Greg Bahnsen vs Stein - The Great Debate (part 11 of 14)

[YHWHisSovereign]

A consistent atheist would not even bother arguing. I have yet to meet a consistent atheist. It is true that they know there is a God, but they suppress that truth.

[JanJiska]

@YHWHisSovereign,

"It is true that they know there is a God, but they suppress that truth"

Actually it is the opposite. This is why theists are devestated when their children die, go to hospital when they are injured rather than staight to priests etc. Deep down they know there is no God but they keep trying to convince themselves otherwise.

[JPBuysjr]

@JanJiska hahahahah, what! When something tragic happens to you the atheist who or what do you turn to. I got raped, oh well! there is no one there to help me, its a chance universe and my life is meaningless anyways and there is no where to go or look to. Welcome to atheism

[JanJiska]

@JPBuysjr,

"When something tragic happens ... who or what do you turn to."

My family and (non imaginary) friends.

"I got raped, oh well! there is no one there to help me"

Apparently God was not otherwise how would you have been raped? Why do millions of Christians suffer in the same ways as non Christians?

"my life is meaningless anyways"

My live involves being a good husband and father, that is plenty meaning for me!

"Welcome to atheism"

swing and miss - thank you for playing.

[JPBuysjr]

@JanJiska IM not gonna insult or chirp you. I could say a couple things. You being a father is one hundred percent respectableand honourable. But you never think wow it sucks to think that your life and your kids life is ultimately heading no where, your just a blind mass of matter+chance in a universe by chance bound to destruction? Also nobody becomes a Christian for a better life. People become Christians to escape the wrath to come, and to find the joy found in Christ.

[JanJiska]

@JPBuysjr,

Thanks for being decent!

"But you never think wow it sucks to think that your life and your kids life is ultimately heading no where...?"

To be honest it just makes it more important to me that we live every day to its fullest and take every chance we can to celebrate our lives together.

However, even if I did think it sucked - what I do or don't think does not change anything. A super powerful, infinite almighty God will not suddenly exist simply because I prefer it to.

[1120110]

You're the man Greg!

[JanJiska]

"We've rationalized abortion, and in the process we've killed more people than Hitler ever dreamed of killing."

Abortion has a use for medical reasons imho. Although God killed more people than Hitler (a Christian) could ever dream of.

"Assume the opposite"

Assume anything you like, it does not make your God anymore real.

[Xerxal]

"So if your holy book did not tell you killing kids was wrong you would not know?"

Well, the Bible provides a concrete basis for believing that it is immoral to murder children, but in another sense, I would know even if I hadn't read the Bible. You see, the Bible teaches that everyone, being made in the image of God, has a conscience, and therefore carries His moral requirements everywhere they go.

[JanJiska]

@Xerxal,

"You see, the Bible teaches that everyone, being made in the image of God, has a conscience, and therefore carries His moral requirements everywhere they go"

Then you agree that one does not need to be a Christian to be moral as these morals are hard wired into everyone regardless of religion.

[JanJiska]

"What's truly frightening is if morality is only defined by what is taught in a culture"

So if your holy book did not tell you killing kids was wrong you would not know?

"In such a case, virtually anything could be rationalized"

In today's society it would be difficult.

"The Spartans..."

Yes, following their religion. Although they were not as bad as the Aztecs, crusades etc.

"they do not define the standards of morality themselves."

Depends on your viewpoint.

[Xerxal]

@JanJiska "In today's society it would be difficult."

Oh really? We've rationalized abortion, and in the process we've killed more people than Hitler ever dreamed of killing.

"Depends on your viewpoint."

Assume the opposite. If morality is defined by the society, then anything contrary to the society is evil by definition. Therefore, any attempt at social reform would be evil. The very notion of social reform assumes the society should aspire to something greater than itself.

[JanJiska]

Empathy, selfish alturism, the influence of the culture I was raised in leads me to believe it was wrong. I cannot judge others in history by my yardstick and I do not try.

