Objective Moral Values

[makedonin]

your point being here?

By the way how did your daily kneeling went on today, still having a soaring knees? Obviously you need vent certain frustration here!

[Mikail]

It appears to me this thread is more about Evangelism than moral values.

Morality and religion are two different things.

Let us not confuse the two.

[George S.]

And also about personalities & having it out.Clash of egos.

[Phoenix]

Phoenix, I respect your intelligence on this forum, you're one of the few that actually think critically, but this time it appears you are leaving your brain aside because you may not necessarily agree with the points made by the debators, or maybe the one you agree with was shown as flawed. What does the audience have to do with the arguments put forward? How can you tell the presenters are not interested in the views of the others? And so what if they are not, how does that impact on their own arguements? Video titles? What impact did they have on the arguments put forward by the debators?

These debates are independently organised and all debators are free to put forward their best arguments. If you have any comments on the arguments put forward, that would be your best point of attack, but making up irrelevant and false assumptions about the freedom of debators to argue their views is simply disengenious.

Sorry Phoenix, you've dropped the ball on this one.

TV, my personal view is that people like Dr Craig are extreme Christian fundementalists who hide behind their philisophical walls persuing their agenda which is aligned with promotion of the 'Intelligent Design' movement.

The cornerstone of their beliefs is to overthrow atheism and to denegrade the position of science and scientific explanation.
It seems to be the age old battle between the Church and science.

Craig is seen in the first video you posted refuting scientific theory but he expects us to 'accept' the existence of a God on the basis of a philisophical argument like objective moral values.

[Vangelovski]

TV, my personal view is that people like Dr Craig are extreme Christian fundementalists who hide behind their philisophical walls persuing their agenda which is aligned with promotion of the 'Intelligent Design' movement.

The cornerstone of their beliefs is to overthrow atheism and to denegrade the position of science and scientific explanation.
It seems to be the age old battle between the Church and science.

Craig is seen in the first video you posted refuting scientific theory but he expects us to 'accept' the existence of a God on the basis of a philisophical argument like objective moral values.

Fundamentalist? You either believe in something or you don't. You should look up the meaning of the word rather than using the current negative connotations attached to it.

Intelligent Design is not necessarily Christian theology. Wrong movement.

There is no conflict between faith and science - that is another uninformed belief and one that is normally brought up by atheists when scientific discovery and observation lends support to faith.

But you still have not made any substantive comments - What exactly about Craigs statements do you dispute? What is the contradiction between stating that science is based on a number of unprovable assumptions (which is true) and making a philosophical argument in favour of faith? Which of the facts that Craig stated in relation to science (and Atkins AGREED with) do YOU dispute?

Finally, do you consider yourself a Macedonian Orthodox Christian and if so, HOW is that even possible? Further, of what use can an atheist be in relation to our Christian Church?

[Vangelovski]

It appears to me this thread is more about Evangelism than moral values.

Morality and religion are two different things.

Let us not confuse the two.

I think you're confused Mikail...

[Phoenix]

What is the contradiction between stating that science is based on a number of unprovable assumptions (which is true) and making a philosophical argument in favour of faith? Which of the facts that Craig stated in relation to science (and Atkins AGREED with) do YOU dispute?

Craig's attack on science goes beyond just a number of unprovable assumptions, he conveniently questions some of the most complicated scientific enigmas as his proof of sciences flaws and why we should accept his philisophical theories about a God with the same lack of questioning...

The difference being that we continue to learn from scientific discovery. Craig mentions the definitive speed limit of light as proof that it is only an assumption but work being undertaken at the CERN project will eventually prove some of these theories in a quantative manner, rather than mathematical equations on a blackboard.

Finally, do you consider yourself a Macedonian Orthodox Christian and if so, HOW is that even possible? Further, of what use can an atheist be in relation to our Christian Church?

Why do you think I'm an athiest and If I am does that make me a lesser person than you...?

[Risto the Great]

I am positive most Macedonian Orthodox Christians have a limited understanding of Christianity. Many simply seeing it as an affirmation of their cultural identity. That is how I see it personally and I am fully aware of how hypocritical this position is.

[Phoenix]

I think you're confused Mikail...

TV, how is Mik confused...?

I agree it is a debate strongly influenced by Evangelical tunnel vision.

...and why do morality and religion need be mutually inclusive concepts...?

[Vangelovski]

Craig's attack on science goes beyond just a number of unprovable assumptions, he conveniently questions some of the most complicated scientific enigmas as his proof of sciences flaws and why we should accept his philisophical theories about a God with the same lack of questioning...

