais". Really? Do not go to Sam Harris to know about History. He is really Bad at it. Tim O Neil which is a Ateist Historian, call him out all the time. During the middle ages and Renaissance there was not a conflit between science and christian faith. One can see objetive data in a short (4 mn) v ideo in Voitheia Ruc : Age of Reason.

Ben says: Judeo-Christianity was the catalyzing enzyme necessary "to get here," meaning a civilization that values individual rights above the values of the collective. Later, the conversation turns to Thomas Aquinas: Ben: Aquinas said that if it was in science and it was contradicted by the book (the Bible), then you're misreading the book. Sam: Aquinas thought heretics should be put to death. So Aquinas thought that people could believe anything they wanted to, as long as it was Christianity. Otherwise, they would be put to death. This is the exact opposite of Ben's assertion that Judeo-Christianity was the catalyzing enzyme necessary "to get here," in Ben's words. As Aquinas demonstrates, for most of its history Judeo-Christianity has been a massively stifling influence on mankind's journey toward valuing individual rights over the values of the collective. It was a modernization of thought, and a moving away from this kind of historical religious "group think" that was the actual catalyzing enzyme necessary "to get here."

Sawadee kap

Right! This is how we make progress!

I don't agree with Sam Harris claiming the bible to endorse slavery while it's clearly restricting slavery.

@@BlacksmithTWD it is clearly not prohibiting it (like murderer)…

@@javieradorno2503 prohibiting slavery in those days would be similar to prohibiting electricity and consumption of fossile fuel today. Note how we were only able to abolish slavery after we invented the steam engine to replace them.

@Minni People decided to enslave other people, just like people decided to murder other people. The bible mentioning restrictions on those is not the same as god allowing those. Why are you attempting to make it personal by referring to it as "your god"?

Let's not debate under this nice comment 🎉

Sam's a lunatic. Last thing I heard him say was that anyone who voted for Trump was just as bad for society as a far left Wokel. Also that they are 'at least, closeted white supremacists'.

The full interview is in the description lul

Yes lets debate about fairytales and not anything relevant and important.

​@@bboybreezi2417 Who has time to debate anything when we could all be dancing by ourselves to crappy music! 🤣

@@bboybreezi2417 but isn’t everything pointless anyways in the deep sense, so let people discuss whatever they want

@@amt5911 again not relevant or important. Or do you care about what others hobbies are over the state of your country. America has major issues you should be discussing, not fairytales and random people's hobbies lol

I don't use the word morality. it's weak it's a term used by mankind to skate around that which is good. the word good is abused because the language has been corrupted. for example, "love is love", which is a current popular alphabet slogan. (alphabet = LGBT.....) the slogan is false, Biblically speaking, but is it morally wrong? it's real definition is lust is love. therefore, I much prefer to use the word "righteousness" for that which is good.

Your argument is circular. Morality comes from God. Why? Because if there was no God there would be no true morality. Why? Because morality comes from God. Your argument assumes the thing it is trying to prove. Therefor circular

@@Beamin439 so what? Even if it is circular, you haven't proven it false. In fact, you, nor anyone, can, and never will because it is true. You believe in air, don't you? There is a zero percent issue with having a circular reasoning, in regarding God, because He is the source of life, truth, righteousness, etc. If God was not, then we wouldn't have any reason to even have a discussion because we 1) wouldn't exist 2) wouldn't have a reason/purpose to exist if existing was possible. The same applies to the Bible/Scripture. We can use the Bible to support the Bible. It's author is not man, but God. Sure, you can disbelieve/deny that, but that would only be detrimental to your spiritual being.

@@paulrichards383 if an argument is circular that is a fallacy. A fallacious argument cannot be used to justify a position. That means your logic is flawed and your argument has been defeated. Back to the drawing board.

Sam has probably read, dissected analysed and discussed the Bible more times than most Christians.

@@varshasindhu5672 you know once a renowned scholar said "to take into consideration ideas from Richard Dawkins or sam Harris about Theology is like a guy who only studied Robin Hood and tries to explain the entire middle Ages history. so don't trust them listen to some better scholars who knows history and context like Bart ehrman. 🤣

He doesn’t bring much to the table. His basis on his arguments are suddle.

It's actually an easy answer , morality varies based on the place you live in , that's it.

@@laza6141 So morality is made up?