It is the same when a car drives passed me at 150mph whilst I am doing 30mph. I think they were driving fast but they would think I was driving slow.

If it was not mentioned in the book relevant to your religion, you would not know whether killing children is wrong? That is truely frightening!

[Xerxal]

@JanJiska What's truly frightening is if morality is only defined by what is taught in a culture. In such a case, virtually anything could be rationalized. The Spartans, for instance, thought it was good to throw "unfit" babies off Mount Taygetos for the sake of their warrior culture. Cultures live up to standards of morality, they do not define the standards of morality themselves.

[CamAtheist]

Greg is a complete moron..good riddence to bad rubbish......

[megenoita]

@CamAtheist

Hey! You are picking up on Stein's level of reasoning!

[CamAtheist]

not sure what you mean.

[2000deg]

So the atheist has to conclude that weapons of mass destruction if they are used to destroy the whole world are a means to make the world a little bit better. :)

[JanJiska]

Nope, the only people who are looking forward to the world being destroyed are theists.

[2000deg]

You know that pointing your finger at others doesnt constitute an argument, do you?

Oh its true that we look forward to see THIS world, with all its evil, destroyed but only to LIVE in a better one. Its a kind of creative destruction ;)

[JanJiska]

So you do look forward to seeing the world destroyed- QED

You look forwards to the deaths of millions of people who were not raised with your religions. What a kind and benevolernt lord you have!

[2000deg]

And if the world is such an evil place as atheists think it is, than they are obliged by their happiness-morality to obliterate it. Because according to atheists the overall happiness is on the negative scale. And since dead people cannot expirience any happiness, the obliteration of the world would make it better. The overall happiness would go from negative to zero at least. Of course the weapons have to be very powerfull, for they ought not to cause any unhappiness. (e.g. H-Bombs)

[2000deg]

Whats more. If we kill all old and lonely people, society would be for the better, since nobody would have to provide for them, that would increase the overall happiness of our society.

I think its the same rotten happiness-morality that justifies the killing of unborn children, since they are burden they would decrease happiness and as long they cannot expierience happiness or unhappiness, its completly ok to kill them, as that would increase overall happiness.

[JanJiska]

Flawed logic.

Killing innocent children was fine in the bible (and in Sparta) but not here and now.

[cctman]

@JanJiska If your are an atheist or an agnostic I would love to here your rationality for how you can say killing innocent children is bad or good? You have no absolute moral basis for even making that statement. You apparently skipped over that very subject in this debate... Just because you feel that not killing innocent children is wrong doesn't make it so. We have the Bible to tell us its wrong, Hitler had his own concept of wrong. That's why he led many children to concentration camps.

[2000deg]

According to Mr Steins atheistic worldview, its completly ok to kill lonely, old people who have no relatives. Since dead people can neither be happy nor unhappy and since their death causes nobody to grief, nobody is made unhappy, therefore its ok. Furthermore if it makes some sick person happy to kill lonely old people, than, according to Mr Stein, he OUGHT to do that. Since that increases the overall happiness.

[JanJiska]

Not in our society at the moment - for genocide like this please see the bible.

[2000deg]

This shows that society does not completly obey to the "happiness morality". There is more than happiness in moral thinking at least in our society.

[JanJiska]

More importantly - it shows that we do not need to cling to dark age supersticiouns.

[kikrlbs]

Bahnsen says that Stein called his statements "irrational" and just because he said it doesn't make it so. So then how can you say that God created everything isn't irrational statement because just saying it doesn't make it so. You know what, I understand both sides (sort of) but to say you have the absolute truth, all you need to do is disprove one variable and its not absolute anymore. On the other hand if you say "prove to me god exists" then you have to prove all of the variables.

[heart4moocows]

Gordon Stein causes me to be unhappy. I must, therefore, conclude that he is evil. :P In an atheistic universe, why should I give a crap about the pain of others, the hungry and the illiterate, except because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside? Evil ultimately doesn't matter. Stein cannot call morality rational -- all science can do is identify the "is," never the "ought." Bare, skeptical, empirical reason will never lead us to moral conclusions.