You're still been vague here...Atkins claimed that science can explain EVERYTHING and Craig correctly pointed out that it cannot.

The difference being that we continue to learn from scientific discovery. Craig mentions the definitive speed limit of light as proof that it is only an assumption but work being undertaken at the CERN project will eventually prove some of these theories in a quantative manner, rather than mathematical equations on a blackboard.

The speed of light is an assumption and CERN has not proven anything. When it does, let me know.

Why do you think I'm an athiest and If I am does that make me a lesser person than you...?

I don't know why you are an atheist - you obviously are uninformed of both atheism and theism. Of course you are not a "lesser" person - according to the theistic view to which I subscribe. But according to the atheist view, who cares?

[Vangelovski]

TV, how is Mik confused...?

I agree it is a debate strongly influenced by Evangelical tunnel vision.

...and why do morality and religion need be mutually inclusive concepts...?

If religion is not about morality, then what on earth is it about, according to you?

[Vangelovski]

I am positive most Macedonian Orthodox Christians have a limited understanding of Christianity. Many simply seeing it as an affirmation of their cultural identity. That is how I see it personally and I am fully aware of how hypocritical this position is.

Hahahahaha As long as you understand it is hypocritical

RtG, I agree, most Macedonians do have a limited understanding of Christianity (including our priests who demonstrate that through their actions) and that they see the Church as a 'cultural institution' rather than a faith. You are also correct that there is a contradiction here and not just in the sense that they participate in religion, when they are in fact atheists, but also in the fact that many claim that Orthodoxy is a part of Macedonian identity, yet accept Muslims as Macedonians as well. This is quite odd to me. I personally do not subscribe to the idea that one must be a particular religion in order to belong to a particular nation. Phoenix for example, although an atheist, is probably one of the most patriotic Macedonians I've seen and highly intelligent in matters pertaining to the cause.

[Risto the Great]

Given Vangelovki's assumptions, Mik is definitely confused.
Given Mik's assumptions, Mik is definitely correct.

This is all starting to feel like a philosophical debate about Scientology. Once you accept the first assumption, the rest apparently falls into place. In this instance, if you accept objective morality, then it comes from God. If you don't, you don't have to believe in God. I can't see how anyone can prove this point until they rise from the grave. Which means nobody will ever be convinced to change their mind.

I started this thread hoping to see how it develops in line with nation building matters. But I think it really has taken a different course.

One thing I have learned is that if I ever debate in the future, I will try to buy some drugs that enhance my SMUG power, because the debaters on either side of the fence seem to be heavily fueled by "SMUGOSTERONE" TM

[Vangelovski]

Given Vangelovki's assumptions, Mik is definitely confused.
Given Mik's assumptions, Mik is definitely correct.

This is all starting to feel like a philosophical debate about Scientology. Once you accept the first assumption, the rest apparently falls into place. In this instance, if you accept objective morality, then it comes from God. If you don't, you don't have to believe in God. I can't see how anyone can prove this point until they rise from the grave. Which means nobody will ever be convinced to change their mind.

I started this thread hoping to see how it develops in line with nation building matters. But I think it really has taken a different course.

One thing I have learned is that if I ever debate in the future, I will try to buy some drugs that enhance my SMUG power, because the debaters on either side of the fence seem to be heavily fueled by "SMUGOSTERONE" TM

RtG,

If morality is not a part of religion and should be treated separately, what on earth is religion about? If you take morality out of it, then your just left with a bunch of people wearing some funny costumes.

I'll give you a national example. But it will only lead to the same debate all over again.

We, Macedonians, claim a right to self-determination. Where does this "right" come from?

[Phoenix]

You're still been vague here...Atkins claimed that science can explain EVERYTHING and Craig correctly pointed out that it cannot.

Only a foolish man would make such a claim about science being able to prove "everything" but its theories are open for everyone to question, qualify and quantify...but they will remain theories until proven otherwise, that's the beauty of science it can stand on its own two feet and be challenged, slowly unlocking the secrets of the universe, one by one...
Is this what the "Intelligent Design" proponents fear, that science could one day prove 'everything'...where the God industry becomes obsolete and redundent...?

I'm just trying to keep an open mind...

The speed of light is an assumption and CERN has not proven anything. When it does, let me know.

Now you're starting to sound like you've come from the latest gathering of the 'Earth is Flat' society...the speed of light has been proven and its speed determined as recently as the 1980's...as technology improves i.e. facilities like CERN, the calibration will improve and tolerance for error will diminish even further...