by cantleave 47 Replies latest jw friends
Its not a red herring its a valid complaint that you edited a WLC speech and passed it off as your own.
Don't whinge because you got caught.
Its a dreadful argument as Sam Harris demonstrated in the debate - shall I explain why in my own words or shall I copy-paste his rebuttal?
I agree I should have been more upfront as to the source of the article but I did state it was an argument that was not mine. My main concern was it would then become an argument against the author rather then the topic. It was a mistake on my part and I've obviously loaded up the cannon and put a big target on my back over it. I apologize I made a mistake on that post even though the information in my opinion is excellent it was not of my work and will be much more mindful in the future about that.
I had orginally wanted to only come to this board to help others who were struggling with their faith and had not intended to get drawn into creationism vs. evolutionism debates. It's not my area of strength or knowledge as I prefer to deal with bible theology. Of course in these arguments the bible holds no weight so it puts me at a large disadvantage and I'm largely underqualified in many of these scientific fields. My post secondary knowledge is non related to many of these studies of science so I am a layman of science. It seems odd that the majority of this board is devoted to attacks against Christianity, would it not be more productive to seek out debate blogs specializing in this? Heck I bet some on here could put up a good debate with many professionals in the field of apologetics. Surely we are just fish in a barrel?
Anyways heres what I got out of the debate. Sam's rebuttal in my opinion was good but not as strong as the case Craig laid out before him. Sam the whole time dodged around the "ought" issue and couldn't come up with a solid answer to it. Both are very intelligent individuals as are people on this board. I would liken the experience of these blogs as trench warfare. Each trying to make some ground but not really moving in either direction. I think the factor for myself is I have faith in God. Knowing that's not a popular stance with some doesn't make it incorrect or errant. To a Christian faith is a central tenant to ones belief.
I think objective morality is easily seen in our societies history as well as the decline of it. If it were as so proposed by evolution why would our socio morals be on a decline? It's without question in my opinion that then if the proposal of objective morality being valid within a naturalistic view then we have faltered and reversed the evolution of these morals. In my opinion the regress of morality is a direct factor of the emerging and largely accepted view of lack of responsibility and not any evolutionary quotient.
Looking back on my prior post I wanted to make clear I appreciate the posters on here and enjoy the debates as I learn something each time. Didn't want anyone to get the idea I don't respect them. I have the utmost respect for each and every person who contributes to the various related and non-related threads.
If it were as so proposed by evolution why would our socio morals be on a decline?Are they?
If it were as so proposed by evolution why would our socio morals be on a decline? - Ticker
I have started reading "The Better Angels of our Nature" by Steven Pinker.
Your assertion that morals are in decline is contradicted by the evidence. We live in the least violent period in human history.
Please tell us why you think otherwise.
Pyramid Scheme,
This prize-act's real name is indeed Ray Comfort, that I know for a fact.
He hails originally from Christchurch, New Zealand, and is evidence that the religious lunatic fringe element is not limited to the JWs!
Bill.
ray comfort has helped many come to christ, one thing i believe about him is he has a real love for god,he does alot to spread the gospel!
he has a real love for god
That doesn't stop him being a total idiot!
cant leave: what makes him an idiot,surly not because of his answer to this question,
Ray comfort is not an idiot, he has stated he delibrately address a version of evolution which is different from what science actually propose because it makes for a more efficient argument.
between that and his plagiarization i really cant tell why you think he is so awsome unstopable, if an atheist did something like that id still think he was a dick.
