Atheist vs. Christian debate – Morality: Natural or Supernatural?

beard.jpg

The video of my debate with my friend Michael Sizer on morality is now available.

This debate took place in March 2010 AD at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Canada.

At some point I may post segments and make a few comments.
For example, at one point, when it came to the question about harm causing in the Bible I misspoke;
I wanted to distinguish between me taking it upon myself to taken an innocent life–on the one hand–and a governing body prescribing capital punishment on a guilty person–on the other.
Yet, I accidentally said, “innocent” for both.


The video of my debate with my friend Michael Sizer on morality is now available.

This debate took place in March 2010 AD at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Canada.

At some point I may post segments and make a few comments.
For example, at one point, when it came to the question about harm causing in the Bible I misspoke;
I wanted to distinguish between me taking it upon myself to taken an innocent life–on the one hand–and a governing body prescribing capital punishment on a guilty person–on the other.
Yet, I accidentally said, “innocent” for both.

I also made a statement about the difference between us, humans, and other animals when I meant to note a difference between us, humans and animals (not other as if we are animals).

As for my approach well, I am not a Christian apologist so that I can defend some generic “g,” “o,” “d.”

One flier for the event states that I was “supported by Creation Ministries” which I was not; they seemed to assume that I was being supported by Creation Ministries International because it was what I wrote about morality for their main atheism essay (found here www.creation.com/atheism) that brought Michael and I together—also see my responses to comments that it has received.

The following clip is from part 8, t=6:55 and I believe that it cuts to the core of any and every atheist versus Christian debate on the issue of morality: his answer is nonsensical to me and my answer is inconceivable to him. I give Michael credit for his honestly as when your debate opponent applauds for you, it really says something (although, my statement is in no way original to me but is right from the New Testament).

beard.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

12 thoughts on “Atheist vs. Christian debate – Morality: Natural or Supernatural?”

  1. Delusions……….
    You led readers to think you had debated Sam Harris. Good thing you didn’t. He’d shred you to pieces. Hey, if you ever screw your courage to the sticking place and actually take on someone as brilliant as Sam Harris, do please give us all a heads up……… would be great to see your delusions shot down, one by one 🙂

  2. “Delusions”, indeed
    Please stop E-fellating your idol with these wild and unsupported claims, Anon. It’s unbecoming; especially for someone who claims to stand on the side of rationalism and reason.

    Sam Harris is just another pseudo-philosophical nobody, and frequently falls back onto the same argumentative fallacies and emotional appeals to fans in the audience that Dawkins and Hitchens do. Use any objective standard for formal debates (yes, they do in fact exist – check any major university) and it is laughably apparent. That is why they deliberately avoid engaging actual scholars and experienced debaters on stage – they know they’d get “shredded to pieces”, as you put it, and their frail egos simply can’t handle that. Heck, Dawkins lost a debate to a Christian once and later out-and-out *lied* about having engaged in a debate at all! Too bad there is objective, scientific evidence (including scores of eye-witnesses) who counteract his claim. So much for being a paragon of science and truth, eh?

    Wise up, atheist, and grow out of your deluded and unwarranted worship of these intellectual nobodies. I sincerely doubt you ever will, though. After all, it takes both integrity and character to reflect critically upon your belief system. 😉

  3. honestly
    I honestly do not know how these atheist claim that there are ultimate objective truths that are displayed in animals….and these ultimate objective truths exist for no reason other than to build societies based around them. Talk about mental masturbation.

    And Sam Harris…..his tricks work on naive “progressive” people, but not on me, and thankfully, not on most people.

  4. honestly
    I honestly do not know how these atheist claim that there are ultimate objective truths that are displayed in animals….and these ultimate objective truths exist for no reason other than to build societies based around them. Talk about mental masturbation.

    And Sam Harris…..his tricks work on naive “progressive” people, but not on me, and thankfully, not on most people.

  5. Pingback
    […] Since nature/natural selection can only be said to be concerned with survival and not with truth; then there is no guarantee, given a materialist view, that we hold to true beliefs since we can survive by actually ascertaining empirical truths or by being utterly deluded (this was actually an argument that I borrowed and employed during my debate with an atheist on the issue on morality). […]

  6. LMAO
    Sam Harris is so above your level.

    Prove God exists.

    I knew you couldn’t. End of story.

  7. Insufficient argument
    Asking someone to prove God’s existence is as futile as it is to ask someone to disprove it.
    While I am an atheist, I am appalled by the horrible argumentation, which is usually used only by the most close-minded of fundamentalist theists(of any religion). Such argumentation brings nothing but conflict instead of resolving a theistic discussion by logical argument.
    So, now I’ll say this just to make a point:

    Prove God doesn’t exist.

    I knew you couldn’t. End of story.
    Is it? Is it really?
    …Just forget this Sam Harris and his supposed abilities. If his argument is correct, it will ultimately win. If not, it will ultimately lose, at which point it won’t matter how good he actually is.

  8. Re: LMAO
    You cannot prove that which does not exist. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

  9. No GUARANTEE.
    Since the lack of a claim is not a claim thereof, this argument is self-defeating when used as a defense of theological beliefs.

  10. Reply to comment | True Freethinker
    I’ve been surfing online greater than 3 hours nowadays, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It is pretty worth enough for me. In my opinion, if all webmasters and bloggers made good content as you probably did, the internet shall be a lot more useful than ever before.

Comments are closed.