Dr. Sam Harris Vs. David Wolpe FULL DEBATE

DEBATE FULL

[@jccoffee9819]

When Sam raises the single eyebrow, you know it's over.

[@IMD1Guru666]

As if he says " hold my beer"

[@adabsurdum3314]

It's the figurative cocking his gun

[@jbin2424]

"before I was born, I wasn't aware of me, does that mean i didn't exist?" ... Yes David, thats precisely what it means.

[@olivtrees8749]

That is a claim you cannot prove. Same as the Rabbi's. Be careful what you mean by "I". The rabbi is talking about the big "|" which is consciousness in general. Harris seems to be talking about the little "I" which according to Buddhism and many other religions will cease to exist upon death.

[@haleythered1857]

@@olivtrees8749 But the only unquestionable indication we have of our existence is our own consciousness, no? At least as far as we as individuals are concerned.

[@somesinger1575]

If matter cannot be created or destroyed as far as we're aware does that mean that he, at some point, didn't exist? If we mean physically, then he did, if we mean his consciousness, as far as we have discovered, then no.

[@MusicByJC]

@@olivtrees8749 There are many claims that cannot be proved. I can claim that I was a god before my existence on earth as a human. I would say such a claim is bullshit but I can't prove it. You can't prove a negative. The responsible for proof is on the person making the claim. If one cannot backup up a claim with sufficient evidence then I am under no obligation to accept the claim as truth and in fact my obligation would be to not accept the claim as truth.

[@GB-ez6ge]

@@olivtrees8749 Buddhism is not a religion

[@stephenescobar5968]

Wolpe's entire argument: "I feel like I'm right, so I must be right."

[@blarney9757]

hahahahahah, soo true

[@origins7298]

exactly... the fact that most cultural traditions are directly at odds with each other doesn't pint Him to the conclusion that people just tend to make up s*** for stuff they don't understand until we finally come to scientific understanding

[@illinoistea]

That's nothing like what he said. You're being a biased moron.

[@Raidenski]

@@illinoistea And you are projecting.

[@mega4171]

@@illinoistea stay mad at logic

[@LordSpacey]

Notice how David Wolpe becomes more and more aggressive as Sam Harris calmly exposes his logical fallacies. By contrast, Harris exudes serenity and self-control. The medium IS the message and the non-verbal is truly fascinating throughout this debate.

[@somesinger1575]

Be aware of this in each setting, as Dawkins, Nye, and others will get quite heated.

[@CGoldthorpe]

When the delusion is attacked the deluded become unfriendly and hostile and insulting. BUT I remain respectful until they try an ad hominem attack against the speaker, at which time that person may respond in kind. I will not be arrogant unless they try to. Religion does NEED to be soundly defeated. That is not the same as total eradication, there will always be stupid people with wierd ideas.

[@dipdo7675]

It’s all context Kurt Myers!!

[@zoltanjuhasz6155]

You can see that Sam is a lot smarter and calmer than the fairy tale believer next to him

[@kaufmanat1]

It seems both unfair and unwise to characterize the validity of a belief system based upon the representations of two individuals within an argument. If I were to apply the character of Joseph Stalin to the general character of atheism it hole it would not look good for atheism. This works equally well for Christianity and ain't the Inquisition. This works equally well for Islam and flying planes into buildings. People do things but the character of an individual is not manifestly representative of his entire belief structure and all those who hold that belief structure. I would be careful with how far you take that logic. One has only to find an aggressive atheist to put you in an uncomfortable position.

[@eduardobiesczad4924]

Sam Harris is the most rational person ever. Even Batman failed to make him angry.

[@yonaoisme]

he isn't. it's not even close. most likely, the most "rational" person ever is not only unknown to both of us, but also dead. and rationality isn't even something you can compare like a number

[@AtheistComet80]

David Wolpe: claim, claim, claim, claim, claim, claim, claim, claim. Evidence? Nope.

[@camerong5513]

and what point would there be in arguing with someone like Harris?

[@kilbridemeredith8742]

@@camerong5513 Not arguing with Harris. Arguing the facts. The issue. _The Truth_

[@illinoistea]

You don't NEED evidence for 99% of what he's "claiming." It's almost entirely ideas and ways of questioning things...and not FACTUAL claims at all. When he does veer into the realm of factual assertions, his statements are agreed upon. You are conflating fact with logic. Try again.

[@allancouceiro9255]

@@illinoistea Im looking forward to your debate with Sam Harris

[@yonaoisme]

evidence is also a claim.

[@pridepotterz6564]

I could listen to Sam all day long

[@myrabarr7898]

And I, to Rabbi Wolpe .

[@taurahawkes]

You could listen to Sam all day? Sam humbles himself because he believes he is great. He shouldn't humble himself. He is to Science as Mr. Rodgers is to religion

[@amanuelamanuel]

God damn, Sam has such a talent for cutting through the BS is such a respectful way. The fact that he manages to get David to laugh says a lot

[@camerong5513]

it appears largely respectful, but it's thin and feigned

[@pumahuhu365]

@@camerong5513 respect can be only feigned if you discuss with person who believes in BS.

[@camerong5513]

@@pumahuhu365 oh ok. Now grace us with your piercing observations on how a religious belief is so vastly different from any other belief? I'll wait

[@pumahuhu365]

@@camerong5513 what other beliefs are there in your opinion?

[@omnius1357]

@@camerong5513 A religious belief always seems to be dogmatic(and needs to be). That's the difference.

[@reisekeller6859]

Your personal faith, is precisely that... personal. My absence of belief, due to lack of sufficient evidence, is not a poverty! I can be kind, comapassionate, and live a good life, without the threat of Hell or the bribe of reward.

