Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
Has anyone ever heard of William Lane Craig? If not he has had debates in the past with Dawkins, and Hitchins,

He has trumped atheist to the point where they don't believe in what they believed before, :

Not really...

www.guardian.co.uk...



You can debate and debate and debate.... it's what you believe and what you don't believe that matters.

reply to post by blupblup


So Dawkins claims he refuses to debate William Lane Craig huh?

reply to post by Furbs


Trust me you will fall down the same path as Dawkins and Hitchins to believe that... They came nowhere close to rebutting Dr. Craig, which is probably why they have never won a debate against him. His point is clear as day, and for you to ignore #2 is just as bad as Dawkins apparently changing his stance where as his previous writings in The GOD Delusion talks about how GOD does not exist, now he can't be sure? Dr. Craig makes a good argument, a very strong argument...

reply to post by blupblup

Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either.

So the source you provided downplays Dr. Craig's ability to argue? That source is so biased toward Dr. Craig that it is not even funny.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by blupblup

 

So Dawkins claims he refuses to debate William Lane Craig huh?

Do you understand what a debate is?

Did you even look at the video?

Or just google both of their names and find that video.


As Dawkins said, he will not debate the guy.


What was the point of your post? You post a video titled Dawkins vs Craig (or some crap) which isn't even what it says on the tin.


:shk:

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
So the source you provided downplays Dr. Craig's ability to argue? That source is so biased toward Dr. Craig that it is not even funny.

The "Source" is Dawkins himself.... you know, the guy You're "Studying about" ??

reply to post by blupblup


Ah yes I mentioned above I studied Craig, Dawkins, and Hitchins BlupBlup...And I have seen the video before which is why i brought up Dr. Craig after 20 pages of no one mentioning him, and when I did mention him you quickly googled William Lane Craig. This isn't the debate forum BlupBlup, you were obviously oblivious to who Dr. Craig was before I mentioned him...

reply to post by blupblup


Yes I know it is from Dawkins yeah so of course he will be biased toward his arch rival that he is right, but the point of the thread is that he had a change of heart...So whatever Dawkins thought before loses the validity of his arguments now...

reply to post by KonquestAbySS



What are you talking about?

You said that Mr. Lane debated Dawkins and Hitchens in the past.

You LIED.

He has never debated Dawkins.


And If I hadn't heard of him then I'm in good company right?


Most haven't.

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by blupblup

 

Yes I know it is from Dawkins yeah so of course he will be biased toward his arch rival that he is right, but the point of the thread is that he had a change of heart...So whatever Dawkins thought before loses the validity of his arguments now...

No he has NEVER changed his mind.

He has always stated that nobody can be 100% sure either way.

Shame religious folks can'r be as honest and humble.

And anyway, I'm not getting sucked back into this thread.

Believe whatever you want to believe man.... but that's all it is... a belief.

Cheers.

reply to post by blupblup


So an atheist could ramble on all they want and get the glory for a win they never achieved by not debating Dr. Craig?... Well too bad for Hitchins he is worm food at this point, but Dawkins shouldn't be all high and mighty about what he believes then change his stance. If anything Dawkins loses credibility simple as that...

Look I am just saying the opportunity for an atheist to prove a Christian Apologist wrong was on the table. Unfortunately Dawkins excused the debate for lame reasons, that is like you showing up on the ATS fight forum you know what your going to debate about then the person your up against is a no show, then has the audacity to brag about that it wasn't worth my time...

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by blupblup

 

Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either.

So the source you provided downplays Dr. Craig's ability to argue? That source is so biased toward Dr. Craig that it is not even funny.

F.Y.I. that "source" you mention is Mr. Dawkins himself.

Very unbiased.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Furbs
reply to post by KonquestAbySS

 

2. No it does not.

The rest of your argument falls flat.

It's not his argument for one, and for two, morality had better be objective or the world would be absurd to live in.

You'd have murder morally wrong in one country and morally good in another one.

That actually -does- happen.

One example, and one of the best known, is of course, The Holocaust.

reply to post by blupblup

Did you even look at the video?

You didn't. In the video Dawkins says "this debate".

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Furbs
reply to post by KonquestAbySS

 

2. No it does not.

The rest of your argument falls flat.

It's not his argument for one, and for two, morality had better be objective or the world would be absurd to live in.

You'd have murder morally wrong in one country and morally good in another one.

That actually -does- happen.

One example, and one of the best known, is of course, The Holocaust.

No, that didn't happen. It wasn't morally good in Nazi Germany to murder people. They did it despite it being morally wrong. If morality were truly subjective then it would have been morally good in one country and morally repugnant in another country.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Furbs
reply to post by KonquestAbySS

 

2. No it does not.

The rest of your argument falls flat.

It's not his argument for one, and for two, morality had better be objective or the world would be absurd to live in.

You'd have murder morally wrong in one country and morally good in another one.

