That is a claim you cannot prove. Same as the Rabbi's. Be careful what you mean by "I". The rabbi is talking about the big "|" which is consciousness in general. Harris seems to be talking about the little "I" which according to Buddhism and many other religions will cease to exist upon death.
@@olivtrees8749 But the only unquestionable indication we have of our existence is our own consciousness, no? At least as far as we as individuals are concerned.
If matter cannot be created or destroyed as far as we're aware does that mean that he, at some point, didn't exist? If we mean physically, then he did, if we mean his consciousness, as far as we have discovered, then no.
@@olivtrees8749 There are many claims that cannot be proved. I can claim that I was a god before my existence on earth as a human. I would say such a claim is bullshit but I can't prove it. You can't prove a negative. The responsible for proof is on the person making the claim. If one cannot backup up a claim with sufficient evidence then I am under no obligation to accept the claim as truth and in fact my obligation would be to not accept the claim as truth.
Notice how David Wolpe becomes more and more aggressive as Sam Harris calmly exposes his logical fallacies. By contrast, Harris exudes serenity and self-control. The medium IS the message and the non-verbal is truly fascinating throughout this debate.
When the delusion is attacked the deluded become unfriendly and hostile and insulting. BUT I remain respectful until they try an ad hominem attack against the speaker, at which time that person may respond in kind. I will not be arrogant unless they try to. Religion does NEED to be soundly defeated. That is not the same as total eradication, there will always be stupid people with wierd ideas.
It seems both unfair and unwise to characterize the validity of a belief system based upon the representations of two individuals within an argument. If I were to apply the character of Joseph Stalin to the general character of atheism it hole it would not look good for atheism. This works equally well for Christianity and ain't the Inquisition. This works equally well for Islam and flying planes into buildings. People do things but the character of an individual is not manifestly representative of his entire belief structure and all those who hold that belief structure. I would be careful with how far you take that logic. One has only to find an aggressive atheist to put you in an uncomfortable position.
You could listen to Sam all day? Sam humbles himself because he believes he is great. He shouldn't humble himself. He is to Science as Mr. Rodgers is to religion
exactly... the fact that most cultural traditions are directly at odds with each other doesn't pint Him to the conclusion that people just tend to make up s*** for stuff they don't understand until we finally come to scientific understanding
You don't NEED evidence for 99% of what he's "claiming." It's almost entirely ideas and ways of questioning things...and not FACTUAL claims at all. When he does veer into the realm of factual assertions, his statements are agreed upon. You are conflating fact with logic. Try again.
he isn't. it's not even close. most likely, the most "rational" person ever is not only unknown to both of us, but also dead. and rationality isn't even something you can compare like a number
If I have to decide who I’m going to rely on to make decisions about just about anything of importance and my choices are between a Stanford educated neuroscientist or Batman
i've watched most of these kinds of debates on Youttube over the years, and this once still remains my favourite, latgely due to the format. No oxford-style rules, just two intelligent people, minimal moderation and a positive spirit. I wish they were all like this.
Muslim Morroco is very peaceful and has been for generations. Will atheistic Sweden pass the test of time? Time will tell how many generations from no-religion to low virtue or worse. Let's hope for the best.
@@bhpartywallsurveyors2587 Marocco is not a peaceful or save country. It's just a little less violent and brutal against individuals than other Islamic countries. The king wants to attract western investments and therefore tries to create a peaceful facade. Try to organize a demonstration in Marocco and you will see how peaceful and free the country is. I suggest you do you research.
@@camerong5513 at first I thought (and hoped) this was sarcasm. But after looking at your other idiotic comments on TH-cam, I confirmed it is sincere. Wow haha.
Your personal faith, is precisely that... personal. My absence of belief, due to lack of sufficient evidence, is not a poverty! I can be kind, comapassionate, and live a good life, without the threat of Hell or the bribe of reward.
This is the fallacy of inserting "need" where it does not belong. Faith provides fulfillment on a different level. You not comprehending that from your vantage point absolutely IS a poverty, but no one is CLAIMING that you cannot have kindness or compassion without religion. That's a straw man YOU'RE bringing into this.
Okay, but please tell me how you motivate yourself to exert willpower to do what is right (your personal understanding of moral order). For example, I think intoxication should not be done by anyone and I exert willpower to avoid being influenced by anyone and avoid taking alcohol or cigarette when I am attracted towards it. I believe that is the way towards heaven and that motivates me. There is also a looming threat of global extinction event aroused by climate change and it is extremely likely that it will happen because we seem to do nothing about it. Every social construct such as position, money, fame etc fall to pieces when it is likely that nothing will remain. How do you find meaning in life and the drive to live properly in the face of the harsh truths?
Oh and... like almost every other debate the religious person interrupts or attempts to cut in on a question meant for the other party(in this place Sam Harris)... I am impressed that Sam Harris wasn't rude.
And yet, when you look around the comments many atheists (including myself) consider him the best theist debater we've seen. That says horrible things about the others. lol
@@thoughtfulatheist4942 Yea, Sam Harris was not so overtly rude; I'm not impressed like you, quite the opposite - It merely helps to cloak his real inclination
Harris doesn't need any advantage, the man is an intellectual titan. Wolpe may be one of the best religious minds i know and i have respect and warm feeling totwards which is pretty rare on my part. But this wasn't a duel, when you put harris and gove him reality bonus its a beating. And when you put hitch its an execution, i swear the guy could argue god doesn't exist and god would agree^^
I have watched many debates on the matter, and I have to say this by far the best I have seen in terms of logical arguments, intelligent questions from the audience, checking emotional boundaries and finally (except for a few passive jabs) the courtesy displayed by the orators. great job gentlemen.
@@kaufmanat1 it's not really a difficult case to make, given that theresa basically scammed people in the name of church, whereas tyson strived to compete in sports and be the best in one aspect of it. not entirely sure about the self-sacrifice part but I guess dedication to something always entails a degree of self-sacrifice.
@@Setep2k that's not the biggest problem I've got with what happened there. I think we agree, but to skim past the pain relievers because it's less costly (or because suffering is part of gods plan; either way it's immoral) as a scam. I agree; it was. There's a greater "evil at play" here that's still held to some as saintly
Whitney D. The impression left by many arguments made by theists, including Wolpe, is that they want god to be true. For example, without a god we wouldn't have a basis for morality, without a god we wouldn't have a meaning to life, without a god it would be hard to comfort people in times of mourning, etc. These are all expressions of desire for a god rather than evidence for one. It's not an assumption. Atheists don't make arguments about only wanting to sin, so that is an assumption (and a poor one). Your claim of hypocrisy rests on a false equivalence.
or they retreat to "I believe it on faith". Some who say it must be on faith turn around and refer people to "Answers in Genesis". The only answers you will find in Genesis are to "what did the bible claim thousands of years ago.
@@svenred6eard757 man hitchens was incredible but he was a bulldozer, a nuke. Sam harris is a sniper, tchernobyl. He comes at you w9thout you knlwing it, slowly sapping your epistemological health like radiation till you are weak enough so he can one shit you hitch style. But that one deadly bullet carries even more weight then hitchens i feels cause he spend the last 10 minutes laying the field for it to be effective, everyone in the room, no matter their position feels the damage its done cause he has been warning them beforehand. Take that magical elvis moment. Harris was debating at a hugher intellectual level till,he took what he hought was a cheap shot from the rabbi (who i love btw he may be the single religious figure i genuinely love hearing, i find him very smart, witty, honest though its not so clear next to harris as he pushes those qualities to their limit) who basically refuted everything harris said about science saying "its a metaphysical claim not a scientific one" And harris prpceeded to crucify him using the exact same rethoric to assert he was talking to elvis. He tore down his entire argument and won the support of everyone in the room, both rabbi included, BECAUSE he had been so well intended before.