[@kenichiotaku3693]

You almost sounded like Christopher Hitchens, respect.

[@daduneverhad7527]

@@dancingbanana627 why not?

[@Tebbulator]

That was actually well said, i shall use that the next time someone asks why im atheist and not religious anymore

[@illinoistea]

This is the fallacy of inserting "need" where it does not belong. Faith provides fulfillment on a different level. You not comprehending that from your vantage point absolutely IS a poverty, but no one is CLAIMING that you cannot have kindness or compassion without religion. That's a straw man YOU'RE bringing into this.

[@millionsid]

Okay, but please tell me how you motivate yourself to exert willpower to do what is right (your personal understanding of moral order). For example, I think intoxication should not be done by anyone and I exert willpower to avoid being influenced by anyone and avoid taking alcohol or cigarette when I am attracted towards it. I believe that is the way towards heaven and that motivates me. There is also a looming threat of global extinction event aroused by climate change and it is extremely likely that it will happen because we seem to do nothing about it. Every social construct such as position, money, fame etc fall to pieces when it is likely that nothing will remain. How do you find meaning in life and the drive to live properly in the face of the harsh truths?

[@johndavid4831]

Wolpe is well spoken and likable, yet still a con man selling the unknown to gullible ignorant people. Never forget this.

[@soslothful]

Specific citations to support your claim?

[@jables1122]

He’s definitely funny. I’ll give him that.

[@perpetual_bias]

​@@soslothful claim? lmao did you even watch this debate?

[@JaguarBST]

I think Sam completely broke his opponent after the Elvis analogy, that was absolutely brilliant counter argument.

[@Lewa500]

Mother Theresa is the worst role model of self-sacrifice you could give.

[@kaufmanat1]

You're right. Mike Tyson would be a much better example.

[@michealjaymurphy]

Stan Leery actually yes he would

[@kaufmanat1]

@@michealjaymurphy nice assertion. About as convincing as religious nutters slamming the Bible in my face and calling it truth.

[@Setep2k]

@@kaufmanat1 it's not really a difficult case to make, given that theresa basically scammed people in the name of church, whereas tyson strived to compete in sports and be the best in one aspect of it. not entirely sure about the self-sacrifice part but I guess dedication to something always entails a degree of self-sacrifice.

[@zer-op2gq]

@@Setep2k that's not the biggest problem I've got with what happened there. I think we agree, but to skim past the pain relievers because it's less costly (or because suffering is part of gods plan; either way it's immoral) as a scam. I agree; it was. There's a greater "evil at play" here that's still held to some as saintly

[@wishmurderwaslegal]

I like the way Sam communicates without an over abundance of emotion. Shows patience and security in his point of view.

[@camerong5513]

pff. The guy oozed hate and disgust from the very outset

[@salohcin1013]

@@camerong5513 at first I thought (and hoped) this was sarcasm. But after looking at your other idiotic comments on KZbin, I confirmed it is sincere. Wow haha.

[@camerong5513]

@@salohcin1013 okay

[@orver1]

Sam Harris' arguments and explanations are wonderful.

[@thoughtfulatheist4942]

David Wolpe you are amazing at avoiding questions.. its almost as if you didn't understand most of the question's asked.

[@thoughtfulatheist4942]

Oh and... like almost every other debate the religious person interrupts or attempts to cut in on a question meant for the other party(in this place Sam Harris)... I am impressed that Sam Harris wasn't rude.

[@KaiserSoze679]

And yet, when you look around the comments many atheists (including myself) consider him the best theist debater we've seen. That says horrible things about the others. lol

[@camerong5513]

@@thoughtfulatheist4942 Yea, Sam Harris was not so overtly rude; I'm not impressed like you, quite the opposite - It merely helps to cloak his real inclination

[@illinoistea]

He's answering them. You just aren't able to follow the conversation, apparently.

[@mathoe87]

Some of the most atheist societies on earth are the most peaceful, look at Scandinavia.

[@untitlednewuser]

Look at Switzerland! And don't tell me we are a religious society, I lived here for 30 years!

[@michielzoelman1380]

@@untitlednewuser you are based on

[@vanguard4065]

and soon scandinavia will be islams bitch!!! ALLAH AKBAR

[@bhpartywallsurveyors2587]

Muslim Morroco is very peaceful and has been for generations. Will atheistic Sweden pass the test of time? Time will tell how many generations from no-religion to low virtue or worse. Let's hope for the best.

[@JaIch9999]

@@bhpartywallsurveyors2587 Marocco is not a peaceful or save country. It's just a little less violent and brutal against individuals than other Islamic countries. The king wants to attract western investments and therefore tries to create a peaceful facade. Try to organize a demonstration in Marocco and you will see how peaceful and free the country is. I suggest you do you research.

[@jdelsolar15]

To the rabbi’s defense, it is much harder to argue something that is blatantly untrue ;)

[@peteconrad2077]

Brilliant. I’m stealing that line.

[@alexisjuillard4816]

Harris doesn't need any advantage, the man is an intellectual titan. Wolpe may be one of the best religious minds i know and i have respect and warm feeling totwards which is pretty rare on my part. But this wasn't a duel, when you put harris and gove him reality bonus its a beating. And when you put hitch its an execution, i swear the guy could argue god doesn't exist and god would agree^^

[@EricRoss57]

@@peteconrad2077 Indeed, and so am I!

[@alessiomarin1218]

@@alexisjuillard4816 Total fanboy lmaooooo

[@ezra3776]

Yeah, he was arguing on expert mode.

[@deftone1405]

i've watched most of these kinds of debates on Youttube over the years, and this once still remains my favourite, latgely due to the format. No oxford-style rules, just two intelligent people, minimal moderation and a positive spirit. I wish they were all like this.

