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

reply to post by KonquestAbySS

2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.

really? :-) how does he know?

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept which has been variously defined by sources. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject.

en.wikipedia.org...
Emphasis mine. He knows - because he believes?

Please explain if I'm wrong - and how I'm wrong

He has trumped atheist to the point where they don't believe in what they believed before, they just become unsure about the things that they were so certain about before. I advise looking into more of Craigs work

All opinion. Or do you have quotes?

Things like: "I was just trumped!"

Or: "wow - I was really, really wrong...good job William Lane Craig - you beat me fair and square"

Or: "golly - now I am so very unsure..."

so...whatcha got?

:-)

Sometimes with debates - beauty (and truth) is in the eye of the beholder. Same as here at ATS

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.

how does he know?

Because that is something you exercise in your everyday life whether you realize it or not...Do you not?

reply to post by KonquestAbySS


thanks - but looking for a little more than that - what is moral objectivity?

who defines morality? How can it be objectively defined?

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


It has been said, and I will not continue to the point where you are looking for me to make a mistake...Think of rationalization, and then go from there...

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

It has been said, and I will not continue to the point where you are looking for me to make a mistake...Think of rationalization, and then go from there...

ahhh...see? :-)

it's not a mistake Konquest - it's the main point of this entire discussion. Funny that you're afraid to go on then - isn't it?

you see - no one wins this 'debate'. But if you want to use moral objectivity as a tool against atheists it won't work - it's definitely a live by the sword die by the sword situation

Rationalize if you want to. We all do it all the time - I can't fault you for that

But, I have to ask again - how can you support Mr. Craig's position if you can't explain how he can objectively decide what is and isn't moral - or where morality comes from?

1) If GOD does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Can Mr. Craig prove that morals don't exist without the existence of a god?

This is just his opinion - and nothing more. Morality is something he can maybe define for himself - but not for everyone else...unless he says that it's defined for everyone by God

because God exists

he's free to say this of course - but he can't prove it

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.

Again, this is retread, and you can simply reread out discussion to see where this is going. It is your SUBJECTIVE morality that gives you the impression that murder and rape is morally wrong everywhere, just as it can be another's SUBJECTIVE morality that murder and rape everywhere is not wrong.

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.

Again, your SUBJECTIVE morality states that it is not morally correct to murder Suzy, but Bob's SUBJECTIVE morals are not in line with yours, so I would look out for Bob if you are interested in protecting both yourself and Suzy.

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.

It was clearly not against the SUBJECTIVE morality of the time to own slaves, just as it is not against the SUBJECTIVE morality of some of the United States to keep homosexuals from marrying. In the future, I imagine they will view our SUBJECTIVE contemporary morality as flawed, and they will be afforded the same rights and status as heterosexual couples.

We believe murder and raping are wrong because it is what we are told to believe, because morality is something that can be swayed with education.

Just as some people are told..

Racism is okay.
Sexism is okay.
Agism is okay.
Religious intolerance is okay..

..and those viewpoints can also be swayed with education.

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
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...

Don't get me wrong, Dawkins is an ass.

But don't put all of your eggs in the Moral Objectivism basket because a "Religious 'Moral Guy" is arguing with an "Heretical 'Immoral Guy". The Religious Guy still has to convince me that he is right with empirical evidence, because the Heretic is telling me he isn't so sure God (Objective Morality) exists, and can give pretty convincing arguments to the contrary.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


I can be an ass and say well can you defend Dawkins then? This isn't about me, it is about a feud between Dawkins and Craig. I can argue that objectivism has a better moral grounding for the Divine Law, because it is based upon reason...Even ancient philosophers think that is the case...

Reply to post by silent thunder

Course he isnt an atheist. As part of the establishment he is likely a freemason, a high level one, and is thus most likely a luciferian. I would point out that as far as Satan is concerned, he doesnt care what you believe, so long as its not in Jesus. I think that since Dawkins' popularity has sort of declined over the paat year or two as the people get bored with him. His agents have told him to be controversial. But I don't care, and hopefully most Christians dont care. Frankly this whole creation-evolution nonsense is the same as the democrat-republican BS. It just exists to divide people. I dont care what atheists believe, I dont want them to care what I believe. If they are interested in learning about Jesus, let them come to me. I will not go in their faces. I dont believe in evolution, I believe in 6 day creation...so what? Will I write a book about it? NO. There are pressing matters at hand, such as a potential civil war in the US, A war with Iran on its way, and WW3. Does, what we believe matter? Yes, it does! But does it require argument and debate? And prestigous freemasons to stand up in lecture halls and postulate theories for us because we are unable to think for ourselves?! NO

If you want to know about God and whether or not he exists, read the bible, ask questions yourself, ask God in prayer. If you decide you dobt, dont start some crusade to rid the world of people who have done nothing to you. Its all a con by those same people who go to bohemian grove and worship Lucifer, and follow the teachings of Theosophy and the Mystery Schools.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Furbs

Again, this is retread, and you can simply reread out discussion to see where this is going. It is your SUBJECTIVE morality that gives you the impression that murder and rape is morally wrong everywhere, just as it can be another's SUBJECTIVE morality that murder and rape everywhere is not wrong.

PRECISELY!!! That's why I specifically said that if you want a morality that is APPLICABLE to all mankind, it must appeal to an authority HIGHER THAN MANKIND. Your examples are MEN APPEALING TO MEN for authority applicable to all mankind. If men are appealing to their own subjective morality it's NOT applicable to all people, only the person themselves.


lol @ "re-read" the discussion.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

PRECISELY!!! That's why I specifically said that if you want a morality that is APPLICABLE to all mankind, it must appeal to an authority HIGHER THAN MANKIND. Your examples are MEN APPEALING TO MEN for authority applicable to all mankind. If men are appealing to their own subjective morality it's NOT applicable to all people, only the person themselves.

