Goodness Without God is Good Enough: William Lane Craig vs Paul Kurtz 2/7

[dkman2006]

First time I heard this speaker. I'm an atheist, this is just amazing speech, veryy inspiring, alot of real decent insight.

[M3t4lManiac]

There is no god, lol.

[jefersontorres]

3:06 - 3:18 : But, afterall, at least in an atheistic view, we have no choose: we´re gonna die. Will atheistic propose some hope at all ?

[qwistrod]

As a person who disobeys God I do not fear hell. Christians say it is wrong to be cruel but that God does no wrong when he puts disobedient people into hell. This means there is no cruelty in hell so there is nothing to worry about. I am scared of heaven though.

[MrMrBilko]

THERE IS NO GOODNESS WITHOUT GOD

[qwistrod]

@MrMrBilko Not even just a little bit?

[MrMrBilko]

@qwistrod Its not possible mate

[qwistrod]

@MrMrBilko Well, if I can't be good, then at least I am either neither good nor bad or just a little bad.

[lukeism2]

religion - christian religion, is just very weird... i don't buy it

[Jugglable]

Kurtz crticized the idea that you have to believe in God to be moral...I agree with him on that but I didn't think that was the topic of debate. I thought the debate was, can morality exist without God, not do you have to believe in God to be moral. I think an atheist can lead a good life, but if he does it's OBJECTIVELY good because of the absolute standard of God's perfection.

[HerrVonManstein]

@Jugglable well I don't see the difference between saying that "belief in the existence of god isn't necessary for morality" and "the existence of god isn't necessary for morality". it's actually the same thing. if you don't believe that god exists and you're capable of acting morally that means that god is simply irrelevant to morality. it's as simple as that

[Jugglable]

@HerrVonManstein Because there is a difference between whether you believe in God, and whether God exists. It's not the same thing! Another way of phrasing the issue of the debate is, "If God does not exist, is nihilism true as a result, or are moral duties still real and binding?" Craig's point is that an atheist may lead a good life, but to actually say that the life is objectively good, you logically need a transcendent anchor point for morality in God's nature.

[HerrVonManstein]

@Jugglable well I disagree. the fact that most atheist don't believe in the EXISTENCE of god and live moral lives and consider their lives worth living shows that god is irrelevant. and if it was to be proven without a shadow of doubt that god doesn't exist it won't make any difference to them, it'll simply prove what they already "knew". are you seroiusly suggesting that if it turned out there is no god you'll find NO reason NOT to rape a woman?? if one says 'no, I'll find no such reason' then

[HerrVonManstein]

@Jugglable that person never cared about others in the first place(one may argue that he's a sociopath). if you say "yes, there'll be a rason not to rape-like causing harm to the victim' then the existence of god is irrelevant. I don't understand why it's so hard for (non-sociopathic) theists to see that. just think why god cannot have a murderous nature but is loving and caring- 'well because murder is evil' theist will say

[HerrVonManstein]

@Jugglable so we have an independent standart for what is evil,and since good is the opposite of evil-we have an independent standart for what is good. case closed. then I think you're confused what atheism is- it's not a possitive claim. scientists are atheists because they're in the best position to judge whether theist's arguments hold watter-and they don't. that's all. read some of the literature out there that shows why theist's arguments are so unconvincing. that's what atheism is. Peace

[HerrVonManstein]

@Jugglable one last thing- there's a very good debate one this issue of morality and god on youtube: "Is God Necessary for Morality? (Kagan vs Craig)". I think you'll find it very interesting and it'll help you understand what I'm arguing here. peace

[Jugglable]

@HerrVonManstein I watched Kagan vs. Craig. Kagan won that debate, but he was not arguing the same points you're making here.

Many of the most celebrated atheists, by the way, have said that if God does not exist, nihilism follows as a logical consequence. The debate is about the BASIS of morality. Not whether atheists can behave well without believing in God. Those are 2 separate issues.

