Goodness Without God is Good Enough: William Lane Craig vs Paul Kurtz 5/7

[jefersontorres]

4:45 - We are human beins and we love one another ?! Hahahaha... read same Freud (Civilization and its discontents).

[6thwing]

What kind of messed up mics do they have there? I noticed it in the last video too.

[efeey]

kurtz is really unintelligent in this debate i feel. he doesnt understand the debate question. who can beat craig?

[zirchsoft]

@efeey

as unintelligent as what you have just asked

[efeey]

@zirchsoft ok buddy

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

What is that horrible humming noise?

[arev0lution0f0n3]

Bunch of clowns are running the sound! Come on!

[wild112233]

God didn't like Kurtz's argument, and screwed up the mike!

[Jugglable]

Wow, they *really* should have communicated better before the start of the debate about whether the topic was morality with/without belief in God, or morality with/without God.

[Jugglable]

"How would a loving God let those people die on 9/11?"

STRAW MAN!!!!!

[sirany900]

@Jugglable , why do have to attribute the 9/11 event to God? Did God cause the 9/11 attack? This sad event should remind of inhumanity of man to one another.

[Jugglable]

@sirany900 I'm not attributing it to god.

[Lightmane321]

apparently God was messing with the microphone when Kurtz started to speak... LOL

[BloodOfRayne]

I've noticed that too. The atheist's microphone either messes up or they always start sneezing and coughing like a bastard! Always reminds me of a scene from the movie The Devil's Advocate! lol

[Lightmane321]

@BloodOfRayne

and for that comment, I get thumbs down from people?

ROFL

[BloodOfRayne]

Don't worry about it. Some atheists' apparently haven't "evolved" a sense of humor. They always go on about "free speech" and then spam anything they don't like the sound of. Always makes me laugh. ; )

[awesomewelles90]

Haha this Kurtz is an idiot! All of his points are attacking straw men and WLC already clearly stated what he was defending!

[HerrVonManstein]

@awesomewelles90 haha you're the idiot here. Kurtz made some very good points and it's that little maggot crawling at the feet of his god who didn't understand that if without god HE will become a nihilist, it doesn't mean this is true of atheist. theists are a buch of cowardly slaves who have never grown up and have never learned to live without their Father

[IcyIconoclast]

...wild crowd because it compromises innocence,

atheism is just a nonbelief in god.

there are various moralities out there.

kant had a good one, dont act in a way which is not universalizable, so dont kill because a society based on random murder will be unlivable.

morality is based on HUMAN feelings and justice. since we are sentient beings, i know, and others know what its like to feel pain. we dont want others to feel it, so we stop it when we can. partly for wanting later reciprocity.

[IcyIconoclast]

im sure i dont have to remind you the immoral deeds committed in gods name, but i get that these people werent necessarily doing gods will.

for example the crusades were advertised to pay off sins by fighting moslems. im not saying jesus would have been okay with that, but once u accept that there are unquestionable guidelines, people will accept most anything their told.

and i dont have to tell you about gods immorality.

stoning homosexuals, disobedient children, tribal genocide.

commandments.

[luisdstripper]

The athiest, with objective standards? WOW! That's news to me. Hey Kurtz, on what do you base your objective standards?

[ihateneocons]

see morality is about rationality.

its about weighing consequences.

i could steal, but i know id be harming another person by taking their stuff they want, id offend them, theyd not like me, and itd be harming an innocent.

violates justice, harms an innocent, gives me a bad reputation. etc.

tell me, is it okay to run up and pull someones hair, of a stranger?

what do you think?

seriously.

and tell me if god tells you the right answer.

[ihateneocons]

people thought killing moslems in the crusades was okay because "deus vult" god willed it.

once people think they have gods permission, they will do horrible things.

malachites were wiped out by jews because god told them to do it.

4. were they wrong to kill all men women and child and even the cattle?

your god loves killng idol worshippers, adulteres, homsexuals, and tribes who arent the chosen people.

trust me, that isnt morality.

[luisdstripper]

Why are athiest always so angry?

[ihateneocons]

because we have to deal with theist nonsense. we have for thousands of years and skeptics are tired of it.

we're tired of being talked down to as if we can act morally.

theists act morally because god tells them so, not because stealing hurts other, but because its gods commandment. end of discussion.

thats not morality. once church leaders say "god will forgive your sins if you go slaughter moslems" then there is no questioning afterward.

morality is about maximizing justice and happiness.

[regelemihai]

If morality is only a by product of nature, and is therefore relativ, what is the basis for the concept "justice"?

