Debate Highlight: IslamOrAtheism - Hamza Tzortzis vs Professor Lawrence Krauss

:salamext:

This is what happens when atheism defines morality.

:wa:

I can never really understand these debates. Too many fancy words thrown at each other. The video does raise important points. Thanks for sharing.

I'm of two minds.

On the one hand...although I am no fan of Lawrence Krauss the selection of this clip as the debate "highlight" strikes me as fishy. What makes it a highlight? It looks like an ad hominem. It looks like the message here is, "It doesn't matter what the rest of the debate consisted of: check out what a putz Krauss was for a few isolated seconds!" Where is the rest, anyway? I'm kind of afraid to look since from the other articles and videos I'm come across Krauss never does seem to say anything remotely of value but for once I almost feel like he's been short-changed.

On the other hand...did he really just say that?

Listening to what he said was painful enough....

lol athiests by definition are deniers.. if that clip is anything to go by.


here is a worldly accepted tabboo.


...im going to say i disagree.


no offence to athiests...

im sure they are not all like that.

Well it was not nice for the crowd to go boo and moo at him like a herd of cows. I see where the professor is coming from. He does not approve of it, but he is not willing to stop people do what they want as long as it does not harm others. That appears to be the core of his philosophy. Do what you want as long as it does not harm others.

I could not disagree more! That "do what you want to as long as it does not harm others" is the closest thing to a moral philosophy that most people have these days is exactly the problem with society, if you ask me. My generation has absorbed the letter of the flower children while completely missing the spirit. The point of "do your own thing" and "love is all you need" was certainly not "as long as you're not hurting anybody you can do no wrong". It was more like, "We must all learn to tolerate each other" and, "Let there be peace on earth." A civil rights/Vietnam war protest thing. As many immoral elements as there were in that generation as well, it was eons ahead of us. Krauss, being older, should know better. But I don't think that is what he means. He's just honestly demonstrating for us--more honestly, in fact, than most atheists do, so kudos to him actually--what happens when you're stuck forcibly shoehorning everything into a strictly materialistic mindframe due to holding an atheistic view of morality.

So maybe it is true that this must have been the highlight of the debate, now that I think of it.

I don't agree with that sort of thinking myself. I have to admit, it does appear to be very practicable policy to implement. Well its quite a lazy approach too.

I always find that if you want to stop bad practices, you should take it slow. Like smoking was very common but now it is frowned upon and more people are trying to give it up.

Professor Krauss has explicitly stated that he doesn't see anything morally wrong with incest relationships between siblings I wonder if that also includes siblings of the same gender. He said or what he defined of his positioned- at least that's what I got- is that if they did it once ''got off''. Seriously; the only thing that seems to be apparent is that how atheists almost always try to find a way or two of re-defining things that are parralel to materialistic sentiments. Infact mostof the effort is to decnetralize anything religion condemns as morally wrong into a 'broader' spectrum of looking at things. I'm just glad he himself did not go against his own conscience when he testified that he doesn't personally agree with it. He doesn't like it for himself but he's okay with it for other people ofcourse without out it having any harm on others. Is he speaking on behalf on his own beliefs or his occupied athiest postion.