​@@joemorgenstern9846 We have evolved to have a conscience ( most of us have it ) , but the rules are made up , and they are made up in such a way that a society functions properly.

@@laza6141 Sam Harris says morality can be objective without God. So yes your answer makes sense if there is no God, but Sam Harris never makes sense.

@@laza6141 Ben already knows that people have different moralities but that wasn’t the question. The question was where does morality come from if morality is in fact objective.

not from the right either. both parties are morally bankrupt.

Yeah I'm not sure why Ben didn't mention that

@@robertstockton4497 Yeah I would be surprised if he didn’t know that him being Jewish and all

You wouldn't have wanted to be a slave in biblical times so no, you are not off the hook whatsoever.

@@MrTheclevercat thank you, at least someone here is sane.

owning another human being for any amount of time for any reason is disgustingly immoral, would you be happy to be my slave under the rules of the old testament?? would you feel respected? would you feel that your humanity hasnt been taken away? because i'd know how id feel.

Likewise

@@dariofromthefuture3075 wrong context. fyi…the world likewise is used to respond to a comment directed at or about you. :)

@@anthojones520 nope

We knew it's finally here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oCzl7EmYY6E1.html

Delusional

@@dadtronicgood choice of name

The idea that the Enlightenment of human rights and science came from studying Antiquity is a really poor argument to make if one wishes to be historically accurate. And if one wishes to be taken seriously on these statements I would absolutely suggest to not use ahistorical terms such as the "Dark Ages" which no modern historian worth their salt uses. The idea that we got our ideas from Antiquity, and indeed the very idea of the Dark Ages comes from Victorian Era people who looked back on the Middle Ages with disdain and saw it as a period of barbarism, uncleanliness, stupidity and no technological advancement. When in reality this view of the Middle Ages is the polar opposite of reality. Ironically the people of the Middle Ages were in fact cleaner and typically healthier than the Victorians who looked back on them with so much disdain. The point I'm getting at is, this idea that we get these values from preserved documents from Antiquity is a biproduct of the Victorians hating the Middle Ages (with no real accurate knowledge of it mind you) and looking elsewhere to a time before it to claim that these times, the times of Rome and Athens, must be the true source of our humanitarian and scientific values. They then tried to point to the Renaissance as proof. Which is laughable to any well read historian or history hobbyist. The overwhelming majority of these advancements in the sciences and views of humanitarianism developed prior to the Renaissance, and almost every major advancement of the period that the Renaissance did exist in, took place outside of the cultural influence of it, which was largely limited to Italy. In reality, the cause of our modern values (including the spirit of science) sprouted out of Northern Europe in places such as modern the British Isles, Germany and Scandinavia. Which is where pretty much all of the major universities were too. If one wanted to distil our way of seeing the world to its base, it is a combination of Germanic and Norse tribal views on individuality coming into contact with the Bible.

Wonder why he avoids talking about Shireen Abu Akleh

A round table with these two and an agnostic “beast” would be perfect. Hmm…

You and I are of the same ilk man. I used do deeply dislike him. And now I see a ton of good in his work and point of view

you should check out steven crowder

Sam harris is a beast ???? LOL LOL LOL Maybe a beast of privilege, ineptitude, cowardice and whining about trump who is hitler according to harris

@@greencarpetgrowing actually a soyboy beast like harris is nothing to be impressed of, a rich kid since birth who has whined his entire life most recently crying trump is worse than hitler because he wanted to pull out troops from afganishtan…2 atheists have one thing in common, marxist sexual perverts

"I grew up with the opsite thinking and views from my parents and community and had the absolute freedom to choose whatever path I wanted" This is getting increasingly common and it doesn't work out great for most people so they come to support religion because it promotes values modernity is lacking in. "I wanted regardly religion and It is today" Religion has pretty much no institutional or cultural power that it used to have. "an insanity to even toy with the idea to be or become a theist." Quite literally the opposite phenomenon is taking place as people find peace, solace, and meaning in religion.

Really? Debating about fairytales is what you want okay...

@@bboybreezi2417 I do enjoy it actually! My favorite fairy tale is the one about primordial soup and lightning bolts starting life! That one is so fun!

@John Andy Specifically?