[@whirledpeas3477]

Sam is so polite, but I miss Christopher's counter punch style.

[@svenred6eard757]

Yes. Hitchens could be like Mike Tyson when he wanted and go for early KOs, often in his opening statements!

[@LeroyBored]

I actually found hitchens abrasive style to often be counter productive where as Harris is disarming

[@alexisjuillard4816]

@@LeroyBored yeah

[@alexisjuillard4816]

@@svenred6eard757 man hitchens was incredible but he was a bulldozer, a nuke. Sam harris is a sniper, tchernobyl. He comes at you w9thout you knlwing it, slowly sapping your epistemological health like radiation till you are weak enough so he can one shit you hitch style. But that one deadly bullet carries even more weight then hitchens i feels cause he spend the last 10 minutes laying the field for it to be effective, everyone in the room, no matter their position feels the damage its done cause he has been warning them beforehand. Take that magical elvis moment. Harris was debating at a hugher intellectual level till,he took what he hought was a cheap shot from the rabbi (who i love btw he may be the single religious figure i genuinely love hearing, i find him very smart, witty, honest though its not so clear next to harris as he pushes those qualities to their limit) who basically refuted everything harris said about science saying "its a metaphysical claim not a scientific one" And harris prpceeded to crucify him using the exact same rethoric to assert he was talking to elvis. He tore down his entire argument and won the support of everyone in the room, both rabbi included, BECAUSE he had been so well intended before.

[@karry299]

I dont. He'd probably proclaim his desire to kill all Arabs again, i dont want to hear that vile man ever again.

[@orusandornots1915]

Every time I see a religious person debate they always end up arguing that religion must be true because they want it to be.

[@snuffywuffykiss1522]

I like how they always end up saying that without a god they would be rapists and killers without morals. Just shows how shitty they are inside.

[@hunman21]

they are forced to argue from an emotional standpoint rather than a rational one.

[@RR-mp7hw]

Whitney D. The impression left by many arguments made by theists, including Wolpe, is that they want god to be true. For example, without a god we wouldn't have a basis for morality, without a god we wouldn't have a meaning to life, without a god it would be hard to comfort people in times of mourning, etc. These are all expressions of desire for a god rather than evidence for one. It's not an assumption. Atheists don't make arguments about only wanting to sin, so that is an assumption (and a poor one). Your claim of hypocrisy rests on a false equivalence.

[@CGoldthorpe]

or they retreat to "I believe it on faith". Some who say it must be on faith turn around and refer people to "Answers in Genesis". The only answers you will find in Genesis are to "what did the bible claim thousands of years ago.

[@anthonyd5192]

@@snuffywuffykiss1522 Who were these people who told you that?

[@ianyboo]

It's so frustrating when people have very specific religious beliefs yet come to a debate and argue for deism.

[@Thrashaero]

yeah, making zero connection between deism and their specific belief. we don't know, therefore god. because god, therefore our one and only religion.

[@origins7298]

exactly what I noticed... that's because they realize they lose if they try to justify their superstitions that fly in the face of basic science about how the universe works, so they resort to obscuring the issue with nuanced arguments that really get into the semantical limitation of meaning... sure there's nothing to say that the laws of physics couldn't suddenly change but are we really going to live our lives based on that... the rabbis thinking would be like if a kid said to a father hey I'm not going to clean my room cuz maybe divine intervention will do it in a couple minutes so why should I bother y should i do any chores because I'm expecting divine interventions going to do it if anyone really behave like that this Rabbi would not accept it but yet he sits on the stage and really make the same argument and you know what he thinks in a plausible way

[@stephenfletcher5391]

Yeah religion and deism is by no means the same. Religion as argument does not really have a leg to stand on, but deism has a very solid argument, perhaps the best argument of all.

[@ianyboo]

Stephen Fletcher I've only ever encountered "god of the gaps" style arguments for deism. Are there any that don't commit that fallacy that you know of?

[@stephenfletcher5391]

+Ian G of these youtube debaters? I am not sure. I am fairly disappointed in these debates for I think the deist are very poorly represented and the atheists are two. It is easy for me to see many big holes or gaps in the arguments of both. But I personally know of far better arguments for deism than "god of the gaps" the argument for deism is very solid and strong in you pay attention to the details, but not even the proclaimed deists tend to do that, and that is very sad. I don't know any debater I have not seen commit fallacy period. deist or atheist alike. I would love to debate any of them seriously, for if the debates are done civil. I am quite confident that I could kick the ass of all of these debaters in debates.

[@malcohm6993]

Sam Harris, is on a completely different cognitive level. I just discovered this guy...this is a great example of him destroying the reasoning of a man who in most other situations would be considered intelligent.

[@malcohm6993]

This is the hardwork of directly engaging and exposing the global belief in these fantasies.

[@michaelryan9833]

You dont think that the Rabbi is intelligent?

[@dandydan999]

Have you researched and studied the innumerable instances and examples of real world conditions that point to an undeniably model of intelligent design? To believe all of that is pure randomness is, to me, decidedly a position of wanting to ignore the reality of this world. I.e. why water expands both when heated and cooled, the precise distance of the earth from the sun to sustain life, trees and fruit that grow.from a single seed planted in the ground, the human body, etc. The biggest obstacle to belief in a creator is the human desire to not be subject to a greater power or the divine laws of the creator.

