Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Looking forward to this debate coming up. It's gonna be epic.

It'll be interesting, what date is it on?

I feel like Sam is probably the more intelligent of the two, but Ben is a far better debater.

I can't find the date. All I know is that Ben claims he is due to appear on one of Sam's upcoming podcast. And I agree on your assessment: Sam probably has the edge in intelligence, but Ben is a master of reductio ad absurdum and seems able to do it on the spot to any argument he is given. Should be interesting.

What are they going to be debating?

I love Sam Harris' podcast, so I'll keep an eye out for Ben Shapiro's appearance. I'm not entirely caught up to the present time on his podcasts, though.

DMB is gonna love it

Will there be chemotherapy treatment on site?

Ben Shapiro is a scrub

what will they be debating?

This is going to happen? Gonna look forward to it. I doubt it'll work well. Ben says like 80 words for each 10 of Sam's.

Originally posted by SamZED
This is going to happen? Gonna look forward to it. I doubt it'll work well. Ben says like 80 words for each 10 of Sam's.

Quality > Quantity

Originally posted by Firefly218
Ben Shapiro is a scrub

*reported for being an anti Semite*

Sounds like a good match up. Way more even than Ben vs cenk.. or for that matter Sam Harris vs cenk.

Originally posted by Dark-Kenshin
Looking forward to this debate coming up. It's gonna be epic.

From the lobby, I read this as "Ben Shapiro murders Sam Harris", and clicked to protest.

All the bad news lately must be getting to me.

Is this it? I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but I'll probably Podcast it at some point...

yTWCl32j8jM

I think Ben does better when discussing politics in their talk and Sam does better on religion. Which of course makes sense consider who they both are. It's hard to win a debate in religion against Sam.

Sam is on a much higher level than Ben intellectually (whether it be due to ability or just a deeper mindset), though I'm not sure who is the better debater.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Ben Shapiro is a scrub No, he isn't.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Sam is on a much higher level than Ben intellectually (whether it be due to ability or just a deeper mindset), though I'm not sure who is the better debater.

Sam is also brilliant in debates because he is so good at keeping his cool and dismantling arguments with reason instead of being louder or more obnoxious or whatever. His method of persuasion is based on pure, calm reason. No misleading tricks. So in my opinion he is also a superior debater. He also can occasionally strike some good dry humor in revealing truth which makes him even more appealing in a debate.

That being said, I still haven't listened to this yet. But I plan to.

But then Sam really doesn't go into the Lion's Den as much as Ben does. But this is all moot.

Who ever you agree with more is who will win in the eye of the viewer.

Both are shifty Jews, this is a setup.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Is this it? I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but I'll probably Podcast it at some point...

yTWCl32j8jM

I'm in the process of listening to this live event Podcast with Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro and Eric Weinstein. It's a fun listen, I have to admit.

I didn't know much about Ben Shapiro before this and I have to admit that he's charismatic and has an infectious laugh, haha. But he's obviously very confused on religion, being an orthodox Jew. He even admits that he believes that God revealed himself. But I will give him credit in that he tries to keep that nonsense out of his politics. So he at least gets some respect from me.


I love how Sam Harris dismantled the often used is/ought distinction in one fell swoop (starting at 44:25 on the video). So I'll paraphrase his dismantling. So the claim is that science can only tell you what is, and not the way things ought to be, so morality for example. But what else is there to use to determine what should be other than knowing as much as you can about the way the real world and reality in general is?


And I'll add on to that my own elaboration: Take a child. You tell children not to hit someone or take someone else's toys. They may not understand why yet. So that's why children need an adult to tell them what's right. This is sort of authoritarian morality, like what people think of the Bible. God is needed to be that authority laying down morals. But as that child grows up they learn that you don't hit people because they have feelings too, and you consequently don't kill people, not because "God Said So," but because they have loved ones who will miss them. The Bible and Koran lay down morals in sort of an authoritarian way and people don't question it, but as humanity in general grows up the why becomes important. So abortion for example: If a zygote is just a collection of cells without a nervous system yet, then there is obviously no harm in aborting it because no suffering will occur. Science gives us that information, so it obviously can have a hand in moral matters. Holy books with their primitive morals like obeying the Sabbath or something silly like that don't really have any logical basis in reality. So it's telling an ought without an is and that's just nonsensical.

But yeah, anyway it's a good listen. I'm not quite done with it yet, though.

*at 44:25"

Damn. How long does this "Debate" go on for?

Over 2 FIKA-ING HOURS!!!!! Ugh.....

Shapiro's arguments about religion being needed for morality are just hilariously bad, even if the rest of his case is pretty well thought out (if not something I'd agree with).

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Shapiro's arguments about religion being needed for morality are just hilariously bad, even if the rest of his case is pretty well thought out (if not something I'd agree with).

The thing with religion, is if you're rationalizing, everyone knows you re rationalizing.

Frankly, I don't believe a moral code is exclusive to religion, but I do think it helps with enforcing a moral code.

Religion or no, I believe a moral code is superior to moral relavism, because you can rationalize ANYTHING (As many people do.)

Right and wrong gets reduced to "what is good for me/my group", which obviously lead to logic like "This regieme is bad for a lot of people, but really good for us. So lets support it.

Until it's not, then we'll join the people it hurt that we ignored."

I think there are legitimate cases to be made for religion being pragmatically good, it's just Shapiro didn't make any, he just went to weird pseudo-philosophy and didn't grasp the rebuttals.

