It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

On the Origin of Morality: The Sam Harris v Wm Lane Craig debate pt 2

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


You know, your argument reminds me of something I read earlier.


And then somehow they would avoid discussing any of the issues by using a mixture of p.c. (political correctness), and shutting down opposing opinions by asking for sources and then invalidating sources after they are given - or basically a lot of nonsense that is all about avoiding discussing the core issues given, and inherently incoherent in itself.


Thanks to Darkbake for that selection. Incidentally, I took it from a thread about argumentative fallacies...

You asked for sources. I gave you sources. You then say that the sources I gave you aren't good enough because science isn't good enough for you. If all I'm talking to here is your ego, then I'm done with you.
edit on 5-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


you did not give sources to your claims. You were speaking for "most" scientists...

"most" requires a "majority" lets see that facts.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 





Harris gets pummeled here in front of the students when the questions begin after their presentations... Harris was a kin to watching a kid argue with their parents about taking out the trash.


Only someone who is already predispositioned to believe the same as William Lane Craig would see him as winning this debate.

The Debate was entitled, "Does Good Come From God?" and more specifically, the two were debating if "objective morality" exists, to which they both agreed, and does "objective morality come from God?", and it is here where the two disagree. Harris is an atheist who has no belief in God, so he was tasked to prove that there is goodness and morality without the need of a god or gods.

The entirety of WLC's argument is based on the circular logic that:

1. Without God, objective moral values cannot exist
2. Objective moral values exist
3. Therefore God exists.

WLC argues that God is "good" therefore "good" comes from God, through God's "Divine Command Theory."

Proving that objective morality exists is not the same as proving that God exists, that God is good or that morality of any kind comes from God. Craig fails to provide any proof to his assertion that God is good, and relies on public consensus that this a truth.

Harris points out that if one looks at the Old Testament, one could determine that that God of the Bible is NOT good. Craig condescendingly counters by telling Harris to read more books, other than the Bible, to understand the goodness of God of the Bible.

In my opinion, WLC lost that rebuttal point.

WLC argues that one doesn't have to rely on the biblical account of God to determine that there is a "divine command" but then insists that the so called"divine command" of Islam and the Koran is from a "false" God.

So where, outside of the Bible can we find God's Divine Command?

Harris also argues that Christian theology is NOT objective morality, because it teaches that the worst of the worst example of human badness can, on his death bed, repent, accept Jesus and go to heaven, while his victims, who may not have accepted Jesus, will go to hell. Harris argues that this is NOT objective morality and borders on mental illness.

I agree.

Harris defined objective morality as, and I'm paraphrasing here, born of the mind and can only exist in sentient life. Objective morality will always move away from what is perceived as the worst possible outcome for flourishing sentient life. Harris proved that this definition is realistic and can be observed. Craig asserts that objective morality can only be experienced through faith God's divine command.

Harris, in my opinion, successfully proved that WLC version of God exists in his mind, and there is no evidence of "divine command" outside of the mind of men.

Personally, I disagree, and I don't believe that objective morality exists in the universe.

Craig failed to prove that God is good and that his "goodness" is issued in his Divine Command, the foundation of his circular argument. Craig failed to prove that all objective morality can only come from a god.

Since both debaters agree that objective morality exists, I think that by default, Harris won the debate. Objective morality and perceived goodness can exist without a god.

To think that Craig won, one would have to already be convinced that God exists and that God is good and that God issued his goodness through his commandments. Otherwise Craig's foundation is empty, circular and illogical.



edit on 5-12-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   

windword
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 





Harris gets pummeled here in front of the students when the questions begin after their presentations... Harris was a kin to watching a kid argue with their parents about taking out the trash.


Only someone who is already predispositioned to believe the same as William Lane Craig would see him as winning this debate.


yes, and that is 98% of the population on the planet.

Lane says many times in this video what this debate is "not about"

Majority rules... and he is the winner.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


So, why doesn't 98% percent of the planet display this objective morality that is issued from a good God through his Divine Command? Where is the universal Divine Command? Why isn't is being applied by the 98%?



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 



Craig: Mr Harris claims it's psychopathic to believe in these things,


And he didn't. When Craig said that, I said out loud, "No. He did not."

