Happy Atheist Forum

Supposedly this debate will be streamed live on Notre Dame TV (http://www.nd.edu/~sbnd/), at 7PM EDT (UTC/GMT -5) today.  However, that site didn't have anything about the debate listed when I looked a couple of minutes ago.

I'm not a fan of Harris's take on morality (I disagree with his idea that there is an actual objective morality based on human biology), so don't really have a dog in this fight.  I'm closer to Harris's position than Craig's: I think that there are some instinctive tendencies that form a sort of proto-morality which result from the evolutionary path followed by the human species, but that those tendencies don't constitute a morality, let alone an objective morality. For an obvious reason (I don't believe in a god, duh) I don't agree with Craig's position at all.  Harris is articulate, but whether he'll be able to compete effectively against Craig on this topic remains to be seem.  As I said, I think that neither of their positions hold any water.

THE PERSISTENT QUESTIONS â€" AN EXCHANGE website has a preview of the debate. (http://pqexchange.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/the-god-debate-ii-is-good-from-god-w-sam-harris-and-william-lane-craig-notre-dame/)

OK, the link in the above post works for the live stream of the Craig v Harris debate. It should start in a little bit, as scheduled. Link (http://www.nd.edu/~sbnd/debate_2011.php)

This should be good but I have yet to listen

Link to the mp3 of the debate:  http://eyeonapologetics.com/blog/2011/0 ... -from-god/ (http://eyeonapologetics.com/blog/2011/04/07/mp3-william-lane-craig-vs-sam-harris-is-good-from-god/)

Quote from: "Craig quoting Arthor Allan Left"Napalming babies is bad, starving the poor is wicked, buying and selling eachother is depraved, there is in the world, such a thing as evil, all together now, says who? God help us.

Funny he should mention attrosities that the god ordered and did, then ask that god to help us. As if to say "There is evil in the world, and it's the god of Abraham."

Quote from: "Davin"lol

Quote from: "Craig quoting Arthor Allan Left"Napalming babies is bad, starving the poor is wicked, buying and selling eachother is depraved, there is in the world, such a thing as evil, all together now, says who? God help us.

Funny he should mention attrosities that the god ordered and did, then ask that god to help us. As if to say "There is evil in the world, and it's the god of Abraham."

I think this kind of thing commences the golden backpedaling. "God didn't order those things, HUMANS did them." *see fine print; God does the good things, though God made humans in his image, when they act badly, they're just...yanno...SINNERS.


We're shitheads!

Part 1 of the video of this debate:

 [youtube:3j8z1gxv]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UigeMSZ-KQ[/youtube:3j8z1gxv]

Right at the end of this video there's a link to the next, and so on (there are 9 parts in total, though the last couple are questions from the audience) or you can click the links below.  I didn't want to embed them all; seems a waste of bandwidth.

Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh8FU2UlHp4)
 Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2CJgPTOHSY)
 Part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmeSjF6CSQA)
 Part 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljXCHgPaZO4)
 Part 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAcdg2RlUJY)
 Part 7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa2fHkpOfoA)
 Part 8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQTZBBkkcxU)
 Part 9 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTdQ_u1-xfc)

I have to yet to watch the whole thing myself.  I'll grit my teeth and try not to skip Dr. Craig's speeches when I do.  

Yes I see that the debate about the debate as started:

Who do you think won??

Let's start here:

QuoteIn the end, my sense was that Craig was quietly exasperated at Harris for failing to deliver; and Harris was exasperated at Craig for being a Christian.

http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/04/h ... hty-puppy/ (http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/04/how-william-lane-craig-thrashed-sam-harris-like-a-naughty-puppy/)

Yet... Did not Harris spank us naughty puppies who follow religion and only see objective morals as coming from God?

Let me see if I can emulate Harris's pontifications and emotional appeals...  while also employing a few smelly red herrings