[JanJiska]

Morality builds up through something called selfish altruism. The weight of popular feeling in society determines what people feel is 'right'.

A few years ago the church burned women alive for being 'witches' and approved of the murder of those who had the misfortune to be born and raised in a culture with a different religion.

I am not convinced that the church is the guardian of morality. It merely shadows what is accepted in society.

[heart4moocows]

Well, if we accept the naturalistic account of morality, burning witches and infidels was moral in the culture of 17th century Catholicism, and it isn't in your 21st century society. Isn't it arrogant to claim that your moral values are superior to theirs? You like chocolate, and they liked vanilla. So what?

That's the problem I'm getting at with atheistic morality. Bertrand Russell recognized this, and it haunted him. Morality is reduced to nothing more than personal or cultural taste.

[JanJiska]

My chocolate does not lead to innocent people being murdered and tortured due to stories about the chocolate god.

The values which I have picked up from my parents and society is that murdering people is wrong, if I were born in a different time and place I might not feel the same.

[heart4moocows]

Yes, but if morality is merely personal or cultural taste, then criticizing the Nazis for the Holocaust or the Khmer Rouge for the Killing Fields is equivalent to criticizing a person for liking the taste of strawberries. That's what naturalistic "morality" amounts to--certainly not humanism.

But this moral nihilism is unlivable; it requires the suppression of human nature. Human beings thirst for the transcendent, the eternal. And if they don't have God, they'll find something else to idolize.

[JanJiska]

No, the taste of strawberries is not a choice. The decision to kill people usually is although some people can be insane enough for this not to be the case.

The Nazis were doing what they were brain washed into thinking was right. From my point of view this was evil from someone else's it might not be.

However, humans 'needing' something to idolise (I don not) does not mean that God is real.

[heart4moocows]

I didn't use that as an argument for the existence of God. I simply said that it's a natural longing. And yes, human beings need transcendence. Secular humanists transcendentalize "being human" (for whatever arbitrary reason). The Nazis transcendentalized race. The Stalinists transcendentalized the state. These are all manifestations of humankind's incurable religiosity--the desire for transcendence.

[heart4moocows]

I think you're missing the point, but okay. The decision to eat strawberries is no different than the decision to rape a little girl. Sane people act according to our desires. You may not have the desire to rape children, but perhaps your next door neighbor does. Who are you to criticize him? You have your desires which lead you to make choices, and he does too. But moral relativism states that your desires and choices are only objectively DIFFERENT from your neighbor's--not objectively BETTER.

[JanJiska]

But the decision to harm people via rape, murder etc. has a bad effect on society whereas eating strawberries does not.

However if it were the case that there was a society that I blundered in to which had raping people as being a fine activity (as per several reference in the OT) and eating fish on a Friday as being a sin (all sins being equal according to the bible) - then I would be guilty of a serious crime whereas a rapist would not.

[heart4moocows]

So what if it has a "bad" effect on society?Again, you're defending a description of morality rather than defending its prescription. Why protect society? The Jew or Christian has a transcendent "reason" to protect people -- because they bear the image of a God whose nature is creative and loving; that is where they derive their value.

[heart4moocows]

But why should the naturalist protect society? Who cares? Society will be extinguished eventually anyway. Like I said, there are no objective criteria for evaluating the telos of secular morals. It is ultimately subjective, relative, and meaningless -- such as your desire to protect society. What if my personal taste is for society's destruction? If we don't have the same moral goal, then obviously we won't have the same moral conventions. Normative ethics is more than cost-benefit analysis...

[JanJiska]

Selfish altruism.

If your personal taste is for society's destruction then we are at logger heads. The OT has numerous examples of people doing exactly that and commiting genocide etc.

Different societies often have different moral conventions. This situation is managable without resorting to imaginary friends. Geneally war on a different society is counter productive to your own, especially in the modern day.

Once again, there is no reason why any god is more plausible than other

[JanJiska]

That may well be, although there are plenty of examples of devout theirst commiting attrocities. This does not make their imaginary god any more real does it?