[Jugglable]

@HerrVonManstein "scientists are atheists because they're in the best position to judge whether theist's arguments hold watter"

No, they're not. Scientists do not assess arguments; they assess scientific claims.

[Jugglable]

@HerrVonManstein An atheist may do something good, but the question is, can you call an action objectively morally good without God? That's the question. It is, is God needed as an ontological basis for morality. You see the difference, don't you?

[HerrVonManstein]

@Jugglable Yes you can say an action is objectively morally good or bad without god. rape is wrong because it harms/hurts the victim. This harming/hurting is an objectively verifiable fact, it's not a matter of opinion-- so that's the basis for saying something is objectively good or bad. is that so hard to understand? And that's exactly the point Kagan made in his opening statement and even craig saw couldn't deny it, he just tried to play dumb by asking what's the difference between humans and

[Jugglable]

@HerrVonManstein "This harming/hurting is an objectively verifiable fact"

Right, but whether it is WRONG to harm is not an objectively verifiable fact. We can "objectively verify" that something is causing suffering, or reducing something, but we cannot "objectively verify" which of the 2 is better. It's obvious that empathy is better than cruelty, yet it cannot be objectively verified.

[HerrVonManstein]

@Jugglable well I become more and more convinced that arguments with theists concerning morality quickly degenerate into questions like "what's wrong with suffering and pain?" which I find unintelligeble. If I were to crack your head open do you think you'll be pondering the question "Is my experince of pain really objectively wrong?" if you haven't understood by now the point I'm trying to make, then theism has poisoned your mind pretty badly, and I don't know what else to say to you.. peace

[Jugglable]

@HerrVonManstein I take is as a sign of the strength of my position that you have to resort to an ad hominem argument. Obviously it is wrong to be cruel. But what is the ontological basis for that on atheism? If you find that being cruel is obviously wrong but that this has no basis on atheism, and you can't give a better basis than "If I cracked your head open right now..." you should reconsider your worldview.

[HerrVonManstein]

@Jugglable hah! I should reconsider MY world view? and that comes from a christian?!? the ontological basis for the wrongness of cruelty is the pain it causes! are you a sociopath so you don't get that? and you have no idea what ad hominem means, I was simply trying to show that in order to defend their god theists end up posing ridiculous and absurd questions(that's why I said you've been poisoned by religion) but your brain missed that point. sorry but I can't help you

[Jugglable]

@HerrVonManstein I am not disputing that it is wrong to be cruel. Answer me this: on your atheistic worldview, why is nihilism false? Simply acting taken aback that somebody would even SUGGEST nihilism does not constitute an argument. If you say "empathy is better than cruelty," if that statement is true, it corresponds to an objective reality. To what objective reality does it correspond?

[HerrVonManstein]

@Jugglable "I am not disputing that it is wrong to be cruel" --this is EXACTLY what you’re disputing when you ask what is the objective reality of the statement “empathy is better than cruelty". Why can’t you see that when you say (if you’re sincere)"I am not disputing that it is wrong to be cruel" the reason is the (objective) reality of the victim’s suffering?! That’s not enough for you?!? And again nihilism is NOT a philosophical issue, it’s a psychological one! If you can’t see that...

[HerrVonManstein]

@Jugglable ....I don't know how to help you

[HerrVonManstein]

@Jugglable please let's stop this discussion because I don't know how to express myself and explain my position any more clearly than I've already done in my posts so far. okay? bye

[M3t4lManiac]

@Jugglable It does not correspond to an objective reality, it is true that empathy is better because it ensures our survival, if you are human, you will understand this. Nihilism is a choice to be morally indifferent, it has nothing to do with atheism.

[Jugglable]

@M3t4lManiac Yes, but why should I care about the survival of others? What if I'm in a position to kill somebody, and it increases my resources. Can I kill then, on your view?

"Nihilism is a choice to be morally indifferent, it has nothing to do with atheism."

Some of the most celebrated atheists have said that nihilism follows from atheism.

