@FamousDave2186 Here is a pretty unmoral thing for god,who is supposed moral to threaten the Israelites with,Dueteronomy 28:53-57.Look it up,it says that things for the Israelites will get so bad,they will be forced to eat their own children.Some great morals,the Judeo-Christian god has.
@jouc12 i havent watched that debate in a while so im not going to go back and review it just for you. i will say this though. if your christian, then WLC does not help ypu
Morality is not dependant on religion. Look at all the tribe they find in the middle of the amazon etc. They have never seen or heard of religion. Are they living in harmony YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS RELIGION = BULL SHITZ
@NICH0LASM not what the moral argument states. Nice strawman but you're not fooling anyone here except your atheist friends. The Moral argument states that God gives us these morals in our hearts. Paul writes even though you did not know the Word of God it was still written in your hearts to know what was right and wrong (the moral argument). Under Atheism there is no FOUNDATION as to why anything should be right or wrong. Please give me a foundation as to why something is morally wrong?
@FamousDave2186 well if you are suggesting for one minute the bible is moral i can't argue with that insanity. have you read leviticus. You to think gay people should be killed and that children should have their organs sliced at. nice try, but you can't win the argument because you don;t have one.
@NICH0LASM nice way to dodge my point. For wages of sin of any kind is death, but through the grace of God with His Son Jesus Christ dying on the cross and raising again on the third day, and confessing with your mouth and believing in your heart in Jesus Christ, will not perish but have enternal life with Him. So no I don't believe in killing gay people. It still a sin but with Jesus atonement of sins we are in days of grace. If you believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior you will not
@NICH0LASM conti: perish but have enternal life with Him in Heaven. Now I don't know where you the idea of children having their organs sliced want to give the exact verse so I don't fall for strawman and argue something you weren't even talking about. I did a search and no where is this even metioned even by atheists who ask questions, about the Bible. So give me the verse and I'll see if I can clearify what it means. Anyways back to my point. You've given me no foundation for morals.
@NICH0LASM conti: I'll repeat why under atheism should I accpet morals? What's the foundation for them? If you have no foundation for them then anyone can just do what they please. Again give me a foundation otherwise you don't have an argument.
@FamousDave2186 The current thinking is "don't do to others what you would not like done to you". The foundation for the atheist take on morals is far more persuasive than one of the many different holy books talking about tons of different gods. For instance, muslims kill gay people, they have religion. Do you think it is morally right to kill gay people? Because they do... are you suggesting your god gave them morals... i am really lost with your non existent reasoning.
@NICH0LASM Funny Jesus said do unto others as you would have done to you (postive). That's alot harder to do than not doing something. But still that's no foundation. For without a moral lawgiver how can you say whats right and wrong. What makes you so special than an animal? Do animals have morals? No they don't. They are not moral agents. When a Lion kills a Zebra it kills it but it doesn't murder it. A shark forcefully has sex with a female shark but it doesn't rape it. So if man is nothing..
@FamousDave2186 Dave, animals do have morals.... If they had no morals they would not live in peace with their own kind and raise their own kind. By dismissing the intelligence of animals so flippantly you gloss over a fundamental point that proves the holy book(s) so wrong on many levels. Never mind what jesus supposedly said, i care more about whether he actually existed. I don't know many people who turn water into wine...
@NICH0LASM animals are not moral agents. Like I stated eariler your point does nothing to disprove what I said. Does the lion murder the Zebra? When the shark forces itself on to a female shark does it rape? NO. That's why animals do not have morals.
Historians agree that Jesus did in fact exist, otherwise Christianity would not exist. Bart Ernhart an agnostic by the way agrees that Jesus did in fact exist. If you look up Joesphus the first century historian he talks about Jesus, so He did in
@FamousDave2186 Animals do have morals. Do you eat meat? If so, how are you different from the lion eating the zebra? The difference being the lion cannot eat anything other than meat and has to use his own weapons. The lion raises his children, hunts for his family. He has morals, be it different to ours. You can not discredit animal morality, as i said earluer in doing so you lie to yourself and others.
@NICH0LASM Once again animals are not moral agents all you are describing is survival but not morals. Do they find it wrong when they steal food off of another animal? Lets call the animal police then they did a no no. How do you know they don't kill on purpose? You completly ignore my point about a lion taking over a pride, they kill the other lion trying to take over, either by actually doing the job or leaving them with serious wounds that won't heal and slowly kill the lion, either way you
@FamousDave2186 If i am describing survival then how come you don't class our mentality as survival too? Is it because that book you read says you are special? What you think is love is nothing other than the emotions you get from evolution, wanting your own species to survive. Your love is not really a "love" it is feelings caused by chemical reactions. Delude yourself all you like, but don't lie to others. Morality is clearly evident in the animal kingdom.
@NICH0LASM first comment you'd be right if God doesn't exist. But since objective moral values due exist and under atheism which you haven't given me any foundation for morals you can't say this. Second comment. Yes I'm for real why haven't we seen a creature turn into another creature? Why hasn't a monkey turn into a human in my 25 going on 26 years of life no history books has ever stated this. So please tell me where did I miss this?
@FamousDave2186 zwell under objective moral values god has many faults in that area, specifically in divine command theory and also when say god's nature is good you run into the problem of defining the thing ( goodness) which you are trying to establish.
As for your evolution comment, i'm amazed at how uneducated some people are on the subject. Humans and monkeys have a common ancestor, that does not mean humans came from monkeys. If you want to debate a subject research it first.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence for starters this was between me and him you have not read everything that's been stated and proof of that is he claimed that there was evidence for atheism so I asked him what proof and evidence does he have for this. If you read that you wouldn't have stated this. Second He stated we came from monkeys again read everything before going into a debate you should correct him on this since he said it and I was arguing against it. third yes it is argument from ignorance, he's
@FamousDave2186 You stated humans came from monkeys not him, he said an ancestor which you disregarded for your own definition. I also read enough to know you do not know what you are talking about. He wasn't arguing from ignorance, he was stating a point which I simplified for you but you didn't seem to grasp it.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence pg2 of this video: They fight, they don't kill their own kind on purpose, if they do it is RARE. Just as humans killing other humans is RARE in comparison to the grand daily scheme of life. Man come up from and advancement of the cromosome gene of monkies. Our second chromosomes merged giving us only 23 pairs compared to their 24 pairs. You can see the merge by looking down a microscope. So unfortunately for you, you are an advancement of a monkey. Deny it all you like
@FamousDave2186 Dude now you are blatantly lying. I've read through onto the second page and you clearly state that you think evolution of humans means humans came from monkeys. Both he and I corrected you and now you are trying to say he did it? Lying is a sin according to your belief, yet you seem perfectly fine doing it.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence conti: claiming a default postion because the majority doesn't believe it as he claims (which he has no proof to that) he's making an assumption that he's right. Now I know I've discussed about objective moral values to you before and I won't argue with you anymore. I exposed to you how your morals have no foundation to them whatsoever and you can never know for sure if you're right or not. If you didn't accpet that fine whatever but don't continue to argue with me.
@FamousDave2186 He wasn't arguing about the majority, he was telling you that history shows religions to be false at proving things specifically scientific things. As for my own morals you continuously strawmanned them when I explained that morals are based on mutuality and progress when new information is gained about them of what may be wrong or right. The foundation is humanity as a whole. The reason we stopped arguing is because you continuously made assertions and disregarded objections.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence pg 2 again: "Religion is not accepted as a cause, it is not even considered by many on earth." That's not a majority point? Again as I stated that doesn't justifiy anything. We stopped arguing because you have no foundation for your moral arguments. What if you reason that killing someone would help mankind? What makes man so special under atheism? What about the florishing of ants or spiders? Would it be wrong to kill them then? You stopped the florishing of them by...
@FamousDave2186 Killing people isn't mutual, so it doesn't really help mankind. The only time is ever needed is during a time of war or defense against an oppressor. Actually all you did was continuously assert things and not allow any objections to get in your way. As for other creatures not killing them might better help nature out. By wiping them out you make way for pests which would then wipe us out. So no its not beneficial to wipe out unless they pose a threat to you.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence You didn't answer my question. What makes mankind so special according to atheism? I see no reason to think why would should have dominon over the animals under atheism. Why should we stop the florishing of other creatures? We have hunting seasons for deer so they don't get over populated but why under atheism should we stop them from over populating? Why should we continue to keep populating but not allow them? Again No Foundation for your views its just stubborness give
@FamousDave2186 If we are to accept your reasons then this life would be meaningless, because it would be a mere second in eternity. We would be at the mercy of an ultimate eternal tyrant over being born. I explained my philosophy but you didn't seem to grasp it again and continue making non-sequiturs. But the three main reasons its all important is because of human virtue, mutuality, and rationality. Coexistence depends on everyone working with not against each other.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence No it wouldn't be. Our true purpose in this world if you choose to do so is to love and follow God. Without Him creating us we wouldn't have life. Tell me without your parents pro-creating you how do you make a human or any animal for that matter? Now you keep putting this postion of human florshing but I still haven't heard any reason as to why its important. Under atheism man is no better than any animal and/or any creature on this earth. We live, we die, same as...
