Shermer's book 'Why people believe weird things' started me on the path to becoming a skeptic and truly changed my life. He is one of the best advocates for rational thinking.
Loved the conversation, thank you Mr. Rubin for facilitating it skillfully. Sometimes, and though that I prefer Dennis Prager's beliefs and positions to Michael Shermer's, I would wish that the former would interrupt less often. In this respect, I think Michael Shermer was extremely gracious.
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.” ― Marcus Aurelius
This quote is 🔥. This is why we need secular humanism, so we can stop stoning homosexuals, throwing babies of parents who worship "false gods" against rocks, or putting disobedient children to death. Once I read those commandments in the Bible, I _knew_ I couldn't worship a deity who would a) command these things directly, or b) allow His followers to write them in His holy text. That's why I believe living by my own objective standards of morality is the best bet.
At some point for this format I think it would be great to get CosmicSkeptic on. He is a very bright, young and clear thinking secularist who is respectful and very succinct in his arguments. I beleive he will be the modern day Hitchens, but is less aggressive so doesn't put people on the defensive and can propogate less hostile discussions which is what we need
As a religious person, I totally agree that Prager dominated the conversation way too much. I guess that's what happens when you work as a Radio Host -- you come to love hearing the sound of your own voice. Overall, however, I thought both sides gave several interesting points. It's so refreshing to hear a conversation that doesn't devolve into personal attacks.
No, he's just too eager to persuade and over-confident. He wants to be a gentleman, but no one is perfect. Prager is a good man, and I love him for it. But, like me (trust me), he can frustrate people.
Don't get the Prager hate. There was mutual respect, honesty, each admitting the other could be wrong, a mixture of sound moral and scientific arguments, no scorched earth pontification or intentional straw man manipulation, charity even as they disagreed...and managed to find common ground ethically and politically. These are dangerous times, and if you can't respect a debate like that, how do we ever move past our differences?
Timothy Wingates Islam branched off of Christianity. The reason we equate the two is because of their long history of devastation to humanity...not just their Abrahamic roots. For sure , Islam today is the worst of the two....but go back in history and you can see where Christians have outdone Islam as far as atrocities...if you need examples, I'll be more than happy to provide them....but since you carry yourself as intelligent, I will assume you know what I'm talking about....
Timothy Wingates “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.” Adolf Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936 Ever hear about the inquisition? Or how about southern Baptist Slave owners justifying slavery through exodus 21 in the bible? These are just a few examples....didn't even touch the present pedo epidemic in Christian churches.....need more proof ?
Amazing conversation!! Shout out to everyone at the The Rubin Report for providing a platform for these wonderful mind expanding conversations and political arguments. You have been and continue to be an integral part of this new intellectual reawakening.
This was perfect. This type of discussion is great to watch and it's very informative. Prager seemed to be more pushy, but both men's arguments were both logical and respectful. We need more of this.
I think a lot of people are being pretty harsh to Prager here; I don't agree with him either (not saying that to appease the masses). Prager made some sound arguments and put forward a refreshing point of view, I don't like listening to people I agree with all the time. This was yet another excellent video Dave, thank you and your guests.
I think Prager made a good case that it's not obvious that atheism is the most logical position. I don't believe any religious revelation is perfect like religious do. However, the notion that you're being logical if you are near certain there is no God, and you're being irrational if you believe there is a good chance there is a God doesn't add up to me.
You are rational if you believe as many true things and as few wrong things as possible? What is true/false? Nobody truly knows, but it's rational to be lead by good evidence and healthy scepticism.
*I think a lot of people are being pretty harsh to Prager here* I don't think one can be too harsh to Prager. He employs the same boorish behavior every time. His conversation with Sam Harris was deplorable, and the little bit I've heard here leads me to believe this is much the same.
" His conversation with Sam Harris was deplorable, and the little bit I've heard here leads me to believe this is much the same." lol Harris got his lunch eaten. How many times did Prager have to correct him on his fallacious biblical references. harris should stick to Islam criticism whereas at least he is more on point.
Michael Shermer seems like a nice, genuine fellow. An atheist who isn't a condescending jerk. However, he has an overly rosy view of human nature, which as history and religion can testify is completely unsupported. People embrace destructive lies all the time and are unbelievably self-deceptive.
Atheists might occasionally be condescending jerks, but it's because we're surrounded by a far greater number of condescending religious jerks who claim to all be certain of mutually incompatible ideas, while also telling us atheists that we're immoral and doomed to go to Hell if we don't see things their way. You can only be told that you're destined for an eternity of suffering so many times before you start to get pissed off.
@@stevenjackson1747 You've now justified being an angry atheist. But why would you need to justify it? Atheists can be angry, and they can just point to their genes. It's only Christians who have to follow command not to be angry at insults, and to love your enemies. As for hell, that's an unavoidable part of Christian doctrine. There's no need to be insulted if you don't believe in Hell. But if you do believe in Hell, it would be very cruel not to inform others about it.
@@michaelmiky11 Religious people are OK with atheist being in hell and getting torture for eternity, but they also get surprised when they see an angry atheist. I am personally angry with religious people and those idiot lefty, because I'm tired of their stupidity.
@@michaelmiky11 I can give a Thousand reasons why people should be insulted by The Religious always running around and preaching that they’re living life in a bad way and are going to Hell as a result.
Prager is right, Dave. You have a wonderful inquisitive mind & you are a great narrator. My experience leads me to believe, but, I am truly interested in others expressing their beliefs without demonizing them. You offer a safe platform for us to hear. Thank you
Moral debates are the most frustrating debates, people switch between pragmatic arguments to ontological to epistemological without distinction! Where Shermer is right in my view is that logically speaking how do you prove God himself is good as a basis for objective moral goodness? You end up just labeling God as "the good" just like the Atheist just labels "human flourishing" or some abstract concept as the good, goodness is a value and values are subjective by nature, even for God. You could move the argument to say god could punish you for not doing his will and that's true but that is an argument not for ontological foundation for "goodness" but rather a reason you would want to do what he says, just like Shermer can point out reasons you should do good things for selfish reasons, but this is another argument altogether based on practicality. Where Prager gets it right in my view is motivations, so long as the religious beliefs are good in nature, then I believe humans are more prone to follow the rules with a belief in god and an afterlife than someone simply following their conscience, that's fair, but we also see where that can go wrong with bad religious ideas as well.
because believing in a god makes the world a better place, not believing in god makes people behave like animals (which WE ARE NOT) there are many physical proofs of gods existence.
thats all nonsense. you are using argument by definition. and any question of "who else but god" simply begs the question of "who else but gods creator and his creators creator and so on". its no different that the "turtles all the way down argument". religious people have a double standard when it comes to the need for a creator. the universe to you needs a creator but god doesnt. and there is no good or evil its all relative. in fact you can argue that mankinds existence is an evil destroyer of nature. good and evil are simply myths we get from movies and novels and fiction like the bible. superman is good and lex luther is evil. so why does superman spend so little time feeding starving kids? of course to us humans there is bad and good, but its all based around selfish and myopic viewpoints. as soon as you go into space there is no morality. good is what we call ourselves and evil our enemies and thats how its always been.
its objectively wrong within our own constructs. but thats a petty plea of moral superiority. that there are things so bad that if you dont say they are absolutley evil then you have the moral high ground on me. thats not a logical way to argue. there is a worm in drinking water of some parts of africa that eats out the eyes of children who drink it and makes them blind. surely thats objectively wrong to you, right? if there is real good and evil and you say, then god is just as responsible for evil as good. its human psychology to make up stories about good and evil. thats where the myth of god and satan come from. but you dont want to admit that either god is just as evil as good nor that he is not all powerful so you have tried to boil evil down to human action because thats what fits your mythology. but as i have just proven, evil as you would call it is in nature. disease, natural disaster, etc. and dont act like you are trying to put forth a philosophical argument when you believe irrational myths like the divinity of jesus, resurrection etc. thats the new way of christian argument. dont talk about the absurd things you believe, just stick to the genalized philosophy because thats how you can convert atheists, right?
""My aim is not to achieve a moral high ground" No, that's exactly what you were trying to do by saying this: "I think if that is your answer then I would just ask you to spend more time considering your own belief because that is one of the darkest evils I can imagine" Anyone with any sense knows it's wrong, and just because you think there is some absolute morality that transcends humans, doesn't mean I have any less contempt for it. However, the fact that there are even worse "evils" in nature show that god is not good or not all powerful. You won't address this because you want to believe both. So you want to blame everything both human and non human on humans or perhaps satan. "If you want to talk about how absurd or not the events of the Bible are then you're asking for another debate." Of course, That's what all you theists say. That's William Lane Craig's bread and butter. But if you believe that crap as you say, then you would not always try to make the philosophical argument. But you know your so called miracles have no evidence, because they are absurd myths just like Zeus and Poseidon and the great juju and santa claus. I understand why you have to stay away from such arguments, because your strongest (albeit still very weak) argument is the philosophical one. Once we delve into the woo woo of ancient mythology, you don't have a leg to stand on. "Another statement that is consistent with my worldview is that good things happen to bad people, and bad things more often than not happen to everyone whether they're good or bad. As my dad likes to put it, "life is a series of tragic disappointments, then you die." And death is no different. But we do have an internet connection and most likely a stable food source and clean water, so we have it better than 99.99% of all people who ever lived. Life is not as bleak as you make it out, at least for us. Life is life, nature is nature. Things happen. That's all there is. But we do have the capacity to make up myths and believe in woo woo if it makes us feel better. I am sure for most people it's a great comfort. I find comfort in knowing more than delusion, but honestly speaking, there is nothing wrong with harmless delusion. It's only when it starts to make people act in ways that are irrational that a problem occurs.
