Atheists cannot for positive say what behavior is right or wrong, though they cannot pinpoint the origin of their presupposition of saying murder is wrong. Why is murder wrong? Who says so? Is it your opinion? Someone else may have the opinion that murder is ok. ( Hitler). Where is the standard? Should there be a standard, or should it be "anything goes"? If anything goes, then there is no order or absolute or law.
@Mee551able Interesting question. The answer would be, quite possibly. With my "God in my head" as you put it, I would not just kill someone. Have no desire whatsoever to do so because that would mean that I would be taking a precious life, and displeasing the Lord by disobeying his law. Jesus said, if you hate someone, that considered murder in God's eyes, because you have murdered them in your heart and emotions.
An atheist si simply one who will not admit there is a God and hates God and the Bible and the concept that we are simple created creatures. Atheists have no moral compass as regards to absolute morals. They cannot say that murder is wrong, what is there basis for saying its right or wrong? Our natural laws and inner conscience says that murder is wrong. Who is to say sex with a child is wrong? What is your basis on arriving at that conclusion? Atheists are atheists cause they choose that
@monarkman1957 A theist is simply one who will not admit there's no god and hates the thought of not having god or literal bible and the concept that we're complex organisms developed over millions of years of evolution. Theists have no morality whatsoever because they have only obedience to authority. They cannot understand the reason why murder is wrong, why would they ever question if they believe everything they are told?
@monarkman1957 Our rational understand of how our actions effects others guides our moral decision making. Who is say another knows best for us if we don't also know what is best for ourselves? How do we judge an authority correctly, if they are so clever as to be deceiving us? Theists are theists because they don't know any better.
@MisterNickOtine Ok. So killing little children by slashing their throats with a sharp knife is right or wrong??? The Bible says it knows what is best for us. When it is says "you shall not murder" it is speaking as one who knows what is best for us. Do you think that NOT murdering is a better option over murdering? My presuppositions are based on a creator God knowing whats best and right for us
@ 1:11 Everyone is born an atheist, Whaaahuuhh!! Nobody is born an atheist. If that were true, everyone would have to be born with some degree of knowledge on what atheism is and then be able to make a decision of it upon exiting the mother. But certainly ed knew all The Bible and all the other stuff in the delivery room.
@ironman197268 An atheist is an individual who does not have a belief in a god. The etymology of the term, if it is broken down is "a" meaning "without," and "theism" meaning "belief in a god." A newborn child can't have a belief in god because its brain does not have the capacity to make decisions yet. Would you not agree that a hermit who has lived alone in the wilderness his/her entire life, and hasn't the slightest clue what anyone would mean by god is in fact, an atheist?
@federalD No, go ask that hermit if he/she knows what an atheist is. An atheist knows the possibility of a God and rejects it, a person is born an agnostic, with the exception of Jesus Christ.
@ironman197268 Not knowing what an idea means does not mean that you cannot be described by it. Going back to the same hermit, he/she would probably not describe him/herself as a hermit, because he/she probably doesn't even know what the term means. That does not mean that he/she is not a hermit. He/she can be described as a hermit because his/her lifestyle fits the definition that we agree upon - a person who lives in seclusion from society.
@federalD What? I'm sorry you had to type out all that gibberish, that makes no sense what so ever. How does any of that relate to my previous comment?
@ironman197268 -_- You claimed that a person cannot be an atheist if they have not ever heard of religion. This is incorrect. A person who does not believe in a god might not describe him/herself as an atheist, perhaps not knowing what the term means, but that would not mean that the person cannot be defined as an atheist. Hence, a newborn is an atheist.
@ironman197268 The one and only quality a person needs to be considered an atheist is a lack of belief in a deity. That's it, there is nothing else. Claiming that gods do not exist is a positive claim that, while it fits into atheism, is a belief on its own.
@ironman197268 The definition of an atheist is a person who lacks belief in a god. It does not necessarily mean that the person rejects the possibility of a god. An example being myself. A person can be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time, and in fact if people were honest with themselves, everyone would acknowledge that they are an agnostic. Agnosticism describes what an individual knows, not what he/she believes. Belief and knowledge are two different things.
