It seems that when Atheist Youtubers find a video where a Christian has clearly won, it becomes a game of "Who can curse at and insult the Christian's appearance the most", rather then engaging in a healthy discussion. Interesting.
I'd also like to point out that anyone that thinks people come by morality naturally is full of shit. We've had every kind of murderer, thief and rapist throughout history, of all religions, races, and nationalities, objective morality consistently fails to explain why so many people don't seem to be hard-wired to avoid certain activities, even those that most societies as a whole deem undesirable.
@ReservoirdogEC and on top of that it actually works against religions in that if there is a perfect creator why is it that it created mortals who disagree with its so called morality and made those who disagree less likly to commit evil acts and also that the most devoted followers commit some of the most disgusting acts
@ReservoirdogEC: Most societies would deem what USA is doing in Iraq, and it's not just "undesirable". And you would prove how ignorant and hypocrite you are if it were happening in your country.
I generally can't stand the neutered atheists that don't believe in a religion but also want objective reality bad enough to attach some degree of mysticism and magic to the process by which people come up with a legal system, almost as much as Christians that come by their code by reading a collection of documents written by fanatical sand people thousands of years ago. The convoluted process by which the U.S. came up with it's current legal system is one example of subjective morality.
@thesilverhouse Thanks for being nice about all this. I think it's interesting to try to understand other people's opinions. It's weird though, because we're coming from two different worldviews and points of reference, so it's almost like we're speaking different languages, lol. I think your opinion is perfectly valid though, I just happen to have a different one. Thanks for the discussion!
@thesilverhouse I think this discussion is futile because you, apparently, have a totally different idea of what morality is (which is fine). This is why an agreement is necessary (and why morals change). Christian morality isn't any more absolute than any other value system from which people derive morals (in my opinion). Morals are still being decided by the majority (based on logic, feeling, whatever) agreed upon, sometimes made into law, and then enforced.
@thesilverhouse I didn't have a theory, I've simply been pointing out that your assumption that atheists don't have a "right" to impose moral standards on others is irrelevant in real life. You don't need a "right" to impose your standards onto others, just the will and ability to do so (hence the legal system). Also, you had a problem with the fact that atheist morality is based on agreement...so is Christian morality (and all other human morality)--that's what morality is.
@thesilverhouse Also, when I said "majority", I meant population-wise. As in, most people in the U.S. value sexual consent and therefore find rape to be immoral (for that and other reasons). We find it so immoral, that we've made it illegal. We are forcing our will upon the countless number of rapists in the country, and we have no "right" to do so...but, we're going to do it anyway. God does not send rapists to prison, we do.
@thesilverhouse No one has a "right" to dictate anything...but they will anyway...and you'll deal with it or live with the consequences. I don't know what objective laws you're referring to, because the only laws I'm aware of are the one's socieities have created. I'm not saying it's "right", I'm simply observing reality.
@thesilverhouse No one has any "right" to impose morals standards on anyone else...but, that's certainly not going to stop us from killing/exiling/imprisoning/shunning you if you do something that the majority thinks is immoral/illegal/wrong. That's human society.
Christianity doesn't teach to ignore the evidence, it teaches to follow the evidence.
It's the believer in atheist dogma™ who, exactly like the lower animal, lacks the intellectual capacity to follow or even understand any portion of the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities that the vast majority of intelligent human beings can understand quite easily.
Is this how you communicate or debate something with people? Then you block me? You're nothing but a disrespectful douchebag troll and according to your own words YOU are an atheist because youre ignoring your religion's morals. No wonder you disable ratings and require comment approvals for your video. I should have known better. You faker
Okay so you asked if it was immoral for a Christian Parent to teach their children Christian values. As he said that depends on who's morality we are using. In my world view yes. It's wrong to teach someone to ignore evidence. In your world view it's debatable. But either way what you teach your kids as long as it isn't directly harming someone else or it isn't taking someone else's rights away isn't mine or the government's business. That is his answer and mine as well.
I don't think the problem is that atheists are unintelligent. There are many kinds of intelligence, and not everyone is capable of understanding God. Some of them don't want to see or understand Him. Others just need a push and will later realize God does exist. That does not make them stupid, just as people (some with advanced degrees) who cannot spell well no matter how hard they try or how much they read are not stupid.
Morality based on agreement is what led to the Concentraion camps and other anti-Semitic persecutions. They agreed Jews should be exterminated. People also agreed that they should have slaves. Does that make them right? According to Atheists, yes...
@stephe1987 No. The point is, morality is a human, social concept and we're the only one's who appear to be actively creating/changing/enforcing moral codes in humanity. God does not send rapists to prison, we do. We (the majority in a society) agree that something is immoral/unethical/illegal and then we take steps to prevent (sometimes by force). That's neither right nor wrong, it just is.
@Purushadasa WRONG, Hitler was worshipped as a god just like the other dictators you listed on your uploaded video. The problem isnt atheism, its dogma, the same dogma thats caused religion to wage atrocities throughout history. Whats wrong? You cant debate what I posted on your video and instead just block and not allow my comment to stand? You have proven your own defeat of your position by your actions.