[M3t4lManiac]

@Jugglable No you can't kill them, because you will breach the limits of society, ruin your image in the eyes of others and be punished in the name of justice. If the jungle law applies and the individual is from a different tribe then you, then fuck yes and so follows from the bible (thou shalt not kill refers to individuals of your own tribe, obviously). "Some of the most celebrated atheists have said that nihilism follows from atheism." It's a question of semantics. It does not in my opinion.

[HerrVonManstein]

@Jugglable Kagan started explaining this to craig as he would to a 3 year-old child. And who are the famous atheists who argue that nihilism follows from atheism? The most famous of them- Nietzsche- argued that nihilism is a result of LOSING the belief in god(in a similar way depression may be the result of getting divorced) --it's a psychological issue not philosophical. And yes scientists assess scientific claims which in turn refute theistic arguments. That’s why scientists are atheists.

[Jugglable]

@HerrVonManstein "scientists assess scientific claims which in turn refute theistic arguments. "

If they think that a scientific discovery has atheistic implications, they're now doing philosophy and they are mere laymen. They're outside of their field. Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith said that Hawking's argument against God in "A Brief History of Time" is the worst argument EVER made for atheism. Look to the philosophers to think about God.

[Lightmane321]

Kurtz fully represents 21st. Century Schizoid Man philosophy

Life ultimately has no meaning, but we're here so we give it meaning even though it has none, yet we deny that it has none and create meaning to give ourselves meaning so that we can say that life indeed does have meaning even though we're dying and there's nothing we can do about it and we don't know what will happen or ultimately why we're here, but we believe in doing good just for the sake of doing good, because it's good to do it

[meangreen4321]

@Lightmane321

LM, my friend... and I mean that. We don't have to know exactly why we're here. Humanists simply try to find meaning in this life, because it's all we can be certain about. We can build rational consensus here and now, but when it comes to special revelation from alleged gods, we can only argue amongst ourselves with no possible resolution.

[Lightmane321]

@meangreen4321 Hey. I can see your point. The problem is that IF God doesn't exist, then our rational consensus is anything but. Now it may work in the here and now and that's fine. Whatever you need to get you through the day, I'm good with that, as long as it doesn't involve cutting off my head... LOL

Add God to the mix and our reason for morality & ethics makes a whole lot more sense. Without God, it's purely subjective, which, like I said, is fine, in and of itself

[HerrVonManstein]

@Lightmane321 I appreciate you're an atheist but sound like a theist who has lost his ground. how can life have 'ultimate' meaning, if meaning is always subjecitve. it could have ultimate (or objective) purpose, but meaning is something you cannot be 'given'-- you DRAW meaning. And by the way ,even if life(or the Universe) were to have an objective purpose, this doesn't mean that one would necessarily draw meaning from it. depends on the purpose,right?

[Lightmane321]

@HerrVonManstein  I'm a theist (Christian)

[2000deg]

Kurtz next argument, that religions contradict each other and therefore are no source of morality (if anybody believes that?), can be easily turned against his own humanist worldview: all the worldviews contradict each other, therefore they can be no source of morality.

[EndOfNumbers]

2000degs thats a very good point indeed

[2000deg]

Krutz is arguing against a straw man. Nobody denys that nonbeliviers have a moral sense and can try to lead a moral life. Not even the bible denys that:

"For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15. in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them [..]" Romans 2

[simplic10]

Kurtz: "Goodness happens without god."

Craig: "Goodness happens without God *in practice.* But not in principle!"

I sure love to watch sophists dance.

[awesomewelles90]

Most atheists say what Kurtz does as you've simplified it but don't understand or think about Craig's point.

[simplic10]

I've heard his stuff about the "existence of normative facts."

He jumps from the fact that moral intuitions *feel* prescriptive to the conclusion that they must be objective, in the hard sense of existing somewhere out in the aether.

Then, since these things exist "out there" according to Craig, god is the best explanation of them.

Craig just reifies cognitive constructs, then claims that god is the only explanation for the res.

[HerrVonManstein]

@simplic10 I agree

[ihateneocons]

i look forward to the day where kurtz and i are no longer in the minority. how funny it will seem in 300 years that this conversation even had to take place.