[heart4moocows]

A naturalistic approach to morality leads to the confusion of descriptive and normative ethics. In which case, we cannot say what one "ought" to do, only what one "thinks" one ought to do. The very best we can do is say what one ought to do in order to reach a desired goal. However, goals cannot be morally evaluated in any objective sense. Moral relativism of this sort is better classified as moral nihilism -- no morality at all.

[JanJiska]

Pretty much. There is no defined standard is it all locally deduced.

The problem I find with the theistic approach is which god we should follow, there are thousands to choose from.

[h20hubby]

Scientists have studied the origins of life since the 1950's and have made very very very little to no progress. in over 50 years, scientists are still at a wall. Interesting.

[JanJiska]

I guess this would depend on what you refer to as no progress!

It is true that the progress made by Christianity in the past few hundred years has been comparitively staggering and has gone from murder 'witches' and heretics to being anti-murder etc.

Not too long before that a man was murdered (by children instructed by God) for collecting sticks on the Sabbath.

All while following an ancient book which contains the wisdom of an eternal creature that never changes.

[PhobosDeimos1992]

It's funny how Stein keeps appealing to arbitrary standards as absolutes, as if repetition will make it so.

[darrinrasberry]

Holy crud, Stein gets so nasty he can't even speak straight anymore

[irishmauddib]

I dislike the tactic Bahnsen uses here. Find something we cant explain, and then just declare that it therefore must be god. Cant explain origins? Must be god. Cant explain the reason logic exists. Must be god.

Bahnsen, an answer isnt correct simply because its the only answer postulated. Back up your claims or stop making them.

[fiercegallantry]

To be fair, Bahnsen could have given better replies if Stein had asked better questions. But Stein bogged the debate down in ignorant, silly claims.

Bahnsen's argument is a bit more sophisticated than the "tactic" you attribute to him. I'd love to discuss Wittgenstein, Kuhn, Polanyi & Plantinga over coffee, if you're ever in the area.

[irishmauddib]

I cant see that it is. He is "proving" god by stating things atheists cant explain. This is not rational thinking.

I see this tactic often. When I tell a beleiver Im a non beleiver I would estimate that 90% of the time their first response is "Can you explain where the universe comes from then?" and when I say "No, I honestly cant" they go "There you go then, it had to have been god".

Bahnsen is doing the exact same thing here with the laws of logic. Cant explain why they work? Its god!

[fiercegallantry]

That's really not Bahnsen's argument. Try listening again.

[irishmauddib]

you are like a broken record with your "try listening again" statements. If you have a point to make make it. Otherwise dont bother posting at all.

He is acting like an inability to explain something is proof that his theory is right. I can imagine no other area of discourse where this kind of tactic is employed, let alone accepted.

[fiercegallantry]

Bahsen is not employing the _argumentum ad ignorantiam_.

He is is showing that the atheist world-view is in contradiction with the preconditions of intelligibility. A such, the atheist world-view renders itself absurd. It fails on its own grounds.

The Christian world-view, by contrast, does provide the preconditions of intelligibility. It is a rational choice, unlike atheism.

[fiercegallantry]

Is that clearer?

[fiercegallantry]

Is that clearer?

[irishmauddib]

No need to flood the board. No its not clearer. You are just declaring something to be true with no back up. No good to me.

[fiercegallantry]

Bahnsen has already provided the back-up material. I was just clarifying what he was doing, because you were misrepresenting his argument.

Sorry.

[irishmauddib]

And I have disputed it and explained in detail why. If all you can do to back it up is refer to the same material again then Im afraid I can only conclude that this is a waste of time and youve no opinions of your own. If you have a point make it. If not why bother posting at all.

[fiercegallantry]

Sorry, as explained earlier, you misrepresented Bahnsen's argument by characterizing it as an argument from ignorance. (Your analogy depends on Bahnsen present an _argumentum ad ignorantum_.)