March 23, 1933, hitler addressed the Reichstag: "The National Government regards the two Christian confessions (i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism) as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people."
The Lord has already proven Himself to all of civilized humanity. All of mankind already accepts His appearance and activities as scientific facts, with the single exception of the deluded atheist, whose beliefs are in the extreme miniscule minority worldwide.
The lunatic atheist must present a viable argument in favor of his bizarre personal belief that God somehow doesn't exist before being taken seriously, which he has failed to do, sadly.
God has been proven for countless centuries, and atheist dogma™ is a new invention, a newcomer attempting to upset a long-established scientifically factual conclusion -- therefore the burden of proof is on the atheist.
@Purushadasa to prove something doesnt exist? I think the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence & you have none. BTW, which god are you talking about, that all this proof exists for?
Problem is, nobody believes you, and that's because you have no evidence for your bizarre claims about God.
The reason why the vast majority of human beings easily comprehend the ample scientific and logical evidence for God's factual appearance and activities is that they are smarter than animals. The reason why you don't is because you're not.
You fantasize that someone will someday believe you, but it won't happen: face reality.
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to grasp any portion of the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities that the vast majority of intelligent human beings comprehend easily.
Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the exact same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual appearance or activities.
Where is your evidence for your claims? You have none -- everything you posted is nothing but your own unsupported, dogmatic, personal belief.
The vast majority of human beings disagree with you, and only the lower animal is on your excessively low level of "intelligence," unable to grasp any portion of the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities.
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God's appearance and activities as scientific facts, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific facts anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific facts stand unchallenged and universally accepted.
The pig also lacks the intellect to grasp any portion of the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities, but the vast majority of intelligent human beings on the planet are already convinced.
This fact speaks not a whit to God's factual existence, but rather to the lack of intelligence on the part of the pig.
Personally, I'm very happy to be counted among those of fully human intelligence in this regard -- the Theists -- as opposed to those on par with the pig.
The atheist is always angry, scared, and confused, and that is why the world laughs at him.
The reason why the whole world rejects the atheist's arguments so readily is that they are all firmly convinced of the scientific facts of God's appearance and activities.
The Theists have nobody left to convince, but the atheist has the whole world to convince.
Who exactly is it that you imagine I need to convince? The vast majority of human beings on this planet already accept God's appearance and characteristics and activities to be scientific facts, and the atheist, whose intellect is on the exact same level as the pig, cannot be convinced of anything that goes against his dogmatic belief system anyway.
All of God's scriptures prohibit violence and killing, and disobedience to God's scriptures is atheistic. Therefore, all violence and killing are atheistic activities, and real Theists are always in accordance with God's injunctions to be peaceful.
Mere "lack of belief" is a purely neutral position:
Gnostic Theists, the non-theist, and the agnostic also lack all beliefs regarding God, both positive and negative, but none of them is an atheist.
Mere lack of belief obviously does not cut it as an accurate definition of atheism -- in reality, atheism stubbornly holds the position, without any evidence at all, that God somehow doesn't exist.
Holding such a position without any evidence is entirely unscientific and illogical of the atheist.
@Purushadasa Idiot, how could there be evidence of something that doesn't exist. The point is that there is no evidence that god DOES exist. You've got whole thing completely backwards.
God has already proven Himself to the world. The whole world already accepts God's appearance and activities as scientific facts, with the singular exception of the crackpot atheist, who is in the extreme miniscule minority in this regard.
Before being taken seriously, the crackpot atheist must necessarily come up with at least one viable argument in favor of his bizarre dogmatic belief that God somehow doesn't exist, but so far, he fails.
I don't have to convince anyone, because the vast majority of intelligent human beings on the planet also know that Theism is in the right, and atheism is wrong.
The vast majority always has accepted Theism and rejected atheist dogma™, and the vast majority always will.
It is the atheist who must somehow, someday do some convincing, but as of this time, you fail.
"I don't have to convince anyone, because the vast majority of intelligent human beings on the planet also know that Theism is in the right, and atheism is wrong."
The vast majority at one time people thought the sun went around the earth.
that's the misconception. most atheists don't reject the idea of a god and don't want a god, they reject the idea of a god from the evidence. when you reject something, you're simply stating "i don't want that". most atheists will say, i don't want religion because it's irrational. my family is buddhist, they might come back and cure cancer, while you may be burning in buddhas hell all because you kept asking for forgiveness instead of doing something about it, who knows?
You don't have to convince anyone? I'm sorry, but I must inform you that you are wrong on this position.
Atheism is the lack of belief due to a lack of credible evidence for any theistic/supernatural claim. Thus, you the theist who postulates not only the idea that there is a higher power at play, but this higher power is also personal who rules over humankind. Given that you are making the claim the burden of proof lies on you, not the atheist.
The majroity of people? Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy.
No such thing as atheist "dogma". Atheism is simply absence of belief in gods. Just like aunicornism is lack of belief in unicorns. Up to you to show evidence for unicorns.