@federalD Edwin said it in the first 20 seconds, what he said means a baby would have to be able to know what believing in something is at birth to be an Atheist. Edwin is just another crooked lawyer, how does he swear on The Bible in court? I suppose the devil needs people like hims otherwise... Whats the point of HELL?
dualy noted, therefore we should not be looking for evidence in places where it does not exist i.e : we should start looking for things that DO prove Gods existence, and it is in the evidence all around us where we find the existance of a God ,at the very least we can se the existance of god as a designer, We see his evidence in things like the blood cells and cilia which are so amazingly complex there is simply no other way other than by design in which these things can come into existance.
there are many things we can't prove, how /why we are here.. just because things are complex doesnt mean there was a designer. At least it doesnt prove that it was done purposely. The fact that there is a reality doesnt prove god either it just proves we aknowledge our conciousness thats all. There are plenty of theories to how we came about ( even creationism ) but we dont have FACTUAL proof for any of the theories so you cant just deem anyone of them true.
you cannot prove something by not finding proof for it. I am so glad that ppl on this video have the insight not to swear at each other and get into cussing wars when opinions differ it really says a lot about the character of the people that are here.
I'm not saying without god chaos ensues but the past is past, any slight change in history would lead to any other future than the one we live now. Today came from yesterday, where would we be without it?
"He did, but it wasn't the answer Matt was looking for."-Notice what I'm saying "didn't address Matt's refutation" He addressed Matt's argument (at the end because he was forced to) but never his refutation on what he said on Edwin. "Anything can be argued for when it comes to philosophy."-Anythhing that's logical."KNOW it isn't so"-How do you **KNOW** it's not transcendent? Bring evidence not just your opinion.
"in a scientific manner"-SO!! he didn't provide any scientific evidence for anything and also guess what MATT also answered in a "scientific manner".I'll admite he did answer some things BUT he didn't address Matt's Refutation on how He(Edwin) was wrong. He ignored it and it was very evident.So c'mon open your "philosphy book".
" Of course it will have comments defending Matt"-Even when the debate was live most people said Matt won.Why not Edwin didn't address Matt's refutation and I don't think you can either.I looked up what you told me there was nothing open your philosphy book PROVIDE"1"example."Edwin is the more science type"-What scientific argument did he bring up? "I'll admit Matt's "victory"when it's supported by the scientists."The debate wasen't on science it was on a philiosphical argument Does God exist
You've watched the debate. You saw how he didn't address Matt's arguments or his answer to what Matt said after he made a sad attempt to account for the existence of logic. Most people said he won so doesn't that mean that he won? (in case it isn't obvious I'm using the Kagins "logic")
It's funny that so many take at face value whatever they are told, without skeptical questioning or any requirement of evidence. What's not funny is that those same people will ask for (and expect) evidence of significantly higher standards that what they themselves offer. Of the many times I have encountered these arguments I have yet to see the default position of skepticism represented accurately. Thanks for underscoring it yet again, atheists lack belief in the supernatural- that's it.
It's sad that America is not more in touch with it's roots. It's like their foundation now is sliding from fact into fiction if you poll popular opinion. If you don't know where you've been, how do you know where your going?
Atheists cannot for positive say what behavior is right or wrong, though they cannot pinpoint the origin of their presupposition of saying murder is wrong. Why is murder wrong? Who says so? Is it your opinion? Someone else may have the opinion that murder is ok. ( Hitler). Where is the standard? Should there be a standard, or should it be "anything goes"? If anything goes, then there is no order or absolute or law.
monarkman1957 2 months ago
@monarkman1957 With out your god in your head would you go out an kill some one?