This is not Bahnsen's argument. As previously noted, Bahnsen argues that Stein's atheist philosophy makes laws of logic impossible. It makes moral obligations impossible. Etc.

[irishmauddib]

His point, and his exact words at some points were that atheists cant "account" for certain things. This sounds like argument from ignorance to me. One person not being able to account for something doesnt automatically make someone elses theory more true. Not ever.

And you push us in circles. Ive shown exactly how logical and moral obligations are possible without a god. Pure existance and the need for social cohesion, plus our natural drives are all enough to account for these things.

[fiercegallantry]

I, too, wish Bahnsen had been able to debate Dawkins or Hitchens. Bahnsen's success would have been even more impressive & significant.

[brad78ton]

Actually atheists can't account for objective logical standards. Thats the entire point of the debate, and frankly atheistic materialism can't account for logical laws in any form. Christopher Hitchens definately can't, he can't even handle Dinesh D'souza.

[Pandamonk69]

Neither can theism.

[irishmauddib]

Nor can theism, they have just made up an idea that fits the facts they see and then just declare it to be true. There is no evidence or reason to think that it is true except it convienietly fits the facts.

Its like two kids discussing the stork theory of reproduction. Its the only answer they have and it fits all the facts as they see it, but they are completely devoid of ALL evidence. But they choose to beleiver it anyway.

[kisstheclowns]

It runs a little deeper than that, I would listen again closely.

[irishmauddib]

Not that I can see, but feel free to be more specific.

[jsampras3]

Ah, sophistry and BS FTW. Without God, there can be no laws of logic, therefore god exists? What a BS argument. Stein was horrible IMO. How do you lose a debate to a theist? God i wish they could have got Chris Hitchens or something to lay the smackdown on that moron.

[MRKetter81]

Hense why I was asking on what basis do you use a subjectional convention to determine a absolute "truth"?

[MRKetter81]

Petaining to the laws of logic

[Pandamonk69]

Thanks, Dr Bahnsen, for telling me what i think and know.

There is no absolute universal "Law of Logic", like Dr Bahnsen claims, that needs explanation. The law of logic, as well as science, is what humans have created to describe how the universe(among other things, language for example) appears to function.

Morality is similar, in that it has been created by humans and explains how to live peacefullywith one another. This can explain the differing opinions of morality around the world.

[MRKetter81]

No absolutes? Then why debate?

To come to "A" truth...? Yet if "A" truth is subjective convention. Then you achieve nothing that isn't subjectional.

[Pandamonk69]

I never said there is no absolutes.

I said, there is no absolute "law of logic", because the "law of logic" is man made to describe how the universe functions.

I never said it was subjective. If you actually read what i said, and didn't just pick out the first sentence, you'd know what i said.

We know that laws need creation, because laws are man-made, but the things the laws explain don't need creation.

[MRKetter81]

I did read what you said.. and figured you had the ability to put 2 and 2 together that I meant what you were refering to. Yes I understand "no absolute law of logic". Now explain to me why bother to use logic if it's subjectional?

[Pandamonk69]

You're still doing it. Look at it in the context it was written.

The law of logic is man-made, in that man has made the law to explain the universe. That does not mean that the way the universe fuctions is subjective. It is very much objective.

Bahnsen argued that the law has(all laws have to have) a creator, and i completely agree. It was man, and it was created to explain the universe.

[MRKetter81]

Let me repeat the question.

If the laws of logic are conventional and subjectional why argue subjectionally to reach a subjectional truth?

I want to know how your version of a subjectional law is any basis to bother detemining what is truth if there is no absolute "truth" where one can say they are right or wrong?

[Pandamonk69]

Let me repeat my answer.

The law of logic is man-made, IN THAT MADE HAS MADE THE LWA TO EXPLAIN THE UNIVERSE. That DOES NOT mean that the way the universe fuctions is subjective. IT IS VERY MUCH OBJECTIVE.

Bahnsen argued that the law has(all laws have to have) a creator, and i completely agree. It was man, and it was created to explain the universe.