@@bboybreezi2417 I think it’s hilarious how y’all atheists think you are Intellectually superior for believing The world exploded precisely into existence💀…. Your world view is the fact that u don’t have one so you should refrain from taking

Shapiro doesn't know anything beyond Israel, that's his problem

and we have to just ignore all the historical evidence

It can also explained without any religion. One tries not to tell lies or steal or murder first because they may see the consequesnce of those actions sooner or later and second we find necessary to keep society safe and pure because we live in it. You don't want to piss in the swimming pool that you yourself are swimming in. It doesnt need a God to explain morality.

Because it’s better for ourselves. I personally rather live in a stable society, in which I do not have to fear being raped at any given time in any given location, or be killed randomly. I like to have a house that’s mine with stuff that’s mine. You can’t seriously expect or demand safety and ownership, if you don’t respect safety and ownership. We live in social societies, so that means we (have to) deal with others, it means we share space together, we work together, we are dependent on an another. It’s all very simple. And yes, it is fragile, as we see in wars of gang related violence, but even in those circumstances we see humans, being the group mammals they are, want stability and peace. To much stress is bad for us.

@@nimash6273 But where do the consequences come from? Why enforce a law against murder or rape? That in itself is morality in action. Morality, depending on what culture is referenced, does seem to be instilled in us .

@@Earthtime3978 "Where do consequences come from?" The society. Living with other people as a group make us act the way that today we call morally, So Morality is in fact a survival skill, Like every other thing related to living creatures. why? because humans are social creatures. We naturally tend to protect our group agaist outside dangers in order to personally survive, because we undrestand that to be in a larger group increases our survival chances. Thus We act like a team. We are also naturally herbivorous, So We naturally are not into seeing other creates suffer, unlike carnivourous creatures. Is it absolute? No. That's why we care more if somebody in our team suffers than somebody from a competing group, or enemy. Can you honestly say that you care for your neighbor Christian friend the same as an ISIS member? No you Don't. So Morality is relative. Is it the way I like it to be? No. But I don't find any evidence in nature or society to be convinced that morality comes from a God or something other than humans. I liked morality to be absolute, Just the way I liked to fly like the Superman. That we liked something to exist doesn't make it real.

It sounds a lot more like you are a religious fanatic. True, right?

If you make a claim that something is true, the onus is on you to prove it. This discussion is about religion as a basis of morality, so it is not Harris' job to prove it, it's Shapiro's.

This is a nonesense critique. He directly confronts Ben on his views throughout the debate.

Rome devoured itself long before Christians cam on the scene

@@Mike-qc8xd that is categorically not true.

@@Mike-qc8xd Rome was doing awesome until Christianity took over, destroyed all accumulated knowledge they didn't like, declared everything they didn't like 'heresy', and threw the West into the Dark Ages. It wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment that secularists finally gained enough control back to put Christianity in the backseat and propel us into today's modern world. Take a look at the USA compared the the rest of the West. Highest rate of Christianity. Biggest divide between rich and poor. Decimated education system. More people per capita in jail than any other place in the world. And a violence rate equivalent to a 3rd world craphole....and everything's only getting worse as Christian nationalists gain more and more control.

Because the Emperors of the East put all 5 Bishops under his control. Then the Bishop of Rome broke from his brothers and formed his own autonomous Kingdom. Monasteries hoarding wealth and men was a problem, but the Church of the East would actually help out the temporal powers. If the Church didn't aid Heraclius, Rome would've fallen, both halves, much earlier. The guy in Rome didn't help out the Emperor, but the Partriarch of Constantinople did.

There was a lot of reasons the western Roman Empire fell of them Christianity is rarely listed by historians.

Yep. His findings weren't against the Bible, they were against the church.

Lots of similarities between Renaissance Catholic Church and modern day progressives.

So how did u want the church to interpret the text which states that Joshua commanded the Sun to stop and it did

Finally someone who gets it!

*it was their pride in thinking that what they perceived as true was final and absolute, and any threat to that should be punishable by death.* Think of it as a cognitive causal-chain heirarchy. The human emotion and social needs/survival needs etc are underpinning, yes, but the software of theism didn't help them process it in a healthy manner. The religion acted as a preventative mechanism to self-evaluation here. Compare the same process with Bhuddism. Much different outcome.

Of course but remember that “Judeo - Christian” is a oxymoron

Boom 💥

Could you please rephrase your question, as it is rather confusing.

Good thing it's not a question.