[simplic10]

Agreed. It's like we're still doing pre-philosophy.

Once somebody demonstrates abiogenesis in a lab, we're golden. I give it ten years.

[ihateneocons]

IDEA:

we atheists should stop calling our self atheists. or at least conjoin it with something else.

i think its time, for those of us who are, to stand out as secular humanists and not just atheists. atheism is against 1 thing, but secular humanism is for many things.

like sam harris says, its not helpful to say i am a non-astrologer - its says not positive about my beliefs. likewise for atheism.

i am for human happiness here and now.

for freedom, choice, life, and skepticism.

right??

[simplic10]

I think skeptic about covers it.

It still seems negative, but in this case constructively negative.

Also, "atheist" implies a special beef with gods, whereas "skeptic" is anti-nonsense across the board.

[HighCarro]

I can tell you all, I leave in Sweden, and in this country we have many atheists, But we have also many people whos trying to comite suicide, I think its really sad, The Swedish People needs Jesus Christ in their life! Pray for Sweden!

[Anarkokommunist]

I also Live in Sweden, and I disagree. I think that only 20-25 percent say that they do not belive, and we do not have very many suicides in our country, at least according to the statistics I have read.

We do not need christianity, we need people who listens to the youth of today. Atheism is what the world needs.

Må ljuset nå dina ögon!

[jessnetzero]

Europe has the worlds highest suicide rate and cases are rising among young people, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

[Anarkokommunist]

Name an article please!

And even if Europe has the highest suicide rate, is that necessarily a bad thing? Is it not better to be dead, than live a long sad life?

[jessnetzero]

World of Psychology Europe is worlds suicide hotspot, By John M Grohol PSYD. Im not making a judgment Im just giving facts. One could do what ever one whats but if we are talking about which system is better to live onces life then maybe being a christian can give meaning to our lives?

[M3t4lManiac]

@HighCarro Yes, pray! That always helps.

[shadow3772]

I love watching this, and knowing what Craig's got waiting for him. Kurtz has no idea what's about to hit him: like a bug about to get splattered across a windshield.

[FUahole69]

and at what point did that happen? Why cant christians accept that people do not need god for good morals! I am a proud atheist that couldnt ask for a better family. I couldnt be more happy or proud of my children, and I did this without believing in god. So can one christian please tell me what I'm doing wrong?

[shadow3772]

I don't know that you're doing anything wrong. The point of the debate, as you'll hear, is that a person can be good w/o belief in God. That much is clear. What is not so clear, is whether goodness and badness exist w/o a God. If there is no God, then objective right and wrong do not exist: for w/o God, what is good and bad are completely subjective. A rapist is as "good" or "bad" as a family man. If you have a good family, good: God bless you for it. But you didn't get there w/o God.

[FUahole69]

Say there was never a mention of god, so humans never know the morals that come from him. Now, with the ability of our brains, and the accomplishments man has created over time by working together and discussing things, woulndt we be able to work out a moral system to live by? If the brain is able to figure out how to send man to the moon I'm sure we would figure out a moral system without ever hearing of a god!

[shadow3772]

I don't know. Maybe they could, but to live "good" lives would be an utter lie. Human beings could come up, arbitrarily, with "goodness" and could assign that property to certain actions. But the goodness would not be there: it'd be imaginary. To live a "good" life would be nothing more than a lie.

But living a good life is not a lie. Goodness and badness do exist, and when a person sacrifices for the greater good, they are being moral. Goodness is not a lie, but it cannot exist w.o God.

[FUahole69]

Let's go with a moral system that with live by, without every knowing a god. How could goodness not exist?

[FUahole69]

Since the dawn of time man has come together to invent things, and come together to work on problems. If there was a period of time when morals and laws did not exist, people would have problems. Family members murdered or raped, stuff stolen, it' safe to say these would be problems to one self. If there is one FACT then time has showen us is that humans come together to fix problems, with or without a god!

