Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Human Animal...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    I find it curious that human beings seem to be the only creatures that are at war with their natural inclinations. We are constantly trying to control our appetites and impulses. I suspect that the higher primates are perfectly at home with their instincts and cravings, unitary and uniform. Humans on the other hand seem to be bifurcated. Trying to dominate and control these very natural passions and stimuli... In a real sense - a state of war exists between the rational and the animal nature.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post


    While some men did use a distortion of scripture to justify certain practices, many others have interpreted the Bible correctly and fought to abolish such things.
    Who decides what constituted the “distortion of scripture” which resulted in 400 years of slavery, colonial invasions and land-grabs, the destruction of indigenous cultures, the limited role of women in society etc. etc. etc.? Were the Christians of that period willfully disobeying scripture - and how do you know you’ve got it right now – especially given that Christians had it wrong for so long?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Bingo. If atheism is true, then nobody is morally obligated to do anything. It's all just a matter of personal preference, and if someone chooses to flout the preferences of society then he has not actually done anything immoral.
    Morality is basically a question of socially acceptable behavior as adjudged by the community in which we are based and which is necessary to our survival as a social species. It’s – it’s NOT just “personal preference”.

    As for our moral obligation to God, it's not merely because he is able to hold us accountable but because of who and what he is.
    In short, the very same reasons we are accountable to the community in which we reside and accept its authority regarding community values and law enforcement.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    I wasn't claiming a Christian apologist never debates atheists!

    I was pointing out he never dives into the details of any atheist moral theories and discusses them specifically. Interaction with any (and ideally all) specific actual labelled atheistic moral theories is what I am after. He seems to prefer to stay at the 10,000 foot level and just talk about the idea of atheist moral views rather than any specific ones. As a result he seems to feel free to make false claims about them not having any, claims that would be obviously false to his audience if he were dealing with any specific moral theories.
    The atheists he is debating have their theories, sheesh...

    Go back to the debate I linked with Erik Wielenberg who is a moral realist..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iVyVJAMiOY

    And here are some short answers from his mail bag...

    448 Consequentialism and the Problem of Evil

    https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...oblem-of-evil/

    379 Anti-Platonism and Moral Realism

    https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...moral-realism/

    437 Nominalism and Natural Law

    https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...d-natural-law/

    #589 Moral Knowledge and God’s Existence

    https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...ods-existence/


    Leave a comment:


  • Starlight
    replied
    I wasn't claiming a Christian apologist never debates atheists!

    I was pointing out he never dives into the details of any atheist moral theories and discusses them specifically. Interaction with any (and ideally all) specific actual labelled atheistic moral theories is what I am after. He seems to prefer to stay at the 10,000 foot level and just talk about the idea of atheist moral views rather than any specific ones. As a result he seems to feel free to make false claims about them not having any, claims that would be obviously false to his audience if he were dealing with any specific moral theories.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    If Craig has ever interacted with any atheist moral viewpoints I am not aware of it, and from googling it I can't find anything. Craig makes plenty of arguments about God and morality in general and abstract terms, but seems to always do in very abstract and generic terms of "I think the existence of morality ought to imply God's existence" never in specific terms of interacting with any specific philosopher's views on morality as far as I am aware.

    If you are aware of Craig directly interacting with the specific moral theories or any specific named philosophers, feel free to point me to such work. Googling is sure not showing me any.
    Here are few I found quickly:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6WnliSKrR4

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0j444u10ng

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrdktsDljxM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHhmuqBW6Dw
    Last edited by seer; 04-10-2021, 06:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Starlight
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    I don't know anyone who interacted with atheist and their arguments more than Craig.
    If Craig has ever interacted with any atheist moral viewpoints I am not aware of it, and from googling it I can't find anything. Craig makes plenty of arguments about God and morality in general and abstract terms, but seems to always do in very abstract and generic terms of "I think the existence of morality ought to imply God's existence" never in specific terms of interacting with any specific philosopher's views on morality as far as I am aware.

    If you are aware of Craig directly interacting with the specific moral theories or any specific named philosophers, feel free to point me to such work. Googling is sure not showing me any.
    Last edited by Starlight; 04-10-2021, 06:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    This reminds me of why I quit being a Christian apologist... the arguments are so bad.

    That above argument basically goes: "Rather than read any atheist philosophers writing on moral issues, and grapple with their theories and viewpoints, and showing in detail why they're all wrong, I just choose to assume they don't exist. I choose to believe there are no such atheist moral views, no such philosophers, and no such books. They can't exist. Because after like, 1 second thinking, I can't think of what views they might have, so that proves they mustn't have come up with any. So, because I haven't personally thought of any atheist moral views after one second of not really trying very hard to do so, they must not have any. QED"

    Morons.
    Are you daft? I don't know anyone who interacted with atheist and their arguments more than Craig.