Meanwhile all the evidence, through science, is for naturalism.
Problem is, nobody believes you, and that's because you have no evidence for your bizarre claims about God.
The reason why the vast majority of human beings easily comprehend the ample evidence for God is that they are smarter than animals. The reason why you don't is because you're not.
You fantasize that someone will someday believe you, but it won't happen: face reality.
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to grasp the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities that the vast majority of intelligent human beings comprehend easily.
Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual appearance or activities.
Where is your evidence for your claims? You have none -- everything you posted is nothing but your own unsupported, dogmatic, personal belief.
The vast majority of human beings disagree with you, and only the lower animal is on your excessively low level of "intelligence," unable to apprehend the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities.
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God's appearance and activities, as scientific facts, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific facts anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific facts stand unchallenged and universally accepted.
The atheist is always angry, scared, and confused, and that is why the world laughs at him.
The reason why the whole world rejects the atheist's arguments so readily is that they are all firmly convinced of the scientific facts of God's appearance and activities.
The Theists have nobody left to convince, but the atheist has the whole world to convince.
All of God's scriptures prohibit violence and killing, and disobedience to God's scriptures is atheistic. Therefore, all violence and killing are atheistic activities, and real Theists are always in accordance with God's injunctions to be peaceful.
Would Jesus have approved of Hitler's well-known campaign to exterminate all Jews and all Catholics? Certainly not! Jesus WAS a Jew, and also a pacifist!
If the atheist posits that Hitler was honest in his statements, then the atheist acknowledges his sick hero-worship of Hitler.
The Theists understand that Hitler was a liar, a believer in atheist dogma™, and a mass-murderer of Theists.
Only an atheist fool would quote Hitler's lies as if reliable.
Hitler loved Darwin's nonsense, and he based his eugenics program on it directly. Thus Hitler is one of the main "heroes" of atheism.
The number one tenet of official atheist dogma™ is to lie at every opportunity, and Hitler was clearly a liar. Only a fool puts his faith in the words of a liar like Hitler, as you do, above.
CONCLUSION: Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma™, a hater of Theists (Jews and Catholics), and a ruthless killer and liar.
rofl, so random atheist loses dicussion vs "President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry" and that means epic fail for us, lol. You better dont watch any videos with Harris, Dawkins etc 'cause you might cry..
Ask a Christian why it is wrong to kill another human. He will say because God said so. Then ask the Christian why did God say so? He might say because we are made in the image of God. Then ask the Christian why killing a human made in the image of God is wrong. He will answer because God said so. Then ask the Christian how he knows that what God says is moral. The Christian will say because I believe it. Then ask the Christian why his personal belief should be imposed upon others.
God has already proven Himself to the world. The whole world already accepts the scientific fact that God exists along with His factual attributes and activities, with the singular exception of the crackpot atheist, who is in the extreme miniscule minority in this regard.
Before being taken seriously, the crackpot atheist must necessarily come up with at least one viable argument in favor of his bizarre dogmatic belief that God somehow doesn't exist, but so far, he fails.
I guess you dont belive in unicorns etc, do you ? Why not ? Or what about Santa Claus !!? Its srsly funny to read about "crackpot atheist" when its you whos lacking brain :D
Hitler loved Darwin's nonsense, and he based his eugenics program on it directly.
The number one tenet of official atheist dogma is to lie at every opportunity, and Hitler was clearly a liar. Only a fool puts his faith in the words of a liar like Hitler, as the modern atheist does. Thus Hitler is one of the main "heroes" of atheism.
CONCLUSION: Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma, a hater of Theists (Jews and Catholics), and a ruthless killer and liar.
@Purushadasa In a proclamation to the German Nation February 1, 1933 Hitler stated, "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."
That would be the duty of the atheist, if he possessed an intelligent thought, but as of this date, he has failed to disprove God, failed to disprove God's factual attributes, failed to disprove God's factual activities, failed to disprove His knowledge, and failed to disprove His love.
The atheist obviously has a long, hard road ahead of him if he expects to convince anyone of his dogmatic beliefs.
The atheist is always angry, scared, and confused, and that is why the world laughs at him.
The reason why the whole world rejects the atheist's arguments so readily is that they are all firmly convinced of the scientific fact that God definitely exists along with His factual attributes and activities.
The Theists have nobody left to convince, but the atheist has the whole world to convince.
Problem is, nobody believes you, and that's because you have no evidence for your bizarre claims about God.
The reason why the vast majority of human beings apprehend the ample evidence for God is that they are smarter than animals. The reason why you don't is because you're not.
You fantasize that someone will someday believe you, but it won't happen: face reality.
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to apprehend the ample scientific evidence for God that the majority of mankind accepts.
Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual existence, His characteristics, or His activities.
Where is your evidence for your claims? You have none -- everything you posted is nothing but your own unsupported, dogmatic, personal belief.
The vast majority of human beings disagree with you, and only the lower animal is on your excessively low level of "intelligence," unable to apprehend the ample evidence for God.
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God, along with His factual characteristics and activities, as a scientific fact, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific fact anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific fact stands unchallenged and universally accepted.
