Want to read a respectful debate between a believer and an atheist?

Question

It is between Andrew Sullivan (author of "The Conservative Soul") and Sam Harris (Author of "The End of Faith")... both good writers.

It is in two parts and here are both of the links:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904_1.html

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/214/story_21446_1.html


On the first link there are six pages. So this will take you some time to read (I think about 45 minuets - but I promise it is worth it).


I have been following this debate so I would love to here some feedback/thoughts.

Answer 1

Thanks for the link.

I have to say I feel that Sam had the far stronger case than Andrew, but then maybe I am biased.

Very interesting to hear the thoughts of an intelligent and articulate Catholic. The concept of never having known life without knowing the existence of God is one I had never thought about having spent years trying hard (though failing) to convince myself that there is a God. That said Sam's comments on that concept - being raised by parents who were Catholic and talked about God from early on were convincing to me. That said I was raised by predominantly non-religious parents....so is my lack of belief in God any more rational :)

This topic is making me wonder about the differences in faith between people who have always believed for as long as they can remember versus people who started believing at a later point in life.

It was also interesting to see Andrew accuse Sam of being as much of a fundamentalist as many fundamentalist Christans but to end up being guilty of some of the same thought processes, at the very least, himself. He pretty much admits he believes becuase he believes, that his is the only true religion (though being very tolerant of other religions) that there is no logic or rationallity behind it and that nothing can shake that. Sam at least admitted that there were things that could convince him God existed.

Anyway, enough rambling, suffice to say the debate made me think a little.

Answer 2

If I wanted to see debates I'd be in a religious messageboard, which is were people who want to debate should be. Since this is a question/answer board its a bit silly to try to debate here, since you only get one post, you can't really debate. Why so many people are confused about this, and don't seem to understand the difference between a messageboard and a question/answer board is completely beyond me. I'm glad you posted this though, maybe some of the people who come here to debate will get the hint.

Answer 3

Try learning literacy before challenging others. There is no contest between belief and atheism. Religion, faith and belief are the source of the world's woes - none are remotely credible except as the soothers for man's insecurities - everyone wants to believe in the big being who understands everything. Grow up - there isn't one. You're on your own - deal with it.

Answer 4

I'll check it out, it should be interesting. I enjoy Sam Harris' work quite a bit, except for the end of faith... he went on a little too long about how Muslims are evil. We get the point Sam.

Answer 5

Cool! Thanks for the links. While I don't have 45 minutes to spare at the moment (doing laundry, I'll get back to you if I can), here's a link to other respectful debates among Dr. William Lane Craig and others. Personally, I read the one w/Kai Nielsen entitled "Does God Exist" and I can attest that it's worth reading.

Let me know:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/debates.html

Answer 6

i'm not atheist, yet i will answer besides. you're view of why atheists are atheist is as quickly as lower back incorrect. for sure your seek of sites and listening to atheists communicate strengthen into very constrained. Atheists are not in basic terms anti-christian; they don't have self belief in gods in any respect ... not in common terms the christian god. Now, that it is out of how, this desires to be addressed: ** "My question: If the evidence is so sparkling and so overwhelming, do you apart from could end that the biblical pupils, the 38,875 men & lady who carry Phd's in the U.S. & countless extra international-extensive who've committed thier lives to examining the bible, are aside of a brilliant conspiracy to fool the customary public?" ** in basic terms because of the fact there are pupils accessible examining a text cloth and faith would not validate that text cloth or faith as any demonstration of actuality. If that have been the case, then the numbers for scientists examining physics could validate physics over christianity. Or the numbers of scholars for the time of heritage could validate Classical pagan literature over christianity. Hell there are pupils who study the Lord of the rings, does that make it a valid faith? etc. So, on an identical time as i'm specific you thought you had trumped up some grand logic, your logic strengthen into surely defective. specific, clever people can disagree. surely, we do it all the time. the priority is, christianity would not enable for conflict of words. Christians are preached to witness and positioned across the "defective non-believer" to the fold. They proselytize. that's undesirable and unwarranted. while they do it, that's ok. while somebody writes a e book it is fictional, yet christians do unlike all of sudden the author is attempting to brainwash solid christians into the service of the devil. as a result, you finally finally end up with countless questions approximately Y!A and different places or countless information comments of the christians having their international taken faraway from them, on an identical time as they're attempting to do the right comparable element to absolutely everyone else. that's extremely like that youngster who keeps poking his brother all the on an identical time as crying to his mommy that his brother is poking him and being mean to him.

Answer 7

I read this earlier this week, definately worth the time. I wish people were more willing to have respectful intellectual debates.

Answer 8

The only thing I liked about that was Sullivan's use of the word bullshit...

Answer 9

I don't have 45 minuets. I do have 45 minutes, but that's not what you're asking of us, so I'll have to pass. Thanks, anyway.

Answer 10

I am to enebriated now, but thands.