No, you may rescind it now, but you were using the same argument I have heard many times from theists: "if you don't believe that really bad things like child rape are not absolutely immoral, then theism has the moral highground. That's nonsense, because there are things even worse in nature. So do you consider the parasite that I mentioned before immoral? If so who is to blame? Humans? Or god? Or satan? If you say god is all powerful, then all natural disaster are his fault, many of which are far worse than any human can do. The only reason you want to say that reason is your main motivation is because reason is the most bulletproof justification for anything. But reason is the antithesis of faith by definition. YOU are the one who wants it both ways. You want an all powerful and all good god, yet you think evil somehow exists. If it does, then either an all powerful god is at least part evil or not all powerful. Simple as that. And you want to have faith, which is belief without evidence, while trying to justify it with reason. I am sure you acknowledge the scientific method and what it has accomplished. Yet in the elite academy of sciences, over 98% of the scientists are atheist, because there is no evidence for any sort of christian mythological god. So reason is NOT on your side, no matter how much you want it to be. And while you want to say Human are not good or are evil, you believe that god created man, so obviously god HAS created evil. That's the problem with religion, it's just a never ending clusterfuck of hypocrisy and contradiction. And don't try to claim your belief is not out of comfort. I am sure you were raised christian in a christian family. What if you told them tomorrow that you were atheist? Would it be comfortable? It would not be easy for you to become an atheist. It wouldn't even be possible for you to denounce the christian god and just believe in some sort of philosophical god that you try to argue for. If it is easy, simply let go of the myths like the virgin birth (which is stolen from earlier mythology) resurrection, divinity of jesus, etc. Again, you try and try to make it a philosophical argument, but we both know it's not just that. You need to hold on to actual biblical myths that are completely beside the point of the existence of god. So you can claim it's reason that is your motivation, but reason would tell you that a virgin birth or walking on water is impossible. You can believe these things all you want, but then you can't criticize belief in bigfoot or that elvis is still alive or even the tooth fairy without being a hypocrite. And you can't honestly say that reason is your motivation. That's all I ask, be honest.
Sorry comment section, I don't buy into all the negative feedback about this video. Ignoring the Prager hate, I found the argument interesting without letting emotion get involved.
"the forces of nature are not random: the emergent property of complexity comes from simplicity by the laws of nature themselves" Wonderful sentence, already worth watching this video. Just read a great book by Matt Ridley, The Evolution of Everything. Would love to see him on the show too!
Thank you for starting debates. This format will be a game changer not just for this channel but for discussion. Might even cut down people that always say you don't push back enough.
I thought the same thing - Rubin likes to give a format for people to speak their minds so he rarely pushes back. This is a good format for having the push back since he gets someone else to do it. It's great.
Milo is a bit like Prager - all bluster and show with no intellectual substance. If you want to irritate the liberal snowflakes, Milo and Prager are great, but if pissing people off is the only objective, is that really worth watching? I have better things to do with my life than to listen to idiots reciting political talking points.
I truly enjoyed this. It's so rare to both see and hear such a great conversation between two well educated and thoughtful people. both I felt made fantastic points at times and while I was not swayed one way or the other I feel I have a better grasp on my own beliefs from expierencing it. thank you for the great show.
I love Dennis Prager and his vast amounts of knowledge and wisdom. I also love Dave. he is one of a kind interviewer. I learn a ton from this man with every episode. Thank you Dave! God Bless.
Thanks Dave for another great contribution to all in our society. Perhaps a bridge between the two ideologies lies in the unification of two words that connect both concepts. Enlightenment for the secularist and Spirituality for the religious. This is the space that Sam Harris (atheist author) and Michael Laitman (Kabbalist author) occupy. Both seek change through a recognition of cause and effect, or causes and consequences. Both Prager and Shermer also agree that "the "fruits" of mankind are what we seek to improve. That is enlightenment or spirituality depending on which side of the argument you fall. They are both worthy of deeper consideration.
I don't see Atheists owning the effects of their cause: 1.5 billion human lives taken in just forty years directly as a result of their Atheist faith. That's more human lives taken in the last six thousand years in all the wars of all human history combined, times TWO! Atheism is a sanitized blood bath and makes religious suffering and persecution look like a happy Sunday picnic by comparison. Exactly what Atheists are owning that fact? None!? How very interesting that Atheists can point out the failures of religion and say, "shame on you" but I haven't seen any Atheists saying, "but our faith is way, way, way worse". Ya, I find that extremely interesting. Far from being flawless, Atheism is the singularly most sick, most bloody, most harmful to humanity, faith that the world and history have ever known. Where is the apology? Where is the admission of failure? Where is the ownership of their own cruelty and evil? They seem willing enough to throw religious mistakes, evil, and misdeeds in the face of Christians. The Crusades, the Protestant-Catholic wars, for example. So, where is their ownership of their failure, failure I might add that makes such religious bad deeds look like a joke by comparison? I don't see any. What I do see is a bunch of Atheist failures who look at their failure and instead of owning it, they define what evil is done in their name as, "not evil". Well then, go ahead and keep up the slaughter. I guess evil isn't evil if you lie and simply define it away. How nice. No, how sick and perverted and their lies grow ever thinner. The fruit of Atheism is the single most shameful failure of all human history. How odd it must be to embrace the failings of others so willingly yet hold yourself so willfully blind to your own. How many brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins, aunts, ideas, and whole entire life contributions have been ripped out of the world at the hands of Atheism? 1.5 billion and more. Where is the ownership of that fact from Atheists? Nowhere. That's where. Those are the scientific facts but it's not a fact you'll hear from any Atheist. They will never admit that the facts make religion look so obviously sane by comparison that they have based their entire faith on insanity. They can't because, to do so is to admit that the better way is not their own, it was God's way and they can't face the fact that they were wrong, so very horrifically, disgustingly, wrong AND their faith has contributed more towards human suffering than anything else ever by such a wide margin that nothing else even comes close. Nope, it was faith and God that caused more because we have defined ours away. How nice that must be for Atheists.
@@meishakester6502 What? How are you making this crap up? Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god, please show where atheism was the reason for 1.5 billion deaths otherwise you speak utter nonsense
@@chadingram6390, I'm sorry if you missed history class but before Christianity, life was sold cheap. Incan, Mayan, Rome's slaves, and on, and on. I could go on but I won't. The facts speak for themselves. Christianity built up the value of life, all human life. Love your neighbor as yourself. Love your enemy. Atheism is just another pagan religion or, in practice, it functions the same way. Humanity isn't advancing, it's evolving. Why? Atheism, plain and simple. Without a damn good reason to value life, it has once again become easy to dispose of it. Furthermore, you, my friend are a liar who refuses to take responsibility for this modern world you made. More death is on your hands than any corrupt Christian religion that ever existed. People didn't respect life, they upped their game of death. The world hasn't advanced because of the lies of Atheism and Evolution, it has fallen, badly. You want to stare into all the clear evidence and facts and say, "but, but, not Arheism's fault" lying all the way, you go right ahead buddy. But this world and its fall are on the heads of every Atheist who has been alive since the 1950s. It damn well is Atheisms fault and you know it. You taught 100 IQ people that there is no God and what they did with that is born out in the utter insanity we see returning to the world. Without objective, concrete, inviolable truth, i.e., God, welcome to the desert of the insane. You, Sir, are insane if you can't own the blame for the insanity your anti-religion-religion has caused. You made each individual person the sole arbiter of right and wrong and we see that in the BLM religion, Antifa, and all this other nonsense and insanity. What did you think morons were going to do, smartass? You personally might be able to craft a moral frame-work capable of keeping you from worshiping black people but these idiots have no such intellectual capacity. They aren't bad people, they are simply incapable of doing for themselves what God has done for EVERYONE! Construct a healthy, sane, forward-moving, moral frame-work. So, they want purpose just like everyone else but, they can't create one on their own. And just like good sheep, it's off to slaughter their unborn children to fit into prom dresses and worship black people. Thank you so much, Atheism for screwing up worse than any Christian religion ever could in the next twenty thousand years. Atheism managed to be the most bloody, insane, devolved religion ever made, faster and worse than even the Roman gods or the Mayans and their human sacrifices. You set out to prove that humanity had evolved beyond God and all you've done is proven that, without God, humanity is dead-bolt insane. So crazy, in fact, that they corrupted and are set to tear down the freest Nation ever built because you wanted to make yourselves into God, take lives for selfish reasons, be gay, whatever. Fan-freakin-tastic. Atheism is now the most bloody, death-cult which ever existed by such a wide margin that no Christian religion or Buddhist or Islamist, or Jewish religion by its self OR combined together all at once with their entire history, will never catch up. Atheism is the Ultimate, never to be surpassed by anyone, ever, death and insanity, cult. And you know it. How nice it must be for you to have the facts and science you so worship blow up in your stupid arrogant faces. Facts are facts and they don't care about your feelings, you liar. Look around you, you insanely epic loser. You are wrong. God is real or if he isn't He found an infinitely better way for people to live than Atheism ever will. Christianity is filled with flawed people trying to live God's way and failing. Atheism is failures trying to fail as badly as humanly possible. Buddy, you have succeeded. You are a member of the greatest disaster of a religion which ever existed or ever will exist, the religion of self, Atheism. Because humans know best, right? Fella, you couldn't have f'ed up worse if you had told the world that the best way to live is by having everyone jump off a cliff to their deaths because your cult has butchered many, many, many millions more lives by hanging around and killing more and more humans.
I respect Prager a little more with each debate I see him in. The guy just makes sense and I've found myself drawing many of the same conclusions concerning Europe.