@@McLovin201 there you have me. You can probably enlighten me as to what Judeo-Christian values are, because as far as I can tell based on the history of Western countries it comprises mostly of (deadly) intolerance for others within Christianity but another interpretation, intolerance for jws and pretty much anyone else outside their core group, combined with misogynistic views. Somehow I think Jack is talking about something else. What “responsibility” is he referring to? What are “Darwinian principles”? The recognition of evolution? Or is Jack referring to something else?

@@hamster4618 You cannot judge a religion/worldview by its abuse. You have to judge it based on its principle. For example; If a professing Christian murder someone in the name of God, you cannot blame that action on Christianity. Because that is not the teaching of Christ nor you will find a passage in the New Testament that command the killing of innocent people. You have to blame the individual and he must received punishment for his action.

no he didn't

Ah more atheists concerned about what a religious person thinks… if at the end of the day if none of it matters to you and everything goes to black for everyone no matter what then shut up about it and live your life that you yourself admit has no meaning and we’re all clumps of meat floating in space

Slavery in the Bible days means something totally different than the way modern day people view slavery. I don't think I could have said it any better than you did. It's frustrating when atheists try to manipulate/pervert scripture in this way. It works, because the people who believe Sam have never actually read the Bible, let alone the context of scripture.

@@stephybabs3233 Exactly why I felt to say something. If you get a chance, watch a video by Thomas Sowell where he gives the true history of slavery in the world. It's a lot different than what kids are taught in school. Cheers and God's blessings on you and yours

@@michaelphelan423 Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check that out.

@@michaelphelan423 I said something as well, but didn't articulate it quite as well as you did. The way modern day society views slavery is completely different than the way people in biblical times viewed slavery. Slavery in the Bible days was a way for men to pay off debt in certain circumstances. There's even scripture that says that these "slave owners" are to treat the "slaves" with dignity and respect. They were not to harm the slaves. But unless people today understand the context of what they viewed slaves to be, there will always be this misinterpreted, out of context idea of slavery in the Bible.

You're probably one of those people who's never met onr.

@That Fellow, Christian While I disagree with almost all the things he says, he is civil when he is expressing his views and I respect him for that. We have so many people who are behaving like those on CNN, or the View, that it's refreshing to hear someone speak like a mature adult.

@That Fellow, Christian I also dislike Sam Harris’ views. I do appreciate that he argues calmly here instead of attacking the person. But yes, I think Sam’s views will ultimately lead to misery because without God, society goes downhill. If you look at the vast majority of nations that didn’t allow the free worship of God, you see how bad it gets (Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.)

@That Fellow, Christian Sam Harris is A GENIOUS he said Orange MAN bad me vote for hairsniffing senile old guy that shut down gas.

Watch his debate with William Lane Craig and you will see how uncivil Harris was and is.

​@That Fellow, Christian You shouldn't believe in something(i.e god and afterlife) just because you think you need it to be moral(you must be a really ethical guy if you do indeed need that). Facts don't care about your feelings :)

Exactly. People with absolutely dense reads of the Bible who clearly just think anyone of faith is a rube.

Are you being sarcastic or joking as I can’t tell? Because you know that is a load of crap. Leviticus 25:44-46 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly. Ephesians 6:5-8 “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ” 1 Timothy 6:1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered.

​@@shans4167 You have to understand that for most of history and in most places, there were tradesmen and farmers, day laborers, and slaves. That's how the economy worked. That kind of indentured servitude had virtually nothing to do with slavery based on race and the belief that the owner was inherently superior to the slave, like Egyptian slavery of Jews and racist slavery in the United States. Additionally, not everything in the Old Testament that was regulated by law was prescribed or endorsed. Christ taught that Moses gave the law for the simple reason that people refuse to do what is right. It was a concession to reality. In Christ's time, slaves could be murdered by owners for running away, but the Christian teaching was that both slave and master were equals before God. Slaves were encouraged to lawfully secure freedom, but not to run away. A thoroughly Christianized West was the first society on earth to EVER ban slavery, not because we were forced to but because we became convinced that it was morally wrong. If there's a joke here, it's that as Westerners - the freeest of the free- we are completely comfortable being the beneficiaries of a Christian culture and yet despising it at the same time.

And then he uses reason to deconstruct you into a sack of meat as opposed to an image of God.

