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

reply to post by SisyphusRide

58:20 mark...

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

This does nothing to prove your false assertion that Harris called WLC or any of his colleagues psychopaths, or that he stated that "everyone needs a sign from the sky".

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

so am I wrong in assuming atheism is?

Yes, you're wrong.

Harris - "this kind of faith requires the most ambitious narcissism, God loves me

I am sorry, in Christianity (the topic he is on at 1:04) the God of Christianity loves everybody, including the serial killer he just spoke about.

Law judges the persons life... God judges the killers soul when they get there... it's not all said and done like Craig claims.

AfterInfinity
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.

I do not take wiki links... it's not in stone over there.

Ok, and please notice the double standard that people like Dr. Craig use to exonerate God from all this evil, ok.

We’re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we’re told that God is mysterious, ok. “Who can understand God’s will?” Ok and yet, this is precisely—this, this, this “merely human” understanding of God’s will, is precisely what believers use to establish his goodness in the first place.

Read more: www.reasonablefaith.org...

This is the passage that windword very accurately paraphrased.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

Harris - "this kind of faith requires the most ambitious narcissism, God loves me

I am sorry, in Christianity (the topic he is on at 1:04) the God of Christianity loves everybody, including the serial killer he just spoke about.

I know many Christians who would disagree with you. But as I keep saying, consistency has never been a priority for Christianity. Why else would there be 4,000 different variations of the same absolute truth?

reply to post by SisyphusRide

the God of Christianity loves everybody

Can you show scripture that backs this up, that God loves everybody? I don't think that can be said to be true of the Christian God any more than it can be said of the God of the Old Testament, who, by the way, is one in the same.

reply to post by windword


it doesn't matter... we all know athsisms general consensus of the rest of everybody on the planet. Yes folks, that is everyone on the globe are psychotic and hallucinating.

Harris claims God is a psychopath in his use of a psychopath in comparison.

I already consider myself a pretty good street style apologetic, I come to ATS for the proving grounds

I tear them up everywhere outside of here, on forums and in public, so I have to thank ATS and the contributors for the quickening. There is nothing like getting gang banged to brings ones abilities up to speed.

I love it! is that weird?

windword
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

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.

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

Is this the new way of saying "moral relativity"?

No, there is no objective view of morality when placing it inside of the individual. Morality is relative to the individual in the sense that morality in the individual derives from a place outside of the individual, but always to a subjective experience.

That's a very difficult argument, but both of the men should have asked each other where their morality arises from. If for Harris it arises within his own self, then he should not be accountable to society that also defines morality. In that sense, morality is objective also if society dictates what morality is.

But if the argument is that God defined morality is objective, then it cannot be subjective. And if morality is subjective, then it can't be objective. Either all morality comes from God and all people are subject to it, then society cannot dictate morality. But if society dictates morality, then it is not God-objective. But if morality arises with the individual, then the persons own morality has to be justified. But how does one justify their own morality? If we point to society determining this, then it is societal-defined. That's not God-defined objectivity. But if society is defining, by saying it is God-defined, then society has to justify the constant flux of societal mores and taboos. And if they say it is God-defined, then mores and taboos cannot be changed.

But if the individual defines mores and taboos, then they have to justify the reasons for it. If it is from them alone, then it can never be objective. And even as religious people who claim morality is God-defined always go along with society in what is a more and a taboo, they are conceding to it being societal-defined.

Atheists claim morality comes from within, and yet give in to the societal-defined. But people are always defining their own moral relativism, therefore it can never be God-defined and never objective.

Objective morality sounds good on paper, but we are talking about individuals with their own moral relativism.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

it doesn't matter... we all know atheisms general consensus of the rest of everybody on the planet. Yes folks, that is everyone on the globe are psychotic and hallucinating.

Wildly, exquisitely INCORRECT.

And no, your "apologetics" are quite pedestrian. You refuse to look at sources, to retract obviously errant statements, and you continue to exaggerate and take out of context remarks made by oth--

oh. ..... wait. Never mind. That's what you're supposed to do as an apologist.Tell everyone what atheists agree on...when you don't have the slightest idea.

"It doesn't matter"? IT DOESN'T MATTER??? Yeah, whatever you do, don't actually LISTEN to the atheists TELL YOU what they think or believe.
God help us.






You "love it", eh?
Well, I'm sure you'll stick around to be pummeled some more. But no worries, you still have a few team-mates that haven't been banned yet. *shakes head* "Gang-banged" indeed.

WarminIndy
Is this the new way of saying "moral relativity"?

I don't think so myself, because in atheism there is not objective reality outside space and time which can not be questioned.

there are plenty of videos out there where they ask atheists and democrats if they think rape is wrong...

we never get to the "yes" it is wrong part.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


It sounds to me as though you're just trying to troll us into saying something stupid. But you apparently forgot that using transparent tactics defeats the purpose. Address the point and not the people making it, if you would. That's called ad hominem and is more than a slight indicator of the possibility that you feel outnumbered and thoroughly sullied. Maybe you think you did a poor job of representing/defending Christianity. To be honest, you did. But not for lack of our willingness to listen and consider your arguments.

reply to post by WarminIndy

But if the argument is that God defined morality is objective, then it cannot be subjective. And if morality is subjective, then it can't be objective.