Say nihilism is true; I go around and kill ppl to take their money in order to satisfy my quest for "happiness". How does that make morality objective?

It's a meaningless concept if the off shoot of these proinciples is totally random and subjective.

And in all fairness, Christians are being attacked nowadays more than atheists, yet their level of bitterness is expo. smaller

[ihateneocons]

you should read plato whose Republic is all about justice.

justice means not punishing someone for something they didnt do.

not intentionally harming the innocent.

to say something is "relative" does not mean all things go. would you really murder and steal if it turned out there was no god? i dont think so.

we know what happiness and sadness are because we have human awareness, so we dont want to inflict pain on others.

i could steal,

but it would isolate me.

no one would like me.

itd be bad.

[luisdstripper]

On what grounds are morals based in an athiestic world view?

[IcyIconoclast]

i guess you havent read my posts directly below this one.

morality is NOT based on god-given rules.

clearly peoples have survived without god for thousands of years in the americas, africa, the pacific, asia and so on...

the chinese didnt have the philosophies of confucianism and daoism for thousands of years til 500 BCE.

morality is based on maximizing happiness and reducing suffering without interfering with justice (read plato on justice)

ex you dont kill an innocent man to satisfy the...

[luisdstripper]

Peoples have survived without God for thousands of years in the americas, africa, the pacific, asia and so on because of the internal moral objectivity given to all of us by God. Do you deny that objective moral values exist?

[IcyIconoclast]

i suppose they do.

dont sound so confident, though.

how do you know god gave everyone morality?

i mean you know that statement is utterly unfalsifiable.

if i say genghis khan was an immoral man, he obviously lacked the internal morality we all supposedly have.

theres no doubt morality is a matter of where once comes from, but that doesnt mean morality is subjective.

yes murdering a stranger to steal his hat is objectively wrong.

i dont need a god to tell me that.

would u steal without jesus???

[luisdstripper]

"Murdering a stranger to steal his hat is objectively wrong."

In a athiestic world view, on what basis? Real athiest will laugh at you for making this comment. Animals kill themselves all the time for sustenance, are they being immoral? You see, in an athiestic world view humans are nothing special, we are just animals! What distinguishes us form animals in your world view?

[IcyIconoclast]

would you say its wrong to shout in a strangers face? objectively wrong?

or to pull his hair?

well yes that is wrong, not because i would be punished for it, not because i read it somewhere.

why dont you pull strangerss hair?

because you know it produces unnecessary harm to an innocent person.

but if a man was about to walk in front of a car, it might be okay to yell at him or pull his hair.

so actions are more about consequences than the action.

and how dare you claim to know gods morality!?!

[luisdstripper]

I agree that an athiest has the ability to act moraly. You suppose moral values exist? On what grounds?

You are right about the pulling of the hair and shouting argument,I guess it depends on what context you do it in... in the thiest world view. In the athiestic world view, why would one be immoral and the other moral, or vise-versa. On what grounds? Real athiest agree with me, that "if God is not then everything is permissible." Do you know who I just quoted?

[IcyIconoclast]

i dont like having to repeat myself.

you quoted dostoevsky's stupidest character in the novel.

we ARE animals. are you really denying that?

only we have unique abilities that change our morality. since we can live comfortably, since we have plenty, we dont need to kill each other for resources.

also, we have a conscience, an awareness of our mortality and of pain and suffering of others. we know what pain is and we try to prevent it.

thats where morality comes from.

[luisdstripper]

Perhaps I didn't phrase my reply correctly. I don't deny that in a athiestic world view we are just animals. This means that humans are nothing special, that we are not moral agents. My point is that in an athiestic world view, on what grounds is our morality objective?

Most well aducated athiest now that there is no answer to the objective morality argument. This is why they eigther deny that moral objective standards exist or become agnostics. Athiesm and objective values are incompatable.

[2000deg]

"but if a man was about to walk in front of a car, it might be okay to yell at him or pull his hair. "

But why should it be okay in this case? Wouldnt happiness decrease by the same amount as in the previous case?

[IcyIconoclast]

pulling someones hair to save his life incurs the same loss of happiness as letting the man die in an accident?

no i never implied anything of the kind.

they are different because you balance net utility, utilitarianism, but with an element of justice...

sorry atheism is a nonbelief in god...your god has never put a perfect moral code out there, or any god, let alone followed it in his own right.

[2000deg]

"pulling someones hair ...." This would only save his life, if this changed his behaviour.

