# Rick Warren vs. Sam Harris - The God Debate



## Davidius (Apr 18, 2007)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889148/site/newsweek/


----------



## jbergsing (Apr 19, 2007)

I don't think Rick Warren is the best person for this debate as I have many issues with his teachings, however, I understand why Newsweek would ask him simply based on his national notoriety. I don't have the time to read this now but I will later today. Somehow, I think both sides will make me blood pressure rise a bit...


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 19, 2007)

I read the first couple of pages, but when I saw that it stretched on for 10 full pages, I desisted. He seemed to do OK from what I saw but having him as a spokesman for my faith doesn't make me real happy.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Apr 19, 2007)

It was ok - He ended with Pascal's Wager.


----------



## elnwood (Apr 19, 2007)

I thought Warren did an exemplary job of staying on top and balancing presuppositional and evidential approaches. Harris was never able to reconcile his belief in absolute good and evil from atheism.


----------



## James (Apr 19, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Sorry, I read the whole thing through and thought atheism sounded fairly good afterwards.
> 
> I was not impressed with Rick Warren. He touched lightly on several lines of argument, so that you could say that he defended theism by use of argument A or B, but really all were fairly ineptly executed.
> 
> ...



I've come to think that 1 Cor 15:19 speaks against this line of thinking as well. If Christ wasn't really resurrected then Paul's entire life is a pitiful waste. However, since it is true look at how the Gospel of the glory of Christ constrained him to such boldness and exhaustive labor and persecution for the Lord Jesus!


----------



## Dagmire (Apr 19, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> It was ok - He ended with Pascal's Wager.



Are those statements supposed to support each other or be the antithesis of one another? Pascal's Wager is no argument at all.


I hate debates such as these, because unbelievers always want them to be on their terms. They hold so highly reason and logic based on nothing but the arbitrary perceptions of unseeing men. If you have an arbitrary starting point and apply logic to it, you inevitably have an arbitrary conclusion. It's all absurd.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Apr 19, 2007)

antithesis - I debate atheists...I know.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Apr 19, 2007)

If they wanted well known, and seasoned debate they should've turned to John MacArthur.


----------



## jbergsing (Apr 19, 2007)

Now that I"ve read it (as boring as it was...), I think RC Sproul would have been better suited for the debate.


----------



## 3John2 (Apr 20, 2007)

Picking a theological lightweight to fight a battle is to be expected in that particular forum. I think MacArthur would be better. If anyone has seen him on Larry King up against Deepak Chopra etc (very funny! As he says it's like a ship of fools) it would be very obvious he would do good. He stands his ground & is VERY firm. I like when he doesn't have an answer & he says "I don't know about that BUT I do know THIS....!". Pretty smooth transition.


----------