Yes the goodness of science sees evolution as the process of fitness and health under tooth and claw. Billions die so that other billions can survive and reproduce.  If there is a less moral, moral framework then the goodness of science and evolution then I would like to hear of it.  We should bury Christians in the post holes of Scientific institutions so that we know that they will not come and knock down the healthiness of our naturalistic science presuppositions.  In fact it would be the moral duty of every grounded neuro-typical member of the purposeless and meaningless indoctrinated Scientist to seize the children of Christians so that the objective moral good of science can be indoctrinated into a new generation of upstanding scientifically minded good and healthy atheists.  After all is it not the moral obligation of the operation of natural selection to help the health of mankind by killing all followers of religion much like the body has a defense mechanism against disease.  The reality that we need to reduce suffering is demonstrable in the medical sciences so we have a basis to extend this to those who have ideological suffering like Christians who want to do good and decrease the suffering of fellow humans because we are all our brothers keepers.  We don't need that now that science can do the same thing by killing off Christians and re-educating their brood from the hive mentality of love for everyone as God has loved us by the sacrifice of God in the person of Jesus Christ.  I mean look at the good it will do to save this love of our brothers and sisters by the health inducing mutilation of all Christians so that they can not reproduce their silly non-scientific religion that can't reduce suffering like science can do.

I could go on and in a nice steady emotionless voice so that I win the debate by shear smoothness of speech alone.  Science needs to get out there and start spanking these unhealthy puppies if we are to evolve into the godless utopia that is a far better place then we have now.

They see you trolling, they hating...

Quote from: "Davin"lol

Quote from: "Craig quoting Arthor Allan Left"Napalming babies is bad, starving the poor is wicked, buying and selling eachother is depraved, there is in the world, such a thing as evil, all together now, says who? God help us.

Funny he should mention attrosities that the god ordered and did, then ask that god to help us. As if to say "There is evil in the world, and it's the god of Abraham."

It would seem that way. If only we could get you in the debate.

Quote from: "Sophus" It would seem that way. If only we could get you in the debate.

I wish I could debate Craig, that includes a decent ability to debate that I currently lack. But I do not wish it enough to spend time on that instead of the other stuff I'm doing.

Dr. Craig is quite willing to condone and perhaps even praise acts of genocide when they are ordered by his god. In the linked article from which the quote is taken, he has already explained why the slaughter of the adult Canaanite population was a good thing (after all, YHVH can only command good things, don't you know), but here addresses why it was good that the Israelites also slaughtered the Canaanite children and infants.

QuoteFrom On Guard, "Slaughter of the Canaanites" by Dr. William Lane Craig (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767):

By setting such strong, harsh dichotomies God taught Israel that any assimilation to pagan idolatry is intolerable.  It was His way of preserving Israel’s spiritual health and posterity.  God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel.  The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.

Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation.  We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy.  Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

Aye, he appeals to these atrocities as something that we all would consider bad or "evil", the god he believes in does those things, ergo he believes his god is bad/evil. So he has to drop his appeal the atrocities as examples of bad/evil or he must accept that the god he believes in is bad/evil... at least if he wishes to be consistent. But I get the feeling that his criticism of others being "illogical" is merely to shield against his own failures at logic. I mean look at the monkey! If Chewbaca is good, then my client is innocent, I rest my case.

You're still not getting it, man!  ;) ) When I debated in high school, it was all about rapid fire presentation, but Craig's style is much more sophisticated. He's quite good at using subtle emotional appeals as well as efficiently presenting his arguments and answering his opponent's points. The man is no slouch.

I guess one can't argue with that logic.

And yes, debating Craig in person is much more difficult than in writing (I'm extrapolating from other debates I've had, because I've never even talked to the man), I would enjoy a debate with him, but Craig I doubt would enjoy it, and onlookers would be either bored as hell or in excruciating pain watching me make hundreds of mistakes.

Quote from: "Recusant"Dr. Craig is quite willing to condone and perhaps even praise acts of genocide when they are ordered by his god. In the linked article from which the quote is taken, he has already explained why the slaughter of the adult Canaanite population was a good thing (after all, YHVH can only command good things, don't you know), but here addresses why it was good that the Israelites also slaughtered the Canaanite children and infants.

QuoteFrom On Guard, "Slaughter of the Canaanites" by Dr. William Lane Craig (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767):

By setting such strong, harsh dichotomies God taught Israel that any assimilation to pagan idolatry is intolerable.  It was His way of preserving Israel’s spiritual health and posterity.  God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel.  The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.

Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation.  We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy.  Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

Dear God. I think there's something about these stories being so far in the past that it is easier for people like Craig to say stupid stuff like this. I can't picture him ever saying the same of a recent or current genocide. Or am I sadly mistaken?

Quote from: "Sophus"Dear God. I think there's something about these stories being so far in the past that it is easier for people like Craig to say stupid stuff like this. I can't picture him ever saying the same of a recent or current genocide. Or am I sadly mistaken?