His little comments to the side while Harris is explaining his position reminds me so much of some high school jock that doesn't take the class discussion seriously. It's all a joke and perhaps a waste of time. What a prick.
When Wolpe kept saying that God is not a scientific claim, all Sam had to ask was, "Do you believe God interacts in our world?" I assume Wolpe would say "yes", and if that's the case, then God can be tested. People that say God is not a scientific claim are just moving the goalposts because they know there is no proof of a god.
@@LordAzrael21 Wow how's that necro LOL. Predictions coming true prove nothing if there is no time frame to it as it's just an open ended claim. It's kinda like going to restaurant and making a prediction that they will burn the food, one day, some day. The burden of proof lies on those that makes the claim, so there's no need for Science to falsify the claim, if it could even be falsified. The way religion works is to move the goalposts so there is nothing you can falsify. But, if Wolpe's god can interact with the world then the effect would be measurable and the evidence purported by religious folk could be demonstrable and testable. So far this has not happened because if it did, there would only be one religion left, as it would have the valid truth claims.
@@wayfa13 That is assuming that we would have the technology to measure how God would interact with the world in the event this occurred. I would say given Wolpe's stance throughout the debate, he would repeat "God" is something that can not be measured scientifically. God isn't something you could take a sample of and throw under a microscope. I was actually disappointed with Sam Harris in this debate because in almost every case, he straw-maned Wolpe's statements with absurd propositions that were completely off-point. Wolpe did a great job in representing the theistic pov and Sam had a difficult time making a solid counterpoint without mocking Wolpe's beliefs.
Sam Harris, is on a completely different cognitive level. I just discovered this guy...this is a great example of him destroying the reasoning of a man who in most other situations would be considered intelligent.
Have you researched and studied the innumerable instances and examples of real world conditions that point to an undeniably model of intelligent design? To believe all of that is pure randomness is, to me, decidedly a position of wanting to ignore the reality of this world. I.e. why water expands both when heated and cooled, the precise distance of the earth from the sun to sustain life, trees and fruit that grow.from a single seed planted in the ground, the human body, etc. The biggest obstacle to belief in a creator is the human desire to not be subject to a greater power or the divine laws of the creator.
@@dandydan999 I don’t think that a disinclination to accept a higher power above oneself is the biggest obstacle to belief in a creator. I think the biggest obstacle to belief in a creator is just the simple fact that religion is losing the argument to science and reason in our culture and most people know it even if they aren’t close to the debate. Religion used to be the default and you had to be educated to end up atheist. Now the reverse is becoming more and more true. Atheism, or at the very least some kind of non-sectarian deism, is becoming the default position and now you have to become educated and get a degree in philosophy or theology to end up religious. I think many and arguably most people actually want to believe in something bigger than themselves. Most people are not comfortable believing that their short stint as a primate on a rock is all there is to this universe. People desperately want to believe in a plan, a purpose, and a power that can help them shoulder the burden of suffering and make sense out of their misfortunes. As for intelligent design, for one, even if you could successfully argue that things are designed rather than random, it doesn’t necessarily get you any specific God such as the Christian God, or even a God that is at all like a person. There are also a lot of problems with your examples marshaled in support of intelligent design. How exactly is the fact that water expands when heated and cooled evidence of an intelligent designer? You say the precise distance of the Earth to the sun such that it can support life is evidence of intelligent design. Are the other 7 planets in our solar system that are too far or too close to the sun evidence that there isn’t an intelligent designer? Why would an intelligent designer who wanted there to be life in the universe fill the universe mostly with planets that can’t support life? You mention trees and the human body, but these are the products of evolution. They aren’t the product of randomness or of intelligent design. They are products of natural selection whereby random mutations that confer an adaptive advantage are “selected” by the mere fact that they have a greater chance of being passed down by reproduction. As for trees I will admit that trees growing so large from such a small seed is truly incredible and awe inspiring but I don’t see why it needs a creator God to be explained. So I don’t think any of the examples you provided in favor of intelligent design really stand up to scrutiny. Let me know what you think of my criticisms and I hope you take them in the spirit of friendly conversation because that is how they are meant. Good day to you sir!
@@motorhead48067 thx for your thoughtful response. There are numerous examples of instances where evolution would dictate the extinction of "weaker" design, i.e. the human body consists of organs that are directly dependent upon the digestive and the blood transport systems to distribute life sustaining substances and removal of waste substances. Why doesn't evolution eliminate those weaker organs even at the expense of the entire organism? There is a difference between the human desire/need to believe in something more than themselves and/or humans in general and the sense of knowing the creator of the universe has provided means through self control to grow as a human being. The daily commitment to improve oneself is a much harder commitment to make when choosing how to live than a general desire. To me, the same way any sane human being understands that anything formed from basic raw materials that are observable in this world, from a simple cup to the most intricately designed object, points to an intelligent designer, so to the universe at large. If someone wants to talk themselves out of an intentional universe to some infinitesimally small randomness, one has that choice. As for planetary system, I am not educated enough to talk to other planets apart from saying that the interplanetary gravitational structure also plays a role.
I was scouring the comments to find this lol if no one else posted it, I was going to. Sam should have nailed him to that. It's crazy how these religious people claim morality, yet it's so easy for them to be dishonest.
So, while I was watching the second half of this debate I was involved in a text message fight with my boyfriend. I paused it at one point so I could call my boyfriend and yell at him proper. Now that our fight is over (we're probably broken up) I come back to this debate and decided, by the end, that Sam Harris has an enviable ability to keep his cool and I'm now convinced that if he has anything to teach me, keeping my cool might be the most important lesson.
Sam harris is a cool cucumber alright. That's apparent whether or not one agrees with him. It's no coincidence that he spent a good decade of his life in serious zen practice
@@alaron5698 We didn't break up that day but we did a few months later, which was the right move, I've never loved anyone more, I've never hated anyone more and now that we're apart we can be great friends without the drama.
What a great debate, perfectly moderated - he let them have scope to make their points , and it still came across as a natural back and forth discussion. And very fair.
This was the best debate I've seen Sam in, really from top to bottom. The candor was the best, the discussion was the most illuminating and evenly contentious, and every single audience question was quality and not loaded. Really quite amazing, I wish there were more of this caliber.
Wow. This was a good one. David put up one of the better arguments for the God theory I can remember hearing. Unfortunately, Sam picked him apart in every category
@@Triple7000 You're an ignoramus. Pointing out that god isn't a theory because it's not falsifiable isn't an argument for the existence of god. Quite the contrary; the fact that the claim that god exists isn't falsifiable and is therefore not even a valid hypothesis, much less a theory, is commonly cited to underscores the weakness of the claim. God isn't a theory; by definition, a valid theory must be falsifiable. Pointing out that god isn't a theory because it's not falsifiable isn't a defense of theism; it's the hallmark of an unreliable claim. The fact that you aren't aware of this and actually thought I was arguing for the existence of god indicates you are clearly not familiar with the most common and basic facts in this context. You actually have a lot in common with theists in general and creationists in particular because like you, they don't understand what the word theory means. You clearly are a newbie to this area.
I've noticed that every time Sam Harris has a debate with any religious person they always get all worked up and interrupt him and end up looking silly confronted with his calm and careful reasoning. If i believed in God i'd stop straight away after watching my leaders acting so "emotionally unbalanced"..it's embarrassing.