[@motorhead48067]

@@dandydan999 I don’t think that a disinclination to accept a higher power above oneself is the biggest obstacle to belief in a creator. I think the biggest obstacle to belief in a creator is just the simple fact that religion is losing the argument to science and reason in our culture and most people know it even if they aren’t close to the debate. Religion used to be the default and you had to be educated to end up atheist. Now the reverse is becoming more and more true. Atheism, or at the very least some kind of non-sectarian deism, is becoming the default position and now you have to become educated and get a degree in philosophy or theology to end up religious. I think many and arguably most people actually want to believe in something bigger than themselves. Most people are not comfortable believing that their short stint as a primate on a rock is all there is to this universe. People desperately want to believe in a plan, a purpose, and a power that can help them shoulder the burden of suffering and make sense out of their misfortunes. As for intelligent design, for one, even if you could successfully argue that things are designed rather than random, it doesn’t necessarily get you any specific God such as the Christian God, or even a God that is at all like a person. There are also a lot of problems with your examples marshaled in support of intelligent design. How exactly is the fact that water expands when heated and cooled evidence of an intelligent designer? You say the precise distance of the Earth to the sun such that it can support life is evidence of intelligent design. Are the other 7 planets in our solar system that are too far or too close to the sun evidence that there isn’t an intelligent designer? Why would an intelligent designer who wanted there to be life in the universe fill the universe mostly with planets that can’t support life? You mention trees and the human body, but these are the products of evolution. They aren’t the product of randomness or of intelligent design. They are products of natural selection whereby random mutations that confer an adaptive advantage are “selected” by the mere fact that they have a greater chance of being passed down by reproduction. As for trees I will admit that trees growing so large from such a small seed is truly incredible and awe inspiring but I don’t see why it needs a creator God to be explained. So I don’t think any of the examples you provided in favor of intelligent design really stand up to scrutiny. Let me know what you think of my criticisms and I hope you take them in the spirit of friendly conversation because that is how they are meant. Good day to you sir!

[@dandydan999]

@@motorhead48067 thx for your thoughtful response. There are numerous examples of instances where evolution would dictate the extinction of "weaker" design, i.e. the human body consists of organs that are directly dependent upon the digestive and the blood transport systems to distribute life sustaining substances and removal of waste substances. Why doesn't evolution eliminate those weaker organs even at the expense of the entire organism? There is a difference between the human desire/need to believe in something more than themselves and/or humans in general and the sense of knowing the creator of the universe has provided means through self control to grow as a human being. The daily commitment to improve oneself is a much harder commitment to make when choosing how to live than a general desire. To me, the same way any sane human being understands that anything formed from basic raw materials that are observable in this world, from a simple cup to the most intricately designed object, points to an intelligent designer, so to the universe at large. If someone wants to talk themselves out of an intentional universe to some infinitesimally small randomness, one has that choice. As for planetary system, I am not educated enough to talk to other planets apart from saying that the interplanetary gravitational structure also plays a role.

[@33BANSH]

When Wolpe kept saying that God is not a scientific claim, all Sam had to ask was, "Do you believe God interacts in our world?" I assume Wolpe would say "yes", and if that's the case, then God can be tested. People that say God is not a scientific claim are just moving the goalposts because they know there is no proof of a god.

[@wayfa13]

​@@LordAzrael21 Wow how's that necro LOL. Predictions coming true prove nothing if there is no time frame to it as it's just an open ended claim. It's kinda like going to restaurant and making a prediction that they will burn the food, one day, some day. The burden of proof lies on those that makes the claim, so there's no need for Science to falsify the claim, if it could even be falsified. The way religion works is to move the goalposts so there is nothing you can falsify. But, if Wolpe's god can interact with the world then the effect would be measurable and the evidence purported by religious folk could be demonstrable and testable. So far this has not happened because if it did, there would only be one religion left, as it would have the valid truth claims.

[@arranhc]

good comment this; clear and succinct

[@ananigma]

@@wayfa13 That is assuming that we would have the technology to measure how God would interact with the world in the event this occurred. I would say given Wolpe's stance throughout the debate, he would repeat "God" is something that can not be measured scientifically. God isn't something you could take a sample of and throw under a microscope. I was actually disappointed with Sam Harris in this debate because in almost every case, he straw-maned Wolpe's statements with absurd propositions that were completely off-point. Wolpe did a great job in representing the theistic pov and Sam had a difficult time making a solid counterpoint without mocking Wolpe's beliefs.

[@wayfa13]

@@ananigma LOL

[@ananigma]

Wayfaerer LOL

[@kira0080]

1:00:35 personal marker, dont mind me. Love that Elvis example.

[@roshallock5747]

His little comments to the side while Harris is explaining his position reminds me so much of some high school jock that doesn't take the class discussion seriously. It's all a joke and perhaps a waste of time. What a prick.

[@andreadiamond7115]

It’s awesome! TCB⚡️

[@asatotashiro2556]

I have watched many debates on the matter, and I have to say this by far the best I have seen in terms of logical arguments, intelligent questions from the audience, checking emotional boundaries and finally (except for a few passive jabs) the courtesy displayed by the orators. great job gentlemen.

[@paulwilliams5500]

Could not have said it better myself

[@martonhegedus]

Wanted to make the same comment.

[@ramdas363]

lol

[@laughingbehelit]

I really admire Sam Harris, his point on Elvis alone is enough to make me like him!

[@camerong5513]

you must admire people who project contempt

[@MsKariSmith]

By the end of this talk, you realize that logic always wins over senseless drivel.

[@joec.5442]

If only that were true.

[@untitlednewuser]

@ 14:50 "religion is ..." @ 17:16 "I didn't say religion!" What a short memory span!

[@TheJackFrench]

Brilliant

[@jaredwillard3022]

I was scouring the comments to find this lol if no one else posted it, I was going to. Sam should have nailed him to that. It's crazy how these religious people claim morality, yet it's so easy for them to be dishonest.

[@mangepange7954]

Brilliant

[@mangepange7954]

Brilliant

[@mangepange7954]

Brilliant

[@3dge--runner]

sam is such a bad ass on this one. freakin' kills it.