God has already proven Himself to the world. The whole world already accepts the scientific fact that God exists along with His factual attributes and activities, with the singular exception of the crackpot atheist, who is in the extreme miniscule minority in this regard.
Before being taken seriously, the crackpot atheist must necessarily come up with at least one viable argument in favor of his bizarre dogmatic belief that God somehow doesn't exist, but so far, he fails.
Problem is, nobody believes you, and that's because you have no evidence for your bizarre claims about God.
The reason why the vast majority of human beings apprehend the ample evidence for God is that they are smarter than animals. The reason why you don't is because you're not.
You fantasize that someone will someday believe you, but it won't happen: face reality.
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to apprehend the ample scientific evidence for God that the majority of mankind accepts.
Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual existence, His characteristics, or His activities.
Where is your evidence for your claims? You have none -- everything you posted is nothing but your own unsupported, dogmatic, personal belief.
The vast majority of human beings disagree with you, and only the lower animal is on your excessively low level of "intelligence," unable to apprehend the ample evidence for God.
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God, along with His factual characteristics and activities, as a scientific fact, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific fact anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific fact stands unchallenged and universally accepted.
You posit the personal belief that there could somehow be more than one deity, yet you offer no evidence to support your dogmatic belief. Do you have any evidence for your bizarre polytheistic belief system, or did you just make it up?
God has already proven Himself to the world. The whole world already accepts the scientific fact that God exists along with His factual attributes and activities, with the singular exception of the crackpot atheist, who is in the extreme miniscule minority in this regard.
Before being taken seriously, the crackpot atheist must necessarily come up with at least one viable argument in favor of his bizarre dogmatic belief that God somehow doesn't exist, but so far, he fails.
God has been proven for countless centuries, and atheist dogma
is a new invention, a newcomer attempting to upset a long-established scientifically factual conclusion -- therefore the burden of proof is on the atheist.
Problem is, nobody believes you, and that's because you have no evidence for your bizarre claims about God.
The reason why the vast majority of human beings apprehend the ample evidence for God is that they are smarter than animals. The reason why you don't is because you're not.
You fantasize that someone will someday believe you, but it won't happen: face reality.
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to apprehend the ample scientific evidence for God that the majority of mankind accepts.
Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual existence, His characteristics, or His activities.
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God, along with His factual characteristics and activities, as a scientific fact, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific fact anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific fact stands unchallenged and universally accepted.
The atheist can't understand why the whole world, except for him, is thoroughly convinced that God's existence along with His characteristics and activities is a scientific fact.
This is the nature of the truth -- it produces a stronger conviction than the lies of atheist dogma could ever produce, and when faced with this strong conviction, the believer in atheist dogma becomes confused, frightened, and angry.
Fully alien to truth, the atheist finds those who possess it very strange indeed!
All of God's scriptures prohibit violence and killing, and disobedience to God's scriptures is atheistic. Therefore, all violence and killing are atheistic activities, and real Theists are always in accordance with God's injunctions to be peaceful.
This obviously includes one of the injunctions that He has taken care to make extremely well-known all over the world, "Thou shalt not kill."
Unless a person has access to some kind of observational data on the subject at hand, he has no scientific basis to produce any conclusions about that subject.
Any conclusion reached by skipping over the observation step is called a premature conclusion, and since you have no idea what scientific method is, I am informing you that it is a "no-no."
The atheist's conclusions about God (including all of yours, above) are all premature, unscientific conclusions, and must be discounted as such.
Conversely, many, many Theists have observed God in many ways, and so they are therefore perfectly qualified to produce scientific conclusions about Him, and also qualified to pass on those factual conclusions to neutral third parties, like me.
I have no choice but to accept the conclusions of the only party with such qualifications in regards to God -- the Theists.
God has already proven Himself to the world. The whole world already accepts the scientific fact that God exists along with His factual attributes and activities, with the singular exception of the crackpot atheist, who is in the extreme miniscule minority in this regard.
Before being taken seriously, the crackpot atheist must necessarily come up with at least one viable argument in favor of his bizarre dogmatic belief that God somehow doesn't exist, but so far, he fails.
Problem is, nobody believes you, and that's because you have no evidence for your bizarre claims about God.
The reason why the vast majority of human beings apprehend the ample evidence for God is that they are smarter than animals. The reason why you don't is because you're not.
You fantasize that someone will someday believe you, but it won't happen: face reality.
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to apprehend the ample scientific evidence for God that the majority of mankind accepts.
Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual existence, His characteristics, or His activities.
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God, along with His factual characteristics and activities, as a scientific fact, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific fact anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific fact stands unchallenged and universally accepted.
I am confused. How can a true atheist believe in morality at all? According to them we are just complex living organisms as meaningless as a plant or a bug. Actions cannot be good or evil if there is not a supreme being do designate which are which.
Still yet, a code of morals would be made. Instead of looking at actions as either being good or bad as deemed by a sky wizard, you would instead of an optimized standard for society life. Instead of saying something is bad, we can say it creates a negative to society and should be changed or removed from the general population, including people.