I completely agree. The worst of the worst was Deepak Chopra, who came out like a big crying baby after Harris placidly refuted his New Age mumbo-jumbo-woo-woo ! :P
the same could be said of the secular - when they affect tolerance, as Harris does, it shows a deceitfulness which is ugly, "embarrassing" and "I'd stop straight away" in its profession
exactly what I noticed... that's because they realize they lose if they try to justify their superstitions that fly in the face of basic science about how the universe works, so they resort to obscuring the issue with nuanced arguments that really get into the semantical limitation of meaning... sure there's nothing to say that the laws of physics couldn't suddenly change but are we really going to live our lives based on that... the rabbis thinking would be like if a kid said to a father hey I'm not going to clean my room cuz maybe divine intervention will do it in a couple minutes so why should I bother y should i do any chores because I'm expecting divine interventions going to do it if anyone really behave like that this Rabbi would not accept it but yet he sits on the stage and really make the same argument and you know what he thinks in a plausible way
Yeah religion and deism is by no means the same. Religion as argument does not really have a leg to stand on, but deism has a very solid argument, perhaps the best argument of all.
Stephen Fletcher I've only ever encountered "god of the gaps" style arguments for deism. Are there any that don't commit that fallacy that you know of?
+Ian G of these youtube debaters? I am not sure. I am fairly disappointed in these debates for I think the deist are very poorly represented and the atheists are two. It is easy for me to see many big holes or gaps in the arguments of both. But I personally know of far better arguments for deism than "god of the gaps" the argument for deism is very solid and strong in you pay attention to the details, but not even the proclaimed deists tend to do that, and that is very sad. I don't know any debater I have not seen commit fallacy period. deist or atheist alike. I would love to debate any of them seriously, for if the debates are done civil. I am quite confident that I could kick the ass of all of these debaters in debates.
After watching quite a lot of these debates over the last few years, I have to say, this was certainly one of the more interesting and entertaining ones. I disagree with David Wolpe, but he seemed to be on par with Sam Harris for a good amount of the time and had some thought provoking points (aside from various really bad ones). I really enjoyed this, thanks for the upload!
Interesting how Rabbi Wolpe begins the debate by saying that most scientists don't have an equally firm grasp on philosophy and theology as they do their own area of study, when even though that may be true, the man he is about to debate has a degree in philosophy himself- AND is a scientist.
I never saw a discussion that one party understood the other party and left his religion. I am proud of myself i helped one friend dissolve religion in his mind, made him start thinking, waking him up, and set him free, being able to clearly see the odds, naivety, claims, contradictions of religion and believers
Love Sam Harris and David Wolpe. Both great speakers. Personally, I side with Harris but I think Wolpe is one of the more compelling speakers for religion
He is a little arrogant sometimes. But to say he has never questioned himself about god vs no god is silly. He explains how he used reason and logic to determine for himself that there is no god. Seems reasonable and logical to me :)
Anyone else find David Wolpe to be one of the more affable and congenial apologists? Still a healthy dose of BS, some of it strenuous, but I can't help but like the guy. Seems like a decent and moral dude. If he were representative of dogmatic believers, I doubt I'd bother to object. Unfortunately his worldview falls somewhere between rare gem and unicorn on the spectrum.
All the other apologists i've had to listen to have been incredibly annoying, both in their nonsense and their manner of dispensing that nonsense. As you noted, Rabbi Wolpe is largely dispensing nonsense, but in a way that's quite agreeable to listen to.
one of the best debates I had seen thus far. Sam, as usual, rocked. It is evident that god of Abraham has no future when people are forced to think a bit logically.
@@camerong5513 How about you give us at least the slightest shred of evidence why there is a God. I also can't disprove the existence of the Easter bunny but I don't expect religious people to understand this
@@carolinaschwendener7866 charisma and patience? The guy had neither in fact. While he largely seemed dispassionate he had alot of hauteur. With respect to delusion you may seek to draw the distinction between that and belief - delusion is a fixed position held by the deluded in spite of its being demonstrated to them as false
One thing I always love about this debate when I come back to it is how hard Rabbi Wolpe tries to punch above his weight. Really goes out there in some places, and Sam just sits there like "Here, let me jump in and save you from that subjective wordsoup you just improvised."
The rabbi got away with so many things that he couldn’t have with Hitchens. So many absurd statements, about nazism, Stalin, North Korea, that witch from Calcuta ( she wasn’t in fact from Calcuta ). It is just mind boggling
Of all the religious debaters I've seen, David Wolpe is by far my favorite. Most others seem to just revert to simplistic talking points, but I genuinely enjoy listening to Wolpe's counterarguments.
+Dylan Hartz I like Wolpe too.. Even if I disagree with all of his arguments... He seems like he has a sense of humour and irony at least.. Which is better than most religious debaters..
Unfortunately it all goes away when Wolpe start saying that atheism is responsible for modern dictatorships, or that since belief in god is natural it can't be delusional, or that there is no reason why evolution would lead to organism that are able to understand the world around them...
If someone would interrupt me ad nauseam I'd get very very angry. Or I'd just start to return the favour. God dammit -.- Harris is really, really patient.
I know! too damn patient and laid back. Apparently claims about the existence of God is not a scientific claim. Let us pretend this is true. What mechanism is used to determine that this claim is true? Sam Harris allows the burden of proof to be on himself as much as possible. It makes this other fool feel like his arguments are superior.
I think religious people think its narrow because science do not want to explain things with god or make claims that "yeah it can be also like its mentioned in bible, cuz bible itself its enough evidence for those superstitious things happend then".
One of Sam's best debates. Something i can come back to. Sam has a gift of making the arguments big picture and distill complex things in a very clear way.
You know, when I see the clips of just Harris responding immediately to Wolpe, Wolpe seems very reasonable. But watching this full debate, when he talks at length, he is actually just as unbalanced as any other religious apologist, especially when he makes it abundantly clear that he literally thinks atheism is the rejection of all that is good and reasonable and right because he makes the a priori claim with no evidence, that everything good about society can be granted to religion. This has been very enlightening,
So because we can't evaluate the soul and God, they are deemed a question outside science. I wonder, which is more likely, that: a) These exist outside the realm of physics, or b) They don't exist, and this is a massive cop out.
Exactly. It's my favourite Harris debate for that reason. Wolpe is watchable and even funny at times. In many of the debates the opponent is insufferable.
Just a comment on the intellectual intrigue and quality of this debate in comparison to many other debates available to a viewer on youtube , its definitely among the best to be found . Well done to both debaters.
laughable. You need your vision seen to then or to sit closer to the screen. Rancor is written all over Harris. Tell us how Wolpe is delusional? Why? Because he professes a belief system? Here was i thinking that science is a belief system too
@Cameron G Well then you would be wrong. Science isn’t a belief system, it’s a method of discovering, insofar as we can, objective reality and what works predictably within that reality. Religious faith isn’t required, and is in fact only a hindrance when doing disinterested research
@@camerong5513science is not a belief system. it follows where the best available evidence leads and is always open to being altered whenever more is learned.That is the exact opposite of religion which teaches that one old unchangeable book contains all we will ever need to know.
@@clarkelaidlaw1678 yea don't think that's what "the one old unchangeable book contains"! I rather think most of science, or the reaction to it, is a belief. Nice try at schooling me ...
Being "agnostic", I'd say that Sam Harris is the only one that makes logical sense. I don't see how superstition can be an amicable component of a real debate.
I think the comments aren’t giving Wolpe enough credit. His point of not evaluating religion in a scientific way, but a metaphysical way, makes a lot of sense. Applying the scientific method doesn’t work for religion, just as it doesn’t work for poetry. I am a huge Sam Harris fan but Wolpe in this was one of his more formidable opponents.
I just returned to this debate after a few years of listening to a steady stream of yelling, insulting, and belittling verbal warfare that we are now constantly subjected to. THIS is a debate. Two extremely intelligent, erudite, and well spoken people who can deliver their view of the subject in understandable ways. At the end the listener can honestly say to him or herself that "my conclusion or view of the truth that I have arrived at was enhanced by these two excellent speakers". I must also say that I am amazed at the quality of the questions from the audience at the end. This is rare in more current "debate" formats. I don't care what side you fall on this subject, please respect the quality of the product.