[@buzzardbeatniks]

So, while I was watching the second half of this debate I was involved in a text message fight with my boyfriend. I paused it at one point so I could call my boyfriend and yell at him proper. Now that our fight is over (we're probably broken up) I come back to this debate and decided, by the end, that Sam Harris has an enviable ability to keep his cool and I'm now convinced that if he has anything to teach me, keeping my cool might be the most important lesson.

[@phillipjones7054]

Sam harris is a cool cucumber alright. That's apparent whether or not one agrees with him. It's no coincidence that he spent a good decade of his life in serious zen practice

[@camerong5513]

the lesson I took away was that while subtle, due to Harris' general bearing, there is a noxious, deceptive and contemptuous attitude in the guy

[@camerong5513]

@zempath 🤣. ok

[@Triple7000]

Wow. This was a good one. David put up one of the better arguments for the God theory I can remember hearing. Unfortunately, Sam picked him apart in every category

[@b.g.5869]

God isn't a theory because it's not falsifiable.

[@Triple7000]

@@b.g.5869 God is a complete man-made mythical theory

[@b.g.5869]

@@Triple7000 You're an ignoramus. Pointing out that god isn't a theory because it's not falsifiable isn't an argument for the existence of god. Quite the contrary; the fact that the claim that god exists isn't falsifiable and is therefore not even a valid hypothesis, much less a theory, is commonly cited to underscores the weakness of the claim. God isn't a theory; by definition, a valid theory must be falsifiable. Pointing out that god isn't a theory because it's not falsifiable isn't a defense of theism; it's the hallmark of an unreliable claim. The fact that you aren't aware of this and actually thought I was arguing for the existence of god indicates you are clearly not familiar with the most common and basic facts in this context. You actually have a lot in common with theists in general and creationists in particular because like you, they don't understand what the word theory means. You clearly are a newbie to this area.

[@felipeblin8616]

I feel bad when I hear someone raising his voice to enforce his point of view

[@missnickelbee7789]

sometimes its just passion and excitement :) Im a voice raiser..

[@abecore]

1:01:30, even David Wolpe can't help but laugh at his own analogous language being used against him, quite brilliantly by Sam. :D

[@tarynbeck6759]

Abhi Parasher That was the my favorite line of the whole debate. So clever.

[@demon0192]

I came from Harris v Deepak debate, and I must say this is easily a far better conversation

[@PAFIN10]

"When I look at you I see that you might be Elvis" *drops mic* *walks off stage*

[@SinceretheGhost]

Interesting how Rabbi Wolpe begins the debate by saying that most scientists don't have an equally firm grasp on philosophy and theology as they do their own area of study, when even though that may be true, the man he is about to debate has a degree in philosophy himself- AND is a scientist.

[@cristanzi]

I've noticed that every time Sam Harris has a debate with any religious person they always get all worked up and interrupt him and end up looking silly confronted with his calm and careful reasoning. If i believed in God i'd stop straight away after watching my leaders acting so "emotionally unbalanced"..it's embarrassing.

[@LordSpacey]

I completely agree. The worst of the worst was Deepak Chopra, who came out like a big crying baby after Harris placidly refuted his New Age mumbo-jumbo-woo-woo ! :P

[@camerong5513]

the same could be said of the secular - when they affect tolerance, as Harris does, it shows a deceitfulness which is ugly, "embarrassing" and "I'd stop straight away" in its profession

[@senjinomukae8991]

What a great debate, perfectly moderated - he let them have scope to make their points , and it still came across as a natural back and forth discussion. And very fair.

[@sllimthg]

Religious people always with the double speak.

[@camerong5513]

maybe that's how they waste the time of a sceptic, in order to gain the sceptic's exit

[@TheDurden84]

I really enjoyed this "debate". The conversational style and respect that the two men showed each other made for a very interesting discussion.

[@nGUNNARp]

still selling soap?

[@masonreynoso3077]

You made this comment 5 years ago. Where are you now?

[@DrCooch]

@@masonreynoso3077 I always wonder what has happened to a person after seeing a comment that is years old.

[@camerong5513]

oh, Harris only, at best, feigns respect

[@SiRushBass]

Wellll Sam showed respect. This David guy talked over him more and more... So damn rude

[@lichtbestaeubt]

After watching quite a lot of these debates over the last few years, I have to say, this was certainly one of the more interesting and entertaining ones. I disagree with David Wolpe, but he seemed to be on par with Sam Harris for a good amount of the time and had some thought provoking points (aside from various really bad ones). I really enjoyed this, thanks for the upload!

[@kylejovanovic4883]

Harris is so beautifully smug, he’s a summers day

[@annapeters3053]

I love him so much.

[@rekunta]

🤙🏼🏄🏽

[@leeholmes9962]

Na he's a summer spring autumn winter all in one and he's good at them all ✌👍

[@MrShutthefrontdoor]

This was the best debate I've seen Sam in, really from top to bottom. The candor was the best, the discussion was the most illuminating and evenly contentious, and every single audience question was quality and not loaded. Really quite amazing, I wish there were more of this caliber.

[@terjesolum324]

Wolpe is talking BS from beginning to end - simply amazing how Harris can endure more than one and a half hour of this.

[@robertwhite1810]

"I believe" "I have faith" bla bla bla...every religious tap dancer is a raving lunatic

[@spencerthomas913]

Sam Harris was too fucking nice.

[@capjus]

I never saw a discussion that one party understood the other party and left his religion. I am proud of myself i helped one friend dissolve religion in his mind, made him start thinking, waking him up, and set him free, being able to clearly see the odds, naivety, claims, contradictions of religion and believers

[@tpmgx6]

Really enjoyed watching David get dismantled and increasingly mad. Sam is a national treasure!