14:24 Prager has an interesting way of wording this "against your desire"...I don't believe he has a desire that there isn't a God. He just hasn't found a reason to believe that there is. That's like asking someone if they believe in aliens and there answer is no. But then you ask "would you believe if I showed you proof?" Most people's answer would be something along the lines of "I would have to see what you mean by proof, but yes I possibly would believe"...then if you turn that around and say "well doesn't that go against your DESIRE?" ??? It's not the person's DESIRE that there aren't aliens, it's simply an observation that they haven't found a reason or meaning to believe in aliens. Same with a God in this case.
Michael Shermer is arguing by his ability to think and speak which is a gift from God. God also gave us all a conscience which tells us what is right and wrong. The more you ignore your conscience the easier it is to do wrong. Evolution can't explain how life started, where thinking comes from, how language works. Until you can explain even one of these things, you cannot argue against the existence of God.
As a “conservative”, I find you and your show a breath of fresh air. I think you are right in your believes that there is a center forming in this country. Not that people Are letting go of their values or convictions, but that they are willing to sit down and have discussions with opposing views and be open to them. And find a common ground and use that common ground to make the country better for future generations. Great show
This was amazing! One of the best Face to face discussions I've seen. Thank you for the wondeful work you do Dave. Great to know they are in the end both: Evil-phobe... as I belive Sam Harris and JP are also.
Glad to see people of opposing views offering their views in a polite and respectful way. However I am left with the feeling that outside of God we look for answers to life's questions within our limited understanding of our very purpose of existence.
I almost prevented myself from listening to this great discussion because of the comments about Dennis “Interrupting”. Give yourself the opportunity to listen to two good thinkers express their views on many aspects of life.
Absolutely fanastic conversation. Loved every minute of it! Also, good job on moderating your moderating - I think that's rather important when the guests are in the zone :D
Michael Shermer did amazing in this discussion, Prager voice is nice to listen to his arguments are filled with logical fallacies . Having religious doubt is not the same as logical questioning your faith
Michael Sieger well your point could be taken in many ways cus during that time the people that escaped tyranny and came to America (puritans, Quakers or what have you) were VERY CHRISTIAN. after the The Protestant Reformation it happened in concerns to Papal Authority, the Roman Catholic Church etc, but oh wait the people that did were still Christians. Second point in the 20th century when Nieztche declared, “God is dead.” (He may be right, but that’s another point) totalitarian authorities arose!!!! Communism and bigger government happened: Hitler, Stalin, Pal Pot, Mao Cheng. They definitely excluded God for bigger government.
@@thecarlitosshow7687 Not all immigrants to America were Christian. There were also atheists who escaped persecution, like my ancestors. Beyond that, Nietzsche lived in the 19th century, and if you read his work, his statement that "god is dead" was intended as a warning that government would fill his shoes. Nietzsche warned the world of the Hitlers, Stalins and Maos that would come almost a century before it happened.
@@espinillasypuntosnegros1715 sure , I could see that as being true that atheists did run to not be persecuted. And the Nieztche part that you wrote about is what I said. He predicted what would happen when religious values declined so did morality and so on cus metaphysically there could be no grounding for morals of right and wrong if “God is dead.” Kierkegaard and Doestesvky saw what would happen a century after they died. Doestesvky on communism and utopia. And Kierkegaard on spirituality and behavioral impulses (Nieztche talked about this too) as far as I know .
I Loved What Dennis said happened to Him at Columbia! That In The Language Of God, Hebrew, came into his mind, To Know Wisdom Is To Fear God No God No Wisdom
Finally people that can get together and have a decent conversation on either side of the aisle and have a great conversation. I am Christian, but I respect anyone that is civil. Dennis is clearly more disagreeable, Shermer was patient and charitable. I liked the exchange. There's hope for humanity yet...
He's not making assumptions on every human 100% of the time. He's making generalizations about human nature based on human history which is overwhelmingly violent
"How do we know that your god is the correct one and his commandments are the ones we should follow" "We aren't talking about other gods we're talking about mine" DURR
@ But it does glorify what he did. It creates a metaphysical backbone that Jihadism isnt "murder" since its for the sake of spreading the "truth" of Islam. Many more examples of this such as Taqiya, aka the justification of Muslims to lie to unbelievers about their true intentions to institute Sharia, with full grace and dispensations from their Allah and hadiths.
@@danielabraham7550 Never claimed it was equal to proof god exists. Once you are on a theistic paradigm, however, it is a striking revelation in the realm of revelation. If you want proof for God's existence, please google "Ed Feser Aristotelian proof for the unmoved mover" That is a philosophical and logical method for knowing God's existence from acknowledging change.
@@danielabraham7550 I have read the vedas and I find the Kali Yuga impressive more than anything else. Im familiar with the Book of The Dead but haven't read it.
@@danielabraham7550 I agree wholeheartedly. It is imperative for the religious person to familiarize themselves with other faiths before they can claim to be thoughtful. Hence my disdain for the term "blind faith", as faith is something God would wish us to cultivate with the reason he's endowed us with.
Calling rational persons for such conversations who actually listens to what other person has to say and and take their comments at face value.... You've earned my subscription !!
If I believe morality, specifically Christian morality, can be concluded reasonably (which I do believe), then I have to believe a secularist can reach the same moral conclusions in an atmosphere absent of God. With that said, I don't believe a society can be moral without God. Individuals can try and come to good, biblical conclusions but society as a whole doesn't behave in such a manner. At least that's my perspective. What's yours?
The very basis of society requires morality. The idea of "society" has evolved with humans and has shaped our very DNA the same way language has evolved the human brain. Language itself is said to be a byproduct of an evolving human societies meant to foster communication. Thus societies that could communicate better survived more. Morality is the exact same. Societies that learnt to be good to other members of the group survived better. God is just a construct made to foster morality. Politics, countries and governments play a very similar role, it provides a context for which to foster respect of the group. Saying we couldn't be moral without God is very much like saying we wouldn't follow laws without a government. For the most part it is true but we create constructs to manage such things. God didn't make morality. We made god to manage morality just as we made governments to manage laws and society.
The authors of the Bible didn't have the Bible to depend on. They thought of the moral teachings they wrote on their own, just like the rest of us can. (Also they wrote a lot of ridiculous stuff in there, which we should not take seriously.)
Okay so what about places like China, Bhutan, India, etc. who do not follow biblical religions? Are they bad people? Or do you think moral conclusions written in the bible were founded by the people who wrote them and didn't exist before?
The religious dude's argument wasnt that a secular couldnt reach the same conclusions, but the fact that reaching those conclusions is just a possibility among many that is the problem. He chooses to adhere to the God of the 10th Commandments as he calls it. No fear of deviation there which is what inevitably happens with secular ideas. The wording has already been..... set in stone.
I don't think you should call these debates, I think Prager focused a lot on that structure became very idk insistent or well loud because he was constantly on the defensive. I think Michael treated it more like a conversation and was therefore more pleasant to listen to. Just a thought.
If you watching nothing other than the body language, I would still say that Shermer outperformed Prager. Shermer looks like he is actually open minded about Prager's points, but Prager often has his arms crossed or hands clasped in front of him as if he's formulating his next argument instead of listening to the opposing point in it's entirety.
Collin Lorenzo that's exactly what I was thinking! He has his arms crossed from the beginning. Shermer was expressive and he was smiling the whole time!
Aaron Molina I'm not an expert on this and I could be wrong... But I'm pretty sure that's now how it works. Arms crossed is an absolute giveaway of defense.
I understand your point however I don't feel like it is an accurate one, generally speaking. Prager is a large man, and that chair looks like a tighter fit for his body. Having his hands folded or clasped on his lap is something that I, as a larger man, do when in a tight space. He could open them up and rest on the armrests but then his belly would be much easier to see and sometimes that insecurity keeps you from doing so. However I completely agree when the actually wholly crosses his arms that it is a sign of being defensive. I just don't think that it is fair to say that the whole talk he was defensive for having his hands crossed and not sprawling out over the chair.
I would agree. I'm actually christian and I really really like Shermer. I read one of his books in my philosophy class "why people believe weird things" and it was really interesting. I think shermer is much more likable and open minded than an atheist like Sam Harris because Shermer is a historian of science (which completely overlaps history of religion) and simply knows more about the topics and has legitimate respect for christian history because he understands it more.
The guy that believes that everyone is religious. He a mess. Besides Dillahunty already smacked him. This guy totally and in depth destroys him: th-cam.com/video/AwXAB6cICG0h/w-d-xo.htmlttps://th-cam.com/video/VW2bxDOAx3Qh/w-d-xo.htmlttps://th-cam.com/video/UWuYSo-nL08h/w-d-xo.htmlttps://th-cam.com/video/ZMhP59FnXgw/w-d-xo.html
Religion and God are always a touchy subject but I must say I agreed more with Dennis. Michael had some good points. It's nice to listen to a healthy discussion brought together by three gentlemen I respect.
Awesome video Dave. Once again, i think you are at the forefront of people actually bringing together discussions between truly opposing viewpoints on interesting issues.
I thoroughly enjoyed this civil conversation. I admit I am bias towards Prager, but he clearly articulated his case/side better than Shermer. I think it's good that they can also agree on things even though they have a different worldview.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.". There you go, Steven Weinberg fixed it for you.
I'd really like to see someone Like Eric Weinstein discuss media bias with a prominent mainstream journalist. Eric would be great because he can articulate a lot of the concerns Alt-Right has but without sinking into half truths and fake news accusations.
"Our Constitution is for only a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams Can't believe Dennis didn't invoke that.
I sure hope programs like this are the future. I can't help wondering how different I would be if I could have heard conversations like this as a teenager. They just weren't there.