Seeing as YHVH has stopped talking to anybody but the select few like Jerry Falwell and George W. Bush, it's really hard to say. I think you have a point; the Canaanites, Amalekites and other tribes supposedly wiped out by the Israelites are safely millenia in the past. However, if Dr. Craig were ever convinced that his god had commanded a genocide in the present day, you can be sure that he would confidently tell any who would listen that it was moral and proper. Something along the same vein: You can listen to Craig tell his flock why the earthquake and tsunami in Japan were all part of his god's "providential plan" here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeuZmeNBlqc). As a bonus he gives a little lesson on plate tectonics (though some things about that seem a bit off to me).

QuoteFrom "Japan and Natural Evil" by Dr. Craig:

...we have to keep in mind God's sovereignty over human history. Any catastrophe or disaster in life always needs to be seen within the broader framework of God's providential plan for human history, which is to draw people freely into the Kingdom of God, to bring as many people as He can freely into eternal relationship with Himself and the knowledge of God and everlasting life and blessedness...

... it may well be the case that God has providential plans for the disasters that occur in life that ultimately serve His good ends for the human race.

Voltaire would have loved this guy.

Ok, I got a chance to watch it.  I'm not entirely sure that Harris built a solid case; but he didn't bomb the debate either.  Craig, however, said something really stupid towards the end that I don't think Harris caught; Craig defined god as that which is good and said any other supreme being that is not good would not be god.  That right there lost the debate for Craig even if he had argued everything else perfectly.  In order to determine that a god is good and therefore giving us good moral direction objective morality would have to exist outside of god.  And if objective morality exists apart from god then good isn't from god.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Sophus"Dear God. I think there's something about these stories being so far in the past that it is easier for people like Craig to say stupid stuff like this. I can't picture him ever saying the same of a recent or current genocide. Or am I sadly mistaken?

Seeing as YHVH has stopped talking to anybody but the select few like Jerry Falwell and George W. Bush, it's really hard to say. I think you have a point; the Canaanites, Amalekites and other tribes supposedly wiped out by the Israelites are safely millenia in the past. However, if Dr. Craig were ever convinced that his god had commanded a genocide in the present day, you can be sure that he would confidently tell any who would listen that it was moral and proper. Something along the same vein: You can listen to Craig tell his flock why the earthquake and tsunami in Japan were all part of his god's "providential plan" here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeuZmeNBlqc). As a bonus he gives a little lesson on plate tectonics (though some things about that seem a bit off to me).

QuoteFrom "Japan and Natural Evil" by Dr. Craig:

...we have to keep in mind God's sovereignty over human history. Any catastrophe or disaster in life always needs to be seen within the broader framework of God's providential plan for human history, which is to draw people freely into the Kingdom of God, to bring as many people as He can freely into eternal relationship with Himself and the knowledge of God and everlasting life and blessedness...

... it may well be the case that God has providential plans for the disasters that occur in life that ultimately serve His good ends for the human race.

Voltaire would have loved this guy.

Boy, for a sophisticated theologian he's not much better than Pat Robertson.

Quote from: "Whitney"Craig, however, said something really stupid towards the end that I don't think Harris caught; Craig defined god as that which is good and said any other supreme being that is not good would not be god. That right there lost the debate for Craig even if he had argued everything else perfectly. In order to determine that a god is good and therefore giving us good moral direction objective morality would have to exist outside of god. And if objective morality exists apart from god then good isn't from god.

I don't think I would've caught that either. Very astute of you, Whitney.  

Quote from: "Recusant"You're still not getting it, man!  :verysad: So let's see if you really understood what WLC was saying.   from the article you site...

Quote1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Do you accept that there are objective moral values?

QuoteIn fact, insofar as the atheist thinks that God did something morally wrong in commanding the extermination of the Canaanites, he affirms premise (2).  So what is the problem supposed to be?

The problem is genocide amiright?  In that you are thinking in the context of western Judeo-Christian values for giving opinion about genocide and making judgement's regarding God's authority.

QuoteAccording to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God.  Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself,  He has no moral duties to fulfill.  He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are.

Are you then placing moral commands upon God or that there should be an equality between yourself and God.  ;) ) When I debated in high school, it was all about rapid fire presentation, but Craig's style is much more sophisticated. He's quite good at using subtle emotional appeals as well as efficiently presenting his arguments and answering his opponent's points. The man is no slouch.