@@araaraara12 if you remove all personal biases, you can not, as a scientist, declare atheism as a fact. Science has not disproven or proven the existence of God. At best you can defend a position of agnosticism. The very first thing you have to be able to say as a scientist is 'I don't know'. SA, thinks he knows for certain, which he doesn't.mthis is why same is a preist, not a scientist.

@@owenduck As a philosopher and a scientist, Sam very well would be the first between the two to say he doesn’t know the truth of how everything came into existence. All he is saying is that the belief that God wrote a certain religion’s particular book in “his” name is something fallacious. He argues that one should come to reason when thinking about metaphysical existence rather than have faith in something that has been limiting to human understanding, food for human ego, and a cause for many evils to be justified. He never said he KNEW, but like all great philosophers, points out that nobody really knows. Therefore, there’s no justification for putting your faith into something without reason.

@@owenduck and “the deconstruction into a sack of meat” is simply the realization that we are animals. Biological evolution has shown this is the case. Our egos cannot change that, although we like to believe we are something greater than a “sack of meat” like you say.

@@jamesvail4927 biological evolution didnt happen. It's a fairy tale.

I noticed this too. He seems to know why morality doesn't come from religion, but wouldn't say where it comes from. Hopefully the full show gives him the opportunity to say what the source is

morality comes inevitably as a result of any social system where actions have consequences upon other members of the social system. it requires no god to erect it and is both discovered and constructed, just like engineering or economics.

I find the idea of morality outside of religion to be very simple. You observe actions that you see as creating harm to yourself or society.. and you say "those are bad things". One could argue they are only bad because God wants them to be bad, but thats a bit of circular logic in my opinion. I believe don't kill your neighbor because I don't want to be murdered by mine. I believe don't covet your neighbors wife because I don't want my neighbor coveting mine.. for examples. It's just simple logic to me. Of course we could always go back to who created logic and why.. etc.. but thats because the goal posts are easily just moved backwards until you miss in this conversation.

Ok So when God of Judeo Christian Faith explicitly ordered Joshua to attack and commit Mass Genocide in many cities, (women, children, and even the life stock), It was actually just flaws of some individuals?

Well said.

It was an interesting debate. Sam Harris was clearly outclassed.

@@mmaphilosophytheologyscien4578 - I think you'll find (if you'll allow yourself to) that the inverse was actually very much the case. Harris' arguments were superior and potently delivered as is usually the case.

@@Robert44444444 ummm you may need to rewatch it then with less bias. Harris’ arguments have gotten stronger since then but he was decimated in that debate

@@Robert44444444 Maybe explain why, rather than try to sound polite. It’s pretty obvious moral values and duties require a moral law giver, which is why Craig had the more effective argument.

@@invoker5465 delusion at its best.

Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only to please them while they are watching, but with sincerity of heart and fear of the Lord. 1 Timothy 6:1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should regard their masters as fully worthy of honor, so that God's name and our teaching will not be discredited. Titus 2:9 Slaves are to submit to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, Ephesians 6:5-6 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

People

@@ShOoToSpill more probable than a god. At least we can show dolphins actually exist. 😂

@@caseylee6441 do you have a mind?

@@kashankhan6950 yah. Because I have a brain. Do you?

@@caseylee6441 show it to me

Yeah but isnt it rooted in the renaissances "revival" of the various aspects of "rational thought" which gave fruition to northern Europes advances.

@@Baghuul The Renaissance gave us some mathematics and good theories, but the rational mind is not the source of the spirit of science that birthed the modern world. The people of Antiquity worshipped the mind, to such a degree that in Athens many of the smartest philosophers saw the act of proving their theories with practical observational testing as of a lower level of evidence than to the Rhetoric that the mind can create to rationalise a theory. IE: what the Greeks gave us is maths, a few theories, and a heaping pile of sophistry. The actual source to all of the scientific developments in the Late Medieval period happened outside of the influence of the Renaissance in Northern Europe. What inspired these people to seek out knowledge and to test its validity against observation and falsifiability was the pursuit to understand God. While the Italians were exploring Greek Rhetoric, the British, Germans, Dutch and Scandinavians were exploring the physical world. This came about because they developed a new philosophy: They determined that to better understand God's word they had to better understand God. The leap was made that since God made the universe then one should be able to understand God through understanding the universe. This gave birth to a genuine pursuit of trying to understand the universe as it is so as to understand God as he is. Therefore this naturally gave rise to the scientific method. The humanitarianism values were essentially a mixture of this method and its interpretations of scripture combining with Northern Europe's individualistic value set that was derived from the European tribes that were never conquered by Rome.