Dave, I know you don't want to interfere or show bias, but Jesus Christ, sometimes you gotta reel people in and get control of the situation. This discussion was dominated by Prager who took the reins and ran away with it.
How did Prager's circular paper-thin arguments not get called out? The god-of-the-gaps and genetic fallacies are suddenly erased just by saying "welp, God just comes from a magical metaphysical reality", you can question everything else's origin, but you're not allowed to question where God or his magicland came from. Islam's God is in fact also Abraham's God, so the "objective morality" that would blow you up for having dissent with their religion comes from the same God you worship. How come every Abrahamic cult has a different interpretation of God's morality if it is in fact "objective"? And the mother of all nonsense: "It's wrong to do wrong-murdering, that is when you do the wrong type of murder", that = objective morality = brilliant.
A Christian could make the same criticism against Prager's arguments. Not all Christians believe in objective morality, and nowhere did J.L.Bismarck Fuentes state he was an atheist.
>you can question everything else's origin, but you're not allowed to question where God or his magicland came from Because God is explainable and nobody is trying to say what God literally is, while on the atheist side the hope is that eventually we will be able to explain everything. That's why all the scientific arguments are deeply questioned, and God being metaphysical isn't questioned. You can't explain God and people accept that they're going to have to make a leap of faith in the metaphysical existence of God. On Islam having the same God as Christianity/Jews, it's one of those widespread untruths everybody just accepts. Mohammed was Hanif (Hanifs?) before he hypothetically became a Muslim. Back in those days when you conquered a tribe you'd tell them to worship your god so he'd become more powerful or whatever(not exactly how it worked but close enough). And lets not forget that Mohammed wasn't much more than a warlord. Another issue is that their main god was Allah. which is... guess what... the same god that they pray to now. So no, Islam doesn't worship "the same god". They got rid of all the other gods to be monotheistic, renamed their religion to Islam, and claimed Abrahamic ancestry for legitimacy.
I have a good friend who almost left the Christian faith like Michael. He sent me a book he wrote years ago delineating how he came back to the Catholic faith of his youth. Leaving the Catholic Church for 'true Christianity' in his teens, this friend is one of the most sincere Christians I have ever known, but his search left him with only two options; Atheism or the Church of Rome. He came back to the faith about 7 years ago. My personal search brought me to the same destination 30 years earlier after 3 years at a Bible college.
His strategy to win is talk over his opponent and rely on Dave Rubin NOT DOING JACK SHIT ABOUT IT. I could have sworn at some points Rubin interrupted Shermer, giving me the impression Rubin has a pro-Prager bias.
What do you expect from someone who adds " University " to their name in order to manufature credibility for what is obviously shit information? As legit as a Diploma from trump university...
It's frustrating that a lot of what Michael says, especially regarding the morality/definition/semantics of murder, goes straight over Dennis' head. I feel like if Dennis thought about even the most basic points Michael is saying about definitions etc, then he'd understand his wider arguments. Sadly, he doesn't get the basics and then just jumps to his own conclusions like "Well to me, the universe looks super complex and confusing, therefore intelligent design". Hurts to watch and not be able to respond!
I thought both men made some sound arguments. I find using the enlightenment as where do our morals come from doesn't work for me. the enlightenment was a European thing. Europeans who all had Judeo Christian influence.
this is so refreshing! I feel like we were slowly devolving into our own hugboxes as guests keep reoccurring and everyone pretty much sat there agreeing with each other. I really want to have more civil discussions from both sides like this more often. More of this, please Mr. Rubin sir!
@RevNoch, how's this bad or unscientific? Descartes poses doubt as the basis for knowledge. Scientists start from "I don't know" to get to "I know something about". An unscientific, unmethodical approach starts with "I know it's this way".
@@PhilChavanne It's an argument from ignorance, so because i can't comprehend how X could happen, therefore X couldn't have happened. This is a fallacy and not what you described.
He pretty much laid it out at 37 min: "I don't trust people to listen to their inner voice." That's the core of his fear of secular morality. He doesn't think it's enough for the masses to have the carrot of a good reason to act good, he believes at least some people need the stick of eternal damnation to act right. The rest of his arguments against secular morality seem like window dressing around that one fear.
@@nobey1kanobey It's not a convincing point to equate 'Communism' with secularism run amok. In fact communism actually practiced, was deeply religious. Just replace God with 'the State.' With all the trappings similar to a theocracy, it essentially _is_ theocracy.
I applaud Michael Shermer for keeping his coolness and composure in light of the condescending, aggressive, science-ignorant, "I have the whole world figured out" person sitting in front of him.
Prager was really great in this debate. He was clear, simple, effective, and logical which is not easy to do with theology or religion. I was surprised how Michael was mostly on the defensive about his world view, and couldn't elaborate his position well like Dennis Prager could do with his religion.
Prager is an uncouth, overbearing, loud voice that is science illiterate. He is the epitome of: "I don't understand the complex world around me, therefore god exists." Not only is he strident in his ignorance, but he repeatedly interrupts Shermer with useless analogy and anecdote. It was a good idea Dave, but difficult to watch.
Cliff, no Matt didn't. He paraphrased Prager, but Prager's repeated point was "I can't see how this complicated world arranged itself, so some god must have done it." YOU Google it "kid" and report back. Lazy thinking, Cliff.
Prager is a very intelligent and good person but his refusal to let go of these unfactual and naive dogmas make him appear voluntarily-downright idiotic.
Great talk! But I think it's pretty self evident that on a whole, people who are athiests have just as much opportunity to arriving at being upstandingly moral as anyone else does.
Watching how respectful these two are after watching the last debate with Candice and Blair is truly refreshing
Shermer's book 'Why people believe weird things' started me on the path to becoming a skeptic and truly changed my life. He is one of the best advocates for rational thinking.
He's great.
I am so sorry to hear that.
Loved the conversation, thank you Mr. Rubin for facilitating it skillfully. Sometimes, and though that I prefer Dennis Prager's beliefs and positions to Michael Shermer's, I would wish that the former would interrupt less often. In this respect, I think Michael Shermer was extremely gracious.
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
― Marcus Aurelius
This quote is 🔥. This is why we need secular humanism, so we can stop stoning homosexuals, throwing babies of parents who worship "false gods" against rocks, or putting disobedient children to death. Once I read those commandments in the Bible, I _knew_ I couldn't worship a deity who would a) command these things directly, or b) allow His followers to write them in His holy text. That's why I believe living by my own objective standards of morality is the best bet.
Thumbs up so I remember this comment
@@ConvictedFelon2024 - your standards aren't "objective", they are "subjective".
"Here's Dennis Prager to my right, Michael Shermer to my left" lol great start, very appropriate.
I am assuming Michael is a Leftist/Democrat/Liberal.
@@ricardozk he's not. He's a Libertarian
@@ricardozk nah, just an atheist. Not really a leftist at all, pretty libertarian as far as i can tellm
😂😂😂
Glad people were into this. Gonna try to do something like this once a month or so...
Maybe keep a clock. Prager hogged time a bit too much. Prager's talk radio background shone through. Maybe have fans submit questions before hand?
Two a month, if you can in the future. Also accept a Q/A every once in awhile for the debates.
Ben Shapiro & Milo Yiannopolous
Sam Harris & Daniel Dennett
At some point for this format I think it would be great to get CosmicSkeptic on. He is a very bright, young and clear thinking secularist who is respectful and very succinct in his arguments. I beleive he will be the modern day Hitchens, but is less aggressive so doesn't put people on the defensive and can propogate less hostile discussions which is what we need
Continuing to provide a forum for respectful, intelligent conversation like this would be your greatest online accomplishment. Keep up the great work.
As a religious person, I totally agree that Prager dominated the conversation way too much. I guess that's what happens when you work as a Radio Host -- you come to love hearing the sound of your own voice.
Overall, however, I thought both sides gave several interesting points. It's so refreshing to hear a conversation that doesn't devolve into personal attacks.
It did seem like he was in a defense-like mode but I can't blame him for voicing what he believes.
No, he's just too eager to persuade and over-confident. He wants to be a gentleman, but no one is perfect. Prager is a good man, and I love him for it. But, like me (trust me), he can frustrate people.
Don't get the Prager hate. There was mutual respect, honesty, each admitting the other could be wrong, a mixture of sound moral and scientific arguments, no scorched earth pontification or intentional straw man manipulation, charity even as they disagreed...and managed to find common ground ethically and politically. These are dangerous times, and if you can't respect a debate like that, how do we ever move past our differences?
Quint Bromley could be because a diploma from Praguer U. Is as legit as one from Trump University....
Timothy Wingates Islam branched off of Christianity. The reason we equate the two is because of their long history of devastation to humanity...not just their Abrahamic roots. For sure , Islam today is the worst of the two....but go back in history and you can see where Christians have outdone Islam as far as atrocities...if you need examples, I'll be more than happy to provide them....but since you carry yourself as intelligent, I will assume you know what I'm talking about....
Timothy Wingates “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”
Adolf Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936
Ever hear about the inquisition? Or how about southern Baptist Slave owners justifying slavery through exodus 21 in the bible? These are just a few examples....didn't even touch the present pedo epidemic in Christian churches.....need more proof ?
Prager is intellectually dishonest. He uses this to prop up a fake University to transform people into idiots.
Prager does not hate sir, you obviously don't know him
More of these kind of conversations please Dave. Great work.
Amazing conversation!! Shout out to everyone at the The Rubin Report for providing a platform for these wonderful mind expanding conversations and political arguments. You have been and continue to be an integral part of this new intellectual reawakening.
This was perfect. This type of discussion is great to watch and it's very informative. Prager seemed to be more pushy, but both men's arguments were both logical and respectful. We need more of this.
