Changes

Craig started by drawing the audience’s attention to how Harris was confusing moral [[ontology]] with moral [[semantics]]: confusing the basis or the foundation for moral values with the meaning of moral terms.

Craig started by drawing the audience’s attention to how Harris was confusing moral [[ontology]] with moral [[semantics]]: confusing the basis or the foundation for moral values with the meaning of moral terms.

...Craig brought down the hammer and completely crushed Harris for the rest of the debate, by not only showing that Harris wasn’t engaging with the topic (he was equivocating between moral [[epistemology]] and ontology) but that his entire ethical system was necessarily false, by his own admission...

...Craig brought down the hammer and completely crushed Harris for the rest of the debate, by not only showing that Harris wasn’t engaging with the topic (he was [[equivocation|equivocating]] between moral [[epistemology]] and ontology) but that his entire ethical system was necessarily false, by his own admission...

“A less moral framework is atheism,” started Craig with an exasperated laugh, and then went on to point out that Harris had said nothing to defend an atheistic foundation for morality, nor to refute Craig’s own arguments. To demonstrate how poorly Harris understood Christianity, and how irrelevant his “arguments” were, Craig quipped, in regards to Harris’s claim that the goal on theism is to avoid hell, “Belief in God isn’t some kind of fire insurance.” He then went on to list a number of other ways in which the red herrings that Harris had laid across the path were irrelevant—which was fair enough since there wasn’t much else to say.<ref>[http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/04/how-william-lane-craig-thrashed-sam-harris-like-a-naughty-puppy/ How William Lane Craig thrashed Sam Harris like a naughty puppy], Thinking Matters (New Zealand Christian Apologetics Ministry), April 9, 2011</ref>}}

“A less moral framework is atheism,” started Craig with an exasperated laugh, and then went on to point out that Harris had said nothing to defend an atheistic foundation for morality, nor to refute Craig’s own arguments. To demonstrate how poorly Harris understood Christianity, and how irrelevant his “arguments” were, Craig quipped, in regards to Harris’s claim that the goal on theism is to avoid hell, “Belief in God isn’t some kind of fire insurance.” He then went on to list a number of other ways in which the red herrings that Harris had laid across the path were irrelevant—which was fair enough since there wasn’t much else to say.<ref>[http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/04/how-william-lane-craig-thrashed-sam-harris-like-a-naughty-puppy/ How William Lane Craig thrashed Sam Harris like a naughty puppy], Thinking Matters (New Zealand Christian Apologetics Ministry), April 9, 2011</ref>}}