The fuction of the universe is objective, and therefore THE LAW IS OBJECTIVE.

[MRKetter81]

"The law of logic is man-made, IN THAT MADE HAS MADE THE LWA TO EXPLAIN THE UNIVERSE"

Actually that's only one aspect of the laws of logic, they are in fact more broad than that. However to deal with what you're saying; that would make the laws of logic a subject to man's perception and presupposions

[Pandamonk69]

Firstly, sorry for the mistakes.

The way the univese functions is no less objective, and the way we understand/explain this, is no less objective.

Anyway. I really need my sleep, it's 1am, that's why i'm making spelling/gramatical mistakes. I'll answer tomorrow.

[MRKetter81]

I believe I answered this question in the other post, but perception and presuppositions wich are subjective will make the very nature of what you consider to be a convential law of logic subject to the subject percieving, how they percieve and their presuppositional approach to what you consider is the objective truth.

Thus your convention is subjectional.

[Pandamonk69]

The problem of evil only applies to the "theistic universe" because that is what is being discussed. If you believe that a god exists, then you have the problem of evil. If you don't, then there is no problem. It doesn't matter that I or Dr Stein has no problem, it matters that Dr Bahnsen has the problem. How can evil be good? If evil is good, doesn't that mean that everyone is good no matter what, so there is no basis for morality? It doesn't matter what you believe. You can kill and it's good?

[faqfaqfaqfaqfaqfaq76]

Through part 11, Dr. Bahnsen has yet to answer a question, he just like to create the illusion of an answer by trying to contradict what Dr. Stein has said. Anyone with half a brain know that you don't make yourself look good, but trying to make the other guy look bad. And saying, it is because it is, IS NOT, an answer, it's a copout.

[a5dr3]

I think you need to listen to the debate again. The fact you don't like or understand the mechanics of how in Christ all things live and move and have their being, does not in any way effect the statements logical validity. -U act like Bahnsen is running from Christian theology just because he repeatedly exposes Steins consistent self-contradictions. And Bahnsen of course nowhere says anything like "it is bcause it is"

[MRKetter81]

Really? Now explain induction. You got a answer for why tomarrow will be like today?

[faqfaqfaqfaqfaqfaq76]

Lol, Dr. Bahnsen is a complete idiot. He once again skirted around the answer of why God allows evil, by saying that how do Atheists know what evil is, if there is not an ultimate good to compare it to. Granted, there is no law of morality, it's something we as humans came up with, but that doesn't mean that we think the killing of innocent children is okay.

[a5dr3]

You discredit your statements when you call Bahnsen an idiot. Stein himself admitted he lost this debate. -Bahnsen openly confesses in this debate, in lectures and in print that God ordains evil. He then astutely observes the hypocrisy and transcendental failure when an atheist tries to engage in this reasoning. To call something evil one must appeal to an objective universal standard, not just matter in motion. obviously

[faqfaqfaqfaqfaqfaq76]

It's evident which side of the fence you're on, so let me ask you a couple of simple questions. Can God do anything? If so, can he create a stone big enough the he can't move it? If not, how can he be all powerful? If so, how can there be such a rock the God himself can not move. How about where did God come from? He just was? What about natural disaters that kill indiscriminately? Is that God too? Cause according to your views, he created everything. Why would a loving God kill?

[a5dr3]

Wow, u r really deep. You've really done some research. I didn't have any of those objections covered in my 6 grade Sunday school class. I bet u wouldn't be able to find a Christian childrens website anywhere where those abstruse and novel objections are answered. Those issues certainly were not resolved by the time of Moses. It's a shame you couldn't debate Bahnsen when he was alive, that idiot. Do u have a book out? You r really bazing new trails philisophically and theologically.

[ivanlibya]

Wow is right. I asked you simple questions and in true Theist form, you managed to answer without giving real answers to any of them. And I'd be more than happy to debate this issue with you, if you'd like. Just email me and we'll pick up where this left off... with you choosing to try and discount my question instead of answer it. Balls in your court.