A code for the better of everyone can be derived scientifically without having to even call it morals or god, which it technically would be.
".. a supreme being to designate which are which (good or evil)"
Are you implying that the assignment of good and evil is arbitary? Could God wake up tomorrow and designate that all things hitherto considered as good are from tomorrow onwards evil, and all evil things good? If God can't, then what is good and what is evil, are independent of God. If God can, then the theist has a bigger problem with morality than the atheist. Would you be prepared to murder your own son if God told you to?
Your answer demonstrates that you think that there is such a thing as morality without appealing to a god; otherwise my question would not be "insane." But then you swing the other way by saying that "he could." What is it like sitting on the fence?
I have never claimed that there is not such a thing as morality without appealing to "a god" [sic].
Please explain how your question could not be insane.
I haven't "swung" any way -- I simply stated some facts for your benefit: God could indeed change morality, and if He had insane thoughts like yours, He probably would, but since He is sane, not insane like you, it doesn't interest Him to change it. He understands, like any sane person would, that morality is perfect as He first designed it.
"He understands, like any sane person would, that morality is perfect as He first designed it"
If there is no external standard for morality outside of your god, then perfect morality can only mean that god defined it. If god redefined it, then that too would be morally perfect (by defn). To think that my question is insane implies that you have some sort of double standard, that there is a moral standard outside of god to which god has to comply, any change may then fail that external test.
I never claimed that it interested me to change morality. I do not know why you made that up as my initial statement was clear. Sorry I simply tried to make sense out of your totally incoherent and contradictory statements. I now understand that my guess concerning your position was wrong. It was folly of me to try; your argument was without foundation.
Yes, you are confused. Plants and bugs are not meaningless. Actions have consequences which result in pain or pleasure. Most people are born with empathy which causes them to share the pain or pleasure of others. A few people are sociopathic or psychopathic, and don't care how others feel. For them, no amount of religion will help. There is only the threat of societal punishment to prevent them from acting in a purely self serving way.
Moral codes are nothing more than social pressure.
then you belive in morality just because is write in a "holy book" abot "what GOd said" ? ANd then if there was write another things you should belive these?
LOL FAIL! We atheists don't need a 'higher being' to tell us what to do. We make our own decisions. You are literally saying that people cannot decide on their own to be good or bad. What a close minded view point that is.
@ohiopigman We have personal opinions about what is good and what is bad based on our values. I don't see why you'd need a Supreme Being to have an opinion about what is good/bad.
Wow. As an atheist, I have to say the Atheist did get owned. He was a sit atheist though. I could have answered those questions with ease, and I'm 18.
That guy didn't run out of answers, he gave up on the debate because the Christian has very old views on athieism. He said it's wrong for the atheist to teach their children to be open-minded. That is the same argument for Christianity. I have to admit he wasn't a very good debater :P.
"He said it's wrong for the atheist to teach their children to be open-minded."
No he didn't, he said it was the atheist's opinion that it was wrong for christian parents to teach their kids christian values and that it was fine for the atheist to hold that personal opinion. Then he said it would be unacceptable for the atheist to impose his opinion on the christian parents. He never said it was wrong for the atheist to teach his kids about freethinking.
Why would Matt Slick go to an atheist convention, start arguing with someone knowing that the man would disagree, and then get offended that the guy doesn't want to hear pro-Xtian arguments at an atheist convention?
If I were sitting in a church, I wouldn't run up to people and start an argument that I knew would offend them. I would certainly apologize if I did offend them.
When a Christian parent indoctrinates their children into Christianity, it should be considered child abuse. At that age, a child has no ability to judge rationally, you could convince them that Santa is real, for instance (as is evidenced in that many parents do). This in itself isn't that big of a deal, except that by being Christian they must then be traumatized by stories of eternal suffering, and told how they are worthless sinners, ever evil, unworthy of love. It is emotional abuse.
But at best, that would be morally neutral, because children who are born in atheist families adopt the some, if not all, of the same conclusions that THEIR parents make as well. Their parents can say things like "religion is a virus" or "religion is the greatest cause of violence in all of history" or "if you believe in God, then you've been brainwashed." By your reasoning, that would be equally abusive, emotionally speaking. So what you're saying is a double standard.
Yes, if an atheist indoctrinated their children into their beliefs that would be abusive. As a parent, you do not have to destroy your child's critical thinking, I know even Christians who do not force their children to believe Christianity, it is almost scary you think this is inevitable. There is a difference, though, in that atheism doesn't emotionally abuse them on top of it with stories of eternal torture, and an inherited unavoidable sinful state. But regardless, it shouldn't happen ever.
"it is almost scary you think this is inevitable." - I never said that at all. It came across from your comment that YOU believed that Christianity as a whole, does this. I am glad thought that you recognize that atheists have done this too. However, it not good to put more incredulity to Christians for indoctrination, because it labels the religion based on what its FOLLOWERS do, not by what its claims to truth are.