Religion is big business. F.e. the bishop of Cologne/Germany declared for 2015 2,8 billion € in houses, land, shares. 3 % of the the wealth went to the poor = about 72 million €. The bishop of Münster/Germany declared 3,2 billion € nearly all in shares. He also spent about 3 % for the poor.
Please stop shouting over Harris whenever he speaks Mr Wolpe, let others speak and you may learn. Calm down. This is an adult discussion, not a shouting match.
Wolpe constantly (like many others) characterizes the emotional existence of humanity with presupposed beliefs and predetermined conclusions about the nature of humanity's existence. This is waxing philosophical and poetic, but doesn't define by any means every human being's operational existence. People don't just live or get out of bed because they inherently contemplate their part in the universe. These are hollow arguments that don't touch on substantial facts about psychology, sociology, nature, or science. Any philosophy that inherently flatters the self subjectively is fundamentally non-objective and not worth intellectual debate or discussion. It's solipsism and fancy.
When religious people use the words like science and theory, followed by absurd claims, my blood pressure rises. David said that “science” can not assess the validity of supernatural claims. What, then, can assess it?
23:35 'Since the beginning of time 98% of humans had some sort of intuition about a greater being, is that not evidence' You're gonna need a big citation for that claim buddy
also, it's called appeal to popularity, a fallacy. 98% people believe the earth was flat and the sun revolves around it not too long ago. i just pull that percentage from my ass.
They both dropped some very good points. I they both offer value to my vision of God, or life, or the universe (W.E). It just seems funny to me that people on the comments find it necessary to rant rudely against anyone who oppose their views. Not only they evidence their lack of eloquence and knowledge but how afraid they are that their views are not the ultimate truth. lol
When Sam raises the single eyebrow, you know it's over.
As if he says " hold my beer"
It's the figurative cocking his gun
"before I was born, I wasn't aware of me, does that mean i didn't exist?" ... Yes David, thats precisely what it means.
That is a claim you cannot prove. Same as the Rabbi's. Be careful what you mean by "I". The rabbi is talking about the big "|" which is consciousness in general. Harris seems to be talking about the little "I" which according to Buddhism and many other religions will cease to exist upon death.
@@olivtrees8749 But the only unquestionable indication we have of our existence is our own consciousness, no? At least as far as we as individuals are concerned.
If matter cannot be created or destroyed as far as we're aware does that mean that he, at some point, didn't exist? If we mean physically, then he did, if we mean his consciousness, as far as we have discovered, then no.
@@olivtrees8749 There are many claims that cannot be proved. I can claim that I was a god before my existence on earth as a human. I would say such a claim is bullshit but I can't prove it. You can't prove a negative. The responsible for proof is on the person making the claim. If one cannot backup up a claim with sufficient evidence then I am under no obligation to accept the claim as truth and in fact my obligation would be to not accept the claim as truth.
@@olivtrees8749 Buddhism is not a religion
Notice how David Wolpe becomes more and more aggressive as Sam Harris calmly exposes his logical fallacies. By contrast, Harris exudes serenity and self-control. The medium IS the message and the non-verbal is truly fascinating throughout this debate.
Be aware of this in each setting, as Dawkins, Nye, and others will get quite heated.
When the delusion is attacked the deluded become unfriendly and hostile and insulting. BUT I remain respectful until they try an ad hominem attack against the speaker, at which time that person may respond in kind. I will not be arrogant unless they try to. Religion does NEED to be soundly defeated. That is not the same as total eradication, there will always be stupid people with wierd ideas.
It’s all context Kurt Myers!!
You can see that Sam is a lot smarter and calmer than the fairy tale believer next to him
It seems both unfair and unwise to characterize the validity of a belief system based upon the representations of two individuals within an argument. If I were to apply the character of Joseph Stalin to the general character of atheism it hole it would not look good for atheism. This works equally well for Christianity and ain't the Inquisition. This works equally well for Islam and flying planes into buildings. People do things but the character of an individual is not manifestly representative of his entire belief structure and all those who hold that belief structure. I would be careful with how far you take that logic. One has only to find an aggressive atheist to put you in an uncomfortable position.
I could listen to Sam all day long
And I, to Rabbi Wolpe .
You could listen to Sam all day? Sam humbles himself because he believes he is great. He shouldn't humble himself. He is to Science as Mr. Rodgers is to religion
Wolpe's entire argument: "I feel like I'm right, so I must be right."
hahahahahah, soo true
exactly... the fact that most cultural traditions are directly at odds with each other doesn't pint Him to the conclusion that people just tend to make up s*** for stuff they don't understand until we finally come to scientific understanding
That's nothing like what he said. You're being a biased moron.
@@illinoistea And you are projecting.
@@illinoistea stay mad at logic
David Wolpe: claim, claim, claim, claim, claim, claim, claim, claim.
Evidence? Nope.
and what point would there be in arguing with someone like Harris?
@@camerong5513
Not arguing with Harris. Arguing the facts. The issue. _The Truth_
You don't NEED evidence for 99% of what he's "claiming." It's almost entirely ideas and ways of questioning things...and not FACTUAL claims at all. When he does veer into the realm of factual assertions, his statements are agreed upon. You are conflating fact with logic. Try again.
@@illinoistea Im looking forward to your debate with Sam Harris
evidence is also a claim.
Sam Harris is the most rational person ever. Even Batman failed to make him angry.
he isn't. it's not even close. most likely, the most "rational" person ever is not only unknown to both of us, but also dead. and rationality isn't even something you can compare like a number
If I have to decide who I’m going to rely on to make decisions about just about anything of importance and my choices are between a Stanford educated neuroscientist or Batman
@@opensocietyenjoyer you take things too literally, i feel sorry for you
I think Sam completely broke his opponent after the Elvis analogy, that was absolutely brilliant counter argument.
i've watched most of these kinds of debates on Youttube over the years, and this once still remains my favourite, latgely due to the format. No oxford-style rules, just two intelligent people, minimal moderation and a positive spirit. I wish they were all like this.
God damn, Sam has such a talent for cutting through the BS is such a respectful way. The fact that he manages to get David to laugh says a lot
it appears largely respectful, but it's thin and feigned
@@camerong5513 respect can be only feigned if you discuss with person who believes in BS.
@@pumahuhu365 oh ok. Now grace us with your piercing observations on how a religious belief is so vastly different from any other belief? I'll wait
@@camerong5513 what other beliefs are there in your opinion?
@@camerong5513 A religious belief always seems to be dogmatic(and needs to be). That's the difference.
Sam Harris' arguments and explanations are wonderful.
Some of the most atheist societies on earth are the most peaceful, look at Scandinavia.
Look at Switzerland! And don't tell me we are a religious society, I lived here for 30 years!
@@untitlednewuser you are based on
and soon scandinavia will be islams bitch!!! ALLAH AKBAR
Muslim Morroco is very peaceful and has been for generations. Will atheistic Sweden pass the test of time? Time will tell how many generations from no-religion to low virtue or worse. Let's hope for the best.
@@bhpartywallsurveyors2587
Marocco is not a peaceful or save country. It's just a little less violent and brutal against individuals than other Islamic countries. The king wants to attract western investments and therefore tries to create a peaceful facade.
Try to organize a demonstration in Marocco and you will see how peaceful and free the country is.
I suggest you do you research.
I like the way Sam communicates without an over abundance of emotion. Shows patience and security in his point of view.
pff. The guy oozed hate and disgust from the very outset
@@camerong5513 at first I thought (and hoped) this was sarcasm. But after looking at your other idiotic comments on TH-cam, I confirmed it is sincere. Wow haha.