    Leave a comment:


  • Starlight
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Dr. William Craig:

    On the atheistic view, human beings don’t seem to have any moral obligations to one another. For example, in the animal kingdom, if lion kills a zebra, it kills the zebra but it doesn't murder the zebra. If a great white shark copulates forcibly with a female, it forcibly copulates with the female, but it doesn't rape the female, for there is no moral dimension to these actions. None of these things is prohibited or commanded; they are neither forbidden nor obligatory. So if God doesn’t exist why think that we have any moral obligations? Who or what imposes such prohibitions or obligations upon us? Where do they come from? It is hard to see why moral duties would be anything more than the illusory by-products of social and parental conditioning.

    So, admittedly, certain actions like incest and rape have become taboo in the course of human evolution, but on atheism that does absolutely nothing to show that such actions are really wrong. Activity that looks like rape and incest goes on all the time in the animal kingdom. So the rapist who chooses to flout the herd morality is really on atheism doing nothing more than acting unfashionably; he is like the man who violates the social conventions by belching loudly at the dinner table. If there isn’t any moral law giver then there isn’t any moral law that imposes itself upon us.

    https://www.reasonablefaith.org/vide...lc-washington/
    This reminds me of why I quit being a Christian apologist... the arguments are so bad.

    That above argument basically goes: "Rather than read any atheist philosophers writing on moral issues, and grapple with their theories and viewpoints, and showing in detail why they're all wrong, I just choose to assume they don't exist. I choose to believe there are no such atheist moral views, no such philosophers, and no such books. They can't exist. Because after like, 1 second thinking, I can't think of what views they might have, so that proves they mustn't have come up with any. So, because I haven't personally thought of any atheist moral views after one second of not really trying very hard to do so, they must not have any. QED"

    Morons.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post

    I’m referring to slavery for 400 years, colonial invasions and land-grabs, the destruction of indigenous cultures, the limited role of women in society etc. etc. etc. ALL reflecting the values of the day and ALL justified by Christians reading the biblical text through the lens of their own culture.
    Oh, please, not that canard again.

    While some men did use a distortion of scripture to justify certain practices, many others have interpreted the Bible correctly and fought to abolish such things.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    No, one is not morally obligated to do that.
    Bingo. If atheism is true, then nobody is morally obligated to do anything. It's all just a matter of personal preference, and if someone chooses to flout the preferences of society then he has not actually done anything immoral.

    As for our moral obligation to God, it's not merely because he is able to hold us accountable but because of who and what he is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Dimbulb View Post
    Trying to 'explain' why a person has certain intrinsic motivations in general, and not others, is a bit of a fools errand.
    You only say that because fools like you who have rejected God have no explanation. For the atheist, it really makes no rational sense to claim that one chemical reaction in your brain is morally superior to any other, and preferring to treat someone kindly versus treating them poorly has no more moral value than than preferring chocolate ice cream to vanilla.

    Dr. William Craig:

    On the atheistic view, human beings don’t seem to have any moral obligations to one another. For example, in the animal kingdom, if lion kills a zebra, it kills the zebra but it doesn't murder the zebra. If a great white shark copulates forcibly with a female, it forcibly copulates with the female, but it doesn't rape the female, for there is no moral dimension to these actions. None of these things is prohibited or commanded; they are neither forbidden nor obligatory. So if God doesn’t exist why think that we have any moral obligations? Who or what imposes such prohibitions or obligations upon us? Where do they come from? It is hard to see why moral duties would be anything more than the illusory by-products of social and parental conditioning.

    So, admittedly, certain actions like incest and rape have become taboo in the course of human evolution, but on atheism that does absolutely nothing to show that such actions are really wrong. Activity that looks like rape and incest goes on all the time in the animal kingdom. So the rapist who chooses to flout the herd morality is really on atheism doing nothing more than acting unfashionably; he is like the man who violates the social conventions by belching loudly at the dinner table. If there isn’t any moral law giver then there isn’t any moral law that imposes itself upon us.

    https://www.reasonablefaith.org/vide...lc-washington/

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Roy View Post
    No distortion required. The Bible never condemns slavery - it lays down rules for implementing it.

    You should read it one day.
    Like slavery is immoral?

    Leave a comment:


  • Roy
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    I assume you're referring to slavery, and while some men did use a distortion of scripture to justify the practice, many others interpreted the Bible correctly and fought to abolish it.
    No distortion required. The Bible never condemns slavery - it lays down rules for implementing it.

    You should read it one day.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    For the atheist, figuring out how to break the law without suffering the consequences is just as valid as simply conforming. Neither choice is right or wrong.
    None of that addresses any of the points I made.

    There appears to be a notion among some contributors that anyone who does not proclaim a Christian belief is automatically deemed to be potentially amoral and depraved.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by lee_merrill, 06-03-2021, 11:57 AM
1 response
38 views
0 likes
Last Post Christian3  
Started by Machinist, 05-26-2021, 10:52 AM
97 responses
522 views
0 likes
Last Post Stoic
by Stoic
 
Started by seer, 05-12-2021, 05:35 AM
547 responses
3,435 views
0 likes
Last Post Tassman
by Tassman
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:43 AM
21 responses
189 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:34 AM
144 responses
1,079 views
1 like
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Working...
X