My conclusion of abuse is not an assessment of whether Christianity is true, it is an assessment of whether it is abusive, and I find that it is, because of what it does to it's followers, and causes them to do to others. Further, it is not the the believer I have a problem with (directly) it is the belief. When the belief manifests the believer to act, the problem is not the "follower" it is the principles being followed.
Also, having an opinion that the child knows about is not the same as indoctrinating. Indoctrinating is when you tell the child what they think, not what you think. It relies on emotional blackmail, taking advantage of ignorance and trust, "peer" pressure, and careful control of interactions and influences in order to intentionally introduce bias into the child's experiences, and willfully distort their experiences and thinking to mimic the desired outcome.
"it shouldn't happen ever." - But the problem is, if you're an atheist, there is no logical basis with which to defend your moral affirmations. Which is precisely the point that Matt Slick was telling this gentleman in this video. To say that indoctrination is wrong, might just as well be good, according the lack of a logical basis. If you argue that it is wrong because the child is not developed enough that only assumes MORE unsubstantiated moral judgments, which begs the question.
All morality is bigotry (atheists' and religionists' alike), all morality begs the question, my statement may be about behavior, but it is not about morality. (the use of the word "ever" was a poor choice on my part, similar to saying "no one knows" or "everybody went to the beach" or other hyperbolic statements.) Also, I did not use the word "wrong", you chose that word to turn my statement about destructive behaviour (an objective concept) into a statement about morality (always dogmatic).
"my statement may be about behavior, but...not about morality." - Angel, you made a statement about what OUGHT to be & what NOT ought to be. If indoctrination should never happen, then you are logically making a MORAL judgment which contradicts your position. Therefore either you must remain NEUTRAL at best towards indoctrination, stop arguing that shouldn't happen, or withdraw your position of how all morality is bigotry. If you don't do either of these, then you live w/ systemic contradiction.
'You ought to not wear shorts when its snowing". A statement about proper behaviour. Is it a moral statement? No, I know of no moral claim that it's a sin to wear shorts in the snow. Your argument fails because behavioural conclusions are not required to be moral. You don't wear shorts because it's cold and you don't abuse children because it is psychologically harmful, it results in undesirable consequences. This is cause and effect, the only objective way to arrive at behavioural conclusions.
"You ought to not wear shorts when its snowing" - Ah, this is an argument I've heard before and it is the fallacy of equivocation. You're equating 2 different kinds of actions to be the same thing. 1 action is the kind where only you yourself are affected by the action. The 2nd is where OTHERS are affected by the action as well. They are not the same. When you bring forth actions that affect others then there is conflict of opposing motives and intentions, thus the morality issue is brought up.
However, even if we grant for the sake of argument that both types of actions ARE the same, they are not BOTH objective. Psychologically harmful is a matter of opinion whereas one freezing if he or she goes outside lacking the "appropriate" clothing is a precondition, and not an opinion.
"You should not drive on the wrong side of the road". Not because it's a sin, but because you'll cause accidents. "U shud not write lyke dis". Not because it is a sin, but because others have difficulty reading it. These are not equivocal (nor was the last). All decisions can be amoral, some are just more obvious.
Psychological harm is not a matter of opinion. It is well documented, independently verified. In the same way that clothing is determined to be appropriate, behaviour is as well.
If it's independently verified, then that IS opinion. You cannot document "psychological harm" in itself, only the EFFECTS of the action. "Psychological harm" is a LABEL you apply to the effects. You're assuming the effects contain the label in and of themselves.
"All decisions can be amoral, some are just more obvious." - Just? That's begging the question. You assume the nature to be self-explanatory with ALL actions. I'm sorry but my point still stands as you're arguing in a circle.
How is independent verification an opinion? You and I can independently verify that 1+1=2, this is not an opinion. How is psychological harm undocumented? Depression, for example, is extensively documented.
I believe I have shown 1) behaviour considered to be moral can be derived from amoral sources, 2) decision making between traditionally moral and amoral choices is the same.
That does not beg the question. And it's superior to morality, as it represents the best decision for the situation.
"You and I can independently verify that 1+1=2, this is not an opinion." - That is actually not an independent verification, that's a universal precondition. It remains true regardless of whether or not it is verified by an external source.
"I believe I have shown 1) behaviour considered to be moral can be derived from amoral sources, 2) decision making between traditionally moral and amoral choices is the same." - That's an appeal to correlation, which is a fallacy.
And we know it is true, because we have independently verified it, this is why we do this. How do you suggest we determine truth? I do not understand your arguments, are you are saying that abuse is not damaging?
It is not an appeal to correlation, please take an Introduction to Philosophy course, as you continue to misapply fallacies. These are not appeals, these are my points. It is now your turn to show how a moral conclusion ever can hope to be better than an amoral one.
"How do you suggest we determine truth?" - What is true, is true independently of our verifying it. Ex: I do not determine that I am ultimately a human being as opposed to an amoeba. Reality itself preconditions that. It's ironic how you say that we determine truth, yet you say how morality is bigotry when AMORALITY could just as equally be bigotry.