That can't be the argument, because the debate is between a man who believes in a god and a man who has no belief in a god. The argument is based on the question, "Can objective morality exist without a god?" Harris attempt to prove that objective morality exists, and because he has no belief in a god, it therefore, exists without a god.

Craig can't comprehend such an argument because he can't imagine a reality without a god.

But, I agree, there is no such thing as objective morality. Biblical morality is subjective.

SisyphusRide

WarminIndy
Is this the new way of saying "moral relativity"?

I don't think so myself, because in atheism there is not objective reality outside space and time which can not be questioned.

there are plenty of videos out there where they ask atheists and democrats if they think rape is wrong...

we never get to the "yes" it is wrong part.

And that's the third component, the societal-defined objective view. That's something left out of the discussion.

I think there are many atheists and democrats who believe it is wrong, while there are many religious people who might say it is wrong on a societal level, but still do rape, while justifying it inside their own minds.

I think what the posters are trying to get to is this, if we claim morality is God-defined and objective, then why are we doing and allowing bad things?

They can only judge God by two things, either what is written about Him or what we present about Him. And if we claim morality comes from God, then we should all be moral people, but we aren't. That is why they need something to justify where morality comes from. And if they are acting more moral, then they see it can't be from God, if they are just as good or bad as religious people are.

And that's the sum of the debate, Sam Harris is saying you don't need God to be good. Craig is saying you do need God to be good. But neither of them are saying anything about the gray areas where morality comes down to a choice for the individual.

When a good person is caught between a rock and hard place, they might have to make choices that someone else may see as wrong. And it's the gray areas that we are having so many problems with. But we cannot say morality is God-objective, if we don't even live up to it.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

there are plenty of videos out there where they ask atheists and democrats if they think rape is wrong...

we never get to the "yes" it is wrong part.

Neither does the Bible.

SisyphusRide

WarminIndy
Is this the new way of saying "moral relativity"?

I don't think so myself, because in atheism there is not objective reality outside space and time which can not be questioned.

there are plenty of videos out there where they ask atheists and democrats if they think rape is wrong...

we never get to the "yes" it is wrong part.

Oh, I'll gladly answer that for you. I'll even explain why.

I feel rape is wrong, for a very simple reason. I can imagine the act happening to me. I can imagine the emotions it would instill, the rage and despair and misery. I can imagine the absolute powerlessness I might feel for weeks, months, years afterward. Knowing that someone would willingly violate me in such a vicious and personal manner and never even regret it. I would hate this world. I would want nothing to do with it, ever again. And just like that, a simple act would destroy me because it would destroy my faith in the one species who is capable of destroying this world and every living thing on it. A species who once knew what it was to feel terrified at the thought of nightfall, who need what it was to be on the bottom of the food chain. A species who is now at the top, and apparently takes delight in putting that same fear and pain in others. A species that has every reason to respect those around it, and deliberately chooses to be the worst because rather than rise beyond the pain, they would drag others down into it. Or maybe pain is the only way they can feel. Being an animal is the only time they feel alive. Either way, I would become utterly, terrifically disgusted with the human species.

And because I am able to register those emotions, able to imagine that effect, and able to acknowledge what terrible things it would do to me inside, I would have little choice but to recognize that same potential in others. To know that that's exactly how others would feel if subjected to the same act. And that's why I feel rape is wrong. Because no one should ever make you feel like that.

No god gave me that sense of morality. Compassion and empathy gave me that sense of morality.

reply to post by windword

The argument is based on the question, "Can objective morality exist without a god?" Harris attempt to prove that objective morality exists, and because he has no belief in a god, it therefore, exists without a god.

Except that, as I noted yesterday, Harris fails to demonstrate the objective morality exists, because the condition that he bases it on, utter misery, is subjective, and thus cannot be the basis of an objective morality.

In addition, Harris' belief or disbelief in God obviously has no bearing on whether God exists or not.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Oh, so you pulled some random dude's video off the internet. It's almost like you expect all people of one faith or party or system to believe the exact same thing. But that wouldn't be realistic, would it? It's not like you go picketing with WBC or something like that. It's not like every Christian in the world agrees with every damn thing you have to say, right? So yeah, I don't care what they say. I care what I said. Does my argument make sense?

ahh.. people love being victims, so it's ok.

Rape away atheists...

reply to post by adjensen

Except that, as I noted yesterday, Harris fails to demonstrate the objective morality exists, because the condition that he bases it on, utter misery, is subjective, and thus cannot be the basis of an objective morality.

I don't think that objective morality does exist, at all, but that's my opinion.

Good and bad are subjective viewpoints, by nature. Craig states that God is good, therefore his view of God being good is also subjective.

From what I gathered, Harris' definition of objective morality was not based on abject misery, but on the act of moving away from the perception of abject misery.

Since Harris claims that objective morality can only exist in the mind of sentient beings, I think by default that means that all morality is subjective, based on the sentient being's perception of what is good, including God, if such an opinionated being does exist.

Even Craig's assertion that objective morality can only come from a god that is good, is subjective, in and of itself.