@@salohcin1013 okay
Your personal faith, is precisely that... personal. My absence of belief, due to lack of sufficient evidence, is not a poverty! I can be kind, comapassionate, and live a good life, without the threat of Hell or the bribe of reward.
You almost sounded like Christopher Hitchens, respect.
@@dancingbanana627 why not?
That was actually well said, i shall use that the next time someone asks why im atheist and not religious anymore
This is the fallacy of inserting "need" where it does not belong. Faith provides fulfillment on a different level. You not comprehending that from your vantage point absolutely IS a poverty, but no one is CLAIMING that you cannot have kindness or compassion without religion. That's a straw man YOU'RE bringing into this.
Okay, but please tell me how you motivate yourself to exert willpower to do what is right (your personal understanding of moral order). For example, I think intoxication should not be done by anyone and I exert willpower to avoid being influenced by anyone and avoid taking alcohol or cigarette when I am attracted towards it. I believe that is the way towards heaven and that motivates me. There is also a looming threat of global extinction event aroused by climate change and it is extremely likely that it will happen because we seem to do nothing about it. Every social construct such as position, money, fame etc fall to pieces when it is likely that nothing will remain. How do you find meaning in life and the drive to live properly in the face of the harsh truths?
David Wolpe you are amazing at avoiding questions.. its almost as if you didn't understand most of the question's asked.
Oh and... like almost every other debate the religious person interrupts or attempts to cut in on a question meant for the other party(in this place Sam Harris)... I am impressed that Sam Harris wasn't rude.
And yet, when you look around the comments many atheists (including myself) consider him the best theist debater we've seen. That says horrible things about the others. lol
@@thoughtfulatheist4942 Yea, Sam Harris was not so overtly rude; I'm not impressed like you, quite the opposite - It merely helps to cloak his real inclination
He's answering them. You just aren't able to follow the conversation, apparently.
To the rabbi’s defense, it is much harder to argue something that is blatantly untrue ;)
Brilliant. I’m stealing that line.
Harris doesn't need any advantage, the man is an intellectual titan.
Wolpe may be one of the best religious minds i know and i have respect and warm feeling totwards which is pretty rare on my part.
But this wasn't a duel, when you put harris and gove him reality bonus its a beating.
And when you put hitch its an execution, i swear the guy could argue god doesn't exist and god would agree^^
@@peteconrad2077 Indeed, and so am I!
@@alexisjuillard4816 Total fanboy lmaooooo
Yeah, he was arguing on expert mode.
I have watched many debates on the matter, and I have to say this by far the best I have seen in terms of logical arguments, intelligent questions from the audience, checking emotional boundaries and finally (except for a few passive jabs) the courtesy displayed by the orators. great job gentlemen.
Could not have said it better myself
Wanted to make the same comment.
lol
Wolpe is well spoken and likable, yet still a con man selling the unknown to gullible ignorant people. Never forget this.
Specific citations to support your claim?
He’s definitely funny. I’ll give him that.
@@soslothful claim? lmao did you even watch this debate?
He looks like a slime to me
Mother Theresa is the worst role model of self-sacrifice you could give.
You're right. Mike Tyson would be a much better example.
Stan Leery actually yes he would
@@michealjaymurphy nice assertion. About as convincing as religious nutters slamming the Bible in my face and calling it truth.
@@kaufmanat1 it's not really a difficult case to make, given that theresa basically scammed people in the name of church, whereas tyson strived to compete in sports and be the best in one aspect of it.
not entirely sure about the self-sacrifice part but I guess dedication to something always entails a degree of self-sacrifice.
@@Setep2k that's not the biggest problem I've got with what happened there. I think we agree, but to skim past the pain relievers because it's less costly (or because suffering is part of gods plan; either way it's immoral) as a scam. I agree; it was. There's a greater "evil at play" here that's still held to some as saintly
I really admire Sam Harris, his point on Elvis alone is enough to make me like him!
you must admire people who project contempt
Every time I see a religious person debate they always end up arguing that religion must be true because they want it to be.
I like how they always end up saying that without a god they would be rapists and killers without morals. Just shows how shitty they are inside.
they are forced to argue from an emotional standpoint rather than a rational one.
Whitney D. The impression left by many arguments made by theists, including Wolpe, is that they want god to be true. For example, without a god we wouldn't have a basis for morality, without a god we wouldn't have a meaning to life, without a god it would be hard to comfort people in times of mourning, etc. These are all expressions of desire for a god rather than evidence for one. It's not an assumption. Atheists don't make arguments about only wanting to sin, so that is an assumption (and a poor one). Your claim of hypocrisy rests on a false equivalence.
or they retreat to "I believe it on faith".
Some who say it must be on faith turn around and refer people to "Answers in Genesis". The only answers you will find in Genesis are to "what did the bible claim thousands of years ago.
@@snuffywuffykiss1522 Who were these people who told you that?
Sam is so polite, but I miss Christopher's counter punch style.
Yes. Hitchens could be like Mike Tyson when he wanted and go for early KOs, often in his opening statements!
I actually found hitchens abrasive style to often be counter productive where as Harris is disarming
@@LeroyBored yeah
@@svenred6eard757 man hitchens was incredible but he was a bulldozer, a nuke.
Sam harris is a sniper, tchernobyl.
He comes at you w9thout you knlwing it, slowly sapping your epistemological health like radiation till you are weak enough so he can one shit you hitch style.
But that one deadly bullet carries even more weight then hitchens i feels cause he spend the last 10 minutes laying the field for it to be effective, everyone in the room, no matter their position feels the damage its done cause he has been warning them beforehand.
Take that magical elvis moment. Harris was debating at a hugher intellectual level till,he took what he hought was a cheap shot from the rabbi (who i love btw he may be the single religious figure i genuinely love hearing, i find him very smart, witty, honest though its not so clear next to harris as he pushes those qualities to their limit) who basically refuted everything harris said about science saying "its a metaphysical claim not a scientific one"
And harris prpceeded to crucify him using the exact same rethoric to assert he was talking to elvis. He tore down his entire argument and won the support of everyone in the room, both rabbi included, BECAUSE he had been so well intended before.
I dont. He'd probably proclaim his desire to kill all Arabs again, i dont want to hear that vile man ever again.
sam is such a bad ass on this one. freakin' kills it.
1:00:35 personal marker, dont mind me. Love that Elvis example.
His little comments to the side while Harris is explaining his position reminds me so much of some high school jock that doesn't take the class discussion seriously. It's all a joke and perhaps a waste of time. What a prick.
It’s awesome! TCB⚡️
By the end of this talk, you realize that logic always wins over senseless drivel.
If only that were true.
When Wolpe kept saying that God is not a scientific claim, all Sam had to ask was, "Do you believe God interacts in our world?" I assume Wolpe would say "yes", and if that's the case, then God can be tested. People that say God is not a scientific claim are just moving the goalposts because they know there is no proof of a god.
@@LordAzrael21 Wow how's that necro LOL. Predictions coming true prove nothing if there is no time frame to it as it's just an open ended claim. It's kinda like going to restaurant and making a prediction that they will burn the food, one day, some day.
The burden of proof lies on those that makes the claim, so there's no need for Science to falsify the claim, if it could even be falsified. The way religion works is to move the goalposts so there is nothing you can falsify. But, if Wolpe's god can interact with the world then the effect would be measurable and the evidence purported by religious folk could be demonstrable and testable. So far this has not happened because if it did, there would only be one religion left, as it would have the valid truth claims.
good comment this; clear and succinct
@@wayfa13 That is assuming that we would have the technology to measure how God would interact with the world in the event this occurred. I would say given Wolpe's stance throughout the debate, he would repeat "God" is something that can not be measured scientifically. God isn't something you could take a sample of and throw under a microscope.
