Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dinsdale
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't fear God, i don't believe God exists, i'm an atheist.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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).
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.
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.