@FamousDave2186 That's an assumed purpose, and not a very good one at that further you don't have evidence that god created life. Not all creatures reproduce sexually some do it asexually but that seems completely off topic. Isn't it obvious? Without human flourishing there would be no life to speak of, everything would've eradicated itself. Animals also have a sense of morals, otherwise they'd die out as well we interact with them differently because we have higher brain functions.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence conti: me an argument for why man is so special under atheism. If you cannot do this then this conversation is over.
Next comment. Yeah he changed what he was saying, but you can't deny that quote I gave now can you? Now like I stated tell me why fellow humans are so special under atheism. Because if man is nothing but an animal that will die out eventually as well as everything else in this world than it doesn't matter if I lived my life like a mother Teresa or Hitler..
@FamousDave2186 Man is important if there is no afterlife because every single thing you do would be finite and have an effect on future people. Furthermore if this is our only life then every day is valuable because we only live once.
No you continue to change your answer the guy was perfectly clear. Actually it will, your actions may define the past, present, and future and ripple out. Its also valuable now as you only get one life. If god can merely forgive us then it won't matter.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence conti: everything else in this world. No the guy was not perfectly clear and you just saying I changed my answer when he did when you presented the quote, shows the other way around. Now you say actions define past (not possible) present, and future and ripple out. Still doesn't explain anything. In the end this universe will die of a heat death according to scienctist. So what's the point? Everything we've done will be destroyed. You haven't given me any foundations
@FamousDave2186 That's an assumption based off of a non-belief, but you didn't defend why god made life so special when I pointed out its nihilistic and misanthropic nature. Keep lying it only hurts your dignity. Your example is the same as WLC, and kelly shagan called him out on it. Just because you can't find meaning in a finite life doesn't mean there is none, an eternal life is pointless. Also past actions effect the present, present actions affect the future.
@FamousDave2186 Your view completely devalues humanity, it puts all worth on a god and dismisses any intrinsic value we have. Then it proposes an endless life or death going on forever making all our actions here meaningless because after all no one will remember much after a few billion years pass. Furthermore atheism is concerned with skepticism and supernatural claims have never been proven. So your belief is unfounded and nihilistic.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence conti:for your moral views. "Your view completely devalues humanity" that is the reality of atheism, sorry you don't wish to accpet your worldview. But if morals are objective we can see why we have worth. Under your view I don't see it. My belifes are not unfounded and in no way nihilistic, in fact if morals are subjective that would be the case however I'm not making that claim. I can see you have no argument for your worldview. You're not bad at debating but using...
@FamousDave2186 Morality founded upon mutuality, reason, and human virtue. It's coexistential and depends on everyone working together to create a world without as much conflict. Actually that's an assumption, further atheism doesn't say life has no meaning. Your beliefs are heavily nihilistic as you've stated everything depends on god leaving everything else empty, further your beliefs devalue human life by saying we have an eternity that will never end and go on pointlessly without end.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence appel to emotion won't work on me. I'll let you get the last word in because I know you'll want to respond but if you come up and respond to me again I'll bring up the same thing. No foundations. I won't place my views on sinking sand.
@FamousDave2186 Right so when I characterize your belief as valueless its an appeal to emotion but when you do it, it's fine argumentation. Not only are you a liar but also a hypocrite. You know maybe if you would actually open your mind to different value systems you would understand. Your views are already in sinking sands,and you can't account for your foundations because you assume god is goodness which is circular and you can't define characteristics you are trying to establish.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence conti: killing them. No foundation. Last I love how I made an exact quote and you think I'm lying. Everyone, you can look at that and see the other guy clearly stated that the only thing I left out is the lol and the ... but other than that it was word for word, but yet I'm lying. A wise thinker of our time said it best: "Are you serious Bro!?" (Zack Ryder) Its clear that you don't care about the truth whatsoever believe whatever you want but I choose to serve the Lord.
@FamousDave2186 So mutuality,rationality, and human virtues aren't foundations but super-beings are? Great. here's a direct quote from the the other guy you were debating "We evolved from a common ancestor not directly mokeys. Are you for real?" so yes you are lying. Its clear you have your head up your ass and care more about serving a god than helping out your fellow humans. If you did care you wouldn't have to lie about something to defend it.
"Animals kill other species to feed; they don't kill their own kind do they?" Yeah they do. For example a lion kills its own kind to be the head of the pride. So looks like you're wrong on that one. Another example is dogs. Remember what what Michael Vick did with dog fighting? So again animals do kill they're own kind.
Now you say that animals have a primitive take on things (paraphasing) but the problem with this is how if evolution is true did man come up...
@FamousDave2186 They fight, they don't kill their own kind on purpose, if they do it is RARE. Just as humans killing other humans is RARE in comparison to the grand daily scheme of life. Man come up from and advancement of the cromosome gene of monkies. Our second chromosomes merged giving us only 23 pairs compared to their 24 pairs. You can see the merge by looking down a microscope. So unfortunately for you, you are an advancement of a monkey. Deny it all you like.. lol...
@NICH0LASM conti: look at it its still killing, but we don't put them in jail for it now do we? We as humans kill everday. Just because there's billions of us doesn't mean that's rare. Do you not watch T.V? The Wars over seas disprove this one. I'f we came from monkeys why is it that there are still monkeys left? Why is it that only certain monkeys evolued into humans? Why don't we see these changes? I've never seen a dog turn into a different creature its still a dog.
@FamousDave2186 We evolved from a common ancestor not directly mokeys. Are you for real? Your ignorance is astounding, so much so i think you ae trolling me. Although i do know quite a few religious people who have never picked up a science book in their lives.
@NICH0LASM conti: with morals? Where did the idea of love your neighbor (means everyone) as yourself come from? Animals do not love. We are the only ones that do. To claim evoultion (without God) is too convenent, it was if it knew we were coming in this earth, and the odds of that is too high. So if evoultion were true it would need God to control it.
I won't defend the musliem belief because I'm not a musliem. I think they are wrong in their beliefs that's why I don't defend them, they're...
@FamousDave2186 Animals do love. Look at dogs, they love their owers. Animals also love their young, they protect them. All your ideas are wrong. Evolution is a bulk mass of random activity. This is why 99% of species that have ever existed are now dead... some design that is.. as for your claim of life only being on this planet... that is a guess. Humans helping each other is just like monkies who also help each other.
@NICH0LASM conti: affection is totally different than actual love. A dog does not cry when someone dies, a dog will not be hurt if it never sees its owner again. Do not confuse emtion with love because love is not a felling what so ever. "This is why 99% of species that have ever existed are now dead... some design that is.." Strawman. That's not what the telogical argument from fine tuning presents. I've told you this is the only planet that can sustain life, and gravity off by a little would
@NICH0LASM conti: destroy our planet. How if atheism is true could this happen. The odds of that happening our impossible, and deep down you know this.
As I've already stated animals are not moral agents, if they were when the lion kills the other lion to take over its pride should it be punished for doing so? When the lion that kills off the other lion for its pride it kills the cubs of the other lion, does the lionness do anything to stop it? No. Watch discovery channel on it you might learn
@FamousDave2186 Animal morality is less advanced than ours but they do have some degree, each species. A living creature is trapped into the restraints of their mind, just as you are not being able to see that things are not special, they just look that way. Don't be an ignorant cave man all your life...
The only reason you don't accpet the facts is because you don't want to. The choice is yours. I'm not here to force you to do anything you don't want to do. If you don't want to accpet what I've stated that's fine. Now you claim to value reason and evidence but I've never heard any evidence from any atheist as to why I should accpet atheism as the more plausable cause. Can you provide proof and evidence as to why atheism is accurate and correct?