[@darrylfarquhar3657]

Science is narrow? It is the investigation of everything in the cosmos

[@aarnepylkka1262]

I think religious people think its narrow because science do not want to explain things with god or make claims that "yeah it can be also like its mentioned in bible, cuz bible itself its enough evidence for those superstitious things happend then".

[@simay4977]

"Narrow" because of the ever misguided "why" question.

[@camerong5513]

Science addresses the meaning of life? No. I guess that is what Wolpe meant

[@cqueenify]

Anyone else find David Wolpe to be one of the more affable and congenial apologists? Still a healthy dose of BS, some of it strenuous, but I can't help but like the guy. Seems like a decent and moral dude. If he were representative of dogmatic believers, I doubt I'd bother to object. Unfortunately his worldview falls somewhere between rare gem and unicorn on the spectrum.

[@cuzned1375]

All the other apologists i've had to listen to have been incredibly annoying, both in their nonsense and their manner of dispensing that nonsense. As you noted, Rabbi Wolpe is largely dispensing nonsense, but in a way that's quite agreeable to listen to.

[@tshirtjay]

I agree. William Lang Craig is incredibly overrated.

[@MichaelEstrada]

The root of evil rests in the human heart, rather one is religious or irreligious, theists or atheists.

[@ArvMC]

brain m8*

[@MichaelEstrada]

***** ok? Btw it's 616 not 666

[@MichaelEstrada]

vernonclassic I am aware that blood pumps from the heart. But what else does the heart does? It has been scientifically proven that our hearts are capable of thinking just as our brains (don't ask me how, these are scientists saying this not me). If this is true, this explains why, when we go through breakups, lose a love one, are in despair, that our hearts feel like they are about to explode. That is why, I say, that the root of all evil rests in our hearts.

[@ArvMC]

Michael Estrada lol what

[@ospTube]

+Michael Estrada Your hat is on too tight.

[@itsshortforleo]

Great debate. There was a lot of respect from both parties. I was deeply satisfied.

[@camerong5513]

yep, alot of pretty well veiled contempt from Harris

[@Bobthesnob]

excellent debate...

[@erichenderson6237]

Love Sam Harris and David Wolpe. Both great speakers. Personally, I side with Harris but I think Wolpe is one of the more compelling speakers for religion

[@muppyfin]

I have never heard someone talk as eloquently as Sam Harris

[@seanmcdonough8815]

28 minutes in "im worried Indonesia may become radicalized". 11 years in, your right

[@Lewa500]

So because we can't evaluate the soul and God, they are deemed a question outside science. I wonder, which is more likely, that: a) These exist outside the realm of physics, or b) They don't exist, and this is a massive cop out.

[@Lewa500]

saber harfi I wish I was over my head... tried to have an OBE once. Couldn't do it.

[@nabeelnaqvi1415]

Definitely NOT the first one.

[@carolinaschwendener7866]

Sam Harris ,such a great person ! I admire his logic and patience with deluded people he debates

[@camerong5513]

I notice his pretence

[@carolinaschwendener7866]

I love sam Harris intelligence and his charisma 💓

[@camerong5513]

@@carolinaschwendener7866 charisma and patience? The guy had neither in fact. While he largely seemed dispassionate he had alot of hauteur. With respect to delusion you may seek to draw the distinction between that and belief - delusion is a fixed position held by the deluded in spite of its being demonstrated to them as false

[@rdvan1954]

one of the best debates I had seen thus far. Sam, as usual, rocked. It is evident that god of Abraham has no future when people are forced to think a bit logically.

[@camerong5513]

yea? Give us some logic, then? Name one fact, to get the ball rolling

[@benjamincserveny2254]

@@camerong5513 How about you give us at least the slightest shred of evidence why there is a God. I also can't disprove the existence of the Easter bunny but I don't expect religious people to understand this

[@camerong5513]

@@benjamincserveny2254 🤣

[@BMTroubleU]

When your bait question gets called out and you have no come back, resort to emoji

[@hank.hacking]

One thing I always love about this debate when I come back to it is how hard Rabbi Wolpe tries to punch above his weight. Really goes out there in some places, and Sam just sits there like "Here, let me jump in and save you from that subjective wordsoup you just improvised."

[@gabrielgabes5074]

The rabbi got away with so many things that he couldn’t have with Hitchens. So many absurd statements, about nazism, Stalin, North Korea, that witch from Calcuta ( she wasn’t in fact from Calcuta ). It is just mind boggling

[@Wyrd80]

If someone would interrupt me ad nauseam I'd get very very angry. Or I'd just start to return the favour. God dammit -.- Harris is really, really patient.

[@dimosereqko2]

Mhm atheists are better when they talk about atheism to other atheists and finally start kiss each other asses.If they don`t do that-it`s not science.

[@spencerthomas913]

I know! too damn patient and laid back. Apparently claims about the existence of God is not a scientific claim. Let us pretend this is true. What mechanism is used to determine that this claim is true? Sam Harris allows the burden of proof to be on himself as much as possible. It makes this other fool feel like his arguments are superior.

[@camerong5513]

he has a semblance of patience. The guy betrays his cultivated disgust

[@Dervanon]

im proud to be an atheist just like sam harris. im glad our side has representatives like him.

[@Jack458111]

Harris was on point even back in the day. What a legend.

[@sawyergaleener]

Wolpe is wrong. But must commend him with being pleasant in comparison to most appologists

[@Snoopod]

15 minutes in and actually a pretty good debate. Surprised how decent Harri's opposition is,.

[@hunman21]

Two intellectuals, minimal interruptions and minimal voice raising!