@@Baghuul I think there are some limitations to rational thought. Dostoyevsky sums this up perfectly saying, "It takes something more than intelligence to act intelligently." Dostoyevsky was writing at a time where a love of rational thought had seemingly won born from the Age of Enlightenment and Darwinism. Problem was Dostoevsky soon realized the limitations of rational thought and he and Nietzsche both realized that so-called rationalists would try to usher in their own forms of morality aka. communism - utopia - and fascism - utopia. Both D and N were worried about the 20th century and it turns out they were right.

@@lassyduckie8830 I'm pretty sure that's why we have the whole concept of the Golden triangle, and why we wish to be affected by the morals of other peaceful religions ( basically if a communist would pick on it, it counts ) To have faith, you have to have the freedom to practice it, to have freedom, you have to have good virtues to make sure you get along with your neighbor, which come from faith. So it interlocks.

A sense of "goodness" is a modern day thing. People throughout time have been incredibly brutal to each other. Even those who were religious if you talk about Christianity they were no less brutal then anyone else at the time.

There are plenty of faith-based civilizations that commit atrocities. I guess it is OK if God approves, right?

Hmm he is probably talking about Atlantis..lol

Exactly. People want to believe he was tortured etc to push their own agenda. The ignorance of the true history is astounding and really unforgivable for Harris if he wishes to be taken seriously on the subject

He interprets history through his worldview, not objectively

he was in solitary for a bit, house arrest for a bit more, but was not tortured as far as I know.

@@stevendoty9408 no he was not tortured. This issue with him and the Spanish Inquisition is a bunch of malarkey. The priests for example during the inquisition didn’t torture anyone. It was expressly forbidden. That was done by the courts belonging to the monarchy. People who were accused often chose the courts from the church because they knew they were much more likely to get a fair hearing than they would in the kings courts Protestants and atheists have been peddling this debunked propaganda for centuries Another one is witch burning. Protestants in Germany burned about 65,000 mostly women at the stake in Germany alone but somehow Catholic Church gets the rap Comes from ignorance of historical events

Yup. Just listening to his arguments you can tell he is being intellectually dishonest.

What? Why? Because he dislikes trump?

We knew it's finally here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oCzl7EmYY6E6.html

I would disagree, yes Sam Harris can come across like he is a "know it all". However despite the fact that he tends to flush the baby out with the bathwater, he is still makes very good arguments. I disagree with Sam alot, but his level of knowledge is something to be respected.

What about him is unlikable? He’s calm and polite... absolutely likable

I think Sam, if you aren't a religious person, has very sound arguments. But seeing the world thru the lense of "religion", it is blinding.

I was going to point this out as well. Yes, the rise of Christianity helped in part to hasten the fall of Rome, but who on Earth would be the one to argue that Rome was a good thing? Rome as an institution was crazy, and only got more crazy as time went on.

Dude there is slavery in the Bible what are you on about?

What do you mean by this? Are you saying that Christianity should have then been compatible with Roman Law? I need for you to point a specific part of the Bible please.

Exactly. Harris seems to be regurgitating the ideas of Petrarch

@@bboybreezi2417 There’s slavery in The Bible because there was slavery in Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome. The Romans could kill their slaves for any reason (basically). Christianity stopped this practice. Slavery is illegal in Judaism.

Yup, and not human rationality...rationality led us to the 100 million corpses of the 20th century. Coz, rationally speaking, what's wrong with invading a neighboring culture and pillaging if it's to my best interest? What'sirrational about taking my own life if I'm having a bad go at life? This is what Nietzsche realized by the death of God, that all definitions would by necessity be done away with, "Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon?" "Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing?"...Karl Jung said we cannot create our own values, without being doomed to Awshcwitz, rather we rediscover values, values that are codified in the Judeo-Christian Worldview....otherwise we're left with moral relativism on the behest of which no act can be morally condemned (Dostoyevsky). Human rationality is bankrupt, Jeremiah 17:9, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" You cannot put your faith in human nature unless you're an imbecile without any self-awareness, relational experience, or a cursory knowledge of history.

Because they know those religions are not based in truth, and they’re trying to attack the truth

Harris claims is what falls apart in logic and reality. Empathy and rationality does not maintain morality or create it. Science doesnt answer moral questions. Hopefully you can shake off your ideological conditioning.