[shadow3772]

So they come together to fix problems. Ok, great. Now show me how that's objectively good w/o a God who wants us to come together and live harmoniously? It cannot be done. You may think and feel that it is good, but that's relative to you. An extreme anarchist may think that living together harmoniously is the opposite of good, and that such communities should be bombed and torn apart. Given atheism, he is just as good as a communitarian environment, plain and simple.

[FUahole69]

So your saying god has morals so we can come together and live harmoniously. If man is solving problems with the society he is living in wouldnt he be achieving those same goals.

[shadow3772]

No no, that's a misunderstanding. I'm a little constrained by the character count here in the comment boxes. I'm saying that, whatever the effects of man's actions, no objective goodness or badness exists w/o the prior existence of God. That you recognize "coming together and living harmoniously" as good is good... but why is it good objectively? Not because you say it is: that is subjective. Then why? Under atheism there is no way: a "bad" man is no better or worse morally than a good one.

[FUahole69]

Your atheism rule is so wrong! I'm saying goodness and bad can come from right or wrong, in which can come from feelings that we are born with. Let's go to the godless world and say that some guy is raping girls, can't rules be set based on all the people that are getting mad, which of course is a feeling. Why cant we go by happiness and sadness to figure out what is goodness and badness.

[shadow3772]

Your appeal to utilitarianism is flawed. Imagine nazi germany: an individual is going around killing Jews. It makes people happy.

Happiness and sadness do not correlate to goodness and badness at a 1 to 1 ratio. Simply put, there is no way to make objective those feelings which we have about the goodness or badness of some act, unless there is a God who grants our feelings a tinge of objectivity.

[FUahole69]

but it doesnt make everyone happy! Like I said people can make decisions on feelings. We stopped the nazi's because of decisions we made. And if happiness and goodness dont correlate, then how come when I'm happy I feel good, and when I feel good I'm happy. You dont need a good or a bad to makes standards, you could just go buy how you feel.

[shadow3772]

Nothing makes everyone happy. By your rule: only those actions which make everyone happy are good; no action is good.

I am glad you feel happy when you are good, but it is not that way for everyone. Furthermore, the good choice is not always the happy one: cleaning your child's diapers, working hard at school when your friends are going out, turning down drugs or alcohol, etc etc.

Simply stated, what makes people happy is not always good, and what is good does not always make people happy.

[HerrVonManstein]

@shadow3772 right, what craig's got fo him is a bunch of fanatic non-sense and religious gibberish. it's sad that when he dies he'll never know how wrong he was on all this bullshit about an aferlife, final justice, etc. since he'll be dead! at least the memory of him wasting his whole life on folly and being wrong will live on. one can only pitty the religious fools for having wasted their only shot at living

[shadow3772]

@HerrVonManstein Sorry to hear you say that, but as you well know, insulting someone's view doesn't prove it false.

[HerrVonManstein]

@shadow3772 I agree. But sorry that you can't see how wrong this view is especially with regard to this afterlife business. My only advice is- don't waste your (only) life on that the way craig has done. I personally think that in the back of his mind he knows that it's all nothing but bullshit, yet he doesn't know how get out of this without destroying his whole life and carrier: admitting you've lived and served this delusion your entire life is perhaps enough to get one suicidally depressed

[shadow3772]

@HerrVonManstein Considering the fairly broad amount of evidence pertaining to the afterlife's existence, and the strength of Craig, Aristotle, and Aquinas' philosophy, it's quite easy to be an intellectual, educated, believing Christian.

Furthermore, if your only view of the Christian life is one of servitude out of fear, then your view of Xtianity is far too narrow. Many people, myself included, are Christians not out of fear, but out of joy and happiness for the life it brings.