So, making up a deity is the lesser of two evils in this case?

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Sometimes with debates - beauty (and truth) is in the eye of the beholder. Same as here at ATS

No, truth isn't relative.

Originally posted by Garfee

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

PRECISELY!!! That's why I specifically said that if you want a morality that is APPLICABLE to all mankind, it must appeal to an authority HIGHER THAN MANKIND. Your examples are MEN APPEALING TO MEN for authority applicable to all mankind. If men are appealing to their own subjective morality it's NOT applicable to all people, only the person themselves.

So, making up a deity is the lesser of two evils in this case?

What are you talking about? I haven't made up any deities, I wouldn't even know where to start. Relativism and the denial of absolute truth is absurd.

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

I can be an ass and say well can you defend Dawkins then? This isn't about me, it is about a feud between Dawkins and Craig. I can argue that objectivism has a better moral grounding for the Divine Law, because it is based upon reason...Even ancient philosophers think that is the case...

:-)

That wouldn't make you an ass. You would be making a valid point - in any real discussion or a genuine debate

And, objectivism only works if you can be objective. Huh...

You know why I even jumped into this one? Because you said:

He has trumped atheist to the point where they don't believe in what they believed before, they just become unsure about the things that they were so certain about before. I advise looking into more of Craigs work

I thought it was funny, because you thought he whupped the atheists - with this:

1) If GOD does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3) Therefore, GOD exists.

That isn't going to whup nobody - nohow. Then you said this:

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...

Moral relativism - moral objectiveness...which is which again? Who has the better argument - based on - what? :-)

You introduced all this - so it's up for discussion - right?

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.

You're right - this is actually about Dawkins 'admitting' he can't know the answer to the big question. The word admitting is an interesting choice - like he was lying and had been caught. If you read the article - sounds like Dr. Williams admitted a few things too. Perfectly reasonable positions from both men when you're discussing things you can't really know

I think people want to say Dawkins conceded something - but he didn't. It's not a game - and nobody won or lost

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

Sometimes with debates - beauty (and truth) is in the eye of the beholder. Same as here at ATS

No, truth isn't relative.

prove it

please

:-)

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Let's looks at religion objectively, whether yours or another is not important.

You have provided a rationale for a higher authority being required for mankind to be governed by in order to exist under one, universally accepted or standard moral code. It was my assumption you meant a god figure of some sort.

Assuming that religion and the concept and existence of a deity is false, we have had, or would have to create one to govern ourselves morally. The problem with that is that we corrupt such things by our very nature, like everything else.

If you meant something else and I am incorrect in my interpretation of your post, I apologise.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Furbs

 

Again, this is retread, and you can simply reread out discussion to see where this is going. It is your SUBJECTIVE morality that gives you the impression that murder and rape is morally wrong everywhere, just as it can be another's SUBJECTIVE morality that murder and rape everywhere is not wrong.

PRECISELY!!! That's why I specifically said that if you want a morality that is APPLICABLE to all mankind, it must appeal to an authority HIGHER THAN MANKIND. Your examples are MEN APPEALING TO MEN for authority applicable to all mankind. If men are appealing to their own subjective morality it's NOT applicable to all people, only the person themselves.

lol @ "re-read" the discussion.

There is no morality applicable to all men, only morality that YOU believe should be applicable to all men.

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Furbs

 

Again, this is retread, and you can simply reread out discussion to see where this is going. It is your SUBJECTIVE morality that gives you the impression that murder and rape is morally wrong everywhere, just as it can be another's SUBJECTIVE morality that murder and rape everywhere is not wrong.

PRECISELY!!! That's why I specifically said that if you want a morality that is APPLICABLE to all mankind, it must appeal to an authority HIGHER THAN MANKIND. Your examples are MEN APPEALING TO MEN for authority applicable to all mankind. If men are appealing to their own subjective morality it's NOT applicable to all people, only the person themselves.

lol @ "re-read" the discussion.

There is no morality applicable to all men, only morality that YOU believe should be applicable to all men.

Okay cool, then I'd better never see another thread detailing how God is unjust, immoral, or evil. Since, after all, morality is subjective and all that jazz.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

You know why I even jumped into this one? Because you said:

He has trumped atheist to the point where they don't believe in what they believed before, they just become unsure about the things that they were so certain about before. I advise looking into more of Craigs work

If you read the source BlupBlup posted right after I posted my thing on Dr. William Lane Craig that was written by Dawkins himself you can easily see that he was dodging a good debater, that probably had a good point. And if you read that source it is totally biased toward Dr. Craig.

I thought it was funny, because you thought he whupped the atheists - with this:

1) If GOD does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3) Therefore, GOD exists.

That isn't going to whup nobody - nohow. Then you said this:

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...

Well apparently Dawkins must of felt that the knowledge Dr. Craig had about moral objectivism was irrefutable. Which probably means Dr. Craig had a better universal grounding. So yeah, think the video debates tell a lot as well...

Moral relativism - moral objectiveness...which is which again? Who has the better argument - based on - what? :-) You introduced all this - so it's up for discussion - right?

The subjectivist being Dawkins, and the objectivist is being Dr. Craig... Yes it is up to discussion, but how far can this go on for until it becomes squash...

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

Sometimes with debates - beauty (and truth) is in the eye of the beholder. Same as here at ATS

No, truth isn't relative.

prove it

please

:-)

If you believe truth is relative how exactly can I "prove" anything at all to you?