Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (1 Viewer)

Well, did...

  • Man make God?

  • God make Man?


Results are only viewable after voting.

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,810
#42
i dont but when your actions go against what you re saying you re either a liar or confused, i like to give the benefit of doubt; so whether you give these godly attributes of sustenance and approval to a being you cant comprehend or to people you re doing the same thing: worshiping
No, I'm not. Just because I don't know how a tree came to grow in my garden doesn't mean I'm worshipping it. Ignorance does not imply worship.

And I can comprehend the motive for approval. An individual who is accepted in a group draws a lot of benefit from that. He has someone to talk to, someone to hunt with, someone to give him food on a rough day, someone to watch over him when he's sick, someone to protect him from others. It's a dead simple sociological motive.

A true atheist doesnt answer to any entity but his whims fir he understand that no relationship goal or person mean anything beyond the self and its satisfaction; and thats not assumption that is gotten purely on a logical development from the premise "there is no God"
And this definition of a true atheist, where did you find it? In the Atheist Handbook? Because I've never seen it before.

An atheist is just someone who doesn't have a belief in god, it's nothing more than that. It's nothing special. One person will say "I believe my horse is going to win this race and I'll be rich". Another person will say "I don't share that belief". That is all an atheist is. There is no implication about the values he must or must not hold, there are no rules that govern atheists. This is the very first thing to understand.
 

Alen

Senior Member
Apr 2, 2007
49,038
#43
A true atheist doesnt answer to any entity but his whims fir he understand that no relationship goal or person mean anything beyond the self and its satisfaction; and thats not assumption that is gotten purely on a logical development from the premise "there is no God"
When did something called "a true atheist" start existing ? The first guys who were called atheists were those Athenians who didn't fear the gods. They didn't bother to give sacrifices to the gods, they didn't care if the refugee is hiding in a sacred building and they entered the building and killed him. They were called godless because they didn't fear the gods because they didn't believe they existed.
I don't fear God, i don't believe God exists, i'm an atheist.
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,810
#44
deride all you want, you cant say one thing then change it whenever it seems fit if there's no significance to anything who cares about ancestors living or resiliency why go through it? anyways shatter your world when you see fit. if you re really an atheist and you re holding yourself to any moral grounds then i feel bad for you
It's completely useless debating with you, because you're never willing to actually accept any concrete argument and pursue it. And likewise when I respond to a specific point of yours you just move on to something else. It's like Muhammad Ali dancing in the ring.

You just keep making outlandish claims that you have no justification for and no intellectually honest person would accept in a debate without an argument to back them up.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
35,664
#48
I guess perhaps it's inevitable that a debate with such an ambitious title will be intellectually lacking.

The morality argument is laughable. "If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist." Suppose you accept this premise. Now you have to explain why hundreds of religious sects with divergent moral values claim theirs were handed down by god. So you've made no progress at all towards finding these objective values. And then, incredibly, he goes on to say that objective moral values are obvious to everyone. He just decided out of the blue to make this a new premise and make his original statement irrelevant.

The atheist is a jackass with his arrogant and patronizing overtones.

This stuff is really boring, verynine. Both the form, the long preludes and the statements themselves.
True, but some "objective" moral values do exist. Virtually no culture allows random murder or theft. In fact many anthropologists agree that there are a couple of core values almost every culture has. However, this does not really do the pro-God side any good, as one could also argue that it's a survival mechanism. We don't allow random murder, because we don't want to be murdered ourselves.
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,810
#49
True, but some "objective" moral values do exist. Virtually no culture allows random murder or theft. In fact many anthropologists agree that there are a couple of core values almost every culture has. However, this does not really do the pro-God side any good, as one could also argue that it's a survival mechanism. We don't allow random murder, because we don't want to be murdered ourselves.
Now you're talking "some". So which ones are core values and which aren't? Are the "core" values the only ones that are universal? Beyond those, every culture tends to get creative.

If they do exist, it's still a very poorly defined set of values, isn't it?
 
Aug 1, 2003
17,631
#50
But that's the whole problem with man made values/morals isn't it? With man made values what I think is right may not be what you think is right so there's never a general consensus. Of course we agree that just killing someone is wrong but life's not so black and white unless you support Juve.

But then again you could say the same thing about God or religion as well since there are so many religions out there anyway, and more often than their laws are open to intepretation.

With God or no God I still think we're all doomed anyway, if there's one thing I definitely believe in it's the existence of satan :D
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,810
#53
But that's the whole problem with man made values/morals isn't it? With man made values what I think is right may not be what you think is right so there's never a general consensus. Of course we agree that just killing someone is wrong but life's not so black and white unless you support Juve.
Well I think we're in decent shape, Seven says anthropologists find some things seem to be universal. Most moral debate is centered around the question of harm, who is harmed by what. And that's a pretty good working model I think. It gets a little more shady when you take the leap from physical harm to "moral harm" (eg. violent video games).
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,810
#54
With God or no God I still think we're all doomed anyway, if there's one thing I definitely believe in it's the existence of satan :D
I think Freud would say that this is when the id trumps the superego. When your base instincts triumph your moral values and you knowingly break your own rules.
 

Bjerknes

Senior Member
Mar 16, 2004
100,500
#57
well if you dont believe in god, then the concept of goodness ceases to make sense, if one is not striving to better himslef in all facets what then? if theres no purpose to live then life loses value so everything is pointless. why think of tomorrow when i have a quick exit strategy(suicide) as soon as it gets sticky.
Because you have a duty as a human being to the people around you no matter what your religion is. Just live your life.
 
OP
OP
Dinsdale
Jun 26, 2007
2,706
#59
True, but some "objective" moral values do exist. Virtually no culture allows random murder or theft. In fact many anthropologists agree that there are a couple of core values almost every culture has. However, this does not really do the pro-God side any good, as one could also argue that it's a survival mechanism. We don't allow random murder, because we don't want to be murdered ourselves.
Actually, I think it does, because there is a difference between something that is socially unacceptable because it decreases chances of survival, like putting your own house on fire, and something that is really morally wrong, like rape. Of course, rape can also have negative effects on the chances of survival, but if it was not accepted by society only because of that, it would be considered taboo only, and not per se morally wrong. (this is basically what William L. Craig said)

I'm still undeciced on the morality argument tbh, and I don't think any of us in here are in a position to make a quick judgement about it. I mean, to say like Martin that a guy who has studied philosophy and theology at the highest academic level for more than 20 years, comes up with an argument 'out of the blue', just sounds too harsh, and - ironically- out of the blue.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)