[@Piterixos]

Unfortunately it all goes away when Wolpe start saying that atheism is responsible for modern dictatorships, or that since belief in god is natural it can't be delusional, or that there is no reason why evolution would lead to organism that are able to understand the world around them...

[@jsmall10671]

That last one blew my mind. Evolution says we derive from the world around us... yet can't explain how we can understand the world around us. Lolwut?

[@RobL358]

Stephen Githehu wolpe is jewish. He's a rabbi in fact.

[@stephenfletcher5391]

+Stephen Githehu Then you should go there with them ;)

[@manuelmanolini6756]

wolpe has trouble distinguishing reality from wishful thinking... failings of the human mind

[@jarenedewaal3481]

one Of the best debates I have seen

[@mickers4437]

I just returned to this debate after a few years of listening to a steady stream of yelling, insulting, and belittling verbal warfare that we are now constantly subjected to. THIS is a debate. Two extremely intelligent, erudite, and well spoken people who can deliver their view of the subject in understandable ways. At the end the listener can honestly say to him or herself that "my conclusion or view of the truth that I have arrived at was enhanced by these two excellent speakers". I must also say that I am amazed at the quality of the questions from the audience at the end. This is rare in more current "debate" formats. I don't care what side you fall on this subject, please respect the quality of the product.

[@benjamin1612]

1:18:00 Sam goes OFF. Such a brilliant, articulate explanation of the differences between religions.

[@freezesmyblood]

Of all the religious debaters I've seen, David Wolpe is by far my favorite. Most others seem to just revert to simplistic talking points, but I genuinely enjoy listening to Wolpe's counterarguments.

[@wackyfours]

I feel the same. haha

[@sakuraba7870]

+Dylan Hartz I like Wolpe too.. Even if I disagree with all of his arguments... He seems like he has a sense of humour and irony at least.. Which is better than most religious debaters..

[@vivorproductions]

I think they are infuriating.

[@boxer12350]

Completely agree! Wolpe is far and away my favorite proponent of theism

[@hobpoblin]

I enjoy his approach but only because of the poor quality of others that have debated Sam.

[@ericgraham3344]

Religionists Don’t Actually Love Their God they are Simply Afraid of His Punishments

[@samicherif8796]

After 10’s of lectures i watched, this is the first time the audience asks really good questions

[@jacksonr260]

Sam Harris is truly a singular human. His intelligence and way of thinking is so inspirational.

[@merinatetz3509]

I must say Wolpe was worthy opponent comparing to other theists

[@cosmai23]

Yeah, but don't be fooled by his polite manner - he still believes in mysticism and offers no observable evidence to support his fantasies.

[@JaguarBST]

I found him quite intelligent compared to the usual religious nuts.

[@feelingoffbalance]

Exactly. It's my favourite Harris debate for that reason. Wolpe is watchable and even funny at times. In many of the debates the opponent is insufferable.

[@freemind222]

Just a comment on the intellectual intrigue and quality of this debate in comparison to many other debates available to a viewer on youtube , its definitely among the best to be found . Well done to both debaters.

[@lebrigand4115]

42:54 What a simple yet brilliant, biting yet polite response from Sam to an utterly disgusting argument.

[@ExistentialNights]

Yep And I bet the rabbi doesn’t want to talk about how many religious people don’t do a damn thing to help either 🤣🤣

[@Freethinker1958]

Walpe's childhood religious indoctrination must have been brutally intense. It was definitely psychologically damaging to that poor fool.

[@mickcoleman5852]

23:35 'Since the beginning of time 98% of humans had some sort of intuition about a greater being, is that not evidence' You're gonna need a big citation for that claim buddy

[@trungtran61]

also, it's called appeal to popularity, a fallacy. 98% people believe the earth was flat and the sun revolves around it not too long ago. i just pull that percentage from my ass.

[@JeffBedrick]

To his credit, Wolpe is a likable guy with a good sense of humor who knows when he's been beat.

[@wittlingdave]

David Wolpe is clearly out of his league. It's a shame we are still having these debates in 2019. Long live the Four Horsemen!

[@Tebbulator]

Who are the others? Im assuming Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and ____?

[@wittlingdave]

@@Tebbulator Daniel Dennet. ✌🏿

[@Tebbulator]

@@wittlingdave airtight my guy, he still be added to my commute list lol

[@illinoistea]

Translation: wittlingdave is clearly an Atheist shouting "rah, rah for my side." Next.

[@damianedwards8827]

It's Unfortunate.God is simply the Existence of Love. Everybody Believes Love Exists. Atheists Unnecessarily Overcomplicate it

[@bostonteapartycrasher]

Sam Harris is just awesome.

[@perkodanny]

Yes. :'(

[@MelFinehout]

I think the thing I like most about him is the intelligent debate his detractors stimulate. They always prove how dumb he is with their insight and profundity.

[@MartTLS]

WHY YOU ARE AN IDIOT How do you know he’s an idiot GOD ?

[@MartTLS]

WHY YOU ARE AN IDIOT With your big bad book of fairytales? Bring it on I could do with a laugh.

[@thomasmills3934]

I wonder y u get all these theists watching these debates... are they gluttons for punishment? Do they pour over hundreds of these waiting to find one where their side wins? They could search for years but I've never found one where the theist objectively won... I think they r desperate to find justification for their beliefs. The old justifications everyone now knows to be deeply flawed. ...but they won't find solace here. Hopefully they will find the true reality while searching for confirmation to their biases.

[@MJ4coheed]

Ya, Wolpe is definitely my favorite of all Sam's debates. It's an actual conversation, and Wolpe is no intellectual slouch, he's also pretty funny.

[@garyhughes1664]

Wonderful debate. Sensible, easy enough to follow. A far cry from those heavy, more complex debates back in the 1950s between Bertrand Russell and Father Copleston.