@@RA-ie3ss "Science doesnt answer moral questions." Political science and social science does answer moral questions. There's more to science than the physical sciences. Your theology doesn't answer moral questions as evidenced by your theism's inability to answer the issue of prior obligation that is a product of theism and prevents it from being able to ground moral obligation. All theism has done is reiterate the common sense rules of social living that were developed by our distant cave dwelling ancestors hundreds of thousands of years ago.

@@alanmill793good man 🤝

@@ch33zyburrito36 👍

My guess is there was a convert clause in the deal which would have reduced the power of recruitment. You can't have your troops being distracted by differing religious beliefs.

@@thomasdaley2929 It’s pretty well held by historians that religion was not a major factor no matter how you slice it. I’m not sure either how you think a religious clause would have a greater effect than the establishment of the eradication of the largest form of recruitment for the time. Which was citizenship.

As a Christian, I am sorry you have fallen so far. A moral and meaningful life isn't about enjoying yourself and its about living a principled life which will make things better for generations to come. The trends of your ideology is clear. People are more miserable, lead more meaningless lives, have less relationships, and families and communities are not maintaining themselves. If you were right, why is this happening? Shouldn't a cultural and moral flourishing be happening? Where is the atheist-inspired enlightenment? Aside from your personal anecdotal experience can you tell what good new atheism has actually produced?

@@RA-ie3ss I'm relieved to not be religious anymore. I can think for myself, and I don't have to hold on to a book for morality. I can choose to be a good person on my own accord. If you have to have a religious book to tell you to be good, then maybe you need to re-examine your own morality. You act like Christians can't have depression, or suicide or myriad of other issues. Keep telling people that they're sinful low lives who must be saved in order to be worth anything. I don't want to be preached at, I've had it done my whole life. What you consider fallen, I consider enlightened. I actually have more self-awareness, empathy and considerations for the people around me. To think that someone who's a non-believer lives a miserable life is a horrible argument. We all choose our meanings in life, our values in those that we care about. Instead of focusing on an everlasting life which you cannot even prove, you have to admit it, It moves the focus of life to now. This current life is what matters most. What concerns me is that people are so hell-bent, pun intended, on heaven being real that they want the baggage of hell for everyone else. It's a very self-centered view, that everything is made for you. But if you don't kneel at the cross, you burn. Like it or not, God created the entire scenario for people to either love him or perish. If you ever view other religions and belief systems with a certain level of scrutiny and criticism, at least be consistent and apply it to your own belief. The biggest reason you have your belief, most people, is because they were indoctrinated into it from childhood. Yes indoctrination is a very accurate term. Have a nice day.

Let me correct you on that "deconstruct" thing. The more appropriate term is "fall away" or "backslidden" but I could be wrong. You could be an unsaved person from the get go. Hence, using the term 'backslidden' would have no effect because no one would backslide if there is no starting point (moment of salvation) to backslide from. Repent towards God and believe in Jesus Christ.

@@drakeydrake1076 this is the annoying part. You might as well tell me that Santa Claus is going to give me coal for Christmas. People don't care lol. Yes, I deconstructed. Because terms are not bound by religious text and doctrine. I offered my experience for others who may have similar experiences, not to be preached at. But Christians just can't help themselves, because their reality is everyone's reality. You smear it like feces all over everything. No disrespect but I simply do not care.

​@R A , that has nothing to do with God, or lack thereof. We live in a hyper-indiviualisitic consumer world where, at least in the USA, have put profits over people and the individual over the community. We have a wealth gap that is becoming unsustainable to keep a society functioning for all. It's designed to make a few insanely rich and powerful. If we had a society that put people ahead of profits, the individual did what was necessary for the good of the community, and where 3 people didn't have more wealth than the bottom 50% we'd be living in a far better society. None of which has to go with religion.

Why does one have to 'believe?' To believe is to accept something to be true without proof. Sam has always put his view forward, around religion. Sam's arguments (many of them) against religion are sound and only people that are pro-religion could say that Ben has this one nailed.....He hasn't and belief (indoctrination) in this case alone, can get you to the point he's at. This is obvious, isn't it?

He lays out his full (positive) argument on this subject in his book, "The Moral Landscape." It won a lot of praise from the popular press. For a rebuttal of his argument, I recommend looking up William Lane Craig's rebuttal.