@FamousDave2186 Religion is not accepted as a cause, it is not even considered by many on earth. You have no reason to think a god exists. We don't even know if religion is relevant to the universe. All civilisations through time have considered a religion, but to date all were wrong. Why is yours real, because of "jesus" lol. As i said before. There is no real reason why anyone should think different to what a scientist has to say, because they work off facts only..
@NICH0LASM last comment: Your whole comment falls under argument from ignorance. Basically you assume that atheism is a default postion and make assumtions that people don't consider it a cause. Well what if the majority of people considered jumping off a bridge was a good idea would you still do it? According to your logic yes you would. You still haven't answered my question what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct?
@FamousDave2186 I think his argument wasn't from ignorance, he was stating that god has never been a viable answer to anything in our history. Thus history shows that religions are merely ignorance of science which you've already proven in your comment below. As for asking if atheism is accurate and correct, its a disbelief you are the one presenting a majority of evidence here. A better question would be, how can we know what a god is? If it is outside our comprehension its unanswerable.
@NICH0LASM conti: god is not the same as the True God of the Bible, that's why.
"I could see why you may think if morality has come about from evolution that it MUST have been input by a superior being. But this is where you have to step back and look at the big picture. What looks special or designed to you, in relativity to the grandeur of the universe is by far, no means special."
For starters I said if evolution was true, so lets get our wording right, second this is is special design
@NICH0LASM conti: for life. Why is this the only planet that does have life on here? No other planet does. Why is it if gravity is off just by a little bit life would not exist due to either being too close to the sun or too far away from it? Just because you don't think its intelligently designed doesn't make it not true. You need to look at the telogical argument from fine-tuning my friend and not from what an atheist states, read about it from reasonablefaith.o.r.g (take out periods)
@FamousDave2186 face facts, the only reason you think like you do is because of some old book with questionable history. Absolutely nothing you can say will make anyone who values reason and evidence aka their dignity will ever think like a religious person.
@FamousDave2186 Animals kill other species to feed; they don't kill their own kind do they? To kill your own species you need a flaw in the make up of your brain, eg murderers. Animals have a primitive take on morality because they are not as clever in the mind as us. If you dismiss the intellectual ability of other creatures on earth you are truly living in mental torture, because you will lie to yourself in order to make the bible true. This is very dangerous.
@NICH0LASM conti: more than an animal why is it that man does have morals. If it was by evolution as you might claim that seems a bit too convenient without God directing it if evolution is true. So therefore God is the foundation for objective moral values and without God we would have no foundation for moral duties and values.
Now I won't defend the muslim belief because I'm not a muslim. But to answer some of those points its not for me to decided who should live and who should die, yes God
@FamousDave2186 You wont defend the muslim belief, but they have a god? just like you? This is another problem for religions when arguing morality, muslims ruin it for them. I could see why you may think if morality has come about from evolution that it MUST have been input by a superior being. But this is where you have to step back and look at the big picture. What looks special or designed to you, in relativity to the grandeur of the universe is by far, no means special.
@NICH0LASM conti: gave mankind morals. People choose to disobey those morals by falsely reasoning with themselfs that its ok to do whatever.
Last what other science? Philosophy you mean? Sorry but the best you can do is just say its man's opinion. Well what makes man so special. Perhaps there might be a higher intelligents (aliens) who think rape is ok. Since they're "more evolued" than us are they then in the right? I can say since morals are objective that they are in the wrong. You on the..
@FamousDave2186 But you must also remember, the atheist take on morals mixes in with other science, like how we evolved from a common ancestor with the ape. So part of our reason for the topic mixes in with factual findings. But you try to mix it is with a faith lacking in evidence. So yes you can sit on the fence throwing stones, but if you only pick at sections and don't understand it fully you will think you are winning the argument.
@NICH0LASM conti: otherhand cannot. You may think they're wrong but what grounds do you have? What makes you so special? If you think you are special under atheism you're just going for speciesm, which is saying a certain species is far superior than others, but why would you be so far superior would be my question.
As soon as you click on this page, you see "Artist: Rick Astley..." The days of rickrolling are truly over. (And with that, I think we have a knock-down argument)
What Sam is doing? He´s probably thinking: Damn, I never said that goodness is identical to flourish of sentient beings, so instead of loosing my time for rebuttal addressing this red herring (exactly what Craig wants), I will show why morality can´t be grounded on the supernatural, which is enough to win the debate. If morality can´t be supernatural, it can only be natural, even if I can´t present a valid theory on how to ground it in the natural world. Case closed.
@Birdieupon Birdie,this is a funny edited clip of the debate. I am obviously making reference to the entire debate. Having watched that entire debate previously i'm well aware of the 'pwnage' inflicted on Craig. Please think before you try make fun of people. Its not very Christian of you.....
@Birdieupon I was actually upset when I first saw the debate. Harris didnt take on Craigs arguments head on. But Craig always speaks first, and always raises question so that the second speaker must spend time refuting the statements. Harris didnt do this and I was aking myself why. Then Harris finished and I realized he didnt discuss these topics because he figured appealing to logic and reason would make people see their somewhat disgusting morals and faiths are, well, disgusting.
@Birdieupon You could argue that both Craig and Harris avoided questions. But they are both just using strategies to try and make the other person seem silly. Harris proclaims we need to be concerned about the misery we inflict on other sentient creatures. "if you think anything is bad, then the worste possible misery for everyone must be bad"
you could argue that words have slightly different meanings in many context but, misery for everyone is bad
@Birdieupon Sure it is an assertion, but what decent human being would honestly try and say that the worste possible misery for everyone isnt bad? or as Harris stated "maybe it has a silver lining"
and under 'atheism' the laws would have the exact same justification as under a theist's view [(accept the theist believes he/she has divinity on his/her side (which is also an unjustified assertion)]
@Birdieupon I'm sure Harris assumed he didn't have to explain why misery for everyone would be bad, if religion is the only thing keeping you from thinking misery for everyone is good or misery for everyone is neither good nor bad, that begs serious questions about your character and or sanity.
@eggnchip Really? pwning WIlliam Lane Craig? Can you point what Harris said that proved theres objective morality in atheism? BTW thats the title of the debate.
I saw the entire debate and he never said anything that could prove his case. Talking about a subject is not proving your point. But as the usual atheist you're just deluding yourself to think he won. Craig gives solid points, Harris speaks desultory words about it and somehow he wins. Sure, keep dreaming.
@bcbk93 I despise Craig and his visage of perpetual "rightness", but this video wasn't really attacking Sam, even if the user seems to dislike him. I'm just sayin', the way you commented at first, you must not've watched it. Oh, well. Cheers.
lol thats hilarious........ but what i really think he was doin was lookin at what he was gonna say next. he refuted othing he didnt engage craig at all. he just had an agenda of what he wanted to say. worthless debate. harris was horrible
@bcbk93 I honestly feel that if you watch the entirety of the debate without a bias toward either party or ideal, it's more or less a draw. They both have valid points. Being a Christian, I would like to say Craig won the debate, but frankly I would raise niether man's hand at the end.
@Vire70 I think you call it nonsense because it doesn't agree with your perspective. Just as I could say the same of Harris. The TRUTH is that both opponents made good logical arguments. Neither of which prove or disprove God, they just argued well.
Any logic appearing in Craigs arguments is only surface deep, layered on piles of fallacies that have been debunked a million times. A cursory look on google will reveal many excellent sites that logically devastate all of Craigs arguments. The only difference between Craig and other charlatan Christian apologists is that he manages to actually sound coherent whilst spewing his garbage; which is in part because he uses identical rehearsed arguments in every debate.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
I'd rather get rickrolled than to have to listen to WLC's constant boring blather on why objective evil is actually good -- and even the best good -- when his imaginary friend commands it.
I don't know, but I'd rather get Rick rolled than listen to Craig pretend to be a philosopher rather than simply a professional x-tian apologist debater.
Why bother listening to him? I've heard five year olds put up far more logically sound points. Just listen to Rick then take a stab in the dark, whatever you say, it can't be worse then what craig said.
I could make a far more boring video to the same effect. Rarely do I see WLC go into a debate without a file folder of assorted papers. I'm not saying it's wise to go into a debate without a pre-constructed speech, outline, or at least a plan (both sides of the fence do this here and there). Both speakers began by giving entry speeches from their own points of view, and then each went on from there. Harris used his laptop for the same thing WLC's cheat-sheet was for; it's acceptable in a debate.
"Harris used his laptop for the same thing WLC's cheat-sheet was for; it's acceptable in a debate."