There still 2 problems: First, we dont know what total effect on happiness our actions have. (Butterlfy effect).

Second: Happiness cannot be objectively measured, neither can it be added or subtracted so as to be put on an balance.

Thus overall happiness is no practical basis.

[2000deg]

....no practical basis for morality.

"god has never put a perfect moral code out there"

I think he has. It is written on our consciousness. Every man has the ability to differentiate between moral right and wrong. Most people recognize what is right, when they see it, without having ever thought about morals or ethics.

And like every ability humans have, it either grows or atrophys, depending on how you use it. Its our choice.

[FUahole69]

I hope your counting the bible as evidence! That book has more fairy tales in it the Harry Potter!

[AOPrinciple]

Ha, Kurtz actually usd the argument from evil! I don't believe it. Why do atheists think that this actuallly works. He just proved Craig's point. Kurtz called 9/11 objectively wrong without appealing to an objective moral standard. I don't know whether to be angry or feel pity.

[ihateneocons]

are you saying we need god to be moral?

dont you think morality is about maximizing happiness and justice?  where does god come in there?

god says stealing is wrong, just because he said so. stealing is wrong because it deprives one person of his goods unjustly.

what if god told you it was okay to pull peoples hair?

would it be okay? no, because it inflicts unncessary pain.

[AOPrinciple]

No offense, but if you had watched the debate, you would know the answer. We don't have to BELIEVE in God to live moral lives, but (and here is the key) God must exist if there is to be objective morality. Atheists can live moral lives only on the condition that God does exist. Otherwise, there is nothing stable on which to base and judge our actions against; no standard of right and wrong.

[ihateneocons]

"Atheists can live moral lives only on the condition that God does exist"

what??

i dont believe in a personal, theistic God and I live a moral live, moreso than many Christians I know.

I dont think there is a SINGLE UNIFORM morality, but it doesnt take a God to know that killing and stealing are wrong. but is it wrong to steal 1 loaf of bread to feed your family? i dont know. maybe.

is it really wrong to work on the sabbath or face death? I dont think so.

the answer isnt that simple.

[AOPrinciple]

Yes, that is what I said. How can you say that you live a "moral" life if there is no uniform morality? Moral by who's standards? The serial killer lives a moral life operating from his moral code. There is no uniform morality, but killing and stealing ARE wrong? Always? Without a transcendental standard by which to judge our actions, there is no binding code of morality. If God does not exist, neither Christians nor atheists can live moral lives because without God there is no morality.

[ihateneocons]

1. tell me, is it okay to steal to feed your family?

2. is it okay to steal guns from a murderer?

3. should one be killed for working on the sabbath?

morality is about maximizing justice and happiness. a serial killer thinks he is acting morally, but he is killing for no reason. he is causing more harm than good and taking the lives of innocents. thats why its wrong. not cuz god says so.

morality is somewhat flexible. join the debate. you dont have all the answers.

[AOPrinciple]

wow, Kurtz just completely missed the point. We can be moral without belief in God only if we assume that God does exist despite the unbelief. He totally missunderstood Craig and talked past him. It's amazing how foolish those with a PhD. can actually be.

[emopeacekid]

I love when atheists argue this- You xians are so bigotted to think you have the Truth. Everyone should know that all who believes in God is deluded and we atheists have the truth!

[novitas10131978]

How is what you just said any less bigotted than what Christians say?

[emopeacekid]

I am making fun of atheists bro. I was being sacrastic. Many atheists act as if they are the only "objective , led only by the scientific evidence" people on the planet.

[novitas10131978]

I apologize for misunderstanding.

[emopeacekid]

novitas101

No problem bro, I wish peace and love to ya this xmas season!

[ihateneocons]

atheists dont claim to have an objective truth? we believe god doesnt exist because there is no evidence for him, ESPECIALLY for a theistic god. there could be a deistic god 50/50 but if its a deistic god he doesnt want our worship.

but atheists are for skepticism and breaking dogma, that includes church dogma and political dogma.

once human happiness/suffering is taken out of the equation, you get brutality like hitler etc..

believe in god is NO better than its opposite - probably worse

[FUahole69]

Bottom line is you christians have no truth, no evidence or facts, to prove your god. If you did we wouldnt have debates!

[regelemihai]

That is a very childish and one sided assertion. We have evidence from evolution, yet there are those who can make arguments to the contrary. What does it say about evolution as a whole? Nothing.

Christians have evidence, and a considerably large amount at that. They don't have PROOF, I agree, but that's not to say that they don't have evidence.