@@Harker777 so i dont hav to believe murder is bad?

@@user-wy4dt2kc3m No, because you 'know' it's bad. The term belief here, doesn't come into play, unless we have a real problem on our hands. You can only...and with a very twisted mind...feel that it would be OK for another to murder you, because you have no qualms in murdering them.

@Steve French why should I believe anything you say, when you're just a big stoned kitty looking for some love from Corey and Trevor?

he's flogging a dead horse

@@darthbog2125 yeah basically. Shapiro, like it or not, has a very sharp mind. But when it comes to religion, like every believer he ends up defending irrational positions. So trying to change someone’s mind in these cases is a waste of time

i really don't understand why Christians think the subject of morality is good talking point for them...we have all read the bible

You have duplicated the same question. But also I'm not sure one can call empathy the upholder of morality, more the opposite by their definitions.

@@BringJoyNow do you keep slaves??....do you stone homosexuals??....do you think a person who has been raped should marry the rapist?? do you think women should be classed as 2nd rate??

Many animal species studied pass tests for empathy and self awareness.

So is morality subjective or objective?

The bible does teach that slavery is okay and tell that to all of the christian slave owners over the thousands of years that they held 'deeply flawed' versions of christianity that we only now know is flawed because secular people banned slavery.

@@MrTheclevercat The obvious flaw in your argument is that God rescued a group of slaves from generations of captivity. A person can take a biblical passage and make it say anything they want if they were dishonest enough, and it wasn't any different with the white slavers.

@@MrTheclevercat you have no idea what you are talking about.

@@kenh.5903 Yes I do. Which biblical passages about slavery forbid the practice? 0. There are plenty of passages about how to deal with your own slaves. Deal with it.

Very well said.. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dFs9WO2B8uI.html

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Finally someone who gets it. I think Sam's arguments are directed mostly to strict and dogmatic religious people who take religious texts too literal, and I think him and Dawkins waste time having certain arguments when they could share more of their views on the moral and philosophical significance of canonical literature.

@@ZihKingMusic The Bible is the only source of morality

This is a ridiculous comment. You are equating an extensive belief system (religion) with the simple position of a lack of belief (atheism). Atheism is not a “system” one uses nor is it something utilized by people to “understand and/or promote morals”… it’s literally just a position one takes on the logical non belief in god or gods due to the evidence supporting such claims being non existent. A religious person may very well base their moralistic attitudes and behaviours on religious belief but it does not equate or apply to an atheist. An atheist faced with a moral question or dilemma doesn’t utilize their disbelief in Zeus or Krishna to make a decision or act a certain way or commit a certain act, which is essentially what you are asserting. No one “believes” in atheism, atheism is the opposite of that statement entirely, and therefor no codified “system” exists within it to base one’s morality on. It’s stupid to even use a word like atheism to describe a lack of belief.. I don’t believe in any purported god or gods the same way I don’t believe fairys are real or leprechauns are real, yet we don’t have or need words/labels ascribing ones lack of belief in those things, despite the positions being identical in nature. Delusional long lasting belief in religion by society forced the conception of such a term when really any common sense logical approach to the validity of claims made by any and all religions of the existence of an almighty god would be disbelieved when considered critically alongside the lack of evidence/falsity of the claims

Respectfully I am curious to know what an atheists can say about events like as Garabandal or Kibeho. Thank you.

I will always respect someone who is willing to debate. The people that talk smack and never actually allow themselves to be challenged in a public square get zero respect or an ounce of my time.

@@MrsMimi-hn5ft I view all unsubstantated claims with the same skepticism... Those events occur to the faithful and are supported by the faithful. It is an uncontestable loop. That separates it from science. Science is - by definition - contestable. There has never been an independently verified "miracle" from any faith.... ever. I wish it was otherwise. I like the idea of there being a god. I also like the idea of ghosts and aliens... Unfortunately, I must apply the same standard. I'm sure you've heard Sagan's phraae, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I'd settle for plain verifiable evidence. Sadly that doesn't exist independent of the people who wish it to be so. All the best.

I'm an orthodox jew and think the same about Sam. I truly respect the man and the way he debate.

@@MrsMimi-hn5ft Mass hallucinations just like UFO sightings

He never said it was the only or principal factor but that it was at least a contributing factor.