[a5dr3]

LOL! Bahnsen is so dumb. He is really getting schooled! He just looks so dumb when he shows Stein has no basis for logic, ethics, induction or the general intelligibility of human experience! Stein totally won this debate when Bahnsen answered all his misguided objections after showing he as an atheist, has no basis for them in the first place. I'm so glad Stein posted this debate so we could see how pitifully Bahnsen lost!

[a5dr3]

LOL! Bahnsen is so dumb. He is really getting schooled! He just looks so dumb when he shows Stein has no basis for logic, ethics, induction or the general intelligibility of human experience! Stein totally won this debate when Bahnsen answered all his misguided objections after showing he as an atheist, has no basis for them in the first place. I'm so glad Stein posted this debate so we could see how pitifully Bahnsen lost!

[Fleefles]

'but that doesn't mean that we think the killing of innocent children is okay. "

At one point in time, and I'm sure some people today think it, certain societies DID think it was okay to kill innocent children. The Spartans would leave children they deemed "weak" for whatever reasons on hillsides to die. They thought it was wrong to let them live.

If right/wrong is based just on the majority of a society's opinions, then it was "right" for them to kill innocent children.

[Fleefles]

So, you can say you personally think killing innocent children is wrong and do not like it, but it is not a universal wrong, and someday it may be "right" or acceptable again in the future.

[JanJiska]

To some people it might well be right in the future, some people might think it is right now (e.g. shooting brainwashed child soldiers) - there are numerous examples in the OT of chidren being murdered. Abraham was prepared to murder his son, so they must have thought it was okay then too.

[JanJiska]

"If right/wrong is based just on the majority of a society's opinions, then it was "right" for them to kill innocent children"

It would be wrong for them to do that in modern societies by our morality and rules. At the time they believed they were right to do what they did as it was for the good of the society (although how good for their overall socierty this policy was is debatable).

[MrEpictetus]

modern societies like ours kill unborn children, I dont know what you think your saying about the evolution of morality but your subscribing to humanism. A republic is governed by laws, a Democracy is governed by the majority, we are a republic. Christians say morality is objective, atheists say it is a convention, therefore it is relative.

You are unqualified to speak about the moral consciousness of the ancient greeks, romans or jews. your all over these lectures and I dont know why.

[JanJiska]

"modern societies like ours kill unborn children"

In the same way as the Spartans did? Are you sure?

"You are unqualified to speak about the moral consciousness of the ancient greeks, romans or jews"

Or rather you are unqualified to speak on what I am qualified to speak on. If you want to know what my qualifications are you only have to pray to your God or make an excuse as to why that will not work.

"your all over these lectures and I dont know why"

Then pray or does that not work?

[Kmonman]

Stein: "We don't do them because God tells us to do them, we do them because they are RIGHT -- they NEED to be done in this world. And if we do 'em because they are right, we make people happy - we will be made happy ourselves by making other people happy. It's a very positive world outlook... you are responsible for your actions, and also, you get the CREDIT for the things that you do."

Wha? Credit from whom? Your society? Your soul? From GOD, forbid???

[ThatOneQuestion]

8 minutes in, Bahnsen wants to lay down what it is to be rational?

Laughable.

Circular logic and wishful thinking is just about all he has offered this debate.

"We can prove the existence of God by the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God's existence is that without him, it is impossible to prove anything."

Laughable.

[pbcinla]

Stien just laid the foundation to justify the Holocaust. If killing 6 million Jews made 6 million and one people happy then it would not be evil according to his logic.

Stien always answers by regressing into answering Thomistic evidential arguments. He doesn't do well on the purely abstract philisophical level. I don't think he really understands the philosophical argument Bahnsen is making.

[VCMethod]

You are a moron , just like Greg Bahnsen.

[pbcinla]

Since you cannot refute my statement you resort to name calling. How admirable.

[ThatOneQuestion]

"Since you cannot refute my statement you resort to name calling. How admirable."

That assumes you are worth of the time to refute such bull. You are not.