Cheat sheet? LOL, what a retard. The very definition of a debate is where you EXCHANGE and RESPOND to each other's views. Harris may have well have just given a stand alone lecture or sent a video tape, the way he ducked out of Craig's rebuttals.
It's astonishing that Harris actually has groupies who try to defend his abysmal performance.
@Birdieupon Notice how this is the very first time you've ever seen me speak. Notice how your *very first response* contains the statement, "LOL what a retard." Nothing so invective was present in my original statement, and I'd like to point that out. I digress... ~_^
I mentioned that each speaker began by giving entry speeches (Harris used laptop, Craig used paper) and then *each went on from there.* I did not imply that they each did no more than just read to themselves the entire time.
You feel as though Harris did not rebut. What I'm telling you is that from 'my perspective,' Harris did rebut WLC's statements about Divine Command Theory by giving examples of things which many would considered malevolent atrocities for any reason extraneous to God, yet those same things *become good by definition* when God mandates them. A Q&A student asked WLC why Islamic jihad was misled, and how he explained the Crusades as 'good.' WLC dodged, only explaining why he believed Christianity.
"which many would considered malevolent atrocities"
And to hold them in this regard requires an objective moral standard - the very thing Harris was supposed to be arguing for. He's begging the question by appealing to it and ignoring Craig's refutation.
Is torture wrong because God prohibits it, or does God prohibit torture because it is already wrong? If a good God prohibits torture, it is because torture is intrinsically wrong, not merely because he declares it to be wrong by fiat. If torture is intrinsically wrong, then it is wrong regardless of God's existence. Either certain acts are wrong regardless of opinion, or all "torture is wrong" means is "God prohibits torture." Rather than grounding the objectivity of ethics, DCT undermines it.
@themediocrenontheist Youre essentially bringing up the euthyphro dilemma. Craig has already given his take on it, and Im sure there are other rebuttals to it so you can find them out. It is intrinsically wrong because there is a God who is morally good by nature. That is to say, the idea of good is based on the nature of God and torture is against the nature of this personal God. If there is no God, there is no intrinsic wrong and hence no morality, only preferences for certain actions.
Of course, William Lane Craig has faith that the deity outlined in the Judeo-Christian Bible is the author of morality and creator of the universe. This is the same Yahweh who allegedly allowed Satan to test Job to see if his fealty would be swayed. He allowed Job's children to be killed by Satan, and when he remains loyal to Yahweh, he is given more riches and new children. This devalues the original lives lost as expendable pawns, but Craig finds no issue with this tale and others.
@themediocrenontheist I dunno about Craig's view but I always thought the story of Job was a poem or fiction meant to explain a version of the problem of evil and about our place in the universe. And I do agree with the moral of the story in any case, we should act morally both in good and bad health. Tragedy does not change morality.There could be several reasons why God would permit evil( free will, temptation etc) at the hands of 'Satan', natural law, or people themselves.
@Daxcheese "And I do agree with the moral of the story in any case, we should act morally both in good and bad health." - D.C.
It wasn't about 'acting morally' when faced with tribulations, it was about remaining unquestioningly loyal to Yahweh. Some stories present in the Bible are "poem or fiction, you feel. Several parables are found in the Bible, and they are clearly introduced as such. Without such an introduction, I see no reason to think that this tale is only metaphorical.
@themediocrenontheist The reason I thought it was mythic/poetic is cuz 1) The content of the story has little narrative and is essentially people giving different takes on Suffering,culminating in God's poetic speech 2) Satan appears for the first time since Genesis 3) Job was a random dude not of Hebrew descent etc. I could be wrong, its my opinion and my theology isnt too great. Anyways that was one of if not the most important point biblegateway*.com*/passage /?search=Job%201:9-11&version=NIV
@Daxcheese Many believe Yahweh to be illimitable (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent). If this were true, then God would have known before Satan even thought to make a wager that he one day would, and what the outcome would be, concerning Job. You can't surprise someone who knows past, present, and future. Why a limited being would even try to overthrow an illimitable one is another plot hole; it would be like a naked me vs. China's military, and even that wouldn't be a good enough analogy.
Hey, isn't that Glaber from Spartacus?
Stitchman3875 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 Here is a pretty unmoral thing for god,who is supposed moral to threaten the Israelites with,Dueteronomy 28:53-57.Look it up,it says that things for the Israelites will get so bad,they will be forced to eat their own children.Some great morals,the Judeo-Christian god has.
MrSaxman321 4 weeks ago
.....your cause. he's little better thN a snake oil salesman.
eggnchip 1 month ago
@jouc12 i havent watched that debate in a while so im not going to go back and review it just for you. i will say this though. if your christian, then WLC does not help ypu
eggnchip 1 month ago
haha....Harris had to listen to something to drown out Craig's nonsense. great video!
biggregg5 1 month ago
Morality is not dependant on religion. Look at all the tribe they find in the middle of the amazon etc. They have never seen or heard of religion. Are they living in harmony YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS RELIGION = BULL SHITZ
NICH0LASM 1 month ago
@NICH0LASM not what the moral argument states. Nice strawman but you're not fooling anyone here except your atheist friends. The Moral argument states that God gives us these morals in our hearts. Paul writes even though you did not know the Word of God it was still written in your hearts to know what was right and wrong (the moral argument). Under Atheism there is no FOUNDATION as to why anything should be right or wrong. Please give me a foundation as to why something is morally wrong?
FamousDave2186 4 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 well if you are suggesting for one minute the bible is moral i can't argue with that insanity. have you read leviticus. You to think gay people should be killed and that children should have their organs sliced at. nice try, but you can't win the argument because you don;t have one.
NICH0LASM 4 weeks ago
@NICH0LASM nice way to dodge my point. For wages of sin of any kind is death, but through the grace of God with His Son Jesus Christ dying on the cross and raising again on the third day, and confessing with your mouth and believing in your heart in Jesus Christ, will not perish but have enternal life with Him. So no I don't believe in killing gay people. It still a sin but with Jesus atonement of sins we are in days of grace. If you believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior you will not
FamousDave2186 4 weeks ago
@NICH0LASM conti: perish but have enternal life with Him in Heaven. Now I don't know where you the idea of children having their organs sliced want to give the exact verse so I don't fall for strawman and argue something you weren't even talking about. I did a search and no where is this even metioned even by atheists who ask questions, about the Bible. So give me the verse and I'll see if I can clearify what it means. Anyways back to my point. You've given me no foundation for morals.
FamousDave2186 4 weeks ago
@NICH0LASM conti: I'll repeat why under atheism should I accpet morals? What's the foundation for them? If you have no foundation for them then anyone can just do what they please. Again give me a foundation otherwise you don't have an argument.
FamousDave2186 4 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 The current thinking is "don't do to others what you would not like done to you". The foundation for the atheist take on morals is far more persuasive than one of the many different holy books talking about tons of different gods. For instance, muslims kill gay people, they have religion. Do you think it is morally right to kill gay people? Because they do... are you suggesting your god gave them morals... i am really lost with your non existent reasoning.
NICH0LASM 4 weeks ago
@NICH0LASM Funny Jesus said do unto others as you would have done to you (postive). That's alot harder to do than not doing something. But still that's no foundation. For without a moral lawgiver how can you say whats right and wrong. What makes you so special than an animal? Do animals have morals? No they don't. They are not moral agents. When a Lion kills a Zebra it kills it but it doesn't murder it. A shark forcefully has sex with a female shark but it doesn't rape it. So if man is nothing..
FamousDave2186 4 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 Dave, animals do have morals.... If they had no morals they would not live in peace with their own kind and raise their own kind. By dismissing the intelligence of animals so flippantly you gloss over a fundamental point that proves the holy book(s) so wrong on many levels. Never mind what jesus supposedly said, i care more about whether he actually existed. I don't know many people who turn water into wine...
NICH0LASM 4 weeks ago
@NICH0LASM animals are not moral agents. Like I stated eariler your point does nothing to disprove what I said. Does the lion murder the Zebra? When the shark forces itself on to a female shark does it rape? NO. That's why animals do not have morals.
Historians agree that Jesus did in fact exist, otherwise Christianity would not exist. Bart Ernhart an agnostic by the way agrees that Jesus did in fact exist. If you look up Joesphus the first century historian he talks about Jesus, so He did in
FamousDave2186 4 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 Animals do have morals. Do you eat meat? If so, how are you different from the lion eating the zebra? The difference being the lion cannot eat anything other than meat and has to use his own weapons. The lion raises his children, hunts for his family. He has morals, be it different to ours. You can not discredit animal morality, as i said earluer in doing so you lie to yourself and others.