If you have debate experience then I hope you can see the poverty of Harris's argument given the circular nature of all things come back to a Darwinian construct.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_4C_tSMqS810%2FS4YCBrxRd2I%2FAAAAAAAAFQA%2FERWis_Q6YtY%2Fs400%2FRichard%2BDawkins%2C%2Bevolution%2C%2Batheism.jpg&hash=535a045bf17021dd46a49609239c6683c84f0018)

http://is.gd/wg4eS6 (http://is.gd/wg4eS6)  from True Free Thinker blog

QuoteBy using games with fewer rules than Candy Land, the Darwinian game theorists are claiming ‘to uncover the fundamental principles governing our decision-making mechanisms.’ We’d better take a closer look, starting with their presuppositions…The answer seems to be that whatever has survived must be the most fit; therefore whatever exists must have been the result of natural selection. Fairness exists; therefore, it must be the result of natural selection. Q.E.D. It is always convenient to have a theory that cannot possibly be proved wrong.2

From this follows the insistence upon adherence to useful Darwinian ethics which, of course, end up in dogmatism (dogmatheism) as it was expressed thusly by Roger Hicks “useful ethics cannot…but must be…we need to…We need to” and yet, if I disagree then, you guessed it, that too is Darwinian.

So does anybody here care to acknowledge the problem or is misunderstanding the Old Testament a means to look away?

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Recusant"You're still not getting it, man!  :verysad: So let's see if you really understood what WLC was saying.   from the article you site...

Quote1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Do you accept that there are objective moral values?

Do you have evidence for objective moral values? Because when you consider the amount of discussion over morals, that's evidence against humans knowing if objective moral values even exist.

Premise one is making the hidden assertion that objective moral values cannot exist without a god. God being a sentient all powerful being means that either the morals dictated by the god are not objective (exists independently of the control and/or perception of a sentient being) or the objective moral values are independent of the god.

Quote from: "freeservant"

QuoteIn fact, insofar as the atheist thinks that God did something morally wrong in commanding the extermination of the Canaanites, he affirms premise (2).  So what is the problem supposed to be?

The problem is genocide amiright?  In that you are thinking in the context of western Judeo-Christian values for giving opinion about genocide and making judgement's regarding God's authority.

Then how do you demonstrate objective moral values? If it's objectively good for this god to kill people, for this god to command people to bash babies heads on rocks... etc. then the same actions are just as objectively good when committed by people. Unless they aren't objectively moral actions.

Quote from: "freeservant"If you have debate experience then I hope you can see the poverty of Harris's argument given the circular nature of all things come back to a Darwinian construct.

Care to demonstrate this?

Quote from: "freeservant"[Link]  from True Free Thinker blog

QuoteBy using games with fewer rules than Candy Land, the Darwinian game theorists are claiming ‘to uncover the fundamental principles governing our decision-making mechanisms.’ We’d better take a closer look, starting with their presuppositions…The answer seems to be that whatever has survived must be the most fit; therefore whatever exists must have been the result of natural selection. Fairness exists; therefore, it must be the result of natural selection. Q.E.D. It is always convenient to have a theory that cannot possibly be proved wrong.2

From this follows the insistence upon adherence to useful Darwinian ethics which, of course, end up in dogmatism (dogmatheism) as it was expressed thusly by Roger Hicks “useful ethics cannot…but must be…we need to…We need to” and yet, if I disagree then, you guessed it, that too is Darwinian.

In order to properly refute a concept, one must understand that concept. The statement "The answer seems to be that whatever has survived must be the most fit; therefore whatever exists must have been the result of natural selection." demonstrates an almost criminal level of misunderstanding evolution. This is what is known as a Straw Man, in that the person is constructing an opposing argument out of things the theory of evolution does not even say. The person using the straw man has not refuted his/her opponents actual argument so it's really just a waste of time for all.

Quote from: "freeservant"So does anybody here care to acknowledge the problem or is misunderstanding the Old Testament a means to look away?

What has been misunderstood?

Quote from: "Davin"Premise one is making the hidden assertion that objective moral values cannot exist without a god.

...and hidden incredibly poorly, rendering the entire point =  

Quote from: "freeservant"  So let's see if you really understood what WLC was saying. from the article you site [sic]...

Quote1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Do you accept that there are objective moral values?

No.  If you had read the post which opened this thread, you would have seen my view of the origin of morality in humans.

Quote from: "freeservant"

QuoteIn fact, insofar as the atheist thinks that God did something morally wrong in commanding the extermination of the Canaanites, he affirms premise (2). So what is the problem supposed to be?