I think a lot of people are being pretty harsh to Prager here; I don't agree with him either (not saying that to appease the masses). Prager made some sound arguments and put forward a refreshing point of view, I don't like listening to people I agree with all the time. This was yet another excellent video Dave, thank you and your guests.
I think Prager made a good case that it's not obvious that atheism is the most logical position. I don't believe any religious revelation is perfect like religious do. However, the notion that you're being logical if you are near certain there is no God, and you're being irrational if you believe there is a good chance there is a God doesn't add up to me.
You are rational if you believe as many true things and as few wrong things as possible? What is true/false? Nobody truly knows, but it's rational to be lead by good evidence and healthy scepticism.
*I think a lot of people are being pretty harsh to Prager here*
I don't think one can be too harsh to Prager. He employs the same boorish behavior every time. His conversation with Sam Harris was deplorable, and the little bit I've heard here leads me to believe this is much the same.
" His conversation with Sam Harris was deplorable, and the little bit I've heard here leads me to believe this is much the same." lol Harris got his lunch eaten. How many times did Prager have to correct him on his fallacious biblical references. harris should stick to Islam criticism whereas at least he is more on point.
Bliss Monk sorry i just don’t find “a immaterial disembodied transcendent mind” to exist to be logical.
Michael Shermer seems like a nice, genuine fellow. An atheist who isn't a condescending jerk. However, he has an overly rosy view of human nature, which as history and religion can testify is completely unsupported. People embrace destructive lies all the time and are unbelievably self-deceptive.
Atheists might occasionally be condescending jerks, but it's because we're surrounded by a far greater number of condescending religious jerks who claim to all be certain of mutually incompatible ideas, while also telling us atheists that we're immoral and doomed to go to Hell if we don't see things their way.
You can only be told that you're destined for an eternity of suffering so many times before you start to get pissed off.
@@stevenjackson1747 You've now justified being an angry atheist. But why would you need to justify it? Atheists can be angry, and they can just point to their genes. It's only Christians who have to follow command not to be angry at insults, and to love your enemies.
As for hell, that's an unavoidable part of Christian doctrine. There's no need to be insulted if you don't believe in Hell. But if you do believe in Hell, it would be very cruel not to inform others about it.
Exactly!
@@michaelmiky11 Religious people are OK with atheist being in hell and getting torture for eternity, but they also get surprised when they see an angry atheist.
I am personally angry with religious people and those idiot lefty, because I'm tired of their stupidity.
@@michaelmiky11
I can give a Thousand reasons why people should be insulted by The Religious always running around and preaching that they’re living life in a bad way and are going to Hell as a result.
Michael Shermer is the ideal person to debate people like Deepak Chopra and Dennis Prager. His patience and civility are truly admirable.
Rubin is probably the most evenhanded and balanced host of any show I’ve ever seen.
Prager is right, Dave. You have a wonderful inquisitive mind & you are a great narrator. My experience leads me to believe, but, I am truly interested in others expressing their beliefs without demonizing them. You offer a safe platform for us to hear. Thank you
Moral debates are the most frustrating debates, people switch between pragmatic arguments to ontological to epistemological without distinction!
Where Shermer is right in my view is that logically speaking how do you prove God himself is good as a basis for objective moral goodness? You end up just labeling God as "the good" just like the Atheist just labels "human flourishing" or some abstract concept as the good, goodness is a value and values are subjective by nature, even for God. You could move the argument to say god could punish you for not doing his will and that's true but that is an argument not for ontological foundation for "goodness" but rather a reason you would want to do what he says, just like Shermer can point out reasons you should do good things for selfish reasons, but this is another argument altogether based on practicality.
Where Prager gets it right in my view is motivations, so long as the religious beliefs are good in nature, then I believe humans are more prone to follow the rules with a belief in god and an afterlife than someone simply following their conscience, that's fair, but we also see where that can go wrong with bad religious ideas as well.
because believing in a god makes the world a better place, not believing in god makes people behave like animals (which WE ARE NOT) there are many physical proofs of gods existence.
thats all nonsense. you are using argument by definition. and any question of "who else but god" simply begs the question of "who else but gods creator and his creators creator and so on". its no different that the "turtles all the way down argument". religious people have a double standard when it comes to the need for a creator. the universe to you needs a creator but god doesnt.
and there is no good or evil its all relative. in fact you can argue that mankinds existence is an evil destroyer of nature. good and evil are simply myths we get from movies and novels and fiction like the bible. superman is good and lex luther is evil. so why does superman spend so little time feeding starving kids? of course to us humans there is bad and good, but its all based around selfish and myopic viewpoints. as soon as you go into space there is no morality. good is what we call ourselves and evil our enemies and thats how its always been.
its objectively wrong within our own constructs. but thats a petty plea of moral superiority. that there are things so bad that if you dont say they are absolutley evil then you have the moral high ground on me. thats not a logical way to argue.
there is a worm in drinking water of some parts of africa that eats out the eyes of children who drink it and makes them blind. surely thats objectively wrong to you, right? if there is real good and evil and you say, then god is just as responsible for evil as good. its human psychology to make up stories about good and evil. thats where the myth of god and satan come from.
but you dont want to admit that either god is just as evil as good nor that he is not all powerful so you have tried to boil evil down to human action because thats what fits your mythology. but as i have just proven, evil as you would call it is in nature. disease, natural disaster, etc.
and dont act like you are trying to put forth a philosophical argument when you believe irrational myths like the divinity of jesus, resurrection etc. thats the new way of christian argument. dont talk about the absurd things you believe, just stick to the genalized philosophy because thats how you can convert atheists, right?
""My aim is not to achieve a moral high ground"
No, that's exactly what you were trying to do by saying this:
"I think if that is your answer then I would just ask you to spend more time considering your own belief because that is one of the darkest evils I can imagine"
Anyone with any sense knows it's wrong, and just because you think there is some absolute morality that transcends humans, doesn't mean I have any less contempt for it. However, the fact that there are even worse "evils" in nature show that god is not good or not all powerful. You won't address this because you want to believe both. So you want to blame everything both human and non human on humans or perhaps satan.
"If you want to talk about how absurd or not the events of the Bible are then you're asking for another debate."
Of course, That's what all you theists say. That's William Lane Craig's bread and butter. But if you believe that crap as you say, then you would not always try to make the philosophical argument. But you know your so called miracles have no evidence, because they are absurd myths just like Zeus and Poseidon and the great juju and santa claus. I understand why you have to stay away from such arguments, because your strongest (albeit still very weak) argument is the philosophical one. Once we delve into the woo woo of ancient mythology, you don't have a leg to stand on.
"Another statement that is consistent with my worldview is that good things happen to bad people, and bad things more often than not happen to everyone whether they're good or bad. As my dad likes to put it, "life is a series of tragic disappointments, then you die."
And death is no different. But we do have an internet connection and most likely a stable food source and clean water, so we have it better than 99.99% of all people who ever lived. Life is not as bleak as you make it out, at least for us. Life is life, nature is nature. Things happen. That's all there is. But we do have the capacity to make up myths and believe in woo woo if it makes us feel better. I am sure for most people it's a great comfort. I find comfort in knowing more than delusion, but honestly speaking, there is nothing wrong with harmless delusion. It's only when it starts to make people act in ways that are irrational that a problem occurs.
No, you may rescind it now, but you were using the same argument I have heard many times from theists: "if you don't believe that really bad things like child rape are not absolutely immoral, then theism has the moral highground. That's nonsense, because there are things even worse in nature. So do you consider the parasite that I mentioned before immoral? If so who is to blame? Humans? Or god? Or satan? If you say god is all powerful, then all natural disaster are his fault, many of which are far worse than any human can do.
The only reason you want to say that reason is your main motivation is because reason is the most bulletproof justification for anything. But reason is the antithesis of faith by definition. YOU are the one who wants it both ways. You want an all powerful and all good god, yet you think evil somehow exists. If it does, then either an all powerful god is at least part evil or not all powerful. Simple as that. And you want to have faith, which is belief without evidence, while trying to justify it with reason. I am sure you acknowledge the scientific method and what it has accomplished. Yet in the elite academy of sciences, over 98% of the scientists are atheist, because there is no evidence for any sort of christian mythological god. So reason is NOT on your side, no matter how much you want it to be.
And while you want to say Human are not good or are evil, you believe that god created man, so obviously god HAS created evil. That's the problem with religion, it's just a never ending clusterfuck of hypocrisy and contradiction.
And don't try to claim your belief is not out of comfort. I am sure you were raised christian in a christian family. What if you told them tomorrow that you were atheist? Would it be comfortable? It would not be easy for you to become an atheist. It wouldn't even be possible for you to denounce the christian god and just believe in some sort of philosophical god that you try to argue for. If it is easy, simply let go of the myths like the virgin birth (which is stolen from earlier mythology) resurrection, divinity of jesus, etc.
Again, you try and try to make it a philosophical argument, but we both know it's not just that. You need to hold on to actual biblical myths that are completely beside the point of the existence of god. So you can claim it's reason that is your motivation, but reason would tell you that a virgin birth or walking on water is impossible. You can believe these things all you want, but then you can't criticize belief in bigfoot or that elvis is still alive or even the tooth fairy without being a hypocrite. And you can't honestly say that reason is your motivation. That's all I ask, be honest.
Sorry comment section, I don't buy into all the negative feedback about this video. Ignoring the Prager hate, I found the argument interesting without letting emotion get involved.
His argument is terrible.
DARK DRAGONITE were not gonna argue about other people’s arguments on a TH-cam comment section..
Prager's only flaw is his belief in an invisible, unknowable, magic man in the clouds.