[HerrVonManstein]

@shadow3772 evidence for an afterlife?? oh,come on. there's not a single piece of scientific evidence, quite the opposite. all these near death exp. are easily produced by oxygen depravation-- there has been many experiments that show that. then there was this ER room where a lot of people were reporing out-of-body exp.,you know - that they've seen their body and the medical staff from above and so on, so the staff placed a sign with some text written on it in such a way that it could only

[shadow3772]

@HerrVonManstein I wasn't referring to OOBE's or NDEs. Rather, I was referring to things like the incorruptible saints, and the Marian apparitions all over the world.

In addition, I'll point out the fact that the lack of scientific evidence for something does not prove it untrue, so if you are discarding it on that basis, you are in error.

[HerrVonManstein]

@shadow3772 incorruptible saints?? you can't seriously believe that. If there's anything even more bizzare and improbable than an 'immortal soul' it's an 'immortal body'! And it's not about a lack of evidence, but lots of (circum) evidence against it. that's why most scientists are atheists-- and for that reason it's not the genetic fallacy. Check on the Internet about books on this issue- I can see thet you're interested. I hope you don't let your faith stand in the way. Peace

[Jugglable]

@HerrVonManstein Whether scientists are atheists is irrelevant. Once they try to conclude from their research whether God exists, they are no longer doing SCIENCE but are now engaging in PHILOSOPHICAL speculation, and are outside of their field. As a result often make very elementary logical errors. I look to the philosophers to learn about God, and most of them, including most of the great ones, have believed in God.

[HerrVonManstein]

@shadow3772 be seen from above. Do you know how many people who have subsequently reported near death out-of-body exp. have been able to say what was written on the sign?-- 0! case closed. I hope you don't get your info from books like d'souza's "life after death: the evidence" it's so biased. and no I don't think your belief is just about fear- I guess it feels good to be promised an eternal life in heaven.as for the mind forgery, I think people like craig eventually get there, because the more

[HerrVonManstein]

@shadow3772 you look at the evidence for Christianity (which is what Christian apologists do) the weaker they become. see what Dan Barker and Matt Dillahunty say on that issue. it's true that some people turn from atheism to theism- there's a reason why religion has been called 'opium for the people'. however you probably know that more than 60% of U.S. scientist and 93%(!) of NAS (the top scientists in the U.S) are atheists. ever wondered why is that?

[shadow3772]

@HerrVonManstein There are plenty of psychological reasons for turning from Theism to atheism as well, amongst them, a more liberal sexual morality, and the good feeling that comes with rejecting your parents. If all you base your rejection of theism on is psychological issues, then you fall into the genetic fallacy: on what basis a belief arises (fear, desire, etc) doesn't affect it's veracity. One could have a true belief out of fear. That is obvious.

[HerrVonManstein]

@shadow3772 I think that someone like him eventually gets to a point when no ammount of mind forgery and dishonesty is too much in order to keep his delusion going for that's all he's got left. That's why I admire people like Dan Barker and Matt Dillahunty(the Atheist Experience) for turning around but unfortunatelly they are among the very few who've been able to do that.

[shadow3772]

@HerrVonManstein But you're ignoring the fact that Atheists turn around too. Consider for example C.S. Lewis or Edith Stein or Bernard Nathanson. To say that all believing, educated Christians are guilty of "mind forgery" is disingenuous, and takes the focus off the veracity of their arguments for theism, etc.

[jefersontorres]

@shadow3772 Just adding, because it reffer to your comment: 3:06 - 3:18 : But, afterall, at least in an atheistic view, we have no choose: we´re gonna die. Will atheistic propose some hope at all ?

That´s the fact.

[M3t4lManiac]

@shadow3772 William Lane Craig is a complete tool, get a clue.

[shadow3772]

@M3t4lManiac Yeah, a respected doctor of philosophy is a tool, but a random internet teenager knows what's what. Please see through your own ignorance and arrogance, and realize God loves you. Without Him, you can do nothing.

[emopeacekid]

Religion does has negative consequences but so does atheism. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot Ho Chin Min. Them and their movements were atheistic and murdered more people than all the religions people have killed conbined x100 and then some.

[FUahole69]

Hitler was catholic! I guess he had good morals?

[iviewthetube]

Nice vid. Thanks for the post.