Shall I run through the vid and find what Harris DID say? That 'rebuttal' in particular was one that popped out at me (and may have been the point where I decided he'd lost the debate, because he misconstrued what Harris said).



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


I gave you a Wikipedia article. "The term spirituality lacks a definitive definition"

What more do you need? The footnotes?


^ Koenig e.a.: "There is no widely agreed on definition of spirituality today".[1] Cobb e.a.: "The spiritual dimension is deeply subjective and there is no authoritative definition of spirituality".[2]

Cobb, Mark R.; Puchalski, Christina M.; Rumbold, Bruce (2012), Oxford Textbook of Spirituality in Healthcare

Koenig, Harold; King, Dana; Carson, Verna B. (2012), Handbook of Religion and Health, Oxford UP


You want more?


The use of the term "spirituality" has changed throughout the ages.[4] In modern times, spirituality is often separated from Abrahamic religions,[5] and connotes a blend of humanistic psychology with mystical and esoteric traditions and eastern religions aimed at personal well-being and personal development.[6] The notion of "spiritual experience" plays an important role in modern spirituality, but has a relatively recent origin.[7]


So tell me, do you see a scientific basis in this summary of spirituality? You wanted sources, I give you sources. Now you're going to tell me these sources aren't good enough, right?
edit on 5-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Harris even stoops to try to pit Christianity against Islam, when a Muslim will say that Harris is a Kafir and that it is only he who is condemned to Hell.

Christians can, do and have coexisted with Mulsim all thru history. Welcome to the United States...

Every single point Harris tries to make is based only on his understanding, not the global majority's understanding.

Allah is God, Christians just say God, a Hindu will say Shiva is God or part of God or a God.

these atheistic debaters are not being diverse enough.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


if they don't believe in Hell, why are they so scared of it


it's all we hear about... Theists don't need "signs" from the sky, or a fiery eyed God.

but some religions do, like atheists and Hindu's (nothing against Hindu's here)

atheists need a sign... maybe an NDE will cure them lol



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


Where is the evidence of the "Divine Command" if God is in all religion and religions disagree? Where is proof of one objective morality?



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

wildtimes
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 



Craig: Mr Harris claims it's psychopathic to believe in these things,


And he didn't. When Craig said that, I said out loud, "No. He did not."

Shall I run through the vid and find what Harris DID say? That 'rebuttal' in particular was one that popped out at me (and may have been the point where I decided he'd lost the debate, because he misconstrued what Harris said).


yes he did... would you like me to post the time index?

Harris also claims that "everyone" needs signs from the sky... this is untrue.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 





yes he did... would you like me to post the time index?

Harris also claims that "everyone" needs signs from the sky... this is untrue.


Yes please. For both of your claims, please.


You can also quote from the transcript.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


Am I to assume you're satisfied? Or just smart enough to not make me dig deeper?
edit on 5-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


ok I am going back thru it now... but I am thinking that if he didn't say it, he probably surely wrote it, as Dawkins.

I want to get into Apologetics somehow, I am going to make it my mission you watch


these filthy atheistic scum debaters use dishonorable tactics.

Harris reminds me of...

remember these two?



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
58:20 mark...

"well that was all very interesting smirk, smile, laugh"

he claims Craig is not offering an alternative view of morality...

so am I wrong in assuming atheism is?



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


I gave you a Wikipedia article. "The term spirituality lacks a definitive definition"

What more do you need? The footnotes?


^ Koenig e.a.: "There is no widely agreed on definition of spirituality today".[1] Cobb e.a.: "The spiritual dimension is deeply subjective and there is no authoritative definition of spirituality".[2]

Cobb, Mark R.; Puchalski, Christina M.; Rumbold, Bruce (2012), Oxford Textbook of Spirituality in Healthcare

Koenig, Harold; King, Dana; Carson, Verna B. (2012), Handbook of Religion and Health, Oxford UP


You want more?


The use of the term "spirituality" has changed throughout the ages.[4] In modern times, spirituality is often separated from Abrahamic religions,[5] and connotes a blend of humanistic psychology with mystical and esoteric traditions and eastern religions aimed at personal well-being and personal development.[6] The notion of "spiritual experience" plays an important role in modern spirituality, but has a relatively recent origin.[7]


So tell me, do you see a scientific basis in this summary of spirituality? You wanted sources, I give you sources. Now you're going to tell me these sources aren't good enough, right?
edit on 5-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


That's quite interesting that the Wiki editor would not say that spiritualism is as old as mankind.