Good to have shermer on. Hes an absolute gem and one of the best minds ive listened to on many topics
I was an atheist but Dennis Prager completely dominated this conversation. I really found him convincing
M M Look up Hugh Ross, Ravi Zacharias, and William Lane Craig.
"the forces of nature are not random:
the emergent property of complexity comes from simplicity by the laws of nature themselves" Wonderful sentence, already worth watching this video. Just read a great book by Matt Ridley, The Evolution of Everything. Would love to see him on the show too!
Thank you for starting debates. This format will be a game changer not just for this channel but for discussion. Might even cut down people that always say you don't push back enough.
I thought the same thing - Rubin likes to give a format for people to speak their minds so he rarely pushes back. This is a good format for having the push back since he gets someone else to do it. It's great.
Great discussion. Have Milo and Ben Shapiro debate next.
Not only will Ben destroy Milo but I dont think this will ever happen because Ben can't take Milo serious.
Whats is the Ben/Milo drama even about? One was in favour of Trump the othr isn't? Seems a bit redundant now.
Milo would not be able to have this kind of friendly discussion.
Milo is an oil man!
Milo is a bit like Prager - all bluster and show with no intellectual substance.
If you want to irritate the liberal snowflakes, Milo and Prager are great, but if pissing people off is the only objective, is that really worth watching?
I have better things to do with my life than to listen to idiots reciting political talking points.
I truly enjoyed this. It's so rare to both see and hear such a great conversation between two well educated and thoughtful people. both I felt made fantastic points at times and while I was not swayed one way or the other I feel I have a better grasp on my own beliefs from expierencing it. thank you for the great show.
I love Dennis Prager and his vast amounts of knowledge and wisdom. I also love Dave. he is one of a kind interviewer. I learn a ton from this man with every episode. Thank you Dave! God Bless.
Thanks Dave for another great contribution to all in our society. Perhaps a bridge between the two ideologies lies in the unification of two words that connect both concepts. Enlightenment for the secularist and Spirituality for the religious. This is the space that Sam Harris (atheist author) and Michael Laitman (Kabbalist author) occupy. Both seek change through a recognition of cause and effect, or causes and consequences. Both Prager and Shermer also agree that "the "fruits" of mankind are what we seek to improve. That is enlightenment or spirituality depending on which side of the argument you fall. They are both worthy of deeper consideration.
I don't see Atheists owning the effects of their cause: 1.5 billion human lives taken in just forty years directly as a result of their Atheist faith. That's more human lives taken in the last six thousand years in all the wars of all human history combined, times TWO! Atheism is a sanitized blood bath and makes religious suffering and persecution look like a happy Sunday picnic by comparison. Exactly what Atheists are owning that fact? None!? How very interesting that Atheists can point out the failures of religion and say, "shame on you" but I haven't seen any Atheists saying, "but our faith is way, way, way worse". Ya, I find that extremely interesting. Far from being flawless, Atheism is the singularly most sick, most bloody, most harmful to humanity, faith that the world and history have ever known. Where is the apology? Where is the admission of failure? Where is the ownership of their own cruelty and evil? They seem willing enough to throw religious mistakes, evil, and misdeeds in the face of Christians. The Crusades, the Protestant-Catholic wars, for example. So, where is their ownership of their failure, failure I might add that makes such religious bad deeds look like a joke by comparison? I don't see any.
What I do see is a bunch of Atheist failures who look at their failure and instead of owning it, they define what evil is done in their name as, "not evil". Well then, go ahead and keep up the slaughter. I guess evil isn't evil if you lie and simply define it away. How nice. No, how sick and perverted and their lies grow ever thinner. The fruit of Atheism is the single most shameful failure of all human history. How odd it must be to embrace the failings of others so willingly yet hold yourself so willfully blind to your own. How many brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins, aunts, ideas, and whole entire life contributions have been ripped out of the world at the hands of Atheism? 1.5 billion and more. Where is the ownership of that fact from Atheists? Nowhere. That's where.
Those are the scientific facts but it's not a fact you'll hear from any Atheist. They will never admit that the facts make religion look so obviously sane by comparison that they have based their entire faith on insanity. They can't because, to do so is to admit that the better way is not their own, it was God's way and they can't face the fact that they were wrong, so very horrifically, disgustingly, wrong AND their faith has contributed more towards human suffering than anything else ever by such a wide margin that nothing else even comes close. Nope, it was faith and God that caused more because we have defined ours away. How nice that must be for Atheists.
@@meishakester6502 What? How are you making this crap up? Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god, please show where atheism was the reason for 1.5 billion deaths otherwise you speak utter nonsense
@@chadingram6390, I'm sorry if you missed history class but before Christianity, life was sold cheap. Incan, Mayan, Rome's slaves, and on, and on. I could go on but I won't. The facts speak for themselves. Christianity built up the value of life, all human life. Love your neighbor as yourself. Love your enemy. Atheism is just another pagan religion or, in practice, it functions the same way. Humanity isn't advancing, it's evolving. Why? Atheism, plain and simple. Without a damn good reason to value life, it has once again become easy to dispose of it.
Furthermore, you, my friend are a liar who refuses to take responsibility for this modern world you made. More death is on your hands than any corrupt Christian religion that ever existed. People didn't respect life, they upped their game of death. The world hasn't advanced because of the lies of Atheism and Evolution, it has fallen, badly.
You want to stare into all the clear evidence and facts and say, "but, but, not Arheism's fault" lying all the way, you go right ahead buddy. But this world and its fall are on the heads of every Atheist who has been alive since the 1950s. It damn well is Atheisms fault and you know it. You taught 100 IQ people that there is no God and what they did with that is born out in the utter insanity we see returning to the world. Without objective, concrete, inviolable truth, i.e., God, welcome to the desert of the insane. You, Sir, are insane if you can't own the blame for the insanity your anti-religion-religion has caused. You made each individual person the sole arbiter of right and wrong and we see that in the BLM religion, Antifa, and all this other nonsense and insanity. What did you think morons were going to do, smartass? You personally might be able to craft a moral frame-work capable of keeping you from worshiping black people but these idiots have no such intellectual capacity. They aren't bad people, they are simply incapable of doing for themselves what God has done for EVERYONE! Construct a healthy, sane, forward-moving, moral frame-work. So, they want purpose just like everyone else but, they can't create one on their own. And just like good sheep, it's off to slaughter their unborn children to fit into prom dresses and worship black people. Thank you so much, Atheism for screwing up worse than any Christian religion ever could in the next twenty thousand years. Atheism managed to be the most bloody, insane, devolved religion ever made, faster and worse than even the Roman gods or the Mayans and their human sacrifices. You set out to prove that humanity had evolved beyond God and all you've done is proven that, without God, humanity is dead-bolt insane. So crazy, in fact, that they corrupted and are set to tear down the freest Nation ever built because you wanted to make yourselves into God, take lives for selfish reasons, be gay, whatever. Fan-freakin-tastic. Atheism is now the most bloody, death-cult which ever existed by such a wide margin that no Christian religion or Buddhist or Islamist, or Jewish religion by its self OR combined together all at once with their entire history, will never catch up. Atheism is the Ultimate, never to be surpassed by anyone, ever, death and insanity, cult. And you know it. How nice it must be for you to have the facts and science you so worship blow up in your stupid arrogant faces. Facts are facts and they don't care about your feelings, you liar. Look around you, you insanely epic loser. You are wrong. God is real or if he isn't He found an infinitely better way for people to live than Atheism ever will. Christianity is filled with flawed people trying to live God's way and failing. Atheism is failures trying to fail as badly as humanly possible. Buddy, you have succeeded. You are a member of the greatest disaster of a religion which ever existed or ever will exist, the religion of self, Atheism. Because humans know best, right? Fella, you couldn't have f'ed up worse if you had told the world that the best way to live is by having everyone jump off a cliff to their deaths because your cult has butchered many, many, many millions more lives by hanging around and killing more and more humans.
@@meishakester6502 Ok nobody is going to read that wall of text, apparently i didn't realize you are a batshit crazy lunatic.
I respect Prager a little more with each debate I see him in. The guy just makes sense and I've found myself drawing many of the same conclusions concerning Europe.
14:24 Prager has an interesting way of wording this "against your desire"...I don't believe he has a desire that there isn't a God. He just hasn't found a reason to believe that there is. That's like asking someone if they believe in aliens and there answer is no. But then you ask "would you believe if I showed you proof?" Most people's answer would be something along the lines of "I would have to see what you mean by proof, but yes I possibly would believe"...then if you turn that around and say "well doesn't that go against your DESIRE?" ??? It's not the person's DESIRE that there aren't aliens, it's simply an observation that they haven't found a reason or meaning to believe in aliens. Same with a God in this case.
Jean-Claude Van Damme make a new blood sport movie please
you'll never understand the statement if you think that god and alien is comparable.
Michael Shermer is arguing by his ability to think and speak which is a gift from God. God also gave us all a conscience which tells us what is right and wrong. The more you ignore your conscience the easier it is to do wrong. Evolution can't explain how life started, where thinking comes from, how language works. Until you can explain even one of these things, you cannot argue against the existence of God.
Truth!
As a “conservative”, I find you and your show a breath of fresh air. I think you are right in your believes that there is a center forming in this country. Not that people Are letting go of their values or convictions, but that they are willing to sit down and have discussions with opposing views and be open to them. And find a common ground and use that common ground to make the country better for future generations. Great show
This was amazing! One of the best Face to face discussions I've seen. Thank you for the wondeful work you do Dave. Great to know they are in the end both: Evil-phobe... as I belive Sam Harris and JP are also.
I hope you do more like this, Dave! I really liked this discussion. Prager was kind of over bearing, however.