Originally posted by cdtm
The thing with religion, is if you're rationalizing, everyone knows you re rationalizing.

Frankly, I don't believe a moral code is exclusive to religion, but I do think it helps with enforcing a moral code.

Religion or no, I believe a moral code is superior to moral relavism, because you can rationalize ANYTHING (As many people do.)

Right and wrong gets reduced to "what is good for me/my group", which obviously lead to logic like "This regieme is bad for a lot of people, but really good for us. So lets support it.

Religion's moral code is based on the blind acceptance of authority.

Originally posted by cdtm
The thing with religion, is if you're rationalizing, everyone knows you re rationalizing.

Frankly, I don't believe a moral code is exclusive to religion, but I do think it helps with enforcing a moral code.

Religion or no, I believe a moral code is superior to moral relavism, because you can rationalize ANYTHING (As many people do.)

Right and wrong gets reduced to "what is good for me/my group", which obviously lead to logic like "This regieme is bad for a lot of people, but really good for us. So lets support it.

Religion's moral code is based on the blind acceptance of authority. Society has progressed socially as it's become less reliant on religion, not more.

The notion that religion makes society more moral is nonsense.

Shapiro's an idiot when it comes to religion. Free Will isn't remotely relevant to morality which is a natural result of human selection: People who work together are more likely to survive than those who don't.

Furthermore, "society stands on judeo-christian values" is nonsense. If such a claim was true, then society wouldn't continually progress as a direct result of us becoming less and less reliant on religion.

Ironically, Shapiro's "respressive goverments" follow authority coz authority wields power, which happens to be the fundamental premise of the judeo-christian belief he champions.

Shapiro's judeo-christian morality point is a genetic fallacy anyway.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Shapiro's judeo-christian morality point is a genetic fallacy anyway.

Geez Fally... RACIST MUCH!?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Religion's moral code is based on the blind acceptance of authority. Society has progressed socially as it's become less reliant on religion, not more.

The notion that religion makes society more moral is nonsense.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech


So better to adhere to the notion that the ABSENSE of religion makes society better as well?

Sounds like Hypocrisy to me.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
So better to adhere to the notion that the ABSENSE of religion makes society better as well?
.
Yes, because society has become better as it's gotten less religious.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Yes, because society has become better as it's gotten less religious.

now THAT is a HIGHLY Debatable Subject.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
So better to adhere to the notion that the ABSENSE of religion makes society better as well?

Not necessarily. It depends on how you define religion and of course it depends on which religion and the degree of dogmatic belief held by the majority of people. That being said...

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8f/d7/99/8fd799e1006b06d1a84612e02c2ca743.png


Originally posted by Flyattractor
now THAT is a HIGHLY Debatable Subject.

Not really. Go spend some time in Saudi Arabia and see what you think (better yet go watch the short documentary about it, it was on Netflix a while back). And even some of the founders of the United States of America may have been Christians to one degree or another, but they were first and foremost secularists, which means they wanted to keep religion out of public policy. And that is undeniably a move away from religion. No one wants theocracy. It is the enemy of everyone.




(I honestly don't know why I waste my time with you, Fly, because you always insist on not seeing reason. I know you get off on playing devil's advocate, but anyway...)

Sam Harris just posted this on Facebook...

(Hm.. can't edit for some reason)

^ I would argue that much of religion has actually been a barrier to morality.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Not necessarily. It depends on how you define religion and of course it depends on which religion and the degree of dogmatic belief held by the majority of people. That being said...

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8f/d7/99/8fd799e1006b06d1a84612e02c2ca743.png




Well now I think I can see why You are such a big fan of ol Samy boy...

Ben is more suited to debating in the political arena.

Sam Harris is great, though he's no Christopher Hitchens.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
(Hm.. can't edit for some reason)

^ I would argue that much of religion has actually been a barrier to morality.

And there are some would say that is just You Looking at it thru your own very Biased Opinion.

Especially in todays' Secular World where morals are pretty much going out the window.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
And there are some would say that is just You Looking at it thru your own very Biased Opinion.

Especially in todays' Secular World where morals are pretty much going out the window.

Are you seriously going to tell me that religion is helping give women and homosexuals equal rights? The Bible and Quran help promote equal rights? This is just my bias talking? I can quote plenty of scripture for you if you want.

Not to mention slavery. The South was absolutely on the winning side of that theological debate. And there was basically a civil war over it. Did religion not operate as a barrier to that minor nugget of moral progress?

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Not necessarily. It depends on how you define religion and of course it depends on which religion and the degree of dogmatic belief held by the majority of people. That being said...

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8f/d7/99/8fd799e1006b06d1a84612e02c2ca743.png

I'm going straight to Godwin's Law because this is definitely what the 3rd Reich tried to do: use science to fundementally push their core beliefs about the Aryan Race. Millions of people dead and 1 conquered Germany later, they suffered greatly.


I get what Sam is trying to say but zealotry, no matter the application, can lead to shitty outcomes. He would be better served saying, "Healthy interest in science-based policies, responsible progress, and the pursuit of pure knowledge will never cause the downfall of a civilization."

I don't think I get your point...

What's the significant difference between what he says on the meme and what you think he'd be better served in saying?


(obviously Nazi justification for Aryan superiority was not a rational or moral system.. and despite what people say, Hitler was at least cynically using Christianity as a justification to dehumanize the Jews -- I.E. using a fundamentally irrational belief system: Christianity.)