Let's see, Gobekli Tepe, the oldest religious structure in the world, was in fact a temple of Tengri to the ancient Turkic people, and Tengri has always been called "Sky Father".

Other ancient sources include The Oracle at Delphi. And the ancient Romans and Greeks believed in reading entrails of dead animals.

What the editor is trying to suggest is that the term "Spiritualism" is recent because of Aleister Crowley and Madame Blavatsky, and yet we see spiritualism from very ancient sources. If you read about the Christian mystics, they have been around since Augustine, and Jewish mystics have been around much longer. Even the Egyptians had Khemet, which is spiritualism. Native Americans have always believed spiritualism, they even say "The Great Spirit" and even that is divided. Some believe The Great Spirit is God, while some believe The Great Spirit is the great force in the natural universe.

Buddha was spiritual, and I don't think anyone would disagree with that. So I disagree with the editor of that Wiki article, because they simply placed the term Spiritualism, a new wording from the late 1800s for a group of people who suddenly became interested in the paranormal. But the concept of spiritualism is as old as mankind. Before Spiritualism was given a name, it had previously been called Enlightenment and various other names.

Mankind has been seeking the spiritual since mankind began to walk upright. Rapa Nui isn't just an island in the Pacific, it has those large heads looking over the ocean for a reason. The ancient Bora Borans followed the shark god to Hawaii and discovered Pele in the volcano. They went for a reason.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


Lyle and Erik Menendez.

en.wikipedia.org...

I find your tactics as filthy as your accusation, Sisyphus. Since you evidently can't build a stable argument, you're embarked on a smearing campaign.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
This is what Harris said, in his first rebuttal, from the transcript:

Ok, well here we’re being offered—I’m glad he raised the issue of psychopathy—we are being offered a psychopathic and psychotic moral attitude. It’s psychotic because this is completely delusional. There’s no reason to believe that we live in a universe ruled by an invisible monster Yahweh. But it is, it is psychopathic because this is a total detachment from the, from the well-being of human beings. It, this so easily rationalizes the slaughter of children. Ok, just think about the Muslims at this moment who are blowing themselves up, convinced that they are agents of God’s will. There is absolutely nothing that Dr. Craig can s—can say against their behavior, in moral terms, apart from his own faith-based claim that they’re praying to the wrong God. If they had the right God, what they were doing would be good, on Divine Command theory.

Now, I’m obviously not saying that all that Dr. Craig, or all religious people, are psychopaths and psychotics, but this to me is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own. If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is gonna turn them into the body of Elvis Presley, ok, you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus, you’re just a Catholic.



Read more: www.reasonablefaith.org...


And here is the full rebuttal:



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



That's quite interesting that the Wiki editor would not say that spiritualism is as old as mankind.

Let's see, Gobekli Tepe, the oldest religious structure in the world, was in fact a temple of Tengri to the ancient Turkic people, and Tengri has always been called "Sky Father".

Other ancient sources include The Oracle at Delphi. And the ancient Romans and Greeks believed in reading entrails of dead animals.


You are, again, avoiding the issue here. The issue is that spirituality is not definitive.


What the editor is trying to suggest is that the term "Spiritualism" is recent because of Aleister Crowley and Madame Blavatsky,


I didn't read any of that in the quotes I posted.

And the rest of your post is just more of the same. SPIRITUALITY IS NOT DEFINITIVE. That is the point I am making. You cannot apply rules or regulations to something you cannot or have not defined, nor can that which is undefined be reliably used as a basis for such. And officially, spirituality has not been defined. It has only been observed in such subjective capacity as those interested in doing so are capable of.

In short, morality is subjective because its source is subjective. That is what I am arguing here. The rest of your argument is irrelevant to the point I am making. And no, I'm not going to argue its relevance in lieu of your successfully refuting the point I just made. You can refute my point or you may concede.
edit on 5-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

This is a subject I am just starting to try and formulate in my own mind . I do believe though that I may take Craigs notion of it and try and work it out using his line of thinking ..We do both share a similar faith and I found the he was quite consistent and did stay true to that within the debate . I probably should try and study more on it but thanks for the thread .....seems like as good a place than any to start ....peace



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join