Mee551able 2 months ago
@Mee551able Interesting question. The answer would be, quite possibly. With my "God in my head" as you put it, I would not just kill someone. Have no desire whatsoever to do so because that would mean that I would be taking a precious life, and displeasing the Lord by disobeying his law. Jesus said, if you hate someone, that considered murder in God's eyes, because you have murdered them in your heart and emotions.
monarkman1957 2 months ago
@monarkman1957 If I was to kill people it would be on my head untill I die but when I die I will just be dead thats it :-)
Mee551able 2 months ago
An atheist si simply one who will not admit there is a God and hates God and the Bible and the concept that we are simple created creatures. Atheists have no moral compass as regards to absolute morals. They cannot say that murder is wrong, what is there basis for saying its right or wrong? Our natural laws and inner conscience says that murder is wrong. Who is to say sex with a child is wrong? What is your basis on arriving at that conclusion? Atheists are atheists cause they choose that
monarkman1957 2 months ago
@monarkman1957 A theist is simply one who will not admit there's no god and hates the thought of not having god or literal bible and the concept that we're complex organisms developed over millions of years of evolution. Theists have no morality whatsoever because they have only obedience to authority. They cannot understand the reason why murder is wrong, why would they ever question if they believe everything they are told?
MisterNickOtine 2 months ago
@monarkman1957 Our rational understand of how our actions effects others guides our moral decision making. Who is say another knows best for us if we don't also know what is best for ourselves? How do we judge an authority correctly, if they are so clever as to be deceiving us? Theists are theists because they don't know any better.
MisterNickOtine 2 months ago
@MisterNickOtine Ok. So killing little children by slashing their throats with a sharp knife is right or wrong??? The Bible says it knows what is best for us. When it is says "you shall not murder" it is speaking as one who knows what is best for us. Do you think that NOT murdering is a better option over murdering? My presuppositions are based on a creator God knowing whats best and right for us
monarkman1957 2 months ago
arrogant foolish man
keeyk118b 1 year ago
@keeyk118b he's a god damn genius.
growuptame 6 months ago
Ahh Mr. Kagin, you so gangsta.....
Gnoo 1 year ago
Comment removed
edavisdavis 1 year ago
Another snake oil salesman trying to make money off non-belief.
Edwin Kagin's religion, and you fell for it.
Camel76 1 year ago
@ 1:11 Everyone is born an atheist, Whaaahuuhh!! Nobody is born an atheist. If that were true, everyone would have to be born with some degree of knowledge on what atheism is and then be able to make a decision of it upon exiting the mother. But certainly ed knew all The Bible and all the other stuff in the delivery room.
ironman197268 1 year ago
@ironman197268 An atheist is an individual who does not have a belief in a god. The etymology of the term, if it is broken down is "a" meaning "without," and "theism" meaning "belief in a god." A newborn child can't have a belief in god because its brain does not have the capacity to make decisions yet. Would you not agree that a hermit who has lived alone in the wilderness his/her entire life, and hasn't the slightest clue what anyone would mean by god is in fact, an atheist?
federalD 1 year ago
@federalD No, go ask that hermit if he/she knows what an atheist is. An atheist knows the possibility of a God and rejects it, a person is born an agnostic, with the exception of Jesus Christ.
ironman197268 1 year ago
@ironman197268 Not knowing what an idea means does not mean that you cannot be described by it. Going back to the same hermit, he/she would probably not describe him/herself as a hermit, because he/she probably doesn't even know what the term means. That does not mean that he/she is not a hermit. He/she can be described as a hermit because his/her lifestyle fits the definition that we agree upon - a person who lives in seclusion from society.
federalD 1 year ago
@federalD What? I'm sorry you had to type out all that gibberish, that makes no sense what so ever. How does any of that relate to my previous comment?
ironman197268 1 year ago
@ironman197268 -_- You claimed that a person cannot be an atheist if they have not ever heard of religion. This is incorrect. A person who does not believe in a god might not describe him/herself as an atheist, perhaps not knowing what the term means, but that would not mean that the person cannot be defined as an atheist. Hence, a newborn is an atheist.
federalD 1 year ago
@ironman197268 The one and only quality a person needs to be considered an atheist is a lack of belief in a deity. That's it, there is nothing else. Claiming that gods do not exist is a positive claim that, while it fits into atheism, is a belief on its own.
federalD 1 year ago
@ironman197268 The definition of an atheist is a person who lacks belief in a god. It does not necessarily mean that the person rejects the possibility of a god. An example being myself. A person can be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time, and in fact if people were honest with themselves, everyone would acknowledge that they are an agnostic. Agnosticism describes what an individual knows, not what he/she believes. Belief and knowledge are two different things.