I was actually disappointed with Sam Harris in this debate because in almost every case, he straw-maned Wolpe's statements with absurd propositions that were completely off-point. Wolpe did a great job in representing the theistic pov and Sam had a difficult time making a solid counterpoint without mocking Wolpe's beliefs.
@@ananigma LOL
Wayfaerer LOL
"When I look at you I see that you might be Elvis" *drops mic* *walks off stage*
Sam Harris, is on a completely different cognitive level. I just discovered this guy...this is a great example of him destroying the reasoning of a man who in most other situations would be considered intelligent.
This is the hardwork of directly engaging and exposing the global belief in these fantasies.
You dont think that the Rabbi is intelligent?
Have you researched and studied the innumerable instances and examples of real world conditions that point to an undeniably model of intelligent design?
To believe all of that is pure randomness is, to me, decidedly a position of wanting to ignore the reality of this world.
I.e. why water expands both when heated and cooled, the precise distance of the earth from the sun to sustain life, trees and fruit that grow.from a single seed planted in the ground, the human body, etc.
The biggest obstacle to belief in a creator is the human desire to not be subject to a greater power or the divine laws of the creator.
@@dandydan999 I don’t think that a disinclination to accept a higher power above oneself is the biggest obstacle to belief in a creator. I think the biggest obstacle to belief in a creator is just the simple fact that religion is losing the argument to science and reason in our culture and most people know it even if they aren’t close to the debate. Religion used to be the default and you had to be educated to end up atheist. Now the reverse is becoming more and more true. Atheism, or at the very least some kind of non-sectarian deism, is becoming the default position and now you have to become educated and get a degree in philosophy or theology to end up religious.
I think many and arguably most people actually want to believe in something bigger than themselves. Most people are not comfortable believing that their short stint as a primate on a rock is all there is to this universe. People desperately want to believe in a plan, a purpose, and a power that can help them shoulder the burden of suffering and make sense out of their misfortunes.
As for intelligent design, for one, even if you could successfully argue that things are designed rather than random, it doesn’t necessarily get you any specific God such as the Christian God, or even a God that is at all like a person. There are also a lot of problems with your examples marshaled in support of intelligent design. How exactly is the fact that water expands when heated and cooled evidence of an intelligent designer? You say the precise distance of the Earth to the sun such that it can support life is evidence of intelligent design. Are the other 7 planets in our solar system that are too far or too close to the sun evidence that there isn’t an intelligent designer? Why would an intelligent designer who wanted there to be life in the universe fill the universe mostly with planets that can’t support life? You mention trees and the human body, but these are the products of evolution. They aren’t the product of randomness or of intelligent design. They are products of natural selection whereby random mutations that confer an adaptive advantage are “selected” by the mere fact that they have a greater chance of being passed down by reproduction. As for trees I will admit that trees growing so large from such a small seed is truly incredible and awe inspiring but I don’t see why it needs a creator God to be explained. So I don’t think any of the examples you provided in favor of intelligent design really stand up to scrutiny. Let me know what you think of my criticisms and I hope you take them in the spirit of friendly conversation because that is how they are meant. Good day to you sir!
@@motorhead48067 thx for your thoughtful response.
There are numerous examples of instances where evolution would dictate the extinction of "weaker" design, i.e. the human body consists of organs that are directly dependent upon the digestive and the blood transport systems to distribute life sustaining substances and removal of waste substances. Why doesn't evolution eliminate those weaker organs even at the expense of the entire organism?
There is a difference between the human desire/need to believe in something more than themselves and/or humans in general and the sense of knowing the creator of the universe has provided means through self control to grow as a human being. The daily commitment to improve oneself is a much harder commitment to make when choosing how to live than a general desire.
To me, the same way any sane human being understands that anything formed from basic raw materials that are observable in this world, from a simple cup to the most intricately designed object, points to an intelligent designer, so to the universe at large.
If someone wants to talk themselves out of an intentional universe to some infinitesimally small randomness, one has that choice.
As for planetary system, I am not educated enough to talk to other planets apart from saying that the interplanetary gravitational structure also plays a role.
@ 14:50 "religion is ..."
@ 17:16 "I didn't say religion!"
What a short memory span!
Brilliant
I was scouring the comments to find this lol if no one else posted it, I was going to. Sam should have nailed him to that. It's crazy how these religious people claim morality, yet it's so easy for them to be dishonest.
Brilliant
Brilliant
Brilliant
So, while I was watching the second half of this debate I was involved in a text message fight with my boyfriend. I paused it at one point so I could call my boyfriend and yell at him proper. Now that our fight is over (we're probably broken up) I come back to this debate and decided, by the end, that Sam Harris has an enviable ability to keep his cool and I'm now convinced that if he has anything to teach me, keeping my cool might be the most important lesson.
Sam harris is a cool cucumber alright. That's apparent whether or not one agrees with him. It's no coincidence that he spent a good decade of his life in serious zen practice
the lesson I took away was that while subtle, due to Harris' general bearing, there is a noxious, deceptive and contemptuous attitude in the guy
@zempath 🤣. ok
I'm curious; did that text fight of yours actually end the relationship those 10 years ago, or did you make up?
@@alaron5698 We didn't break up that day but we did a few months later, which was the right move, I've never loved anyone more, I've never hated anyone more and now that we're apart we can be great friends without the drama.
What a great debate, perfectly moderated - he let them have scope to make their points , and it still came across as a natural back and forth discussion. And very fair.
This was the best debate I've seen Sam in, really from top to bottom. The candor was the best, the discussion was the most illuminating and evenly contentious, and every single audience question was quality and not loaded. Really quite amazing, I wish there were more of this caliber.
Wow. This was a good one. David put up one of the better arguments for the God theory I can remember hearing.
Unfortunately, Sam picked him apart in every category
God isn't a theory because it's not falsifiable.
@@b.g.5869 God is a complete man-made mythical theory
@@Triple7000 You're an ignoramus. Pointing out that god isn't a theory because it's not falsifiable isn't an argument for the existence of god. Quite the contrary; the fact that the claim that god exists isn't falsifiable and is therefore not even a valid hypothesis, much less a theory, is commonly cited to underscores the weakness of the claim.
God isn't a theory; by definition, a valid theory must be falsifiable.
Pointing out that god isn't a theory because it's not falsifiable isn't a defense of theism; it's the hallmark of an unreliable claim.
The fact that you aren't aware of this and actually thought I was arguing for the existence of god indicates you are clearly not familiar with the most common and basic facts in this context.
You actually have a lot in common with theists in general and creationists in particular because like you, they don't understand what the word theory means.
You clearly are a newbie to this area.
@@b.g.5869 it is falsifiable, common knowledge easily falsifies it.
I came from Harris v Deepak debate, and I must say this is easily a far better conversation
Really enjoyed watching David get dismantled and increasingly mad. Sam is a national treasure!
I've noticed that every time Sam Harris has a debate with any religious person they always get all worked up and interrupt him and end up looking silly confronted with his calm and careful reasoning. If i believed in God i'd stop straight away after watching my leaders acting so "emotionally unbalanced"..it's embarrassing.