NICH0LASM 3 weeks ago
@NICH0LASM Once again animals are not moral agents all you are describing is survival but not morals. Do they find it wrong when they steal food off of another animal? Lets call the animal police then they did a no no. How do you know they don't kill on purpose? You completly ignore my point about a lion taking over a pride, they kill the other lion trying to take over, either by actually doing the job or leaving them with serious wounds that won't heal and slowly kill the lion, either way you
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 If i am describing survival then how come you don't class our mentality as survival too? Is it because that book you read says you are special? What you think is love is nothing other than the emotions you get from evolution, wanting your own species to survive. Your love is not really a "love" it is feelings caused by chemical reactions. Delude yourself all you like, but don't lie to others. Morality is clearly evident in the animal kingdom.
NICH0LASM 3 weeks ago
@NICH0LASM first comment you'd be right if God doesn't exist. But since objective moral values due exist and under atheism which you haven't given me any foundation for morals you can't say this. Second comment. Yes I'm for real why haven't we seen a creature turn into another creature? Why hasn't a monkey turn into a human in my 25 going on 26 years of life no history books has ever stated this. So please tell me where did I miss this?
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 zwell under objective moral values god has many faults in that area, specifically in divine command theory and also when say god's nature is good you run into the problem of defining the thing ( goodness) which you are trying to establish.
As for your evolution comment, i'm amazed at how uneducated some people are on the subject. Humans and monkeys have a common ancestor, that does not mean humans came from monkeys. If you want to debate a subject research it first.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 weeks ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence for starters this was between me and him you have not read everything that's been stated and proof of that is he claimed that there was evidence for atheism so I asked him what proof and evidence does he have for this. If you read that you wouldn't have stated this. Second He stated we came from monkeys again read everything before going into a debate you should correct him on this since he said it and I was arguing against it. third yes it is argument from ignorance, he's
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 You stated humans came from monkeys not him, he said an ancestor which you disregarded for your own definition. I also read enough to know you do not know what you are talking about. He wasn't arguing from ignorance, he was stating a point which I simplified for you but you didn't seem to grasp it.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence pg2 of this video: They fight, they don't kill their own kind on purpose, if they do it is RARE. Just as humans killing other humans is RARE in comparison to the grand daily scheme of life. Man come up from and advancement of the cromosome gene of monkies. Our second chromosomes merged giving us only 23 pairs compared to their 24 pairs. You can see the merge by looking down a microscope. So unfortunately for you, you are an advancement of a monkey. Deny it all you like
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence conti: that's exactly what he said.
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 Dude now you are blatantly lying. I've read through onto the second page and you clearly state that you think evolution of humans means humans came from monkeys. Both he and I corrected you and now you are trying to say he did it? Lying is a sin according to your belief, yet you seem perfectly fine doing it.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 weeks ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence conti: claiming a default postion because the majority doesn't believe it as he claims (which he has no proof to that) he's making an assumption that he's right. Now I know I've discussed about objective moral values to you before and I won't argue with you anymore. I exposed to you how your morals have no foundation to them whatsoever and you can never know for sure if you're right or not. If you didn't accpet that fine whatever but don't continue to argue with me.
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 He wasn't arguing about the majority, he was telling you that history shows religions to be false at proving things specifically scientific things. As for my own morals you continuously strawmanned them when I explained that morals are based on mutuality and progress when new information is gained about them of what may be wrong or right. The foundation is humanity as a whole. The reason we stopped arguing is because you continuously made assertions and disregarded objections.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 weeks ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence pg 2 again: "Religion is not accepted as a cause, it is not even considered by many on earth." That's not a majority point? Again as I stated that doesn't justifiy anything. We stopped arguing because you have no foundation for your moral arguments. What if you reason that killing someone would help mankind? What makes man so special under atheism? What about the florishing of ants or spiders? Would it be wrong to kill them then? You stopped the florishing of them by...
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 Killing people isn't mutual, so it doesn't really help mankind. The only time is ever needed is during a time of war or defense against an oppressor. Actually all you did was continuously assert things and not allow any objections to get in your way. As for other creatures not killing them might better help nature out. By wiping them out you make way for pests which would then wipe us out. So no its not beneficial to wipe out unless they pose a threat to you.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 weeks ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence You didn't answer my question. What makes mankind so special according to atheism? I see no reason to think why would should have dominon over the animals under atheism. Why should we stop the florishing of other creatures? We have hunting seasons for deer so they don't get over populated but why under atheism should we stop them from over populating? Why should we continue to keep populating but not allow them? Again No Foundation for your views its just stubborness give
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 If we are to accept your reasons then this life would be meaningless, because it would be a mere second in eternity. We would be at the mercy of an ultimate eternal tyrant over being born. I explained my philosophy but you didn't seem to grasp it again and continue making non-sequiturs. But the three main reasons its all important is because of human virtue, mutuality, and rationality. Coexistence depends on everyone working with not against each other.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 weeks ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence No it wouldn't be. Our true purpose in this world if you choose to do so is to love and follow God. Without Him creating us we wouldn't have life. Tell me without your parents pro-creating you how do you make a human or any animal for that matter? Now you keep putting this postion of human florshing but I still haven't heard any reason as to why its important. Under atheism man is no better than any animal and/or any creature on this earth. We live, we die, same as...
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 That's an assumed purpose, and not a very good one at that further you don't have evidence that god created life. Not all creatures reproduce sexually some do it asexually but that seems completely off topic. Isn't it obvious? Without human flourishing there would be no life to speak of, everything would've eradicated itself. Animals also have a sense of morals, otherwise they'd die out as well we interact with them differently because we have higher brain functions.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 weeks ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence conti: me an argument for why man is so special under atheism. If you cannot do this then this conversation is over.
Next comment. Yeah he changed what he was saying, but you can't deny that quote I gave now can you? Now like I stated tell me why fellow humans are so special under atheism. Because if man is nothing but an animal that will die out eventually as well as everything else in this world than it doesn't matter if I lived my life like a mother Teresa or Hitler..
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 Man is important if there is no afterlife because every single thing you do would be finite and have an effect on future people. Furthermore if this is our only life then every day is valuable because we only live once.
No you continue to change your answer the guy was perfectly clear. Actually it will, your actions may define the past, present, and future and ripple out. Its also valuable now as you only get one life. If god can merely forgive us then it won't matter.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 weeks ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence conti: everything else in this world. No the guy was not perfectly clear and you just saying I changed my answer when he did when you presented the quote, shows the other way around. Now you say actions define past (not possible) present, and future and ripple out. Still doesn't explain anything. In the end this universe will die of a heat death according to scienctist. So what's the point? Everything we've done will be destroyed. You haven't given me any foundations
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 That's an assumption based off of a non-belief, but you didn't defend why god made life so special when I pointed out its nihilistic and misanthropic nature. Keep lying it only hurts your dignity. Your example is the same as WLC, and kelly shagan called him out on it. Just because you can't find meaning in a finite life doesn't mean there is none, an eternal life is pointless. Also past actions effect the present, present actions affect the future.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 weeks ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence conti: Either way I die and that's the end. So give me an argument as to why man is so special under atheism.
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 Your view completely devalues humanity, it puts all worth on a god and dismisses any intrinsic value we have. Then it proposes an endless life or death going on forever making all our actions here meaningless because after all no one will remember much after a few billion years pass. Furthermore atheism is concerned with skepticism and supernatural claims have never been proven. So your belief is unfounded and nihilistic.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 weeks ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence conti:for your moral views. "Your view completely devalues humanity" that is the reality of atheism, sorry you don't wish to accpet your worldview. But if morals are objective we can see why we have worth. Under your view I don't see it. My belifes are not unfounded and in no way nihilistic, in fact if morals are subjective that would be the case however I'm not making that claim. I can see you have no argument for your worldview. You're not bad at debating but using...
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 Morality founded upon mutuality, reason, and human virtue. It's coexistential and depends on everyone working together to create a world without as much conflict. Actually that's an assumption, further atheism doesn't say life has no meaning. Your beliefs are heavily nihilistic as you've stated everything depends on god leaving everything else empty, further your beliefs devalue human life by saying we have an eternity that will never end and go on pointlessly without end.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 weeks ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence appel to emotion won't work on me. I'll let you get the last word in because I know you'll want to respond but if you come up and respond to me again I'll bring up the same thing. No foundations. I won't place my views on sinking sand.