This is bullshit.  I can (and do) view the slaughter of a whole tribe down to the infants in arms as morally repugnant without basing my view on "objective morality."  Craig's argument about the Shoah is rather weak, even if he didn't go on to defend a genocidal act commanded by his god.  This supposedly objective morality supposedly existed during the Shoah, and many of the perpetrators were Christian. Did the supposed objective moral law make any difference to them? Does the condemnation of their acts coming from a Christian have any more weight in reality than condemnation coming from an atheist? No.  From the view of a Nazi, either one is irrelevant.
 

Quote from: "freeservant"The problem is genocide amiright? In that you are thinking in the context of western Judeo-Christian values for giving opinion about genocide and making judgement's regarding God's authority.

No.  I'm thinking in the context of my empathy for the millions of innocent people who were slaughtered.  If I were a certain type of Christian racist fascist I could easily consider the Shoah to have been part of my god's plan; perhaps a divine retribution visited upon the Jews and others.  After all, this wouldn't have been the first time my god had commanded genocide.

Quote from: "freeservant"

QuoteAccording to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are.

Are you then placing moral commands upon God or that there should be an equality between yourself and God.

No. Since YHVH/Jesus don't exist, why would I even consider placing moral commands upon them?  In fact, since I do exist, my moral standing is not equal to them, it's greater.  Hoot and jeer all you want about that, but in my opinion the moral views of a real person take precedence over those of a non-existent mythical being. Especially when that mythical being supposedly commanded acts of genocide as well as personally committing them. (The Great Flood, for one.)

Quote from: "freeservant"To read the entirety of the article gives a good understand. The inspired word of God is a communication that is minimally sufficient. An example of minimal but sufficient communication: Press any key to continue (some look for an any-key)

I grant that there are parts of the Bible that are difficult to understand but that does not mean that with study and a means to talk with others who also study the bible that you can't get sufficient understanding.

So you do agree with Craig that the slaughter of the Canaanite men, women, children and infants was a good and moral act?  How open minded of you.

Quote from: "freeservant"If you have debate experience then I hope you can see the poverty of Harris's argument given the circular nature of all things come back to a Darwinian construct.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_4C_tSMqS810%2FS4YCBrxRd2I%2FAAAAAAAAFQA%2FERWis_Q6YtY%2Fs400%2FRichard%2BDawkins%2C%2Bevolution%2C%2Batheism.jpg&hash=535a045bf17021dd46a49609239c6683c84f0018)

http://is.gd/wg4eS6%20from%20True%20Free%20Thinker%20blog

QuoteBy using games with fewer rules than Candy Land, the Darwinian game theorists are claiming ‘to uncover the fundamental principles governing our decision-making mechanisms.’ We’d better take a closer look, starting with their presuppositions…The answer seems to be that whatever has survived must be the most fit; therefore whatever exists must have been the result of natural selection. Fairness exists; therefore, it must be the result of natural selection. Q.E.D. It is always convenient to have a theory that cannot possibly be proved wrong.2

From this follows the insistence upon adherence to useful Darwinian ethics which, of course, end up in dogmatism (dogmatheism) as it was expressed thusly by Roger Hicks “useful ethics cannot…but must be…we need to…We need to” and yet, if I disagree then, you guessed it, that too is Darwinian.

So does anybody here care to acknowledge the problem or is misunderstanding the Old Testament
a means to look away?

Though I don't agree with Harris's position, it's not because of any circularity in his argument.  It's because I don't think that there are objective morals, whether emanating from a deity or from nature.  Find somebody who agrees with Harris, and present your circularity objection to them.

A report from Nathan Schneider for the Religion Dispatches online magazine:

"Debating God: Atheist and Evangelical Face Off at Notre Dame" (http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4486/debating_god:_atheist_and_evangelical_face_off_at_notre_dame)

Quote from: "freeservant"If you have debate experience then I hope you can see the poverty of Harris's argument given the circular nature of all things come back to a Darwinian construct.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_4C_tSMqS810%2FS4YCBrxRd2I%2FAAAAAAAAFQA%2FERWis_Q6YtY%2Fs400%2FRichard%2BDawkins%2C%2Bevolution%2C%2Batheism.jpg&hash=535a045bf17021dd46a49609239c6683c84f0018)

As Whitney has said before....  Darwinism is made up (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6429). Sorry.