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

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.

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

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

I sure love to watch sophists dance.

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.

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.

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?