I completely agree. The worst of the worst was Deepak Chopra, who came out like a big crying baby after Harris placidly refuted his New Age mumbo-jumbo-woo-woo ! :P
the same could be said of the secular - when they affect tolerance, as Harris does, it shows a deceitfulness which is ugly, "embarrassing" and "I'd stop straight away" in its profession
It's so frustrating when people have very specific religious beliefs yet come to a debate and argue for deism.
yeah, making zero connection between deism and their specific belief.
we don't know, therefore god.
because god, therefore our one and only religion.
exactly what I noticed... that's because they realize they lose if they try to justify their superstitions that fly in the face of basic science about how the universe works, so they resort to obscuring the issue with nuanced arguments that really get into the semantical limitation of meaning... sure there's nothing to say that the laws of physics couldn't suddenly change but are we really going to live our lives based on that... the rabbis thinking would be like if a kid said to a father hey I'm not going to clean my room cuz maybe divine intervention will do it in a couple minutes so why should I bother y should i do any chores because I'm expecting divine interventions going to do it if anyone really behave like that this Rabbi would not accept it but yet he sits on the stage and really make the same argument and you know what he thinks in a plausible way
Yeah religion and deism is by no means the same. Religion as argument does not really have a leg to stand on, but deism has a very solid argument, perhaps the best argument of all.
Stephen Fletcher I've only ever encountered "god of the gaps" style arguments for deism. Are there any that don't commit that fallacy that you know of?
+Ian G of these youtube debaters? I am not sure. I am fairly disappointed in these debates for I think the deist are very poorly represented and the atheists are two. It is easy for me to see many big holes or gaps in the arguments of both.
But I personally know of far better arguments for deism than "god of the gaps" the argument for deism is very solid and strong in you pay attention to the details, but not even the proclaimed deists tend to do that, and that is very sad. I don't know any debater I have not seen commit fallacy period. deist or atheist alike.
I would love to debate any of them seriously, for if the debates are done civil. I am quite confident that I could kick the ass of all of these debaters in debates.
I feel bad when I hear someone raising his voice to enforce his point of view
sometimes its just passion and excitement :) Im a voice raiser..
After watching quite a lot of these debates over the last few years, I have to say, this was certainly one of the more interesting and entertaining ones.
I disagree with David Wolpe, but he seemed to be on par with Sam Harris for a good amount of the time and had some thought provoking points (aside from various really bad ones). I really enjoyed this, thanks for the upload!
Interesting how Rabbi Wolpe begins the debate by saying that most scientists don't have an equally firm grasp on philosophy and theology as they do their own area of study, when even though that may be true, the man he is about to debate has a degree in philosophy himself- AND is a scientist.
I really enjoyed this "debate". The conversational style and respect that the two men showed each other made for a very interesting discussion.
still selling soap?
You made this comment 5 years ago. Where are you now?
@@masonreynoso3077 I always wonder what has happened to a person after seeing a comment that is years old.
oh, Harris only, at best, feigns respect
Wellll Sam showed respect. This David guy talked over him more and more... So damn rude
I never saw a discussion that one party understood the other party and left his religion.
I am proud of myself i helped one friend dissolve religion in his mind, made him start thinking, waking him up, and set him free, being able to clearly see the odds, naivety, claims, contradictions of religion and believers
Great debate. There was a lot of respect from both parties. I was deeply satisfied.
yep, alot of pretty well veiled contempt from Harris
Love Sam Harris and David Wolpe. Both great speakers. Personally, I side with Harris but I think Wolpe is one of the more compelling speakers for religion
"I believe" "I have faith" bla bla bla...every religious tap dancer is a raving lunatic
Religious people always with the double speak.
maybe that's how they waste the time of a sceptic, in order to gain the sceptic's exit
Sam Harris is amazing as always. One person I truly admire.
He is a little arrogant sometimes. But to say he has never questioned himself about god vs no god is silly. He explains how he used reason and logic to determine for himself that there is no god.
Seems reasonable and logical to me :)
Def can agree.
Dina Polishuk He has never made the claim that there is no god. He is not only quite spiritual but also open to evidence.
im proud to be an atheist just like sam harris. im glad our side has representatives like him.
Anyone else find David Wolpe to be one of the more affable and congenial apologists? Still a healthy dose of BS, some of it strenuous, but I can't help but like the guy. Seems like a decent and moral dude. If he were representative of dogmatic believers, I doubt I'd bother to object. Unfortunately his worldview falls somewhere between rare gem and unicorn on the spectrum.
All the other apologists i've had to listen to have been incredibly annoying, both in their nonsense and their manner of dispensing that nonsense. As you noted, Rabbi Wolpe is largely dispensing nonsense, but in a way that's quite agreeable to listen to.
I agree. William Lang Craig is incredibly overrated.
one of the best debates I had seen thus far. Sam, as usual, rocked.
It is evident that god of Abraham has no future when people are forced to think a bit logically.
yea? Give us some logic, then? Name one fact, to get the ball rolling
@@camerong5513 How about you give us at least the slightest shred of evidence why there is a God. I also can't disprove the existence of the Easter bunny but I don't expect religious people to understand this
@@benjamincserveny2254 🤣
When your bait question gets called out and you have no come back, resort to emoji
Wolpe is talking BS from beginning to end - simply amazing how Harris can endure more than one and a half hour of this.
Sam Harris was too fucking nice.
28 minutes in "im worried Indonesia may become radicalized".
11 years in, your right
Sam Harris ,such a great person !
I admire his logic and patience with deluded people he debates
I notice his pretence
I love sam Harris intelligence and his charisma 💓
@@carolinaschwendener7866 charisma and patience? The guy had neither in fact. While he largely seemed dispassionate he had alot of hauteur.
With respect to delusion you may seek to draw the distinction between that and belief - delusion is a fixed position held by the deluded in spite of its being demonstrated to them as false
Sam Harris is truly a singular human. His intelligence and way of thinking is so inspirational.
1:18:00 Sam goes OFF. Such a brilliant, articulate explanation of the differences between religions.
One thing I always love about this debate when I come back to it is how hard Rabbi Wolpe tries to punch above his weight. Really goes out there in some places, and Sam just sits there like "Here, let me jump in and save you from that subjective wordsoup you just improvised."
The rabbi got away with so many things that he couldn’t have with Hitchens. So many absurd statements, about nazism, Stalin, North Korea, that witch from Calcuta ( she wasn’t in fact from Calcuta ). It is just mind boggling
Of all the religious debaters I've seen, David Wolpe is by far my favorite. Most others seem to just revert to simplistic talking points, but I genuinely enjoy listening to Wolpe's counterarguments.
I feel the same. haha
+Dylan Hartz I like Wolpe too.. Even if I disagree with all of his arguments... He seems like he has a sense of humour and irony at least.. Which is better than most religious debaters..
I think they are infuriating.
Completely agree! Wolpe is far and away my favorite proponent of theism
I enjoy his approach but only because of the poor quality of others that have debated Sam.
Harris is so beautifully smug, he’s a summers day
I love him so much.
🤙🏼🏄🏽
Na he's a summer spring autumn winter all in one and he's good at them all ✌👍
I have never heard someone talk as eloquently as Sam Harris
15 minutes in and actually a pretty good debate. Surprised how decent Harri's opposition is,.
Two intellectuals, minimal interruptions and minimal voice raising!
Unfortunately it all goes away when Wolpe start saying that atheism is responsible for modern dictatorships, or that since belief in god is natural it can't be delusional, or that there is no reason why evolution would lead to organism that are able to understand the world around them...
That last one blew my mind. Evolution says we derive from the world around us... yet can't explain how we can understand the world around us. Lolwut?
Stephen Githehu wolpe is jewish. He's a rabbi in fact.
+Stephen Githehu Then you should go there with them ;)
After 10’s of lectures i watched, this is the first time the audience asks really good questions
excellent debate...
If someone would interrupt me ad nauseam I'd get very very angry. Or I'd just start to return the favour. God dammit -.- Harris is really, really patient.
Mhm atheists are better when they talk about atheism to other atheists and finally start kiss each other asses.If they don`t do that-it`s not science.