Morality has a point of reference, whereas amorality does not. Whenever you argue that X is "better" you invoke a moral judgment, not an amoral one. You invoke value to a human being as if he or she is worth something, but even your grants that value is illusory. That is precisely what John Gray, a best-selling atheist author in the UK said in his book Straw Dogs. He said that to label abuse as "wrong" or "unbeneficial" is a lie, because abuse occurs in ALL other animal species. (cont.)
In regards to depression, we have to understand that the state of the brain during depression itself IS documented. But the problem is when you argue that depression is BENEFICIAL or HARMFUL, then you are placing arbitrary labels on the RESULTS of the such emotional states. In other words, you are using the RESULTS of that action or event as your BASIS for why it is beneficial, harmful, etc. That is not objective, that is circular reasoning.
Also if depression IS beneficial, according to your position, then that begs the questions as to why it couldn't be otherwise.
The state of the brain is documented, but the condition of it being "better" or "worse", is NOT documented whatsoever. You claim the results to be "beneficial" or "harmful", which are completely arbitrary labels. Your position logically entails that the alleged "benefits" and "harms" are really not "benefits" or "harms" at all. They are simply results and nothing else.
"Your position logically entails that the alleged "benefits" and "harms" are really not "benefits" or "harms" at all. They are simply results and nothing else."
Yes, they are simply results, but they are results that we interpret as desirable and undesirable. Depression is undesirable, a negative detrimental result. This is not a label, this is physiology, if the dictionary changed, the state of mind we describe with the word "depression" would not. The state of our mind is objective (like 1+1)
"Yes, they are simply results, but they are results that we interpret as desirable and undesirable." - Precisely my point Angel. You interpret one thing as beneficial, when clearly your position GRANTS that it could just as easily be otherwise. That's what YOUR argument entails. You claim that abuse is negative, when your position grants that it could equally be positive. The irony is that you're denying that abuse could be anything BUT negative, and that is where you are committing the fallacy.
He said "...Darwinian theory tells us that an interest in truth is not needed for survival or reproduction. More often it is a disadvantage. Deception is common among primates and birds.... Truth has no systematic evolutionary advantage over error. Quite to the contrary, evolution will select for a degree of self-deception, rendering some fact and motives unconscious so as not to betray - by the subtle signs of self-knowledge - the deception being practiced." (cont.)
What Gray is saying is if we say that things such as deception should not happen, then we are in violation of what evolution is all about. To label things as abusive is denying that WHATEVER helps the species to survive is advantageous, even abuse. To deny this is put value on our fellow humans as opposed to other animals. He calls this religion. "Humanism is not science, but religion - the post-Christian faith that humans can make a world better than any in which they have so far lived."
Parents explaining the immorality of stealing by offering the Golden Rule as explanation and further explaining the consequences by social law.
Morally unacceptable:
Parents explaining the immorality of stealing by offering the Ten Commandments as explanation and further explaining the consequences by religious verse.
Why is it immoral to teach the immorality of stealing via Ten Commandments and religious consequences?
Because religious consequences are so real to the abstract mind of a child that the eternal torture of hell is real and frightening.
Teaching a child that sin will lead to hell may make that child behave in accordance with the Ten Commandments, but they will have a warped sense of justice and self-worth.
Better that children know the present and living consequences of their actions.
Stealing is wrong because it is depriving another individual the right that you have. It is impressing your will upon another individual's human rights.
That's it.
You can quantify it as the Golden Rule if you want to.
It seems that when Atheist Youtubers find a video where a Christian has clearly won, it becomes a game of "Who can curse at and insult the Christian's appearance the most", rather then engaging in a healthy discussion. Interesting.
GrantSimanton 2 months ago
Matt Slicks a fat fuck, see any other video he has, actually watch the one called "How to talk to atheists"
shandcunt 3 months ago
Is it a rule for annoying Christian guys to wear frumpy, unbuttoned polo shirts- usually in beige?
raintree93 7 months ago in playlist Debates
@raintree93 It's part of their holy dress code.
WorthlessSix 5 months ago
The Christian doesn't seem to understand the concept of free speech. The atheist can't defend his moral position, but he is honest
AllOtherNamesTaken2 10 months ago
I'd also like to point out that anyone that thinks people come by morality naturally is full of shit. We've had every kind of murderer, thief and rapist throughout history, of all religions, races, and nationalities, objective morality consistently fails to explain why so many people don't seem to be hard-wired to avoid certain activities, even those that most societies as a whole deem undesirable.
ReservoirdogEC 1 year ago
@ReservoirdogEC and on top of that it actually works against religions in that if there is a perfect creator why is it that it created mortals who disagree with its so called morality and made those who disagree less likly to commit evil acts and also that the most devoted followers commit some of the most disgusting acts
cjhmmp 1 year ago
@ReservoirdogEC: Most societies would deem what USA is doing in Iraq, and it's not just "undesirable". And you would prove how ignorant and hypocrite you are if it were happening in your country.
strattfordcrass 11 months ago
I generally can't stand the neutered atheists that don't believe in a religion but also want objective reality bad enough to attach some degree of mysticism and magic to the process by which people come up with a legal system, almost as much as Christians that come by their code by reading a collection of documents written by fanatical sand people thousands of years ago. The convoluted process by which the U.S. came up with it's current legal system is one example of subjective morality.