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 Right so when I characterize your belief as valueless its an appeal to emotion but when you do it, it's fine argumentation. Not only are you a liar but also a hypocrite. You know maybe if you would actually open your mind to different value systems you would understand. Your views are already in sinking sands,and you can't account for your foundations because you assume god is goodness which is circular and you can't define characteristics you are trying to establish.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 weeks ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence conti: killing them. No foundation. Last I love how I made an exact quote and you think I'm lying. Everyone, you can look at that and see the other guy clearly stated that the only thing I left out is the lol and the ... but other than that it was word for word, but yet I'm lying. A wise thinker of our time said it best: "Are you serious Bro!?" (Zack Ryder) Its clear that you don't care about the truth whatsoever believe whatever you want but I choose to serve the Lord.
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 So mutuality,rationality, and human virtues aren't foundations but super-beings are? Great. here's a direct quote from the the other guy you were debating "We evolved from a common ancestor not directly mokeys. Are you for real?" so yes you are lying. Its clear you have your head up your ass and care more about serving a god than helping out your fellow humans. If you did care you wouldn't have to lie about something to defend it.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 weeks ago
@NICH0LASM conti: fact exist.
"Animals kill other species to feed; they don't kill their own kind do they?" Yeah they do. For example a lion kills its own kind to be the head of the pride. So looks like you're wrong on that one. Another example is dogs. Remember what what Michael Vick did with dog fighting? So again animals do kill they're own kind.
Now you say that animals have a primitive take on things (paraphasing) but the problem with this is how if evolution is true did man come up...
FamousDave2186 4 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 They fight, they don't kill their own kind on purpose, if they do it is RARE. Just as humans killing other humans is RARE in comparison to the grand daily scheme of life. Man come up from and advancement of the cromosome gene of monkies. Our second chromosomes merged giving us only 23 pairs compared to their 24 pairs. You can see the merge by looking down a microscope. So unfortunately for you, you are an advancement of a monkey. Deny it all you like.. lol...
NICH0LASM 3 weeks ago
@NICH0LASM conti: look at it its still killing, but we don't put them in jail for it now do we? We as humans kill everday. Just because there's billions of us doesn't mean that's rare. Do you not watch T.V? The Wars over seas disprove this one. I'f we came from monkeys why is it that there are still monkeys left? Why is it that only certain monkeys evolued into humans? Why don't we see these changes? I've never seen a dog turn into a different creature its still a dog.
Animals cannot love,
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 We evolved from a common ancestor not directly mokeys. Are you for real? Your ignorance is astounding, so much so i think you ae trolling me. Although i do know quite a few religious people who have never picked up a science book in their lives.
NICH0LASM 3 weeks ago
@NICH0LASM conti: with morals? Where did the idea of love your neighbor (means everyone) as yourself come from? Animals do not love. We are the only ones that do. To claim evoultion (without God) is too convenent, it was if it knew we were coming in this earth, and the odds of that is too high. So if evoultion were true it would need God to control it.
I won't defend the musliem belief because I'm not a musliem. I think they are wrong in their beliefs that's why I don't defend them, they're...
FamousDave2186 4 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 Animals do love. Look at dogs, they love their owers. Animals also love their young, they protect them. All your ideas are wrong. Evolution is a bulk mass of random activity. This is why 99% of species that have ever existed are now dead... some design that is.. as for your claim of life only being on this planet... that is a guess. Humans helping each other is just like monkies who also help each other.
NICH0LASM 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NICH0LASM conti: affection is totally different than actual love. A dog does not cry when someone dies, a dog will not be hurt if it never sees its owner again. Do not confuse emtion with love because love is not a felling what so ever. "This is why 99% of species that have ever existed are now dead... some design that is.." Strawman. That's not what the telogical argument from fine tuning presents. I've told you this is the only planet that can sustain life, and gravity off by a little would
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@NICH0LASM conti: destroy our planet. How if atheism is true could this happen. The odds of that happening our impossible, and deep down you know this.
As I've already stated animals are not moral agents, if they were when the lion kills the other lion to take over its pride should it be punished for doing so? When the lion that kills off the other lion for its pride it kills the cubs of the other lion, does the lionness do anything to stop it? No. Watch discovery channel on it you might learn
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 Animal morality is less advanced than ours but they do have some degree, each species. A living creature is trapped into the restraints of their mind, just as you are not being able to see that things are not special, they just look that way. Don't be an ignorant cave man all your life...
NICH0LASM 3 weeks ago
@NICH0LASM conti: something.
The only reason you don't accpet the facts is because you don't want to. The choice is yours. I'm not here to force you to do anything you don't want to do. If you don't want to accpet what I've stated that's fine. Now you claim to value reason and evidence but I've never heard any evidence from any atheist as to why I should accpet atheism as the more plausable cause. Can you provide proof and evidence as to why atheism is accurate and correct?
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 Religion is not accepted as a cause, it is not even considered by many on earth. You have no reason to think a god exists. We don't even know if religion is relevant to the universe. All civilisations through time have considered a religion, but to date all were wrong. Why is yours real, because of "jesus" lol. As i said before. There is no real reason why anyone should think different to what a scientist has to say, because they work off facts only..
NICH0LASM 3 weeks ago
@NICH0LASM last comment: Your whole comment falls under argument from ignorance. Basically you assume that atheism is a default postion and make assumtions that people don't consider it a cause. Well what if the majority of people considered jumping off a bridge was a good idea would you still do it? According to your logic yes you would. You still haven't answered my question what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct?
FamousDave2186 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 I think his argument wasn't from ignorance, he was stating that god has never been a viable answer to anything in our history. Thus history shows that religions are merely ignorance of science which you've already proven in your comment below. As for asking if atheism is accurate and correct, its a disbelief you are the one presenting a majority of evidence here. A better question would be, how can we know what a god is? If it is outside our comprehension its unanswerable.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NICH0LASM conti: god is not the same as the True God of the Bible, that's why.
"I could see why you may think if morality has come about from evolution that it MUST have been input by a superior being. But this is where you have to step back and look at the big picture. What looks special or designed to you, in relativity to the grandeur of the universe is by far, no means special."
For starters I said if evolution was true, so lets get our wording right, second this is is special design
FamousDave2186 4 weeks ago
@NICH0LASM conti: for life. Why is this the only planet that does have life on here? No other planet does. Why is it if gravity is off just by a little bit life would not exist due to either being too close to the sun or too far away from it? Just because you don't think its intelligently designed doesn't make it not true. You need to look at the telogical argument from fine-tuning my friend and not from what an atheist states, read about it from reasonablefaith.o.r.g (take out periods)
FamousDave2186 4 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 face facts, the only reason you think like you do is because of some old book with questionable history. Absolutely nothing you can say will make anyone who values reason and evidence aka their dignity will ever think like a religious person.
NICH0LASM 3 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 Animals kill other species to feed; they don't kill their own kind do they? To kill your own species you need a flaw in the make up of your brain, eg murderers. Animals have a primitive take on morality because they are not as clever in the mind as us. If you dismiss the intellectual ability of other creatures on earth you are truly living in mental torture, because you will lie to yourself in order to make the bible true. This is very dangerous.
NICH0LASM 4 weeks ago
@NICH0LASM conti: more than an animal why is it that man does have morals. If it was by evolution as you might claim that seems a bit too convenient without God directing it if evolution is true. So therefore God is the foundation for objective moral values and without God we would have no foundation for moral duties and values.
Now I won't defend the muslim belief because I'm not a muslim. But to answer some of those points its not for me to decided who should live and who should die, yes God
FamousDave2186 4 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 You wont defend the muslim belief, but they have a god? just like you? This is another problem for religions when arguing morality, muslims ruin it for them. I could see why you may think if morality has come about from evolution that it MUST have been input by a superior being. But this is where you have to step back and look at the big picture. What looks special or designed to you, in relativity to the grandeur of the universe is by far, no means special.
NICH0LASM 4 weeks ago
@NICH0LASM conti: gave mankind morals. People choose to disobey those morals by falsely reasoning with themselfs that its ok to do whatever.
Last what other science? Philosophy you mean? Sorry but the best you can do is just say its man's opinion. Well what makes man so special. Perhaps there might be a higher intelligents (aliens) who think rape is ok. Since they're "more evolued" than us are they then in the right? I can say since morals are objective that they are in the wrong. You on the..