Cenk vs Crowder for Rubinamania.
only without Cenk
Glad to see people of opposing views offering their views in a polite and respectful way. However I am left with the feeling that outside of God we look for answers to life's questions within our limited understanding of our very purpose of existence.
I almost prevented myself from listening to this great discussion because of the comments about Dennis “Interrupting”. Give yourself the opportunity to listen to two good thinkers express their views on many aspects of life.
I met them both today through this conversation, and man, I already admire these two!...and you Dave! :)
Absolutely fanastic conversation. Loved every minute of it! Also, good job on moderating your moderating - I think that's rather important when the guests are in the zone :D
Fantastic coversation. Great stuff
Frankly the one who stays calm is the one who wins the debate.
Michael Shermer did amazing in this discussion, Prager voice is nice to listen to his arguments are filled with logical fallacies . Having religious doubt is not the same as logical questioning your faith
Michael S demonstrates great patience here against narrow minded arguments 😊 The most peaceful countries in the world are the most non religious.
You can only say that because Islam exists, Islam is the outlier of religions
Also hitler and Stalin where both atheists
Dave, this was great, and I know you’ve been busy, but you should do more of these. I’m watching this a year later and I love it.
"Government rises in the West as God diminishes in the West"...wow! That was brilliant!
Exactly, that’s why when secularism arose in the 18th and 19th century, so did Kings and Queens and the totalitarian Church..... oh wait.
Michael Sieger well your point could be taken in many ways cus during that time the people that escaped tyranny and came to America (puritans, Quakers or what have you) were VERY CHRISTIAN. after the The Protestant Reformation it happened in concerns to Papal Authority, the Roman Catholic Church etc, but oh wait the people that did were still Christians. Second point in the 20th century when Nieztche declared, “God is dead.” (He may be right, but that’s another point) totalitarian authorities arose!!!! Communism and bigger government happened: Hitler, Stalin, Pal Pot, Mao Cheng. They definitely excluded God for bigger government.
And yet, only the truly enlightened will realize that god and government are the same. And both are bad.
@@thecarlitosshow7687 Not all immigrants to America were Christian. There were also atheists who escaped persecution, like my ancestors. Beyond that, Nietzsche lived in the 19th century, and if you read his work, his statement that "god is dead" was intended as a warning that government would fill his shoes. Nietzsche warned the world of the Hitlers, Stalins and Maos that would come almost a century before it happened.
@@espinillasypuntosnegros1715 sure , I could see that as being true that atheists did run to not be persecuted. And the Nieztche part that you wrote about is what I said. He predicted what would happen when religious values declined so did morality and so on cus metaphysically there could be no grounding for morals of right and wrong if “God is dead.” Kierkegaard and Doestesvky saw what would happen a century after they died. Doestesvky on communism and utopia. And Kierkegaard on spirituality and behavioral impulses (Nieztche talked about this too) as far as I know .
I Loved What Dennis said happened to Him at Columbia! That In The Language Of God, Hebrew, came into his mind, To Know Wisdom Is To Fear God
No God
No Wisdom
Finally people that can get together and have a decent conversation on either side of the aisle and have a great conversation. I am Christian, but I respect anyone that is civil. Dennis is clearly more disagreeable, Shermer was patient and charitable. I liked the exchange. There's hope for humanity yet...
The patience of Shermer.. Prager is hogging the conversation and Rubin a weak “moderator” here in letting Prager interrupt most of the time.
i love how dennis acts like he knows %100 how every human would act in any givin situation
No one knows 100% of anything!
He makes assumptions based on historical evidence... not a terrible way to do it.
He's not making assumptions on every human 100% of the time. He's making generalizations about human nature based on human history which is overwhelmingly violent
"How do we know that your god is the correct one and his commandments are the ones we should follow"
"We aren't talking about other gods we're talking about mine"
DURR
Except others are false god's. But first and foremost define God.
@ But it does glorify what he did. It creates a metaphysical backbone that Jihadism isnt "murder" since its for the sake of spreading the "truth" of Islam. Many more examples of this such as Taqiya, aka the justification of Muslims to lie to unbelievers about their true intentions to institute Sharia, with full grace and dispensations from their Allah and hadiths.
@@danielabraham7550 Never claimed it was equal to proof god exists. Once you are on a theistic paradigm, however, it is a striking revelation in the realm of revelation. If you want proof for God's existence, please google "Ed Feser Aristotelian proof for the unmoved mover" That is a philosophical and logical method for knowing God's existence from acknowledging change.
@@danielabraham7550 I have read the vedas and I find the Kali Yuga impressive more than anything else. Im familiar with the Book of The Dead but haven't read it.
@@danielabraham7550 I agree wholeheartedly. It is imperative for the religious person to familiarize themselves with other faiths before they can claim to be thoughtful. Hence my disdain for the term "blind faith", as faith is something God would wish us to cultivate with the reason he's endowed us with.
This is the reason I love your show. I can hear alternate opinions without being called a racist bigot 45 times and an idiot 57 times
Calling rational persons for such conversations who actually listens to what other person has to say and and take their comments at face value.... You've earned my subscription !!
If I believe morality, specifically Christian morality, can be concluded reasonably (which I do believe), then I have to believe a secularist can reach the same moral conclusions in an atmosphere absent of God. With that said, I don't believe a society can be moral without God. Individuals can try and come to good, biblical conclusions but society as a whole doesn't behave in such a manner. At least that's my perspective. What's yours?
The very basis of society requires morality. The idea of "society" has evolved with humans and has shaped our very DNA the same way language has evolved the human brain. Language itself is said to be a byproduct of an evolving human societies meant to foster communication. Thus societies that could communicate better survived more. Morality is the exact same. Societies that learnt to be good to other members of the group survived better. God is just a construct made to foster morality. Politics, countries and governments play a very similar role, it provides a context for which to foster respect of the group. Saying we couldn't be moral without God is very much like saying we wouldn't follow laws without a government. For the most part it is true but we create constructs to manage such things. God didn't make morality. We made god to manage morality just as we made governments to manage laws and society.
Carlos Rodriguez we have progressed so far beyond the bibical morality, and its been formed by societal reasoning.
The authors of the Bible didn't have the Bible to depend on. They thought of the moral teachings they wrote on their own, just like the rest of us can. (Also they wrote a lot of ridiculous stuff in there, which we should not take seriously.)
Okay so what about places like China, Bhutan, India, etc. who do not follow biblical religions? Are they bad people? Or do you think moral conclusions written in the bible were founded by the people who wrote them and didn't exist before?
The religious dude's argument wasnt that a secular couldnt reach the same conclusions, but the fact that reaching those conclusions is just a possibility among many that is the problem.
He chooses to adhere to the God of the 10th Commandments as he calls it. No fear of deviation there which is what inevitably happens with secular ideas. The wording has already been..... set in stone.
I don't think you should call these debates, I think Prager focused a lot on that structure became very idk insistent or well loud because he was constantly on the defensive. I think Michael treated it more like a conversation and was therefore more pleasant to listen to.
Just a thought.
If you watching nothing other than the body language, I would still say that Shermer outperformed Prager. Shermer looks like he is actually open minded about Prager's points, but Prager often has his arms crossed or hands clasped in front of him as if he's formulating his next argument instead of listening to the opposing point in it's entirety.
Collin Lorenzo that's exactly what I was thinking! He has his arms crossed from the beginning.
Shermer was expressive and he was smiling the whole time!
I didn't see that. If we're talking about body language, I see that Shermer is afraid to get closer and is huddled away as if defensive.
Aaron Molina I'm not an expert on this and I could be wrong... But I'm pretty sure that's now how it works. Arms crossed is an absolute giveaway of defense.
I understand your point however I don't feel like it is an accurate one, generally speaking. Prager is a large man, and that chair looks like a tighter fit for his body. Having his hands folded or clasped on his lap is something that I, as a larger man, do when in a tight space. He could open them up and rest on the armrests but then his belly would be much easier to see and sometimes that insecurity keeps you from doing so. However I completely agree when the actually wholly crosses his arms that it is a sign of being defensive. I just don't think that it is fair to say that the whole talk he was defensive for having his hands crossed and not sprawling out over the chair.
I would agree. I'm actually christian and I really really like Shermer. I read one of his books in my philosophy class "why people believe weird things" and it was really interesting. I think shermer is much more likable and open minded than an atheist like Sam Harris because Shermer is a historian of science (which completely overlaps history of religion) and simply knows more about the topics and has legitimate respect for christian history because he understands it more.
Dennis Prager is the G.O.A.T
Wait you actually think he in any way put up a good effort? Shermer
absolutely obliterated him 🤣
Dave this discussion is so refreshing but more importantly necessary in today's dirth of self reflection and respectful discourse.
I don't know what is more frustrating; Prager's mistakes or Shermer's inability to refute them in a clear and confident way...
I was thinking the same thing. Prager can be pretty smug with his bold assertions
Dennis Prager vs Matt Dillahunty!
Dillahunty would crush him. No contest.
Easy work for Matt, but the moderator would need to control pragers talking over people.
I like Jordan Peterson's theism best.
The guy that believes that everyone is religious. He a mess. Besides Dillahunty already smacked him.
This guy totally and in depth destroys him:
th-cam.com/video/AwXAB6cICG0h/w-d-xo.htmlttps://th-cam.com/video/VW2bxDOAx3Qh/w-d-xo.htmlttps://th-cam.com/video/UWuYSo-nL08h/w-d-xo.htmlttps://th-cam.com/video/ZMhP59FnXgw/w-d-xo.html
@Cleo Fierro prager is a fucking clown lmfaaaao. Matt would expose him 5 minute tops. th-cam.com/video/EM7BgrddY18/w-d-xo.html
This was easily your best video, in my opinion. Thank you.