federalD 1 year ago
@federalD Edwin said it in the first 20 seconds, what he said means a baby would have to be able to know what believing in something is at birth to be an Atheist. Edwin is just another crooked lawyer, how does he swear on The Bible in court? I suppose the devil needs people like hims otherwise... Whats the point of HELL?
ironman197268 1 year ago
dualy noted, therefore we should not be looking for evidence in places where it does not exist i.e : we should start looking for things that DO prove Gods existence, and it is in the evidence all around us where we find the existance of a God ,at the very least we can se the existance of god as a designer, We see his evidence in things like the blood cells and cilia which are so amazingly complex there is simply no other way other than by design in which these things can come into existance.
Jak35ter 2 years ago
there are many things we can't prove, how /why we are here.. just because things are complex doesnt mean there was a designer. At least it doesnt prove that it was done purposely. The fact that there is a reality doesnt prove god either it just proves we aknowledge our conciousness thats all. There are plenty of theories to how we came about ( even creationism ) but we dont have FACTUAL proof for any of the theories so you cant just deem anyone of them true.
dsmrider 2 years ago
@Jak35ter
besides the proven science of evolution.
emergence isn't new or interesting. though it can look pretty cool.
pyr666 1 year ago
you know its not possible to prove Gods existence with science, because science does not even allow god into the question..
Jak35ter 2 years ago
Its impossible to prove something that does not exist
blazedondatcron 2 years ago
quite so!
you cannot prove something by not finding proof for it. I am so glad that ppl on this video have the insight not to swear at each other and get into cussing wars when opinions differ it really says a lot about the character of the people that are here.
Jak35ter 2 years ago
Comment removed
thatsMrSmileytoyou 2 years ago
Comment removed
thatsMrSmileytoyou 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm not saying without god chaos ensues but the past is past, any slight change in history would lead to any other future than the one we live now. Today came from yesterday, where would we be without it?
thatsMrSmileytoyou 2 years ago
rawr!
so lovely! gG
07904662391 3 years ago
"The audience was gullible, that's it."-Weak.
"He did, but it wasn't the answer Matt was looking for."-Notice what I'm saying "didn't address Matt's refutation" He addressed Matt's argument (at the end because he was forced to) but never his refutation on what he said on Edwin. "Anything can be argued for when it comes to philosophy."-Anythhing that's logical."KNOW it isn't so"-How do you **KNOW** it's not transcendent? Bring evidence not just your opinion.
apologia100 3 years ago
"in a scientific manner"-SO!! he didn't provide any scientific evidence for anything and also guess what MATT also answered in a "scientific manner".I'll admite he did answer some things BUT he didn't address Matt's Refutation on how He(Edwin) was wrong. He ignored it and it was very evident.So c'mon open your "philosphy book".
apologia100 3 years ago
" Of course it will have comments defending Matt"-Even when the debate was live most people said Matt won.Why not Edwin didn't address Matt's refutation and I don't think you can either.I looked up what you told me there was nothing open your philosphy book PROVIDE"1"example."Edwin is the more science type"-What scientific argument did he bring up? "I'll admit Matt's "victory"when it's supported by the scientists."The debate wasen't on science it was on a philiosphical argument Does God exist
apologia100 3 years ago
You've watched the debate. You saw how he didn't address Matt's arguments or his answer to what Matt said after he made a sad attempt to account for the existence of logic. Most people said he won so doesn't that mean that he won? (in case it isn't obvious I'm using the Kagins "logic")
apologia100 3 years ago
It's funny that so many take at face value whatever they are told, without skeptical questioning or any requirement of evidence. What's not funny is that those same people will ask for (and expect) evidence of significantly higher standards that what they themselves offer. Of the many times I have encountered these arguments I have yet to see the default position of skepticism represented accurately. Thanks for underscoring it yet again, atheists lack belief in the supernatural- that's it.
madamezora7 3 years ago
It's sad that America is not more in touch with it's roots. It's like their foundation now is sliding from fact into fiction if you poll popular opinion. If you don't know where you've been, how do you know where your going?
sfehrenbach 3 years ago 2