Sample clip of my debate with an
atheist on the issue of morality.
Find the whole debate at this link

Atheist vs. Christian debate - Morality: Natural or Supernatural?

The video of my debate with my friend Michael Sizer on morality is now available.

This debate took place in March 2010 AD at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Canada.

At some point I may post segments and make a few comments.
For example, at one point, when it came to the question about harm causing in the Bible I misspoke;
I wanted to distinguish between me taking it upon myself to taken an innocent life--on the one hand--and a governing body prescribing capital punishment on a guilty person--on the other.
Yet, I accidentally said, "innocent" for both.

I also made a statement about the difference between us, humans, and other animals when I meant to note a difference between us, humans and animals (not other as if we are animals).

As for my approach well, I am not a Christian apologist so that I can defend some generic “g,” “o,” “d.”

Here are a couple of the fliers for the event. One states that I was "supported by Creation Ministries" which I was not; they seemed to assume that I was being supported by Creation Ministries International because it was what I wrote about morality for their main atheism essay that brought Michael and I together—also see my responses to comments that it has received.

The following clip is from part 8, t=6:55 and I believe that it cuts to the core of any and every atheist versus Christian debate on the issue of morality: his answer is nonsensical to me and my answer is inconceivable to him. I give Michael credit for his honestly as when your debate opponent applauds for you, it really says something (although, my statement is in no way original to me but is right from the New Testament).

Thank you to Papa Giorgio from Religio Political Talk who was kind enough and savvy enough to pull the clip.

This essay is copyrighted by Mariano Grinbank of the website "True Free Thinker" at www.truefreethinker.com.

It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any print media for whatever purpose (in agreement or in order to criticize it) only as long as the following conditions are met:

Give credit to Mariano Grinbank of the website "True Free Thinker" and provide the url: www.truefreethinker.com/articles/atheist-vs-christian-debate-morality-natural-or-supernatural.
Inform me as to where it is being reproduced via the comments section or use the Trackback url: http://www.truefreethinker/trackback/1557

Pingback

Try to discredit Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Ag (not verified) — Mon, 01/17/2011 - 2:47pm

[...] Since nature/natural selection can only be said to be concerned with survival and not with truth; then there is no guarantee, given a materialist view, that we hold to true beliefs since we can survive by actually ascertaining empirical truths or by being utterly deluded (this was actually an argument that I borrowed and employed during my debate with an atheist on the issue on morality). [...]

Delusions..........

Anonymous — Sun, 11/21/2010 - 7:55pm

You led readers to think you had debated Sam Harris. Good thing you didn't. He'd shred you to pieces. Hey, if you ever screw your courage to the sticking place and actually take on someone as brilliant as Sam Harris, do please give us all a heads up......... would be great to see your delusions shot down, one by one :)

"Delusions", indeed

Anonymous — Mon, 11/22/2010 - 11:32am

Please stop E-fellating your idol with these wild and unsupported claims, Anon. It's unbecoming; especially for someone who claims to stand on the side of rationalism and reason.

Sam Harris is just another pseudo-philosophical nobody, and frequently falls back onto the same argumentative fallacies and emotional appeals to fans in the audience that Dawkins and Hitchens do. Use any objective standard for formal debates (yes, they do in fact exist - check any major university) and it is laughably apparent. That is why they deliberately avoid engaging actual scholars and experienced debaters on stage - they know they'd get "shredded to pieces", as you put it, and their frail egos simply can't handle that. Heck, Dawkins lost a debate to a Christian once and later out-and-out *lied* about having engaged in a debate at all! Too bad there is objective, scientific evidence (including scores of eye-witnesses) who counteract his claim. So much for being a paragon of science and truth, eh?

Wise up, atheist, and grow out of your deluded and unwarranted worship of these intellectual nobodies. I sincerely doubt you ever will, though. After all, it takes both integrity and character to reflect critically upon your belief system. ;)

LMAO

Anonymous — Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:50pm

Sam Harris is so above your level.

Prove God exists.

I knew you couldn't. End of story.

Re: LMAO

Anonymous — Fri, 09/30/2011 - 3:50pm

You cannot prove that which does not exist. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

Insufficient argument

Anonymous — Thu, 09/01/2011 - 5:14pm

Asking someone to prove God's existence is as futile as it is to ask someone to disprove it.
While I am an atheist, I am appalled by the horrible argumentation, which is usually used only by the most close-minded of fundamentalist theists(of any religion). Such argumentation brings nothing but conflict instead of resolving a theistic discussion by logical argument.
So, now I'll say this just to make a point:

Prove God doesn't exist.

I knew you couldn't. End of story.
Is it? Is it really?
...Just forget this Sam Harris and his supposed abilities. If his argument is correct, it will ultimately win. If not, it will ultimately lose, at which point it won't matter how good he actually is.

^ Great debater.

Anonymous — Sun, 12/19/2010 - 7:53pm

Mr. Grinbank,
You are an excellent debater, and have proven yourself to be a rather critical thinker.
I must respectfully disagree with your ad hominem regarding the major Atheist pop-icon symbols (if you will). You singled out Dawkins for losing a debate, but who did he lose to? I don't see a name, link, any coverage of this loss. Furthermore because Dawkins loses a debate atheism is not a valid viewpoint. Surely you can't mean that, because by this standard Christianity has been invalid for centuries now. Dawkins is a biologist, and a world renowned at that, not a debater. As you have learned debating is a true art and he simply does not have the skill.

You bring up scientific evidence proving god's existence but if this evidence was anything relevant, How come it's not so easily acceptable.

You assert that all atheists are pseudo-intellects looking to assert our snobby viewpoint down everybody's throat but honestly we just want demonstrable proofs. Nothing more, nothing less. I've read your posts; you nit pick at little things and do your job (rather well too) at persuading us the bible is true.

If you truly had such great view points, and such demonstrable proof then why don't you have nearly the recognition that these other men have?

honestly

Anonymous — Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:18pm

I honestly do not know how these atheist claim that there are ultimate objective truths that are displayed in animals....and these ultimate objective truths exist for no reason other than to build societies based around them. Talk about mental masturbation.

And Sam Harris.....his tricks work on naive "progressive" people, but not on me, and thankfully, not on most people.