I know! too damn patient and laid back. Apparently claims about the existence of God is not a scientific claim. Let us pretend this is true. What mechanism is used to determine that this claim is true? Sam Harris allows the burden of proof to be on himself as much as possible. It makes this other fool feel like his arguments are superior.
he has a semblance of patience. The guy betrays his cultivated disgust
one Of the best debates I have seen
Science is narrow? It is the investigation of everything in the cosmos
I think religious people think its narrow because science do not want to explain things with god or make claims that "yeah it can be also like its mentioned in bible, cuz bible itself its enough evidence for those superstitious things happend then".
"Narrow" because of the ever misguided "why" question.
Science addresses the meaning of life? No. I guess that is what Wolpe meant
Narrow as in parsimonious.
One of Sam's best debates. Something i can come back to. Sam has a gift of making the arguments big picture and distill complex things in a very clear way.
You know, when I see the clips of just Harris responding immediately to Wolpe, Wolpe seems very reasonable. But watching this full debate, when he talks at length, he is actually just as unbalanced as any other religious apologist, especially when he makes it abundantly clear that he literally thinks atheism is the rejection of all that is good and reasonable and right because he makes the a priori claim with no evidence, that everything good about society can be granted to religion. This has been very enlightening,
Ya, Wolpe is definitely my favorite of all Sam's debates. It's an actual conversation, and Wolpe is no intellectual slouch, he's also pretty funny.
Wolpe is wrong. But must commend him with being pleasant in comparison to most appologists
Sam is right.
So because we can't evaluate the soul and God, they are deemed a question outside science. I wonder, which is more likely, that:
a) These exist outside the realm of physics, or
b) They don't exist, and this is a massive cop out.
saber harfi
I wish I was over my head... tried to have an OBE once. Couldn't do it.
Definitely NOT the first one.
I must say Wolpe was worthy opponent comparing to other theists
Yeah, but don't be fooled by his polite manner - he still believes in mysticism and offers no observable evidence to support his fantasies.
I found him quite intelligent compared to the usual religious nuts.
Exactly. It's my favourite Harris debate for that reason. Wolpe is watchable and even funny at times. In many of the debates the opponent is insufferable.
Just a comment on the intellectual intrigue and quality of this debate in comparison to many other debates available to a viewer on youtube , its definitely among the best to be found . Well done to both debaters.
Great debate. Both speakers are articulate and make their points well
42:54 What a simple yet brilliant, biting yet polite response from Sam to an utterly disgusting argument.
Yep And I bet the rabbi doesn’t want to talk about how many religious people don’t do a damn thing to help either 🤣🤣
And he would do well to have read Hitch’s book on MT. He ledgers a long list of pretty gross self serving bs.
What an intelligent and insightful conversation free from rancor. David Wolpe is my favorite delusional theist. Sam is the brightest light of our age.
laughable. You need your vision seen to then or to sit closer to the screen. Rancor is written all over Harris. Tell us how Wolpe is delusional? Why? Because he professes a belief system? Here was i thinking that science is a belief system too
@Cameron G
Well then you would be wrong. Science isn’t a belief system, it’s a method of discovering, insofar as we can, objective reality and what works predictably within that reality. Religious faith isn’t required, and is in fact only a hindrance when doing disinterested research
@@camerong5513science is not a belief system. it follows where the best available evidence leads and is always open to being altered whenever more is learned.That is the exact opposite of religion which teaches that one old unchangeable book contains all we will ever need to know.
@@clarkelaidlaw1678 yea don't think that's what "the one old unchangeable book contains"! I rather think most of science, or the reaction to it, is a belief. Nice try at schooling me ...
Being "agnostic", I'd say that Sam Harris is the only one that makes logical sense. I don't see how superstition can be an amicable component of a real debate.
wolpe has trouble distinguishing reality from wishful thinking... failings of the human mind
A lot of respect for the rabbi je is a very intelligent debater and as always harris is a true hero and leader of the new world
Hitch would have had a field day with that Rabi’s “point” about North Korea lol
David Wolpe is clearly out of his league. It's a shame we are still having these debates in 2019. Long live the Four Horsemen!
Who are the others? Im assuming Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and ____?
@@Tebbulator Daniel Dennet. ✌🏿
@@wittlingdave airtight my guy, he still be added to my commute list lol
Translation: wittlingdave is clearly an Atheist shouting "rah, rah for my side." Next.
It's Unfortunate.God is simply the Existence of Love. Everybody Believes Love Exists.
Atheists Unnecessarily Overcomplicate it
I think the comments aren’t giving Wolpe enough credit. His point of not evaluating religion in a scientific way, but a metaphysical way, makes a lot of sense. Applying the scientific method doesn’t work for religion, just as it doesn’t work for poetry. I am a huge Sam Harris fan but Wolpe in this was one of his more formidable opponents.
I am genuinely embarrassed for Wolpe, Harris was very polite and kind. Wolpe made an ass of himself.
I really like both of these guys.
I just returned to this debate after a few years of listening to a steady stream of yelling, insulting, and belittling verbal warfare that we are now constantly subjected to. THIS is a debate. Two extremely intelligent, erudite, and well spoken people who can deliver their view of the subject in understandable ways. At the end the listener can honestly say to him or herself that "my conclusion or view of the truth that I have arrived at was enhanced by these two excellent speakers". I must also say that I am amazed at the quality of the questions from the audience at the end. This is rare in more current "debate" formats. I don't care what side you fall on this subject, please respect the quality of the product.
Watching this makes me doubt that home court advantage is a real thing.
Religion is big business.
F.e. the bishop of Cologne/Germany declared for 2015 2,8 billion € in houses, land, shares.
3 % of the the wealth went to the poor = about 72 million €.
The bishop of Münster/Germany declared 3,2 billion € nearly all in shares.
He also spent about 3 % for the poor.
When we suffer we grow stronger to feel so happy in the recovery.
Please stop shouting over Harris whenever he speaks Mr Wolpe, let others speak and you may learn. Calm down. This is an adult discussion, not a shouting match.
Sams response to the first question was genius
This is a great debate--there's no contention and it's very lively. Well done jewish TV Network, well done.
Wolpe constantly (like many others) characterizes the emotional existence of humanity with presupposed beliefs and predetermined conclusions about the nature of humanity's existence. This is waxing philosophical and poetic, but doesn't define by any means every human being's operational existence. People don't just live or get out of bed because they inherently contemplate their part in the universe. These are hollow arguments that don't touch on substantial facts about psychology, sociology, nature, or science. Any philosophy that inherently flatters the self subjectively is fundamentally non-objective and not worth intellectual debate or discussion. It's solipsism and fancy.
When religious people use the words like science and theory, followed by absurd claims, my blood pressure rises. David said that “science” can not assess the validity of supernatural claims. What, then, can assess it?
It’s always enriching to witness intelligent, well-spoken people engaged in a civil debate.
Yeah. I wish the Wolf guy had been civil and let Sam finish his sentences
I was dead before I was alive. It wasn't so bad. I imagine being dead after being alive won't be much different.
The Elvis analogy at approx 1:01. 😂😂Sam you are good.
Harris was on point even back in the day. What a legend.
23:35
'Since the beginning of time 98% of humans had some sort of intuition about a greater being, is that not evidence'
You're gonna need a big citation for that claim buddy
also, it's called appeal to popularity, a fallacy. 98% people believe the earth was flat and the sun revolves around it not too long ago. i just pull that percentage from my ass.
When early humans treated the wind as a god does that mean that the early worship of a god prove that god is real?
They both dropped some very good points. I they both offer value to my vision of God, or life, or the universe (W.E).
It just seems funny to me that people on the comments find it necessary to rant rudely against anyone who oppose their views. Not only they evidence their lack of eloquence and knowledge but how afraid they are that their views are not the ultimate truth. lol