That actually -does- happen.

One example, and one of the best known, is of course, The Holocaust.

No, that didn't happen. It wasn't morally good in Nazi Germany to murder people. They did it despite it being morally wrong. If morality were truly subjective then it would have been morally good in one country and morally repugnant in another country.

Firstly, you are completely incorrect. They viewed their enemies as less than human, and as such, it was their moral obligation to destroy them.

Secondly, you are putting far to much weight on the nationalist agenda. Morality is not something decided upon by a nation, it is decided upon by one of two entities.

1. God. (As is the claim)
2. Self. (Which is the counter)

As every person in the world does not share the same morality, the argument is void. The morals of a nation are not agreed to by every person within the nation, as such, they cannot be 'God-given' as the claim indicates. Unless, God is giving us all differing sets of morals, which is in itself counter to the argument.

reply to post by Furbs

They viewed their enemies as less than human, and as such, it was their moral obligation to destroy them.

"they viewed"

I'm not talking about what the Nazis themselves felt. That wouldn't be "objective" that would be "subjective". I said if morality were subjective, then you would have murder morally correct in one country and murder morally wrong in another.

So, if morality were subjective, then murder would actually be morally correct in Nazi Germany and morally wrong in England. But that's not the case at all, murder is morally wrong everywhere,..

even in Nazi Germany in the 1940s.


Morality MUST first appeal to an authority higher than mankind for it's final result to be applicable for all of mankind.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Furbs

 

They viewed their enemies as less than human, and as such, it was their moral obligation to destroy them.

"they viewed"

I'm not talking about what the Nazis themselves felt. That wouldn't be "objective" that would be "subjective". I said if morality were subjective, then you would have murder morally correct in one country and murder morally wrong in another.

So, if morality were subjective, then murder would actually be morally correct in Nazi Germany and morally wrong in England. But that's not the case at all, murder is morally wrong everywhere,..

even in Nazi Germany in the 1940s.


Morality MUST first appeal to an authority higher than mankind for it's final result to be applicable for all of mankind.

edit on 7-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

And now we are back to the beginning with me telling you that Objective Morality doesn't exist because individuals do not adhere to the same moral standards. Some people believe that they are completely within their moral capacity to kill another.

Objective Morality is fallacy, and nothing you have stated gives evidence to the contrary. I have attempted to show you, with example, people having different moralities, and you refuse to see them.

He was proving a God with the concept of Objective Morality, but Objective Morality cannot be 'proven' without invoking a God. This is faulty logic.

I am done with this line unless you have something substantive to offer. If you do, I am listening (or reading..).

Have a good one.

reply to post by Furbs

And now we are back to the beginning with me telling you that Objective Morality doesn't exist because individuals do not adhere to the same moral standards. Some people believe that they are completely within their moral capacity to kill another.

Objective morality doesn't exist? Okay cool, then can you tell me which areas of the world where murder or rape is morally correct thing to do? I was under the impression murder and rape is morally wrong everywhere and at all times, irregardless if anyone believes it to be wrong or not.

Objective Morality is fallacy, and nothing you have stated gives evidence to the contrary. I have attempted to show you, with example, people having different moralities, and you refuse to see them.

It's not a fallacy, and what I stated earlier you have no rebuttal for. That in order for morality to be applicable for all of mankind at all times, it needs to appeal to an authority higher than man. And I know full well that different people have different morals, but just because Bob thinks it's morally correct to murder Suzy doesn't mean that it is in now morally correct to murder Suzy, just cuz Bob says it is.

He was proving a God with the concept of Objective Morality, but Objective Morality cannot be 'proven' without invoking a God. This is faulty logic.

Objective morality can be proven without invoking God. Here, let me demonstrate:

400 years ago most of the people in the United States saw no moral dilemma with owning and trading slaves. Was it morally good to own slaves because most people had no problem with it? Of course not, slavery was just as morally repugnant during that day and age as it is today, even if no one at that time in history agreed that it was morally wrong.

Murdering or raping people is morally wrong, even if no one agrees that it is.

reply to post by Furbs

Arguments for Moral Objectivism
People that identify themselves as moral objectivists tend to have a strong conviction that moral concerns such as injustice are features of the world that we respond to rather than invent. Often they don’t feel that they need an argument for their objectivism – you just know it. To see slavery is to “see” injustice. It comes with the territory of being human. But the objectivist must acknowledge that not everyone sees it this way. Many of our early presidents didn’t seem to see it. And, subjectivist, cultural relativists and nihilists don’t seem to see this injustice as an objective feature of the world. So what can be said to convince them? Below are some of the objectivists main arguments designed to pull you over to their view.

Moral Truth

It just boils down to that atheist believe moral relativism, but fail to see the bigger picture of moral objectivism. Which is what Dawkins clearly exercises when mentioning Dr. Craig. I just think Dr. Craig makes a better argument then Dawkins...