I could not disagree more, You make few valid points and fail miserably to provide any reason to take anything you say seriously. Your arguments are shallow at best. Thanks for wasting my time watching the video (sarcasm).
@tallliza of course if you believe in a God then it is possible. If theres a God theres a devil the devil is very intelligent and can lie to you. You're judged by your heart in this world and Gods given us common sense to use. the devil tries to distort your view. You just have to go back to the beginning. Who is God? Who is the devil ( Former lead angel the great deceiver not the one with horns despite popular belief)? If you chose not to truthfully seek God you won't find him but hes there.
@tallliza Good comeback I see where your arguments lie in Atheism. A religion that you have no proof for. Its just as i said you don't try to seek you just say no and wrong and nonsense. I hope you find the truth and actually seek for yourself rather than let the devil lie to you. Please explain dreams to me and does everyone have the same dream? Also from your comment at Carlos you have definitely proved my point.
@tallliza well while you don't feel like you can be lied to by a devil that does not exist, enjoy your fantasy while it lasts and chase after your own lusts. In the end of all this you're going to have to answer to someone. God judges fairly and knows your heart. staring at eternity i hope you make the right decisions while you can. God bless and i hope you actually look for the truth instead of just being ignorant.
@HeroBidd0 Hopefully before your brain rots, you will use it to distinguish between what is acceptable and what is not, what has evidence and what has not, what is true and what is not. Did you ever look over the fence to find out why people are not believing ?
@tallliza yes because they believe life's unfair and God has to to any and everything for them. Most Atheistic arguments stem from emotion not logic. Please explain to me what was started to create the big bang how DNA works and how it was created by random chance? On top of that how we have a sun not too close yet too far away from us so we have life. You can't. Evolution is based on lies. (Its called a theory) so technically the devil didn't lie to you you just chose to believe it as truth.
@HeroBidd0 Who says god has to do everything for them ? Silly bible school talk !! most atheistic arguments stem from EVIDENCE and logic. Do you really know what a scientific hypothesis is ? It is the best explanation available based on evidence and observation. How does unanswered questions prove that creation is right ? Science will always have unanswered questions. Evolution has more evidence than most other theories. So much so that the cath. church saw itself compelled to acknowledge it..
@tallliza CONTINUED.. From the 540.000 scientists polled by Newsweek, only a mere 700 stand behind creation. Creation is so dumb, so infantile, that from the 106 colleges, that form the "Christian Coalition of Colleges " only 5 teach litteral biblical creation. Yes the conditions on earth were favorable to life,as we know it and how does that prove creation ? Life adapted to the existing conditions. Not the other way round.
@tallliza Well if its the best explanation available based on evidence why haven't you given me an answer to any of my questions? Evolution is based on a theory a myth because people try to live without God but you can't write him out no matter how much you try. There are plenty of those missing links lying around somewhere right? Furthermore then why is lead scientific atheist debater Richard Dawkins not in the least interested in debating William lane craig? God bless you and good day sir.
@HeroBidd0 You silly kid. Have you really graduated from kindergarten ? Yes there are missing links, so what. Do you think there are no missing links in .. gravity .. ? There is no branch of the sciences that has all the answers. To expect it, is infantilism and denotes your 6th grade education. Because you can`t have a reasonable discussion with a theologist. Theology, the art of word-smithing. Period. Each time he has no answer, he resorts to supernatural intervention.
@tallliza I've graduated from elementary school. It seems you haven't keep trying to deny the truth by not answering one of my questions. By missing links i meant from the evolutionary scale. Obviously by now i know what grade of person i'm talking to. you're every other atheist who lacks a mind to think for themselves and actually do research. Go do some learning and then come back with some evidence to argue with (won't find any) until then thank you for playing sir.
@HeroBidd0 What are you trying to prove with your missing link ? Yes there are missing links. There will most probably always be missing links. So what. Do you think every thing is known about gravity ?? But you do accept gravity. Right. Because gravity does not run against your bible . Right ? In any science there are unanswered questions.
@tallliza Where are there missing links from Apes to humans? Thats what i mean. There are none and there wouldn't be one there would be many. In your science there are too many unanswered questions and fallacies you try to believe and ignore evidence. please explain something to me scientifically that contradicts the bible and then tell me why its wrong?
@HeroBidd0 You know what ?? Creation is nothing but missing links. Suppose now that evolution is wrong.(What it is absolutely not) how does that prove that Genesis is right ? So now you come up with another fallacy. Everything for which there cannot be found anything wrong scientifically, must be right. How silly... Did you really graduate from kindergarten. According to your logic. Santa Claus is true,because you can`t find anything scientifically to contradict his existence.
@HeroBidd0 When you have a box with wooden blocks. Each with a number. You put them all in line starting with zero up to 100. You fail to find number seven. Are you going to doubt that number 7 exists ? The line of evolution is so long and so consistent and you are going to throw out the theory because you can`t find one block ? Evolution is barely 150 years old. The history of life is millions of years old ,and you want the chain to be complete ? How silly.
@HeroBidd0 Evolution is based on a theory a myth because people try to live without God but you can't write him out no matter how much you try ...... This is kindergarten nonsense. Tell me genius, why would anyone try to live without somebody that doesn`t exist. Do you see anybody trying to live without Santa Claus ?
@HeroBidd0 Get out of your silly bible school and start studying, before bleating nonsense. The devil is infantilism to keep the collection plates full. Dna is very complicated. Why would an almighty god, create such a complicated machine, when being almighty, he could have made it very simple, with the same efficiency. Does you god have any logic or not ?
@tallliza Paying money to the church is not apart of the 10 commandments you don't even try to seek God thats why you don't find him. God has no need for money. Also God is highly intelligent and Very powerful so why not show us it was him with out a doubt who created us and not some theory. Despite any lie you've heard God judges fairly and knows your heart. If you truly believe or if you're choosing not to believe because of your life. You bless others and you shall be blessed as well.
Doug, I love your videos.......keep up the good work regardless of what the nonbelievers say in the comments. I'm going to tell some of my friends about this video!!
That is why people who don't believe in G-d like Charlie Sheen will do anything to anyone they can get away with, because if they have only one life & one world with no consequences other then 'getting caught' or not having the power to not care about getting caught, there is no reason not to do whatever they feel like no matter who it hurts.
Gays want testing on animals for AIDS, others want to kill anyone who tests on animals which is 'moral'? Who decides?
@1tryingtoimprove Listen, morality is not dependent on God's divine law. Read the book, "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris. It provides an alternate view to the divine command theory. There have been many theories of ethics which are not dependent on a supernatural force. You are looking at the claim of morality in such simple terms that not even proper Theologians would agree with you. Read more on Leibniz if you are not convinced. Morality is more than just sentences on stone tablets
@udooling So how about you get Sam = Harris to tell you who is the moral party between the Gays who want to use animals to find a cure for AIDS and the Animal rights activists who don't want any testing on any animals for any reason.
Also explain why those who don't believe in G-d are such lovers of violence and such vicious antisemites while those who sincerly follow
G-d and are true conservatives are never antisemites?.
@1tryingtoimprove There are too many topics being thrown into discussion. First, only "Gays" are looking for a cure for aids? This isn't the 80's, being Gay does not make you a carrier of AIDS. Howevver, even if that statement is true, of which it is not, Sam Harris would probably side with the "Gays". This is not my view, all I said is that Sam Harris does give an account for secular morality. Second, this is not a valid argument. Being a non-believer does not entail what you are suggesting....
@1tryingtoimprove If morality changes with public opinion, then why does morality of God not change? That does make sense, either there are facts of morality or there are no facts of morality. There is no gray area. Whether we are aware of those facts is a different issue altogether.
@udooling: True there is no gray area in morals and the fact that what passes for morals among liberals DOES change with public opinion proves that liberalism can't be moral.
@1tryingtoimprove No I stated that whether we are aware of the fact is a different matter entirely. You failed to read the entire message. What you are claiming is that, since our theory of planetary motion has changed over the decades, that means there is no planetary motion. You are devote of logic and reason, you need help and you need to read more than the "holy" book.
@1tryingtoimprove That is not my claim, my patience is growing thin. I gave an EXAMPLE of planetary motion to debunk your assertion that since our view of morality changes due to time, there is no morality. If you substituted morality for planetary motion in that same argument, then you will see the falsity of the claim. I did not make the claim all our acts are moral acts, I don't believe in abortion, yet society does. I am saying to way to deduce moral facts is through secular moral systems.
@1tryingtoimprove That shows that your structure of the argument is not deductively valid. How do you not know this? Well listen if you don't want to be informed with the opposing view then just say it and I can get on with my life. My intent was to show a moral system can come from an atheist predominate society. I do not wish to indoctrinate you with my belief, I just wish to show you morality is not dependent on God.
@1tryingtoimprove Well first I must say that if you want an in-depth argument you must read what I have suggested. I didn't fail for this is the first time the question was proposed for me to answer it. Before I was stating there are other views and that not even Philosophers, who believe in God, believed morality is dependent on his will. His will reflects the fact of morality. You are impossible to communicate with.
@udooling: I never said there are not other views, but those views are not moral and they will create anarchy and chaos out of which will eventually rise a stable society which in all likelihood will at first be some kind of oppressive dictatorship which may eventually evolve into some kind of society where the people will eventually gain some measure of freedom and rights. but how free will they be and how many centuries will it take to get to that point?
@1tryingtoimprove You do not have the slightest idea about the opposing argument. Those are all assumptions. You do not want to hear anything besides your own view. If you seek knowledge, then go find it. Read the book and come back to me and discuss it like a rational human. I read the bible for the opposing view.
@1tryingtoimprove Being a believer does not entail the consequent which you suggested either. That is a fallacy of generalizations, appeal to authority, and a straw man. With that said, it is not even relevant to the argument at hand. The argument I am making, to answer you question of secular morality, is that you do not have to be a believer of God to have a form of morality. Secular based morality is an alternative, one which is bore out by evidence.
Look at Charlie sheen, he is the poster boy for secular lack of morals.Look at all the abortions and the antisemitism of liberals including those who are against anyone who believes ion G-d.
Look at Mexico which has killed 35,000 people last years by the anti G-d Drug cartels just in that country.
Liberalism including atheism is severely lacking in morals.
@1tryingtoimprove You are not capable of making a reasoned argument are you? Charlie Sheen is not the poster boy of secular morality. Secular morality is humanistic due to its consequentialness. You seem to have no knowledge of the opposing argument. Show me one reputable article that says Mexico's drug cartels are "anti God". That is a false claim, to say the least! Also Liberalism does not entail atheism, those are two different views are extremely different topics. Please state your claim!
@udooling You are the one making the ad homimnym attacks so you are the LAST one to be talking about who can or cannot make reasonable arguments.
It is obvious that the drug cartells are anti G-d, or are you going to claim that selling drugs and kidnapping women and murdering anyone who cooperates with police are part of G-d commandments?
How about showing me in the Bible where those commandments are because you must be the only one ever to have seen them.
@1tryingtoimprove So anything that is not in the "holy" books are against God? State one fallacy which I have said. I have not committed any such act which you have just accused me off. I am a logic student at a reputable college, tread lightly when throwing out such claims with no proof. What is your objection to the idea of secular morality, one which does not need the notion of God? I'm being respectful so please stop dicking with me.
@udooling I can state many fallacies you have stated such as the oen claiming that I said something about planetary motion which I had NOT before you accused me of talking about it.
Your further claim that I supposedly can't make a logical argument when all you are doing is making personal insults and haven't proven anything you said.
So you are taking 'logic classes' in college, I see why you are having such trouble having an actual discussion then.
@1tryingtoimprove Even if that was a fallacy, that is not an ad hom. I suggest you should brush up on logical discourse fallacies. Well I will grant you the second one, I should not have made the claim you can not make a logical argument. Me taking higher education courses is not a hindrance. That is actually another straw man. I provided truth for my claims, I cited books and various philosophers for you. My claim is that there can be moral facts even if there is no God.
@udooling:My proof is Hitler, according to yoru philosophers he was moral because in his society most people approved of what he did, so it was moral by the definition that public opinion should decide what is moral.
Morals are not philosophy.
Either murder is wrong or it is not.
It cannot be right in one generation and wrong in another.
If it is then nothing means anything and anyone can excuse any behavior no matter what society they live in.
@1tryingtoimprove Well that is an appeal to authority fallacy again. Ethics is a branch of philosophy for the very meaning of philosophy is "love of knowledge" in Greek. I will agree that a moral fact is a fact whether we are aware of it or not. Philosophy does not have a definite view on morality. What you have stated is not what Sam Harris believes to be true, you described Social Morality, not Consequentialism.
@udooling : OK perhaps I haven't described Consequentialism, but my consern is with right and wrong, what it takes for people to have as much relative freedom as possible and live in a civilized society where everything rights can be respected with a minimum of control over them by any human authority figures.
There are ways to get that and it depends of stability and the whims of the mob ,is anything but stable.
@1tryingtoimprove My view of morality is very different from most views. Most of my peers believe it is completely subjective, my view is that scientific examination can deduce a moral code. Read "The Moral Landscape" if you want to know more about secular morality. Well also, what do you do with people who disagree with your belief because their God is a different God? Who is has the right moral code? Religion can not exist in the State or in the field of education due to this.
@udooling: Why is it that Atheists always demand of G-d fearing people that they answer everything on the spot right now but when they are questioned about their beliefs they always tell you to go read something or to go watch a video or that the 'truth is out there go find it' and yes one atheist used almost those exact words.
People who believe in G-d generally agree with the ideas presented as what makes a decent stable society.
The radical atheist Religion exists in both places you mention.
@1tryingtoimprove Atheism is not a religion. Also, I cannot outline a 150 page book on the comments section of youtube. If you want a full argument, send me a personal message. This is not a simple task. I have answered all questions which are able to be answered with 600 characters. The Muslims and Christians no not believe in the same morality, how do you account for that.
@udooling So you cannot outline a relatively simple book of philosophy but when atheists demand all the answers to their questions about G-d they expect to see such a outline of several million words from hundreds of volumes that explain and expound of the Torah and all the philosophy and morals and ethics in it .
Muslims and Christians both have laws that say do not murder.
So how different are they really?
Sure fanatics spread evil, but there are atheist fanatics too.
@udooling Putting up thousands of videos attacking G-d and trying to indoctrinate people into their belief system MAKES,their "athiesm' into a religion.
True atheism is doing nothing while proselytizing is far from 'doing nothing'.
@1tryingtoimprove I do have no once said you should lose your belief in God. I know I will never succeed in that argument, thats why I never made that claim. The argument is not "simple", people spend their whole lives studying Ethics, that was a random childish accusation. I will agree there are atheist fanatics but I am yet to prove I am of that category. I do not ask you to prove Gods existence, I never made that claim.
You are unable to hold a discussion with me for you do not care what....
@udooling : If you don't me to stop believing in G-d then why are you so insistent in trying to convince me that having no morals is moral?
You only think it's not simple because that is brainwashing yoru college professors gave you.
What and arroganjt pompous claim you make saying 'people spend their whole lives studying ethics' as if the rest of us must automatically and mindlessly like robots accept anything they say just because they make that claim.
@1tryingtoimprove I have to say. I'm sorry but I don't know why I even attempted this conversation, I just thought someone else could have an intellectual conversation with me, without assuming claims I have not made and throwing out straw man arguments in every message. You disgust me and i will refrain from any discourse with any creationist from now on, unless they are willing to show me that they can hold back fictitious claims.
@udooling I haven't made any straw man arguments in any of my posts let alone not doing it in 'every message' .So someone who unlike you does not think Hitler was moral just because everyone around him decided he was disgusts you.
Well then I am happy to disgust you and I m happy to disgust any and all NAZILIBS who think that Hitler could in any way by any 'philosophy' be moral.
The single most boring video I have ever watched. 1. Stop bloody reading. 2. unless morallity comes from within it means nothing. what is moral about doing as your told?. and finally 3. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
@Naturallyskeptic Wow, if other atheists are as stupid as yourself, reading from your comment and the one above you, I can really say I've lost hope for the lot of you to gain any semblance of intelligence.
This line of "logic" is bullshit. To say that morality needs to be grounded in an all powerful supernatural being is false.
What is morality? It's a way of behaving to the benefit of the species. And it's something that at some level is apparent in all social species from humans to ants. You can boil it down to one simple idea that doesn't need a magical Sky Daddy to "ground" it:
Treat others the way you want them to treat you.
A social species is unstable without that simple doctrine.
If you said you were Deist, I would have taken everything you said in a open view point. All your points are valid arguments that take a deep processes of thinking. But none of those point in the direction of a god as The God of the Bible. It points to a "transcendent, non-contingent personal being" existing, along your train of thought, but not at ALL to "The God of the Bible".
That being said, I don't agree with many of your points simply because i feel like we give our selves a reason to be.
You are right. We are all flesh machines and there is nothing universally wrong with any action. However, evolution rewards groups of a species that evolve various sets of rules for survival. Even in a deterministic Universe you end up with high evolved moral beings that are at war with other beings that seek to harm them. You don't need absolute right or wrong to have morality. You just need evolution. Everything you said backs up my argument. You have no say in your own thoughts and arguments.
The fact is that god is not real. Anyone who thinks that they were atheist for 25 year, probably was a weak atheist, or simply didnt understand enough about the world to know why. People don't just wake up and start believing in magic. This is not a poster boy for atheism converts.
Although I disagree with your assertions on morality being impossible without religion, I respect your right to reach tht differing claim. and whether or not you think the "bronze age" observation is "bullshit", it IS when the scripture was initiated, and indicates an issue I have with it.
I'm not a fan of religion, but I AM a fan of the first ammendment, for everyone.
As a psychologist, I disagree with your assertion with morality being dependant on a belief in a god, however.
“In the end every tool an atheist uses can only be accounted for by the god of the bible.”
What about the infinite spectrum of other deities, who like Yahweh are allegedly:
“A transcendent non-contingent personal being who imposes him image on us so that we can use our mind to make free moral choices, think rationally, employ induction, and use language.”
Nothing about that definition would suggest the need to make bread offerings, and nail guys to boards.
again, you just make wild claims and base your logic on those claims...
and you're right about the not having free will part. but your conclusion is wrong.
and to do it like you: I claim that every creature with hair may not contradict what I am saying. so you are wrong, because you dont match my claims. TAKE THAT! HA!
@1aaronaaron1 He commands according to His nature. Thus, answering both questions. There is no higher moral than the person of God Himself.
Now, my statement might appear to endorse "because He commands them," but that's not the case. Why? Because the commands themselves are not arbitrary on account of His nature (pure holiness). Immorality and sin are merely everything God is not. It is thought and behavior that is "anti-" to the nature of the Holy.
@Paulomycin Then how could you judge the moral actions of God? It would be a tautology to say that God is good because what you would be saying is that God is who he is. That definition of morality is useless. I think that Gods nature is bad so what am I just suppose to get my own word because good is to mean Gods nature? No I can still use the word good and you can step off because you just equivocated good to Gods nature.
1aa: [No I can still use the word good and you can step off because you just equivocated good to Gods nature.] Yet you yourself have no standard with which you can define "good" without God. If you defer to yourself as an individual, other individuals, or groups of individuals, then you're indirectly endorsing "might makes right." Sure you can still use the word good, but it's like Musickle says, "You're driving a stolen car."
@Paulomycin We define good without God you are the one who has in fact stolen the ordinary definition of good and decided that it should be equivalent to God. Then you turn around and like to say how good and moral God is. It is a tautology and you cannot have it both ways. Your argument would be for me to say God is the standard of evil therefore God is evil.
@1aaronaaron1 Okay then, what is the universal and non-subjective standard by which you define, "good?" Hint: You don't have one. You're simply begging the question on your end. God or not, you cannot blame-shift your own dilemma.
@1aaronaaron1 You did say, "We define good without God. . ." Therefore, all you have are subjective individuals or groups of individuals. Thus, you have no consistent universal standard. Your use of "good" is sadly unreliable and deliberately ambiguous. Welcome to anomie.
@Paulomycin It is not my fault the english language has many interpretations of what is meant by good. In this case a good action can be something we judge to be valuable for the overall amount of happiness it brings.
@1aaronaaron1 Oh, so now you're down to arguing semantics. Seriously? Words are all we have. Someday your life can and will depend on the meaning of mere words. Don't roll in here claiming there is a defined "good" without God and then start backpedaling on semantics. Wow.
1aa: [Why don't you just say you've got some the opposite of Gods nature news?] <- Please clarify. This statement makes no sense. Is English your second language?
@1aaronaaron1 Mostly syntax. ". . .you've got some the opposite. . ." Hello? Please re-phrase. If you don't want to communicate properly, then you really have no point to make, do you?
1a: [Oh right like when you say good news instead you just say I've got some Gods nature news. Your so full of shit and you know it.] Not the proper context of "good news" and YOU know it. You were the one who first brought up the different definitions of good when you know we're dealing with "good" only in the moral sense.
@Paulomycin He commands according to His nature. Thus, answering both questions. There is no higher moral than the person of RJ Himself.
Now, my statement might appear to endorse "because He commands them," but that's not the case. Why? Because the commands themselves are not arbitrary on account of His nature (pure holiness). Immorality and sin are merely everything RJ is not. It is thought and behavior that is "anti-" to the nature of the Holy.
@1aaronaaron1 Again, just another FSM rehash. Can't you atheists come up with an original argument? The name itself doesn't matter, only the attribute of omnipotence.
@1aaronaaron1 Okay, listen. Some theists do take a name out of a hat and worship it/him/her. This is why atheists (justly) accuse God of being imaginary. What many don't know is that the fundamental laws of logic actually lead to an omnipotent being. The law of causality and the ontological argument (to name a few) prove the existence of this being through math-based logic. Math is THE measure of measurement itself. (cont.)
(cont) So it is fairly simple to prove the existence of an omnipotent being. The names we attach to God don't really matter. Can we prove this being through an empiricist bias? No, because that's why empiricism was invented (Locke/Hume), because loads of people don't even like the idea of God. The problem is that without God, absolutely everything-everything loses its meaning. . .even logic. That's why, for example, absurdism is an existentialist belief.
@1aaronaaron1 The odd part is once an omnipotent being is established (deism), then it becomes a theological argument. Only one God is truly omnipotent. It's very easy to compare all the world's religions (yes, all) to the rule of omnipotence. All pantheons immediately fail. The only being that meets the necessary criteria of true omnipotence is a Trinitarian God.
@Paulomycin Blah blah blah your God exists (obviously that line of reasoning could not even convince you of the one true God RJ but I'll amuse you.) Now what comes next?
1a: [Blah blah blah your God exists] I'm not making a "just so" statement, as you are misrepresenting it. All evidence for everything is dependent on logic, including God.
@Paulomycin I think that empirical evidence is much more important and powerful than logic. For example you could sit around and think like Plato all you want but you would never understand how electrons behave without abandoning that for empiricism.
@1aaronaaron1 Yet empirical evidence is still governed by logic. It's silly of you to think that I can bring in a lab sample and say, "It's evidence!" when my colleages ask, "What is it?" Evidence of what? Oops, that's law of identity. What is "Exhibit A" when it's brought before a jury? Evidence never exists apart from logic. Thus, you and everyone coaching you in logic have it backward.
@1aaronaaron1 Modern materialist empiricism is a philosophical viewpoint that makes subtle errors in judgement. Take Hume's billiards for example. He turns the law of causality into question-begging; persuading you to leave the law of causality alone entirely. "Who created God?" = an error on Russell's part and already answered. The so-called "scientific method" doesn't prove anything. See, "Ten Myths of Science" by McComas (the whole article).
@Paulomycin I will have to read that article but I agree it is a common misconception that the practice of science leads to truth. Things are for all practical purposes accepted as 'true' but if empirical evidence one day says otherwise it is false.
1a: [Things are for all practical purposes accepted as 'true' but if empirical evidence one day says otherwise it is false.] Then nothing is certain; thus not true. Not in an honest sense.
@Paulomycin We do know that the scientific method approximates the truth much closer than any other philosophical approach. You have to get empirical evidence for phenomenon or logic means nothing. Logic is evaluated by how well it matches observation of reality. This is why Aristotle could not predict what Galileo discovered.
1a: [We do know that the scientific method approximates the truth much closer than any other philosophical approach.] Yet it is itself illogical. See "Against Method" by Feyerabend. It's a quick read. Even Popper himself denies your appeal to scientism.
@1aaronaaron1 Furthermore, Platonism is still very much in play where math is concerned. The question as to whether math itself is "invented" or "gradually observed" is the best example of this. Of course, I favor the latter. The symbols used are irrelevant in light of the underlying method those symbols represent. Those who believe math is invented are pretty shallow if symbols = method.
1a: [Mathematical models are not judged by how logical they are but by how well they can approximate empirical evidence.] You're begging the question here. "How well" by what measure? Not empirical evidence, which is itself dependent.
@Paulomycin Is logic falsifiable? If it is then it is subject to empirical evidence. If it is not then it is to say that logic is how we observe the universe to be.
@1aaronaaron1 Logic itself is not falsifiable, but it still exists. Did you even bother watching the video? If logic is dependent on man, then logic itself can be redefined. <-- But that conclusion is absurd. Logic is not dependent on man. Logic is transcendent.
@Paulomycin If logic exists our view of it could never be complete we may one day find that objects behave illogically then logic would be falsified. You leave no room for future investigation into logic by gathering empirical evidence about the universe.
1a: [If logic exists our view of it could never be complete we may one day find that objects behave illogically then logic would be falsified.] Yet an argument to pure speculation is not a valid argument. Logic is not falsifiable. Why? Because logic is math-based. Math isn't falsifiable either. =)
@Paulomycin If RJ is dependent on men, then he himself can be redefined. <--- but that conclusion is absurd. RJ is not dependent on man. RJ is transcendent. The more you talk the more superpowers RJ accumulates.
1a: [The more you talk the more superpowers RJ accumulates.] Now you're substituting logic with Raptor Jesus. I thought atheists valued reason. I cannot hold a discussion with an absurdist.
@Paulomycin Well if you didn't notice already RJ is just a stand in for your arguments for your own God. Clearing even you don't buy your own arguments.
1a: [Well if you didn't notice already RJ is just a stand in for your arguments for your own God.] Which should CLUE YOU IN to the fact that the names themselves are irrelevant. God has many names, but only one attribute that no other has.
@1aaronaaron1 We just did that. If logic is limited to mankind or invented by man, then it can be changed. You're saying that 2+2 can equal 7 if enough speculation and handwaving is applied.
Well said sir, proud to call you brother.
fortheloveoftheblood 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I WANT EVERYONE ON EARTH to KNOW the TRUTH about the Unforgivable Sin, which is Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: It's PERFECTLY FALSE.
I'll PROVE IT.
In John 20:21, 23, our dearly beloved Jesus Christ our savior CLEARLY says this:
If you FORGIVE the sins of ANY, they are FORGIVEN; if you RETAIN the sins of ANY, they are RETAINED.
If all of you religious hypocrites completely deny, LOOK IT UP YOUR SINFUL SELVES.
I hope to the good lord with all my heart that this greatly helps.
God Bless
MagicMaker7 6 months ago
AMEN...... !
shwminist 7 months ago
I hope he plays guitar better than he spews shit from is mouth
gregallenmolick 7 months ago
I could not disagree more, You make few valid points and fail miserably to provide any reason to take anything you say seriously. Your arguments are shallow at best. Thanks for wasting my time watching the video (sarcasm).
Criticalthinker1980 8 months ago
In my opinion it would take more faith to be atheist than to be a Christian any day. watch?v=8vj0qKthCgg
HeroBidd0 8 months ago
@HeroBidd0 Of course, it is so evident that donkeys and snakes talk.
tallliza 8 months ago
@tallliza of course if you believe in a God then it is possible. If theres a God theres a devil the devil is very intelligent and can lie to you. You're judged by your heart in this world and Gods given us common sense to use. the devil tries to distort your view. You just have to go back to the beginning. Who is God? Who is the devil ( Former lead angel the great deceiver not the one with horns despite popular belief)? If you chose not to truthfully seek God you won't find him but hes there.
HeroBidd0 8 months ago
@HeroBidd0 Do you have more of this nonsense ?
tallliza 8 months ago
@tallliza Good comeback I see where your arguments lie in Atheism. A religion that you have no proof for. Its just as i said you don't try to seek you just say no and wrong and nonsense. I hope you find the truth and actually seek for yourself rather than let the devil lie to you. Please explain dreams to me and does everyone have the same dream? Also from your comment at Carlos you have definitely proved my point.
HeroBidd0 8 months ago
@HeroBidd0 There is no devil. It`s infantilism .Enjoy your fantasy.
tallliza 8 months ago
@tallliza well while you don't feel like you can be lied to by a devil that does not exist, enjoy your fantasy while it lasts and chase after your own lusts. In the end of all this you're going to have to answer to someone. God judges fairly and knows your heart. staring at eternity i hope you make the right decisions while you can. God bless and i hope you actually look for the truth instead of just being ignorant.
HeroBidd0 8 months ago
@HeroBidd0 There most probably is no god either. NO evidence whatsoever. So I have nothing to fear,
tallliza 8 months ago
@tallliza ok God bless you with that. One day you'll wisen up hopefully before its too late.
HeroBidd0 8 months ago
@HeroBidd0 Hopefully before your brain rots, you will use it to distinguish between what is acceptable and what is not, what has evidence and what has not, what is true and what is not. Did you ever look over the fence to find out why people are not believing ?
tallliza 8 months ago
@tallliza yes because they believe life's unfair and God has to to any and everything for them. Most Atheistic arguments stem from emotion not logic. Please explain to me what was started to create the big bang how DNA works and how it was created by random chance? On top of that how we have a sun not too close yet too far away from us so we have life. You can't. Evolution is based on lies. (Its called a theory) so technically the devil didn't lie to you you just chose to believe it as truth.
HeroBidd0 8 months ago
@HeroBidd0 Who says god has to do everything for them ? Silly bible school talk !! most atheistic arguments stem from EVIDENCE and logic. Do you really know what a scientific hypothesis is ? It is the best explanation available based on evidence and observation. How does unanswered questions prove that creation is right ? Science will always have unanswered questions. Evolution has more evidence than most other theories. So much so that the cath. church saw itself compelled to acknowledge it..
tallliza 8 months ago
@tallliza CONTINUED.. From the 540.000 scientists polled by Newsweek, only a mere 700 stand behind creation. Creation is so dumb, so infantile, that from the 106 colleges, that form the "Christian Coalition of Colleges " only 5 teach litteral biblical creation. Yes the conditions on earth were favorable to life,as we know it and how does that prove creation ? Life adapted to the existing conditions. Not the other way round.
tallliza 8 months ago
@tallliza Well if its the best explanation available based on evidence why haven't you given me an answer to any of my questions? Evolution is based on a theory a myth because people try to live without God but you can't write him out no matter how much you try. There are plenty of those missing links lying around somewhere right? Furthermore then why is lead scientific atheist debater Richard Dawkins not in the least interested in debating William lane craig? God bless you and good day sir.
HeroBidd0 8 months ago
@HeroBidd0 You silly kid. Have you really graduated from kindergarten ? Yes there are missing links, so what. Do you think there are no missing links in .. gravity .. ? There is no branch of the sciences that has all the answers. To expect it, is infantilism and denotes your 6th grade education. Because you can`t have a reasonable discussion with a theologist. Theology, the art of word-smithing. Period. Each time he has no answer, he resorts to supernatural intervention.
tallliza 8 months ago
@tallliza I've graduated from elementary school. It seems you haven't keep trying to deny the truth by not answering one of my questions. By missing links i meant from the evolutionary scale. Obviously by now i know what grade of person i'm talking to. you're every other atheist who lacks a mind to think for themselves and actually do research. Go do some learning and then come back with some evidence to argue with (won't find any) until then thank you for playing sir.
HeroBidd0 8 months ago
@HeroBidd0 What are you trying to prove with your missing link ? Yes there are missing links. There will most probably always be missing links. So what. Do you think every thing is known about gravity ?? But you do accept gravity. Right. Because gravity does not run against your bible . Right ? In any science there are unanswered questions.
tallliza 8 months ago
@tallliza Where are there missing links from Apes to humans? Thats what i mean. There are none and there wouldn't be one there would be many. In your science there are too many unanswered questions and fallacies you try to believe and ignore evidence. please explain something to me scientifically that contradicts the bible and then tell me why its wrong?
HeroBidd0 8 months ago
@HeroBidd0 You know what ?? Creation is nothing but missing links. Suppose now that evolution is wrong.(What it is absolutely not) how does that prove that Genesis is right ? So now you come up with another fallacy. Everything for which there cannot be found anything wrong scientifically, must be right. How silly... Did you really graduate from kindergarten. According to your logic. Santa Claus is true,because you can`t find anything scientifically to contradict his existence.
tallliza 8 months ago
@HeroBidd0 When you have a box with wooden blocks. Each with a number. You put them all in line starting with zero up to 100. You fail to find number seven. Are you going to doubt that number 7 exists ? The line of evolution is so long and so consistent and you are going to throw out the theory because you can`t find one block ? Evolution is barely 150 years old. The history of life is millions of years old ,and you want the chain to be complete ? How silly.
tallliza 8 months ago
@HeroBidd0 Evolution is based on a theory a myth because people try to live without God but you can't write him out no matter how much you try ...... This is kindergarten nonsense. Tell me genius, why would anyone try to live without somebody that doesn`t exist. Do you see anybody trying to live without Santa Claus ?
tallliza 8 months ago
@HeroBidd0 Get out of your silly bible school and start studying, before bleating nonsense. The devil is infantilism to keep the collection plates full. Dna is very complicated. Why would an almighty god, create such a complicated machine, when being almighty, he could have made it very simple, with the same efficiency. Does you god have any logic or not ?
tallliza 8 months ago
@tallliza Paying money to the church is not apart of the 10 commandments you don't even try to seek God thats why you don't find him. God has no need for money. Also God is highly intelligent and Very powerful so why not show us it was him with out a doubt who created us and not some theory. Despite any lie you've heard God judges fairly and knows your heart. If you truly believe or if you're choosing not to believe because of your life. You bless others and you shall be blessed as well.
HeroBidd0 8 months ago
@HeroBidd0 What the hell has dreams to do with god, or the devil or anything supernatural. And what point did I prove, may I ask ?
tallliza 8 months ago
God doesn't exist and the bible is fictional. Move on with your life.
mcpencil 9 months ago
@mcpencil God bless you i hope you learn the truth soon.
HeroBidd0 8 months ago
@HeroBidd0
Thanks, hope you have a nice day too.
mcpencil 8 months ago
Doug, I love your videos.......keep up the good work regardless of what the nonbelievers say in the comments. I'm going to tell some of my friends about this video!!
johnhwilliams 10 months ago
The tag argument is the worst argument for the existence of god.
sweatytoothmadman 10 months ago
Without G-d there can't be morality.
That is why people who don't believe in G-d like Charlie Sheen will do anything to anyone they can get away with, because if they have only one life & one world with no consequences other then 'getting caught' or not having the power to not care about getting caught, there is no reason not to do whatever they feel like no matter who it hurts.
Gays want testing on animals for AIDS, others want to kill anyone who tests on animals which is 'moral'? Who decides?
1tryingtoimprove 11 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove Listen, morality is not dependent on God's divine law. Read the book, "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris. It provides an alternate view to the divine command theory. There have been many theories of ethics which are not dependent on a supernatural force. You are looking at the claim of morality in such simple terms that not even proper Theologians would agree with you. Read more on Leibniz if you are not convinced. Morality is more than just sentences on stone tablets
udooling 10 months ago
@udooling So how about you get Sam = Harris to tell you who is the moral party between the Gays who want to use animals to find a cure for AIDS and the Animal rights activists who don't want any testing on any animals for any reason.
Also explain why those who don't believe in G-d are such lovers of violence and such vicious antisemites while those who sincerly follow
G-d and are true conservatives are never antisemites?.
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove There are too many topics being thrown into discussion. First, only "Gays" are looking for a cure for aids? This isn't the 80's, being Gay does not make you a carrier of AIDS. Howevver, even if that statement is true, of which it is not, Sam Harris would probably side with the "Gays". This is not my view, all I said is that Sam Harris does give an account for secular morality. Second, this is not a valid argument. Being a non-believer does not entail what you are suggesting....
udooling 10 months ago
@udooling :Sam Harris cannot have any morality because morality changes with public opinion.
Look how liberals are destroying the Constitution to promote their hate filled violence loving agenda.
Only G-ds morals don't change and are forever.
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove If morality changes with public opinion, then why does morality of God not change? That does make sense, either there are facts of morality or there are no facts of morality. There is no gray area. Whether we are aware of those facts is a different issue altogether.
udooling 10 months ago
@udooling: True there is no gray area in morals and the fact that what passes for morals among liberals DOES change with public opinion proves that liberalism can't be moral.
Thanks for proving my point.
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove No I stated that whether we are aware of the fact is a different matter entirely. You failed to read the entire message. What you are claiming is that, since our theory of planetary motion has changed over the decades, that means there is no planetary motion. You are devote of logic and reason, you need help and you need to read more than the "holy" book.
udooling 10 months ago
@udooling I never said anything about planetary motion so your argument fails for being totally wrong on the face of it.
If you are not aware that you are immoral then you should learn and become aware.
So now you are simply claiming that its,OK to be immoral because you don't know you are immoral.
How is THAT supposed to make any sense?
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove That is not my claim, my patience is growing thin. I gave an EXAMPLE of planetary motion to debunk your assertion that since our view of morality changes due to time, there is no morality. If you substituted morality for planetary motion in that same argument, then you will see the falsity of the claim. I did not make the claim all our acts are moral acts, I don't believe in abortion, yet society does. I am saying to way to deduce moral facts is through secular moral systems.
udooling 10 months ago
@udooling "If you substituted morality for planetary motion in that same argument, then you will see the falsity of the claim"
And you actually expect people to look at the above statement as anything but absurd, psychobabble?
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove That shows that your structure of the argument is not deductively valid. How do you not know this? Well listen if you don't want to be informed with the opposing view then just say it and I can get on with my life. My intent was to show a moral system can come from an atheist predominate society. I do not wish to indoctrinate you with my belief, I just wish to show you morality is not dependent on God.
udooling 10 months ago
@udooling OK you wanted to show me that "morality is not dependent on God." and you failed.
Nice try, though.
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove Well first I must say that if you want an in-depth argument you must read what I have suggested. I didn't fail for this is the first time the question was proposed for me to answer it. Before I was stating there are other views and that not even Philosophers, who believe in God, believed morality is dependent on his will. His will reflects the fact of morality. You are impossible to communicate with.
udooling 10 months ago
@udooling: I never said there are not other views, but those views are not moral and they will create anarchy and chaos out of which will eventually rise a stable society which in all likelihood will at first be some kind of oppressive dictatorship which may eventually evolve into some kind of society where the people will eventually gain some measure of freedom and rights. but how free will they be and how many centuries will it take to get to that point?
Truth is impossible for dogmatists.
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove You do not have the slightest idea about the opposing argument. Those are all assumptions. You do not want to hear anything besides your own view. If you seek knowledge, then go find it. Read the book and come back to me and discuss it like a rational human. I read the bible for the opposing view.
udooling 10 months ago
@udooling So go read and STUDY under a Chassidic Rabbi, the Talmud and then you can come back and tell me you have studied Torah.
Until then, you haven't the slightest clue, even if you memorized a 'bible'.
But again I am not hung up on philosophy. I am concerned with what is right and what is wrong, good and evil.
Why can you not understand this?
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove Being a believer does not entail the consequent which you suggested either. That is a fallacy of generalizations, appeal to authority, and a straw man. With that said, it is not even relevant to the argument at hand. The argument I am making, to answer you question of secular morality, is that you do not have to be a believer of God to have a form of morality. Secular based morality is an alternative, one which is bore out by evidence.
udooling 10 months ago
@udooling The evidence is against you.
Look at Charlie sheen, he is the poster boy for secular lack of morals.Look at all the abortions and the antisemitism of liberals including those who are against anyone who believes ion G-d.
Look at Mexico which has killed 35,000 people last years by the anti G-d Drug cartels just in that country.
Liberalism including atheism is severely lacking in morals.
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove You are not capable of making a reasoned argument are you? Charlie Sheen is not the poster boy of secular morality. Secular morality is humanistic due to its consequentialness. You seem to have no knowledge of the opposing argument. Show me one reputable article that says Mexico's drug cartels are "anti God". That is a false claim, to say the least! Also Liberalism does not entail atheism, those are two different views are extremely different topics. Please state your claim!
udooling 10 months ago
@udooling You are the one making the ad homimnym attacks so you are the LAST one to be talking about who can or cannot make reasonable arguments.
It is obvious that the drug cartells are anti G-d, or are you going to claim that selling drugs and kidnapping women and murdering anyone who cooperates with police are part of G-d commandments?
How about showing me in the Bible where those commandments are because you must be the only one ever to have seen them.
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove So anything that is not in the "holy" books are against God? State one fallacy which I have said. I have not committed any such act which you have just accused me off. I am a logic student at a reputable college, tread lightly when throwing out such claims with no proof. What is your objection to the idea of secular morality, one which does not need the notion of God? I'm being respectful so please stop dicking with me.
udooling 10 months ago
@udooling I can state many fallacies you have stated such as the oen claiming that I said something about planetary motion which I had NOT before you accused me of talking about it.
Your further claim that I supposedly can't make a logical argument when all you are doing is making personal insults and haven't proven anything you said.
So you are taking 'logic classes' in college, I see why you are having such trouble having an actual discussion then.
I feel sorry for you.
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove Even if that was a fallacy, that is not an ad hom. I suggest you should brush up on logical discourse fallacies. Well I will grant you the second one, I should not have made the claim you can not make a logical argument. Me taking higher education courses is not a hindrance. That is actually another straw man. I provided truth for my claims, I cited books and various philosophers for you. My claim is that there can be moral facts even if there is no God.
udooling 10 months ago
@udooling:My proof is Hitler, according to yoru philosophers he was moral because in his society most people approved of what he did, so it was moral by the definition that public opinion should decide what is moral.
Morals are not philosophy.
Either murder is wrong or it is not.
It cannot be right in one generation and wrong in another.
If it is then nothing means anything and anyone can excuse any behavior no matter what society they live in.
Put it in reverse, nothing then can be 'immoral'.
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove Well that is an appeal to authority fallacy again. Ethics is a branch of philosophy for the very meaning of philosophy is "love of knowledge" in Greek. I will agree that a moral fact is a fact whether we are aware of it or not. Philosophy does not have a definite view on morality. What you have stated is not what Sam Harris believes to be true, you described Social Morality, not Consequentialism.
udooling 10 months ago
@udooling : OK perhaps I haven't described Consequentialism, but my consern is with right and wrong, what it takes for people to have as much relative freedom as possible and live in a civilized society where everything rights can be respected with a minimum of control over them by any human authority figures.
There are ways to get that and it depends of stability and the whims of the mob ,is anything but stable.
G-ds laws are stable.
Nothing else is as stable as G-d's laws.
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
@udooling "I'm being respectful so please stop dicking with me. "
I don't even need to comment here.
Bwahahahahahahahahaha
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
@udooling Your 'college' definition of morality is nothing more then mob rule.
Anything is moral as long as enough of those in power SAY so. when they change their minds that becomes the new morality.
mass murdering conservatives (as many liberals all over the internet keep saying they want to do) is the 'new peace'.
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove My view of morality is very different from most views. Most of my peers believe it is completely subjective, my view is that scientific examination can deduce a moral code. Read "The Moral Landscape" if you want to know more about secular morality. Well also, what do you do with people who disagree with your belief because their God is a different God? Who is has the right moral code? Religion can not exist in the State or in the field of education due to this.
udooling 10 months ago
@udooling: Why is it that Atheists always demand of G-d fearing people that they answer everything on the spot right now but when they are questioned about their beliefs they always tell you to go read something or to go watch a video or that the 'truth is out there go find it' and yes one atheist used almost those exact words.
People who believe in G-d generally agree with the ideas presented as what makes a decent stable society.
The radical atheist Religion exists in both places you mention.
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove Atheism is not a religion. Also, I cannot outline a 150 page book on the comments section of youtube. If you want a full argument, send me a personal message. This is not a simple task. I have answered all questions which are able to be answered with 600 characters. The Muslims and Christians no not believe in the same morality, how do you account for that.
udooling 10 months ago
@udooling So you cannot outline a relatively simple book of philosophy but when atheists demand all the answers to their questions about G-d they expect to see such a outline of several million words from hundreds of volumes that explain and expound of the Torah and all the philosophy and morals and ethics in it .
Muslims and Christians both have laws that say do not murder.
So how different are they really?
Sure fanatics spread evil, but there are atheist fanatics too.
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
@udooling Putting up thousands of videos attacking G-d and trying to indoctrinate people into their belief system MAKES,their "athiesm' into a religion.
True atheism is doing nothing while proselytizing is far from 'doing nothing'.
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove I do have no once said you should lose your belief in God. I know I will never succeed in that argument, thats why I never made that claim. The argument is not "simple", people spend their whole lives studying Ethics, that was a random childish accusation. I will agree there are atheist fanatics but I am yet to prove I am of that category. I do not ask you to prove Gods existence, I never made that claim.
You are unable to hold a discussion with me for you do not care what....
udooling 10 months ago
@udooling : If you don't me to stop believing in G-d then why are you so insistent in trying to convince me that having no morals is moral?
You only think it's not simple because that is brainwashing yoru college professors gave you.
What and arroganjt pompous claim you make saying 'people spend their whole lives studying ethics' as if the rest of us must automatically and mindlessly like robots accept anything they say just because they make that claim.
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove I have to say. I'm sorry but I don't know why I even attempted this conversation, I just thought someone else could have an intellectual conversation with me, without assuming claims I have not made and throwing out straw man arguments in every message. You disgust me and i will refrain from any discourse with any creationist from now on, unless they are willing to show me that they can hold back fictitious claims.
udooling 10 months ago
@udooling I haven't made any straw man arguments in any of my posts let alone not doing it in 'every message' .So someone who unlike you does not think Hitler was moral just because everyone around him decided he was disgusts you.
Well then I am happy to disgust you and I m happy to disgust any and all NAZILIBS who think that Hitler could in any way by any 'philosophy' be moral.
The fictitious claims, are all yours not mine.
1tryingtoimprove 10 months ago
The single most boring video I have ever watched. 1. Stop bloody reading. 2. unless morallity comes from within it means nothing. what is moral about doing as your told?. and finally 3. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Naturallyskeptic 11 months ago
@Naturallyskeptic Wow, if other atheists are as stupid as yourself, reading from your comment and the one above you, I can really say I've lost hope for the lot of you to gain any semblance of intelligence.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 Grow up man. Don`t waste your while life chasing mirages. It took me a long time too, to realise it.
tallliza 8 months ago
This line of "logic" is bullshit. To say that morality needs to be grounded in an all powerful supernatural being is false.
What is morality? It's a way of behaving to the benefit of the species. And it's something that at some level is apparent in all social species from humans to ants. You can boil it down to one simple idea that doesn't need a magical Sky Daddy to "ground" it:
Treat others the way you want them to treat you.
A social species is unstable without that simple doctrine.
RockyRacoon18 11 months ago
You sirrah are a moron!
GeneticsFTW 11 months ago
You said the mind is the soul. Why call the mind the soul if we already have a name for it.
YouKilledYourMaster 11 months ago
If you said you were Deist, I would have taken everything you said in a open view point. All your points are valid arguments that take a deep processes of thinking. But none of those point in the direction of a god as The God of the Bible. It points to a "transcendent, non-contingent personal being" existing, along your train of thought, but not at ALL to "The God of the Bible".
That being said, I don't agree with many of your points simply because i feel like we give our selves a reason to be.
areyoumypal 11 months ago
dude, your a douche.
larkin83 11 months ago 4
@larkin83
you're
:D
RabornTau 11 months ago
@larkin83 What are you, 5?
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
You are right. We are all flesh machines and there is nothing universally wrong with any action. However, evolution rewards groups of a species that evolve various sets of rules for survival. Even in a deterministic Universe you end up with high evolved moral beings that are at war with other beings that seek to harm them. You don't need absolute right or wrong to have morality. You just need evolution. Everything you said backs up my argument. You have no say in your own thoughts and arguments.
rcguy69 11 months ago 3
@rcguy69
you are amazingly spot on.
mcpencil 8 months ago
@rcguy69 Evolution is not real.
smurfboywv 7 months ago
@smurfboywv Care to support that assertion.
SuperBspb 2 weeks ago
@SuperBspb Sure, God created everything, evolution is a man made theory.
smurfboywv 2 weeks ago
@smurfboywv Care to support that assertion.
SuperBspb 2 weeks ago
You have proven that Evolution works, I presume you realize that it goes in both directions?, your regression proves it.
1BustedMyth 11 months ago
@1BustedMyth
**slap**
RabornTau 11 months ago
@RabornTau, ** Strangely arroused** ;))
1BustedMyth 11 months ago
The fact is that god is not real. Anyone who thinks that they were atheist for 25 year, probably was a weak atheist, or simply didnt understand enough about the world to know why. People don't just wake up and start believing in magic. This is not a poster boy for atheism converts.
stepchangeable 1 year ago
The fact that you are religious after being atheist is absurd.
stepchangeable 1 year ago
Although I disagree with your assertions on morality being impossible without religion, I respect your right to reach tht differing claim. and whether or not you think the "bronze age" observation is "bullshit", it IS when the scripture was initiated, and indicates an issue I have with it.
I'm not a fan of religion, but I AM a fan of the first ammendment, for everyone.
As a psychologist, I disagree with your assertion with morality being dependant on a belief in a god, however.
twistedpress 1 year ago
“In the end every tool an atheist uses can only be accounted for by the god of the bible.”
What about the infinite spectrum of other deities, who like Yahweh are allegedly:
“A transcendent non-contingent personal being who imposes him image on us so that we can use our mind to make free moral choices, think rationally, employ induction, and use language.”
Nothing about that definition would suggest the need to make bread offerings, and nail guys to boards.
Chopstewie 1 year ago
Thought provoking video.
And if those are electric bouzoukis in the background, I'll be doubly impressed. :)
Slainte.
Llyranon 1 year ago
again, you just make wild claims and base your logic on those claims...
and you're right about the not having free will part. but your conclusion is wrong.
and to do it like you: I claim that every creature with hair may not contradict what I am saying. so you are wrong, because you dont match my claims. TAKE THAT! HA!
BurnDadah 1 year ago
Are God commands moral because he commands them or does he command them because they are moral?
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 He commands according to His nature. Thus, answering both questions. There is no higher moral than the person of God Himself.
Now, my statement might appear to endorse "because He commands them," but that's not the case. Why? Because the commands themselves are not arbitrary on account of His nature (pure holiness). Immorality and sin are merely everything God is not. It is thought and behavior that is "anti-" to the nature of the Holy.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Then how could you judge the moral actions of God? It would be a tautology to say that God is good because what you would be saying is that God is who he is. That definition of morality is useless. I think that Gods nature is bad so what am I just suppose to get my own word because good is to mean Gods nature? No I can still use the word good and you can step off because you just equivocated good to Gods nature.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
1aa: [No I can still use the word good and you can step off because you just equivocated good to Gods nature.] Yet you yourself have no standard with which you can define "good" without God. If you defer to yourself as an individual, other individuals, or groups of individuals, then you're indirectly endorsing "might makes right." Sure you can still use the word good, but it's like Musickle says, "You're driving a stolen car."
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin We define good without God you are the one who has in fact stolen the ordinary definition of good and decided that it should be equivalent to God. Then you turn around and like to say how good and moral God is. It is a tautology and you cannot have it both ways. Your argument would be for me to say God is the standard of evil therefore God is evil.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Okay then, what is the universal and non-subjective standard by which you define, "good?" Hint: You don't have one. You're simply begging the question on your end. God or not, you cannot blame-shift your own dilemma.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin I never made the claim there was a universal non-subjective way to define good.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 You did say, "We define good without God. . ." Therefore, all you have are subjective individuals or groups of individuals. Thus, you have no consistent universal standard. Your use of "good" is sadly unreliable and deliberately ambiguous. Welcome to anomie.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin It is not my fault the english language has many interpretations of what is meant by good. In this case a good action can be something we judge to be valuable for the overall amount of happiness it brings.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Oh, so now you're down to arguing semantics. Seriously? Words are all we have. Someday your life can and will depend on the meaning of mere words. Don't roll in here claiming there is a defined "good" without God and then start backpedaling on semantics. Wow.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Yeah I don't know what I was thinking. There is no reasoning with people that define good as God.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 You should see Musickle's other vids. The bad news is you have no defined "good" or "reason" whatsoever.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Why don't you just say you've got some the opposite of Gods nature news? Be honest was that what you meant?
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
1aa: [Why don't you just say you've got some the opposite of Gods nature news?] <- Please clarify. This statement makes no sense. Is English your second language?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin So can you properly define bad without reference to Gods nature?
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 You can't. It actually works both ways. Hence, your dilemma. See 2:27-3:06 of the ^ above vid.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Then why does my statement not make any sense?
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Mostly syntax. ". . .you've got some the opposite. . ." Hello? Please re-phrase. If you don't want to communicate properly, then you really have no point to make, do you?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Oh right like when you say good news instead you just say I've got some Gods nature news. Your so full of shit and you know it.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1a: [Oh right like when you say good news instead you just say I've got some Gods nature news. Your so full of shit and you know it.] Not the proper context of "good news" and YOU know it. You were the one who first brought up the different definitions of good when you know we're dealing with "good" only in the moral sense.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 ". . .and, of course, there could be no such thing as 'wrong' in the first place." -Musickle
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin "If you define God as good then to say God is good is meaningless" -me
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@Paulomycin We can do this with any character fictional or not. Raptor jesus is now hence forth the standard for objective morality.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Sorry, but RJ is limited to a single form, just like FSM and Russell's teapot.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin By this definition only an asshole would want to be good.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@Paulomycin He commands according to His nature. Thus, answering both questions. There is no higher moral than the person of RJ Himself.
Now, my statement might appear to endorse "because He commands them," but that's not the case. Why? Because the commands themselves are not arbitrary on account of His nature (pure holiness). Immorality and sin are merely everything RJ is not. It is thought and behavior that is "anti-" to the nature of the Holy.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Sorry, you're arguing to mere names (as if it mattered). I am arguing to an omnipotent being. You obviously aren't.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin RJ has all powers that are logically possible.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Again, just another FSM rehash. Can't you atheists come up with an original argument? The name itself doesn't matter, only the attribute of omnipotence.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Why? I have no idea what your getting at.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Okay, listen. Some theists do take a name out of a hat and worship it/him/her. This is why atheists (justly) accuse God of being imaginary. What many don't know is that the fundamental laws of logic actually lead to an omnipotent being. The law of causality and the ontological argument (to name a few) prove the existence of this being through math-based logic. Math is THE measure of measurement itself. (cont.)
Paulomycin 1 year ago
(cont) So it is fairly simple to prove the existence of an omnipotent being. The names we attach to God don't really matter. Can we prove this being through an empiricist bias? No, because that's why empiricism was invented (Locke/Hume), because loads of people don't even like the idea of God. The problem is that without God, absolutely everything-everything loses its meaning. . .even logic. That's why, for example, absurdism is an existentialist belief.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 The odd part is once an omnipotent being is established (deism), then it becomes a theological argument. Only one God is truly omnipotent. It's very easy to compare all the world's religions (yes, all) to the rule of omnipotence. All pantheons immediately fail. The only being that meets the necessary criteria of true omnipotence is a Trinitarian God.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Blah blah blah your God exists (obviously that line of reasoning could not even convince you of the one true God RJ but I'll amuse you.) Now what comes next?
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
1a: [Blah blah blah your God exists] I'm not making a "just so" statement, as you are misrepresenting it. All evidence for everything is dependent on logic, including God.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Blah blah blah I represent your argument properly. Now what comes next?
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Oh, you don't care about the topic and just wanted the last word, is that it?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Fine go back and explain what you mean by, "all evidence for everything is dependent on logic, including God."
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 See my homepage. It's all there.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin I think that empirical evidence is much more important and powerful than logic. For example you could sit around and think like Plato all you want but you would never understand how electrons behave without abandoning that for empiricism.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Yet empirical evidence is still governed by logic. It's silly of you to think that I can bring in a lab sample and say, "It's evidence!" when my colleages ask, "What is it?" Evidence of what? Oops, that's law of identity. What is "Exhibit A" when it's brought before a jury? Evidence never exists apart from logic. Thus, you and everyone coaching you in logic have it backward.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Modern materialist empiricism is a philosophical viewpoint that makes subtle errors in judgement. Take Hume's billiards for example. He turns the law of causality into question-begging; persuading you to leave the law of causality alone entirely. "Who created God?" = an error on Russell's part and already answered. The so-called "scientific method" doesn't prove anything. See, "Ten Myths of Science" by McComas (the whole article).
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin I will have to read that article but I agree it is a common misconception that the practice of science leads to truth. Things are for all practical purposes accepted as 'true' but if empirical evidence one day says otherwise it is false.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1a: [Things are for all practical purposes accepted as 'true' but if empirical evidence one day says otherwise it is false.] Then nothing is certain; thus not true. Not in an honest sense.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin We do know that the scientific method approximates the truth much closer than any other philosophical approach. You have to get empirical evidence for phenomenon or logic means nothing. Logic is evaluated by how well it matches observation of reality. This is why Aristotle could not predict what Galileo discovered.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1a: [We do know that the scientific method approximates the truth much closer than any other philosophical approach.] Yet it is itself illogical. See "Against Method" by Feyerabend. It's a quick read. Even Popper himself denies your appeal to scientism.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
Comment removed
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Furthermore, Platonism is still very much in play where math is concerned. The question as to whether math itself is "invented" or "gradually observed" is the best example of this. Of course, I favor the latter. The symbols used are irrelevant in light of the underlying method those symbols represent. Those who believe math is invented are pretty shallow if symbols = method.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Mathematical models are not judged by how logical they are but by how well they can approximate empirical evidence.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1a: [Mathematical models are not judged by how logical they are but by how well they can approximate empirical evidence.] You're begging the question here. "How well" by what measure? Not empirical evidence, which is itself dependent.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Is logic falsifiable? If it is then it is subject to empirical evidence. If it is not then it is to say that logic is how we observe the universe to be.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Logic itself is not falsifiable, but it still exists. Did you even bother watching the video? If logic is dependent on man, then logic itself can be redefined. <-- But that conclusion is absurd. Logic is not dependent on man. Logic is transcendent.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin If logic exists our view of it could never be complete we may one day find that objects behave illogically then logic would be falsified. You leave no room for future investigation into logic by gathering empirical evidence about the universe.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
1a: [If logic exists our view of it could never be complete we may one day find that objects behave illogically then logic would be falsified.] Yet an argument to pure speculation is not a valid argument. Logic is not falsifiable. Why? Because logic is math-based. Math isn't falsifiable either. =)
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Math-based models are falsifiable though and on what criteria do they stand or fall?
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 You're arguing to "math-based models." I am arguing to the math the models are based upon. Get it?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 You're arguing to "math-based models." I am arguing to the math the models are based upon. Get it?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin If RJ is dependent on men, then he himself can be redefined. <--- but that conclusion is absurd. RJ is not dependent on man. RJ is transcendent. The more you talk the more superpowers RJ accumulates.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
1a: [The more you talk the more superpowers RJ accumulates.] Now you're substituting logic with Raptor Jesus. I thought atheists valued reason. I cannot hold a discussion with an absurdist.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Well if you didn't notice already RJ is just a stand in for your arguments for your own God. Clearing even you don't buy your own arguments.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1a: [Well if you didn't notice already RJ is just a stand in for your arguments for your own God.] Which should CLUE YOU IN to the fact that the names themselves are irrelevant. God has many names, but only one attribute that no other has.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Hence. . .
If x then y
__________
x, therefore y
x = transcendent logic
y = a transcendent logician.
This is a modus ponens. Any attempt to deny "x" leads to a misology. Thus, the argument is sound.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin How do you determine if x is true or false?
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 We just did that. If logic is limited to mankind or invented by man, then it can be changed. You're saying that 2+2 can equal 7 if enough speculation and handwaving is applied.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin No I'm not I'm saying that if 2+2 for whatever reason was observed to be 7 then 2+2=7 sure.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Yet "if" arguments such as this are pure speculation. "If" it were observed to be, doesn't mean you can behave "as if" it were true.
Paulomycin 1 year ago