The God Debate

First off, I would question whether life's biggest queston actually is: is God real? But more of that later on.

I would like to say that I have noticed in the past few months that I do not necessarily read things or listen to things and glean from them what I'm meant to, and I'm not willing to debate them under the presumption that they are true. I'm more inclined to attempt to learn something about the person writing or speaking based on how they wrote and what they said, and put the conclusion I arrive at at the forefront of thought processes about that particular data. Whether or not my conclusion is true, it is obvious to any skeptic (we should all be skepics) that everything ever written or spoken carries some level of misinformation with it. Whether intended or not, each word spoken and each action taken carries an inflection of our opinions and bears the "truth" we speak in directions other than towards the truth. I am as guilty as they are, and so are you, my dedicated readers. (at this point you're feeling the sarcasm)

As I read I imagined myself in the room with the two men. Having seen Mr. Warren speak before, I've seen his practiced mannerisms before an audience. But in my meager experience on board our boulder of a ship sailing the cosmos, I have seen that there is a massive difference between stage mannerisms and real life mannerisms. Based on the words spoken, and the inflections I imagined, I see Mr. Warren as condescending, so firm in his belief that he cannot even contemplate for a moment that anything Mr. Harris says is worth listening to- so he is not listening to garner anything but the appropriate response. Mr. Harris, I imagine as considering himself an intellectual (he's working on a Ph. D) and as of course correct. But also someone who has spent his life rationalizing and quantifying, and of course to justify both you need to acquire data. So perhaps he's collecting data if nothing else, and so listening for perhaps a bit more than Mr. Warren is.

So of course, these presumptions put me on Mr. Harris's bench, as anyone who goes to someone else's office aware that they will accomplish nothing deserves a little of my respect and based on my presumptions, is listening harder. That said. My bias is established. Lets also say that what Warren says is largely theoretical, undeniably so, it is theological. (they both have theo. Obviously living in the same house.) Mr. Harris, on the other hand, sprinkles all that he says with actual information based on what he knows. I'm assuming he knows a lot, and by a lot I mean a lot more than Mr. Warren, and a lot more than me. (knowledge is not wisdom)

I notice the contradictions that each makes on himself and in my mind, whoever made more contradictions lost the argument. So Warren lost.

Well, how? He only said what the bible does. Precisely.

The Bible is a book written by multiple people inspired in multiple ways by what they perceive as the same God. They moreover, are humans just like we are, and just as guilty of inflecting in what they write themselves and their faults. The Bible is a faulted text. It holds truths, indesputably. But also fallacies, and these fallacies, just like the people responsible for them, contradict each other. Warren as a faithful (blinded) believer, must believe all of it. So he can't help contradicting himself. As seen in his specifics about science in the Bible, as example. He says that he is aware he might be wrong, but never asks any questions of Harris about atheism that are designed to educate himself in ways that may turn him an atheist. He is not okay with being wrong. At the end of it all, his final thought is about a gamble. He simply isn't willing to lose is he? Well whats all this crap about faith and the life of Jesus being fulfilling? Is he doing it because he believes or because he can't stand the thought of possibly having nothing at all?

To disagree with his argument styling, he requests that Harris not cut him off, but cuts Harris off. Bad etiquette always upsets me.

Harris of course has his fallacies. He as well holds that he is open to being wrong, but will not let himself be turned to the faithful side of things. He says that atheism has a terrible PR campaign, while he himself contributes to its bad compaigning.

Harris is always on the attack, he always has something new to say, he is never on the defense. Warren is always on the defense and can never attack atheism. This proves either that atheism is inherently correct, as it is unassailable, or that it holds so little truth it must gain its truth through attacking what it disagrees with. It proves that either the religion standpoint, particularly christian religion, is indefensible, or that it does not need to attack those that disagree to maintain its importance.

Either way, I would say it doesn't matter. Faith is irrelevent and whether god exists makes no difference. What matters is what you choose to say and do. The motivations matter less than the good you manage to do and the evil you fail to see yourself doing. Eyes clear of anything are needed to notice evil in life. The faithful, the blind, need to clear their vision. The angry, the apathetic, the nonbelievers need to clear their vision. Whether God is real, it matters not. What matters is that we all do our best to do what is right and what is good and to help others. I don't care why you do it, only that you do. And nothing else matters. All this talk, all this debate, is wasted energy. Why do we waste our time debating whether our motivations are true? Just act. Why do we waste time explaining our motivations when it does not matter, and what matters is what we are motivated to do.

Neither man won the debate.

And it doesn't matter.