Since, debating seems to be happening quite often here, I guess that can even be debated, I have an eye out for good debates and I found a few. Until the Comfort/Dawkins debate comes to fruition we will have to settle on what is already out there. This one is a debate between an Atheist Dan Barker and a Christian Kyle Butt. Due to the location of the videos, to watch the "next clip" you will have to click below and be redirected to the original location.
Next Clip
If you prefer the Mp3 of the Debate our friend Brian was able to locate it. You can either click on the photo or go to his blog called Apologetics 315.
Interesting. I'm fairly sure you'll declare as the winner the guy that most closely matches your preconceived leanings (Christian vs Atheist).
ReplyDeleteSeveral points I'd like to raise:
Mr. Butt stated, incorrectly, that "God Exists" is a knowledge claim. That's patently false; you must presuppose the validity of the Bible in order to feel that the Christian God exists. Thus, it is a faith claim.
Second, despite claiming that morality is absolute, Butt's rape analogy only served to show that morality is subjective. Rape is good in some cases but Oh Oh! Look who's just become Hitlerrrrr!.
Finally, why do those who argue for absolute morality use the word Objective (incorrectly)? Speed limits are objective laws. Murder is an objective law. And yet, both of these things are relative/subjective - not absolute.
There is only one rule that a Christian may logically argue is absolute and objective. As you (Dan) have demonstrated here, that rule is "whatever God says, goes".
This is hardly a reliable or useful standard of behavior.
Barker missed an opportunity with that rape analogy, he should have turned it back on Butt by asking whether he'd rape those girls if God commanded him to.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete