Can We be Good Without God? August Berkshire vs James Kunz

I am told that my friend August is a better known atheist in the state of Minnesota than PZ Myers, but outside of it people probably haven't heard of him. Enjoy.

4 comments:

Greg G said...

Nit: Minnesota is the Land of 10, 000 Lakes. Missouri is the Show Me State.

Greg G said...

Where did Kunz get the idea that the debate was about morality? I went5 back and checked the opening montage and the title was "Can We Be Good Without God?" He kept insisting that Berkshire never answered it but Kunz can't show that just because a god says something is moral actually means it is moral. We need our own formula to make decisions as we go along. Slitting your child's throat and burning his corpse would not be moral even if the creator of the universe askednm you to do it and said "please".

I thought Berkshire got into a rut trying to explain helpful and harmful. We can't comprehend all the future consequences of every act we do so we must do what is most likely to be helpful and least harmful.

Kunz doesn't understand the problem of evil. An omnipotent being could achieve his desired ends with or without suffering. That means suffering is unnecessary. If there is an omnipotence, it chose unnecessary suffering. That is sadism.

Anonymous said...

The problem of evil is a good debate to have but you can have a decent debate about morality without it. It is and has been believed for an absurd amount of time that there is a higher power that gives some justification for our moral codes and without a belief in a higher power what makes our moral codes worth mentioning. Nietzsche would probably say grow up and take responsibility for your own actions... and your moral code has all the creedence it needs because it is YOURS.

But anyways with that being said james is a good guy but this debate is terribly mismatched... august has been doing this same debate since james was in diapers... and james is working on his undergraduate degree in philosophy...it's a silly matchup and someone should feel bad...

Greg G said...

I agree. The Problem of Evil goes back about 2500 years and questions how evil could exist if an omnipotent being was against it. Theists seem to think they can blame it on humans and free will but it's more fundamental than that. I think the Problem of Suffering is easier to relate to.

I read somewhere and I think it was from John Loftus that if the Problem of Evil doesn't keep you [the theist] up at night, you don't understand it.