FamousDave2186 4 weeks ago
@FamousDave2186 But you must also remember, the atheist take on morals mixes in with other science, like how we evolved from a common ancestor with the ape. So part of our reason for the topic mixes in with factual findings. But you try to mix it is with a faith lacking in evidence. So yes you can sit on the fence throwing stones, but if you only pick at sections and don't understand it fully you will think you are winning the argument.
NICH0LASM 4 weeks ago
@NICH0LASM conti: otherhand cannot. You may think they're wrong but what grounds do you have? What makes you so special? If you think you are special under atheism you're just going for speciesm, which is saying a certain species is far superior than others, but why would you be so far superior would be my question.
FamousDave2186 4 weeks ago
This would've been a hell of a lot funnier if you didn't show the video and instead just played the song quietly over Craig's talking. Subtlety.
KayBeeEee1983 1 month ago 5
hahahahha
foroparapente 2 months ago
As soon as you click on this page, you see "Artist: Rick Astley..." The days of rickrolling are truly over. (And with that, I think we have a knock-down argument)
AceSkepTik 2 months ago
Sam just got rick rolled on YouTube video! William Lame Graig wins debate! and you'll see you get rick rolled too. LOL...
Vegasgodless 2 months ago
This video's fake!! He was really playing solitaire
weefeatures 2 months ago
i love this song, oh, im up
slyer72 2 months ago
What Sam is doing? He´s probably thinking: Damn, I never said that goodness is identical to flourish of sentient beings, so instead of loosing my time for rebuttal addressing this red herring (exactly what Craig wants), I will show why morality can´t be grounded on the supernatural, which is enough to win the debate. If morality can´t be supernatural, it can only be natural, even if I can´t present a valid theory on how to ground it in the natural world. Case closed.
lfzadra 2 months ago
Ehehehe, Oh man, this is great! Sorry, I had to LOL again.
Rarae192 2 months ago
Ehahaha! I knew it! He was being Rick Rolled
Rarae192 2 months ago
Watching some music vids on Youtube AND pwning WIlliam Lane Craig in a debate!
eggnchip 2 months ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@eggnchip
Yea, because when you debate people, you "pwn" them by not debating any of the objections they raise to your arguments, lol.
Today's atheists really are going to bring about their own intellectual downfall.
Birdieupon 2 months ago
@Birdieupon Birdie,this is a funny edited clip of the debate. I am obviously making reference to the entire debate. Having watched that entire debate previously i'm well aware of the 'pwnage' inflicted on Craig. Please think before you try make fun of people. Its not very Christian of you.....
eggnchip 2 months ago
@Birdieupon I think you're confusing rhetoric and dialectical method with debate.. a common mistake for the simple minded.
jacksawild 2 months ago
@Birdieupon I was actually upset when I first saw the debate. Harris didnt take on Craigs arguments head on. But Craig always speaks first, and always raises question so that the second speaker must spend time refuting the statements. Harris didnt do this and I was aking myself why. Then Harris finished and I realized he didnt discuss these topics because he figured appealing to logic and reason would make people see their somewhat disgusting morals and faiths are, well, disgusting.
DuppyBruh 2 months ago
@Birdieupon You could argue that both Craig and Harris avoided questions. But they are both just using strategies to try and make the other person seem silly. Harris proclaims we need to be concerned about the misery we inflict on other sentient creatures. "if you think anything is bad, then the worste possible misery for everyone must be bad"
you could argue that words have slightly different meanings in many context but, misery for everyone is bad
DuppyBruh 2 months ago
@DuppyBruh
""if you think anything is bad, then the worste possible misery for everyone must be bad""
But this is simply an unsupportive assertion! He never gave any argument or justification for why this would be true on atheism.
Birdieupon 2 months ago
@Birdieupon Sure it is an assertion, but what decent human being would honestly try and say that the worste possible misery for everyone isnt bad? or as Harris stated "maybe it has a silver lining"
and under 'atheism' the laws would have the exact same justification as under a theist's view [(accept the theist believes he/she has divinity on his/her side (which is also an unjustified assertion)]
DuppyBruh 2 months ago
@Birdieupon I'm sure Harris assumed he didn't have to explain why misery for everyone would be bad, if religion is the only thing keeping you from thinking misery for everyone is good or misery for everyone is neither good nor bad, that begs serious questions about your character and or sanity.
mrgejwaites 2 months ago
@mrgejwaites
well said, people who use that sort of reasoning or rather lack thereof sincerely do frighten me.
DelbyC 1 month ago
@Birdieupon Actually, one day theist's will be seen as not intellectual at all. WLC's arguments support this statement.
atheistram 1 month ago
@Birdieupon You should watch the debate. Watch Craig's hands shake when a girl asks him a question at the end.
7waffle 1 month ago
@eggnchip Really? pwning WIlliam Lane Craig? Can you point what Harris said that proved theres objective morality in atheism? BTW thats the title of the debate.
I saw the entire debate and he never said anything that could prove his case. Talking about a subject is not proving your point. But as the usual atheist you're just deluding yourself to think he won. Craig gives solid points, Harris speaks desultory words about it and somehow he wins. Sure, keep dreaming.
jouc12 1 month ago
@eggnchip You apparently did watch the whole debate. Craig DESTROYED Harris. DESTROYED him.
Imperativism 1 month ago
hahaha good job with this vid. william lane craig doesn't listen to any points his opponents make, so why should anyone listen to him.
samvallely 2 months ago
First time I've ever wanted rick astley to last the entire video
maccrimbo 2 months ago
Probably a better use of Sam's time
test123ok 2 months ago
Well I must say that Rick would hold my attention for far longer than "Doctor" Carig could ever do.
stonewickison 2 months ago
OH NO!
You got me!
I've been Rick Rolled!
mclem51 3 months ago
lol. i am pleased
CheezzusChrist 3 months ago
epic
shadowsburnme 3 months ago
craig-exposed.webs.com
Metal1998 3 months ago
funny!
me25422 3 months ago
He was probably looking at child porn.
cuttlefisch 3 months ago
I don't believe in gods, and yet this is quite funny XD It's just humour :D
loquevemos 3 months ago
@Birdieupon
I am wondering why you concluded that sunhoushi1 is an Atheist? All he/she said was go watch the entire debate.
"And atheists call religious people thick, lol."
Maybe you were offended that he called your video pathetic? If so, why bring atheist into it?
lucie408 3 months ago
Well, that proves it. Anything is better than listening to WLC talk.
011Kodie 3 months ago
yeah i don't blame Harris for zooming out
William Lane dumped some pretentious crap on him.
Assuming an absolute god-given morality as fact when that was what the debate
was all about in the first place.
That's like saying:
I'm always right by default ...
now prove me wrong.
William Lane is a Joke.
unamaxify 3 months ago
@bcbk93 I despise Craig and his visage of perpetual "rightness", but this video wasn't really attacking Sam, even if the user seems to dislike him. I'm just sayin', the way you commented at first, you must not've watched it. Oh, well. Cheers.
FoldedTapestry 3 months ago
What a pathetic cut and paste job. Go watch the entire debate.
sunhoushi1 3 months ago
@sunhoushi1
You do realize this is a JOKE, right? Not something that's supposed to look like it actually happened?
And atheists call religious people thick, lol.
Birdieupon 3 months ago
@Birdieupon A 20-second joke drawn out to a minute and three quarters.
Aeschylus 3 months ago
Comment removed
DelbyC 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Birdieupon By thick do you mean big booty?
cause I like that :)
DelbyC 1 month ago
@sunhoushi1 Oh, c'mon man, have a sense of humour.
Rarae192 2 months ago
@bcbk93 what the fuck are you talking about? The whole video is a joke, dude. He isn't attacking Sam in any way. Watch it.
FoldedTapestry 3 months ago
@bcbk93 You clearly didn't finish this video, did you?
FoldedTapestry 3 months ago
I'm on Craig side, I actually thought this was so freaking funny lol...
samuellis 3 months ago
lol thats hilarious........ but what i really think he was doin was lookin at what he was gonna say next. he refuted othing he didnt engage craig at all. he just had an agenda of what he wanted to say. worthless debate. harris was horrible
lravenhill 3 months ago
Would've been good if you made him looking at porn instead.