Religion and God are always a touchy subject but I must say I agreed more with Dennis. Michael had some good points. It's nice to listen to a healthy discussion brought together by three gentlemen I respect.
Awesome video Dave. Once again, i think you are at the forefront of people actually bringing together discussions between truly opposing viewpoints on interesting issues.
Shermer quoted Santa in his final thought. "Be good for goodness sake." :D
These two men with opposing views were respectful to each other.
I thoroughly enjoyed this civil conversation. I admit I am bias towards Prager, but he clearly articulated his case/side better than Shermer. I think it's good that they can also agree on things even though they have a different worldview.
This discussion was great. Good people will do good things - bad people will do bad things - in spite of their religious beliefs or the lack thereof.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.". There you go, Steven Weinberg fixed it for you.
Shermer comes across as much more open-minded and humble
I'd really like to see someone Like Eric Weinstein discuss media bias with a prominent mainstream journalist. Eric would be great because he can articulate a lot of the concerns Alt-Right has but without sinking into half truths and fake news accusations.
"Our Constitution is for only a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
Can't believe Dennis didn't invoke that.
Prager is not rude, he is exuberant.
I sure hope programs like this are the future. I can't help wondering how different I would be if I could have heard conversations like this as a teenager. They just weren't there.
Prager is the greatest. God bless that man.
Dennis Prager cares about his feelings more than facts.
Dave, I know you don't want to interfere or show bias, but Jesus Christ, sometimes you gotta reel people in and get control of the situation. This discussion was dominated by Prager who took the reins and ran away with it.
Akindele Bankole I’m curious, why do you find Mr Prager to be disingenuous?
How did Prager's circular paper-thin arguments not get called out?
The god-of-the-gaps and genetic fallacies are suddenly erased just by saying "welp, God just comes from a magical metaphysical reality", you can question everything else's origin, but you're not allowed to question where God or his magicland came from.
Islam's God is in fact also Abraham's God, so the "objective morality" that would blow you up for having dissent with their religion comes from the same God you worship.
How come every Abrahamic cult has a different interpretation of God's morality if it is in fact "objective"?
And the mother of all nonsense:
"It's wrong to do wrong-murdering, that is when you do the wrong type of murder",
that = objective morality = brilliant.
A Christian could make the same criticism against Prager's arguments. Not all Christians believe in objective morality, and nowhere did J.L.Bismarck Fuentes state he was an atheist.
>you can question everything else's origin, but you're not allowed to question where God or his magicland came from
Because God is explainable and nobody is trying to say what God literally is, while on the atheist side the hope is that eventually we will be able to explain everything. That's why all the scientific arguments are deeply questioned, and God being metaphysical isn't questioned. You can't explain God and people accept that they're going to have to make a leap of faith in the metaphysical existence of God.
On Islam having the same God as Christianity/Jews, it's one of those widespread untruths everybody just accepts. Mohammed was Hanif (Hanifs?) before he hypothetically became a Muslim. Back in those days when you conquered a tribe you'd tell them to worship your god so he'd become more powerful or whatever(not exactly how it worked but close enough). And lets not forget that Mohammed wasn't much more than a warlord. Another issue is that their main god was Allah. which is... guess what... the same god that they pray to now. So no, Islam doesn't worship "the same god". They got rid of all the other gods to be monotheistic, renamed their religion to Islam, and claimed Abrahamic ancestry for legitimacy.
Is "God of the gaps" still a thing? LOL,
@Bluemonsoon Blue, you are in dire need of some critical thinking training.
Dennis Prager brings out the good in Shermer. I have never seen Shermer act so rationally.
I have a good friend who almost left the Christian faith like Michael. He sent me a book he wrote years ago delineating how he came back to the Catholic faith of his youth. Leaving the Catholic Church for 'true Christianity' in his teens, this friend is one of the most sincere Christians I have ever known, but his search left him with only two options; Atheism or the Church of Rome. He came back to the faith about 7 years ago. My personal search brought me to the same destination 30 years earlier after 3 years at a Bible college.
Wow. I didn't realize Prager's arguments were so weak.
His strategy to win is talk over his opponent and rely on Dave Rubin NOT DOING JACK SHIT ABOUT IT. I could have sworn at some points Rubin interrupted Shermer, giving me the impression Rubin has a pro-Prager bias.
What do you expect from someone who adds " University " to their name in order to manufature credibility for what is obviously shit information? As legit as a
Diploma from trump university...
KommissarReb Rubin is an atheist though, so it wouldn’t make sense for him to have a bias towards a theists. At least when it comes to this topic.
I have a huge respect for Dennis Prager and his insights. He's amazing.
Like which arguments?
It's frustrating that a lot of what Michael says, especially regarding the morality/definition/semantics of murder, goes straight over Dennis' head. I feel like if Dennis thought about even the most basic points Michael is saying about definitions etc, then he'd understand his wider arguments.
Sadly, he doesn't get the basics and then just jumps to his own conclusions like "Well to me, the universe looks super complex and confusing, therefore intelligent design". Hurts to watch and not be able to respond!
Totally agree. Appreciate Prager's willingness to have this talk but he just comes across as a total simpleton.
+Bluemonsoon
1/10
Like all atheists Shermer is engaging in a fallacy of equivocation on the word "God". I'm not surprised since all atheists do this all the time...
Prager loves to hear himself talk.
Heaven is the endless and joyful glorification and praise of God , to which the soul receives joy unspeakable and unknowable in return.
If Denis made the best arguments for his side then we have won. Its time to elevate the discourse.
Praise the one true Coca Cola! Hallowed be thy bubbles!
I thought both men made some sound arguments. I find using the enlightenment as where do our morals come from doesn't work for me. the enlightenment was a European thing. Europeans who all had Judeo Christian influence.
Prager "I'm scientifically illiterate, god makes more sense to me".
This was an extremely pleasant conversation, possible the best between a Christian and and atheist.
this is so refreshing! I feel like we were slowly devolving into our own hugboxes as guests keep reoccurring and everyone pretty much sat there agreeing with each other. I really want to have more civil discussions from both sides like this more often.
More of this, please Mr. Rubin sir!
Prager keeps using arguments from ignorance. "I can't imagine "X", therefore "X".
Atheists say that too, "I can't imagine there's a God, therefore there isn't."
Oh, we can imagine it. We just don't see the evidence we would imagine seeing if a god did exist.
@RevNoch, how's this bad or unscientific? Descartes poses doubt as the basis for knowledge. Scientists start from "I don't know" to get to "I know something about". An unscientific, unmethodical approach starts with "I know it's this way".
@@PhilChavanne It's an argument from ignorance, so because i can't comprehend how X could happen, therefore X couldn't have happened. This is a fallacy and not what you described.
@@chadingram6390 Sorry, your answer makes no sense to me. Nothing personal, I just don't understand what you are trying to say.
He pretty much laid it out at 37 min: "I don't trust people to listen to their inner voice."
That's the core of his fear of secular morality. He doesn't think it's enough for the masses to have the carrot of a good reason to act good, he believes at least some people need the stick of eternal damnation to act right. The rest of his arguments against secular morality seem like window dressing around that one fear.
MungeParty The secular's inner voice is the same as the theists God.
@@nobey1kanobey It's not a convincing point to equate 'Communism' with secularism run amok. In fact communism actually practiced, was deeply religious. Just replace God with 'the State.' With all the trappings similar to a theocracy, it essentially _is_ theocracy.
It’s “If my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a wagon”
I applaud Michael Shermer for keeping his coolness and composure in light of the condescending, aggressive, science-ignorant, "I have the whole world figured out" person sitting in front of him.
Prager was really great in this debate. He was clear, simple, effective, and logical which is not easy to do with theology or religion. I was surprised how Michael was mostly on the defensive about his world view, and couldn't elaborate his position well like Dennis Prager could do with his religion.
Nothing can't be something yet god exists outside of the physical. What cognitive dissonance.
Great point.
If only Prager put is much though into his voice as he does volume
Prager is an uncouth, overbearing, loud voice that is science illiterate. He is the epitome of: "I don't understand the complex world around me, therefore god exists." Not only is he strident in his ignorance, but he repeatedly interrupts Shermer with useless analogy and anecdote. It was a good idea Dave, but difficult to watch.
Matt Davis Hear Bloody Hear, you just put it into words for me, thats what I hear from him over and over!
You two realized, don't you, that Mr. Shermer would not agree with you?
Cliff, no Matt didn't. He paraphrased Prager, but Prager's repeated point was "I can't see how this complicated world arranged itself, so some god must have done it." YOU Google it "kid" and report back. Lazy thinking, Cliff.
Matt Davis really... Did you miss that you are an iddiot?
If you think he is so ignorant call him up on his radio show and try to debate him
As a religious person, I've never liked Michael Shermer more. He was very respectful, reasonable, and made a few very good points.
This was one of the best episodes of any show I've seen in a long time. Great work by all three participants.
Dennis Prager's whole argument is personal incredulity. Such a shallow worldview.
Prager is a very intelligent and good person but his refusal to let go of these unfactual and naive dogmas make him appear voluntarily-downright idiotic.
Cross Dev
That is precisely my position about Shermer...
I'm a believer and a big Prager fan but I feel Shermer was more convincing here. Prager was being a little too rigid and obtuse.
Great talk! But I think it's pretty self evident that on a whole, people who are athiests have just as much opportunity to arriving at being upstandingly moral as anyone else does.
I Agree with Dennis, The multiple universes concept is a cop out.
And the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem shows that any expanding universe on average cannot exists indefinitely in the past.