After the debate on the surce of human morality, talking about secular morality and more. part 4/7

This debate is a mirror from the youtube user : umbcOCF

The Secular Student Alliance hosted a panel follow-up discussion immediately after the Source of Human Morality Debate on 11/16/2010. The panel was largely an open forum for questions and conversation with the audience.


Sorry about the sound quality, but everything should be audible if you turn your sound up.

The panelists are as follows, from left to right:

Gregory S. Paul: Labeled religion's "public enemy #1" by MSNBC, Greg Paul is a freelance author and researcher about the effect of religion on society, and vice versa. His work has been featured in Newsweek, Science magazine, Evolutionary Psychology, Philosophy and Theology, and numerous other journals and publications. Paul's theory centers around the thesis that there is no "God gene" that gives people an inherent propensity for religion, and that "prosperous modernity is proving to be the nemesis of religion." Greg is a Baltimore native and active in the Baltimore Ethical Society. Find out more about his "science of religion" writings at www.gspaulscienceofreligion.com.

John Shook, Ph.D. [debate moderator]: Dr. Shook is a scholar and professor living in Washington, D.C. He is Director of Education and Senior Research Fellow of the Center for Inquiry, and also is Visiting Assistant Professor of Science Education at the University at Buffalo, teaching for its online program in Science and the Public. From 2000 to 2006 he was a professor of philosophy at Oklahoma State University. Shook publishes on philosophical topics about science, the mind, humanist ethics, democracy, secularism, and religion, and he has debated the existence of God with leading theologians including William Lane Craig. He has authored and edited more than a dozen books, including the new The God Debates: A 21st Century Guide for Atheists and Believers (and Everyone in Between).

Matt Dillahunty [debater]: Matt is the president of the Atheist Community of Austin, and host of the popular public access television and internet show "The Atheist Experience." He was raised as a fundamentalist Baptist, and was on track to become a minister until he started asking questions about the reasons for his belief. He rejected religion, and now serves as a public voice for rationality and secular morality.

Robert Anderson, Ph.D: Dr Anderson is a UMBC psychology professor and student advisor. He teaches a number of courses, including aggression and antisocial behavior, abnormal psychology, personality study, human sexuality and clinical psychology.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• source
• human
• morality
• debate
• umbc
• secular
• student
• alliance
• ssa
• orthodox
• christian
• fellowship
• ocf
• university
• maryland
• baltimore
• county
• atheism
• theism
• morals
• truth
• agnosticism
• matt
• dillahunty
• father
• hans
• jacobse
• antiochian
• institute

[JungleJargon]

@YaleBreaker You should know what makes a mechanism lesser or greater.

I already asked in a previous post what you think is a logical absolute.

Let me know and I will tell you if they have a maker.

[JungleJargon]

@YaleBreaker You are committing the fallacy of assuming that pumps and motors make themselves to maufacture the energy that we need to live. Their function goes well beyond any linguistic extrapolation. They really are pumps and electric motors turning actual shafts that literally maufacture energy so we can live.

[YaleBreaker]

@JungleJargon You've also still failed to define "lesser" in any coherent scientific sense.

"You have to show that mechanisms come from lesser sources, if that's what you believe." The Three Logical Absolutes do not come from any higher source, and they are the basis of all logic. They are the ultimate boundaries of form itself, yet they have no Maker. How do you explain this?

[YaleBreaker]

@JungleJargon Hydrogen, know-it-all, is only said to have "function" because what hydrogen does carries superficial similarities to the concept of things designed by humans having "function". You are committing an equivocation fallacy. You cannot rigorously infer attributes of any entity by extrapolating from the linguistic symbols applied to that entity.

[JungleJargon]

@YaleBreaker Then you're not talking about a rock, are you? You're talking about mechanisms inside of a rock and you didn't mention any mechanisms.

You have to show that mechanisms come from lesser sources, if that's what you believe.

Yes, hydrogen does have very essential functions in life forms, you need to pay attention, know-it-all.

The Maker of all those essential functions of hydrogen is the Maker of all matter in the universe consisting initially and primarily of hydrogen.

[YaleBreaker]

@JungleJargon A rock does contain working mechanisms, genius.

I'm still waiting for the dumbass science to support your "everything comes from something greater than itself" notion.

"The Maker of all matter is not made of matter" How do you know?

"evidence of the function of hydrogen" Hydrogen has no function. Does a star in the Andromeda Galaxy have a function? Was it created with the specific purpose of shining in a particular place in the sky to look pretty for us?

What cosmic arrogance.

[JungleJargon]

@YaleBreaker You are making things up. A rock does not show us there is a Maker.

It is the function of hydrogen and most of the most common elements working as ordered inside of us that proves the entire universe, consisting primarily of hydrogen and elements, has a Maker that is greater than the life forms.

The Maker of all matter is not made of matter and the evidence of the function of hydrogen proves the existence of only One Maker of one set of parts in one set of life forms.

[JungleJargon]

@Keldrath The universe is not a mechanisms with a function, I am saying that actual mechanisms with actual functions all have a maker that is greater than the mechanisms or function because everything has a direct and equal or greater cause.

[YaleBreaker]

@JungleJargon "when there is no actual verifiable human history any older than 6,750 years old"

Yes, there is. Starlight.

If the universe was no older than 7,000 years, we wouldn't even be able to see most of our galaxy, let alone any significant chunk of our universe.

We can in fact see billions of light-years away from Earth, which strongly points to a universe that is billions of years old.

[YaleBreaker]

@JungleJargon "working parts and mechanisms have a maker because the maker of the mechanism has to equal to or greater than the mechanism that it makes" Does a rock have a maker? What does "greater" mean? Does the maker have a maker?

You're committing two equivocation fallacies and a special pleading fallacy in the same argument.