Phavonic 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Birdieupon
I am an atheist and I like it.
freakiest421 4 months ago
@bcbk93 I honestly feel that if you watch the entirety of the debate without a bias toward either party or ideal, it's more or less a draw. They both have valid points. Being a Christian, I would like to say Craig won the debate, but frankly I would raise niether man's hand at the end.
thecolton2219 4 months ago
@thecolton2219
If you actually think Craig won this debate... well, your delusions run deep. Craig babbled on about complete nonsense the entire time.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 I think you call it nonsense because it doesn't agree with your perspective. Just as I could say the same of Harris. The TRUTH is that both opponents made good logical arguments. Neither of which prove or disprove God, they just argued well.
thecolton2219 3 months ago
@thecolton2219
Any logic appearing in Craigs arguments is only surface deep, layered on piles of fallacies that have been debunked a million times. A cursory look on google will reveal many excellent sites that logically devastate all of Craigs arguments. The only difference between Craig and other charlatan Christian apologists is that he manages to actually sound coherent whilst spewing his garbage; which is in part because he uses identical rehearsed arguments in every debate.
Vire70 3 months ago
Trolling deserve trolling music
moviedude120796 4 months ago
lmfao
madbrainpain 4 months ago
animal porn
hexum7 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
Solitaire, what else, he's the only smart person on that stage....lol.
123backinyerface 4 months ago
I'd rather get rickrolled than to have to listen to WLC's constant boring blather on why objective evil is actually good -- and even the best good -- when his imaginary friend commands it.
EdM021 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EdM021 great!
freakiest421 4 months ago
i just got rick rolled lulz
butanerios 4 months ago
I don't know, but I'd rather get Rick rolled than listen to Craig pretend to be a philosopher rather than simply a professional x-tian apologist debater.
jamesejudy3 4 months ago
well what else was Sam supposed to do during Craig's blah blah blah
mcarbone80 4 months ago
hahaha
bvfoisiafambam 4 months ago
RICKROLLED AGAIN?!
Goddam it...
GabSte1989 5 months ago
That's funny shit!
sinedeocodex 5 months ago
What a bunch of BS. He was obviously surfing Xhamster like the rest of us.
LEV1ATHYN 5 months ago
@LEV1ATHYN
What is that?
BeBoBli 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sam Harris destroyed Craig in that debate and im an atheist, but this IS funny
PensamientoEsceptico 5 months ago
Sam Harris destroyed Craig in that debate and im an atheist, but this IS funny
PensamientoEsceptico 5 months ago
This is the kind of thing you actually see in uni lectureS, though.... T.T
Brightstar27 5 months ago
Alright alright, all reliigous beliefs aside. That was pretty funny.
FoldedTapestry 5 months ago
@Birdieupon
I don't blame him! I would MUCH rather be rickroll'd than listen to William Lane Craig's nonsensical bulsh*t. :D
Task5003 5 months ago
nice editing
CumSeNumesteMelodia 5 months ago
The argument that Harris said nothing to Craig's rebuttal is non-sense. Very good joke with the rickroll, though.
JaguarEscarlata 5 months ago
porn hub
chrlskrkl 5 months ago
i just got rick rolled!!!!! YAY!!!!
HARV1991 6 months ago
this is pretty funny hahaha just watched the whole debate, props to the maker of this video.
EmRosERD 6 months ago
Craig might as well sacrifice goats sand stone disobedient women
jmcorrea9 7 months ago
Why bother listening to him? I've heard five year olds put up far more logically sound points. Just listen to Rick then take a stab in the dark, whatever you say, it can't be worse then what craig said.
Ryakki 7 months ago
Hahaha, the look on Harris' face goes perfectly with this.
MasterWok7 7 months ago
@bcbk93
That's right: it's a joke.
Get a sense of humour, lol. I thought it was only religious people who were so uptight?
Birdieupon 7 months ago 21
I could make a far more boring video to the same effect. Rarely do I see WLC go into a debate without a file folder of assorted papers. I'm not saying it's wise to go into a debate without a pre-constructed speech, outline, or at least a plan (both sides of the fence do this here and there). Both speakers began by giving entry speeches from their own points of view, and then each went on from there. Harris used his laptop for the same thing WLC's cheat-sheet was for; it's acceptable in a debate.
themediocrenontheist 8 months ago
@themediocrenontheist
"Harris used his laptop for the same thing WLC's cheat-sheet was for; it's acceptable in a debate."
Cheat sheet? LOL, what a retard. The very definition of a debate is where you EXCHANGE and RESPOND to each other's views. Harris may have well have just given a stand alone lecture or sent a video tape, the way he ducked out of Craig's rebuttals.
It's astonishing that Harris actually has groupies who try to defend his abysmal performance.
Birdieupon 8 months ago
@Birdieupon Notice how this is the very first time you've ever seen me speak. Notice how your *very first response* contains the statement, "LOL what a retard." Nothing so invective was present in my original statement, and I'd like to point that out. I digress... ~_^
I mentioned that each speaker began by giving entry speeches (Harris used laptop, Craig used paper) and then *each went on from there.* I did not imply that they each did no more than just read to themselves the entire time.
themediocrenontheist 8 months ago
You feel as though Harris did not rebut. What I'm telling you is that from 'my perspective,' Harris did rebut WLC's statements about Divine Command Theory by giving examples of things which many would considered malevolent atrocities for any reason extraneous to God, yet those same things *become good by definition* when God mandates them. A Q&A student asked WLC why Islamic jihad was misled, and how he explained the Crusades as 'good.' WLC dodged, only explaining why he believed Christianity.
themediocrenontheist 8 months ago
@themediocrenontheist
"which many would considered malevolent atrocities"
And to hold them in this regard requires an objective moral standard - the very thing Harris was supposed to be arguing for. He's begging the question by appealing to it and ignoring Craig's refutation.
Birdieupon 8 months ago
Is torture wrong because God prohibits it, or does God prohibit torture because it is already wrong? If a good God prohibits torture, it is because torture is intrinsically wrong, not merely because he declares it to be wrong by fiat. If torture is intrinsically wrong, then it is wrong regardless of God's existence. Either certain acts are wrong regardless of opinion, or all "torture is wrong" means is "God prohibits torture." Rather than grounding the objectivity of ethics, DCT undermines it.
themediocrenontheist 8 months ago
@themediocrenontheist Youre essentially bringing up the euthyphro dilemma. Craig has already given his take on it, and Im sure there are other rebuttals to it so you can find them out. It is intrinsically wrong because there is a God who is morally good by nature. That is to say, the idea of good is based on the nature of God and torture is against the nature of this personal God. If there is no God, there is no intrinsic wrong and hence no morality, only preferences for certain actions.
Daxcheese 7 months ago
Of course, William Lane Craig has faith that the deity outlined in the Judeo-Christian Bible is the author of morality and creator of the universe. This is the same Yahweh who allegedly allowed Satan to test Job to see if his fealty would be swayed. He allowed Job's children to be killed by Satan, and when he remains loyal to Yahweh, he is given more riches and new children. This devalues the original lives lost as expendable pawns, but Craig finds no issue with this tale and others.
: /
themediocrenontheist 7 months ago
@themediocrenontheist I dunno about Craig's view but I always thought the story of Job was a poem or fiction meant to explain a version of the problem of evil and about our place in the universe. And I do agree with the moral of the story in any case, we should act morally both in good and bad health. Tragedy does not change morality.There could be several reasons why God would permit evil( free will, temptation etc) at the hands of 'Satan', natural law, or people themselves.
Daxcheese 7 months ago
@Daxcheese "And I do agree with the moral of the story in any case, we should act morally both in good and bad health." - D.C.
It wasn't about 'acting morally' when faced with tribulations, it was about remaining unquestioningly loyal to Yahweh. Some stories present in the Bible are "poem or fiction, you feel. Several parables are found in the Bible, and they are clearly introduced as such. Without such an introduction, I see no reason to think that this tale is only metaphorical.
themediocrenontheist 7 months ago
Comment removed
Daxcheese 7 months ago
@themediocrenontheist The reason I thought it was mythic/poetic is cuz 1) The content of the story has little narrative and is essentially people giving different takes on Suffering,culminating in God's poetic speech 2) Satan appears for the first time since Genesis 3) Job was a random dude not of Hebrew descent etc. I could be wrong, its my opinion and my theology isnt too great. Anyways that was one of if not the most important point biblegateway*.com*/passage /?search=Job%201:9-11&version=NIV
Daxcheese 7 months ago
@Daxcheese Many believe Yahweh to be illimitable (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent). If this were true, then God would have known before Satan even thought to make a wager that he one day would, and what the outcome would be, concerning Job. You can't surprise someone who knows past, present, and future. Why a limited being would even try to overthrow an illimitable one is another plot hole; it would be like a naked me vs. China's military, and even that wouldn't be a good enough analogy.
themediocrenontheist 7 months ago