[@welcometmw]

We live in a hell created by those that wish to go to heaven.

[@peteconrad2077]

I am genuinely embarrassed for Wolpe, Harris was very polite and kind. Wolpe made an ass of himself.

[@DJRickard2010]

When religious people use the words like science and theory, followed by absurd claims, my blood pressure rises. David said that “science” can not assess the validity of supernatural claims. What, then, can assess it?

[@deeliciousplum]

Definitely a worthwhile debate to explore. It is host to clear expressions of the positions of these two gentlemen.

[@contactkeithstack]

connection between rationality and intuition was something I was really wondering about a little bit ago.

[@zapwatt]

Watching this makes me doubt that home court advantage is a real thing.

[@DeaconShadow]

You know, when I see the clips of just Harris responding immediately to Wolpe, Wolpe seems very reasonable. But watching this full debate, when he talks at length, he is actually just as unbalanced as any other religious apologist, especially when he makes it abundantly clear that he literally thinks atheism is the rejection of all that is good and reasonable and right because he makes the a priori claim with no evidence, that everything good about society can be granted to religion. This has been very enlightening,

[@mjz16]

When was this debate held?

[@TheSpaceInvaderer]

Fantastic. I much prefer this debate format to the "joint press conference" format of opening/rebuttal/etc. A conversation is much more conducive to an effective and meaningful debate.

[@OneTrueScotsman]

Wolpe's comparison of people eating meat, to sacrificing animals to his god, is just ludicrous. Yes people eat meat, and arguments have been made about vegetarianism, but that's beside the point. People are eating meat for food, for fuel. Sacrificing a goat to a god, is entirely unnecessary, and cruel. Do gods need blood? Is that what David is saying? That his god is a bloodthirsty god? That it needs meat to live? How very... ungodly then. That his god needs to eat. That's another thing about religion that displeases me. That any all powerful being would demand pleasing. Demand worshiping. Demand praising. Demand sacrifices. Demand blind faith. This type of god, if it does exist, would have to be very cruel, very egotistical, and very disrespectful towards humans using logic and reason to inform their beliefs and behavior.

[@emilymayer5537]

God is an egomaniac. Gods demand blood because gods don't bleed.

[@camerong5513]

it states in the Hebrew Bible that the sacrificed animal was eaten

[@cajohnson130]

One of Sam's best debates. Something i can come back to. Sam has a gift of making the arguments big picture and distill complex things in a very clear way.

[@sudhirpatel7620]

When we suffer we grow stronger to feel so happy in the recovery.

[@jamesmaclachlan1767]

Much prefer this type of debate to the usual: 15-minute intro, rebuttals, 5-minute final rebuttal and then questions

[@PhilosphywithTom]

i am both an agnostic atheist, and anti-theist but i must say the gentleman arguing for religion sounds very intelligent and respectable.

[@PhilosphywithTom]

wow, my worth as a human being is completely in question now that you, a person who I have never met and likly never will meet has questioned my world view based on a single comment i made on a video. Did you consider that maybe I made my original comment because I am attempting to not blindly follow a belief system that is just as dogmatic as the religious ones you seem to denounce? I don't see how me saying he presents his argument in in an intelligent matter means I agree with his unsubstantiated beliefs, because believe me I do not.

[@theviolatedtwinky]

+LoserAmuser Are you inferring that if you're an athiest you should completely ignore any contradicting arguments, and that by admitting there are intelligent thiests an agnostic/atheist has some how become "fake". That sort of pontification is what leads to ultraconservatism, and intellectual stagnation. It's also the same thing so many "real" atheists criticize theists for.

[@TheeChristopherEsley]

I completely agree. I like listening to people like Reza Aslan, Bill Craig, and this guy. Doesn't mean I agree with them. It just means I respect positions other than, "y'all just wanna sin", or "you just need to trust god". If respecting someone who disagrees with you is "fake", then so be it.

[@GingerDrums]

+Bock35813 You sound suprised by this in a bigoted way. The bigger fight is with delusion in general, not just religious delusion and if you project a superiority complex into your opinions you are deluded in a far worse way than this rabbi.

[@avedic]

+Bock35813 Same here. I'm all three as well; and I appreciate that you're able to discern the difference between all three identities. One concerns knowledge, one belief, and the last is about religious influence in broader society. If only people understood the differences in all those words. It's important. But yeah...Wolpe is a legit cool smart guy. I like him. He's also debated Hitchens a few times. Of course, his very reasonableness is what makes him such a poor representative of "the religious" in general. But he matches well against Sam. Obviously Sam trounces him...but the two aren't that far apart either. Despite being a triple-A(agnostic, atheist, anti-theist) I absolutely agree with Sam that spirituality(awful word, I know) is incredibly important. It's a very nebulous word....but my own version of spirituality, which would take far too long to lay out here, is very important to me. But...I definitely take nothing on faith and admit when I don't or can't know something. Hell, the mystery of that is _part_ of my spiritual life. We need to reclaim the word. There's no reason atheism and rationality need be dull and dusty and lifeless. I'm an atheist...but I'm also highly indulgent in the irrational and metaphysically hyperbolic...for aesthetic and creative ends. And I love irony and comedy and satire and general trickster-ism. Anyway...rant over. I agree with your original comment. :)

[@pamepame3475]

Religion is big business. F.e. the bishop of Cologne/Germany declared for 2015 2,8 billion € in houses, land, shares. 3 % of the the wealth went to the poor = about 72 million €. The bishop of Münster/Germany declared 3,2 billion € nearly all in shares. He also spent about 3 % for the poor.

[@mrwrong2815]

What year is this from?

[@truthaboveall7988]

If only America was obsessed w mediation instead of religion we wouldn’t b facing the darkest time in America