ReservoirdogEC 1 year ago
@thesilverhouse Thanks for being nice about all this. I think it's interesting to try to understand other people's opinions. It's weird though, because we're coming from two different worldviews and points of reference, so it's almost like we're speaking different languages, lol. I think your opinion is perfectly valid though, I just happen to have a different one. Thanks for the discussion!
adean2 1 year ago
@thesilverhouse I think this discussion is futile because you, apparently, have a totally different idea of what morality is (which is fine). This is why an agreement is necessary (and why morals change). Christian morality isn't any more absolute than any other value system from which people derive morals (in my opinion). Morals are still being decided by the majority (based on logic, feeling, whatever) agreed upon, sometimes made into law, and then enforced.
adean2 1 year ago
@thesilverhouse I didn't have a theory, I've simply been pointing out that your assumption that atheists don't have a "right" to impose moral standards on others is irrelevant in real life. You don't need a "right" to impose your standards onto others, just the will and ability to do so (hence the legal system). Also, you had a problem with the fact that atheist morality is based on agreement...so is Christian morality (and all other human morality)--that's what morality is.
adean2 1 year ago
@thesilverhouse Also, when I said "majority", I meant population-wise. As in, most people in the U.S. value sexual consent and therefore find rape to be immoral (for that and other reasons). We find it so immoral, that we've made it illegal. We are forcing our will upon the countless number of rapists in the country, and we have no "right" to do so...but, we're going to do it anyway. God does not send rapists to prison, we do.
adean2 1 year ago
@thesilverhouse No one has a "right" to dictate anything...but they will anyway...and you'll deal with it or live with the consequences. I don't know what objective laws you're referring to, because the only laws I'm aware of are the one's socieities have created. I'm not saying it's "right", I'm simply observing reality.
adean2 1 year ago
@thesilverhouse No one has any "right" to impose morals standards on anyone else...but, that's certainly not going to stop us from killing/exiling/imprisoning/shunning you if you do something that the majority thinks is immoral/illegal/wrong. That's human society.
adean2 1 year ago
Christianity doesn't teach to ignore the evidence, it teaches to follow the evidence.
It's the believer in atheist dogma™ who, exactly like the lower animal, lacks the intellectual capacity to follow or even understand any portion of the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities that the vast majority of intelligent human beings can understand quite easily.
atheist total fail
Purushadasa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You are a fool and a liar.
atheist total fail "
Is this how you communicate or debate something with people? Then you block me? You're nothing but a disrespectful douchebag troll and according to your own words YOU are an atheist because youre ignoring your religion's morals. No wonder you disable ratings and require comment approvals for your video. I should have known better. You faker
Potandthekettle 1 year ago
Okay so you asked if it was immoral for a Christian Parent to teach their children Christian values. As he said that depends on who's morality we are using. In my world view yes. It's wrong to teach someone to ignore evidence. In your world view it's debatable. But either way what you teach your kids as long as it isn't directly harming someone else or it isn't taking someone else's rights away isn't mine or the government's business. That is his answer and mine as well.
WarcowUshi 1 year ago
I don't think the problem is that atheists are unintelligent. There are many kinds of intelligence, and not everyone is capable of understanding God. Some of them don't want to see or understand Him. Others just need a push and will later realize God does exist. That does not make them stupid, just as people (some with advanced degrees) who cannot spell well no matter how hard they try or how much they read are not stupid.
stephe1987 1 year ago
Morality based on agreement is what led to the Concentraion camps and other anti-Semitic persecutions. They agreed Jews should be exterminated. People also agreed that they should have slaves. Does that make them right? According to Atheists, yes...
stephe1987 1 year ago
@stephe1987 No. The point is, morality is a human, social concept and we're the only one's who appear to be actively creating/changing/enforcing moral codes in humanity. God does not send rapists to prison, we do. We (the majority in a society) agree that something is immoral/unethical/illegal and then we take steps to prevent (sometimes by force). That's neither right nor wrong, it just is.
adean2 1 year ago
This guy doesn't think you should teach your kids any values (let them figure out what moral code, if any, they want to follow).
stephe1987 1 year ago
Everybody knows that Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma™.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
@Purushadasa no he wasnt. A lot of SS support came from the Vatican. Some of the jewish hate came from their "rejection of christ"
skyrabbit74 1 year ago
@Purushadasa WRONG, Hitler was worshipped as a god just like the other dictators you listed on your uploaded video. The problem isnt atheism, its dogma, the same dogma thats caused religion to wage atrocities throughout history. Whats wrong? You cant debate what I posted on your video and instead just block and not allow my comment to stand? You have proven your own defeat of your position by your actions.
Potandthekettle 1 year ago
March 23, 1933, hitler addressed the Reichstag: "The National Government regards the two Christian confessions (i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism) as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people."
thesparitan 1 year ago
The Lord has already proven Himself to all of civilized humanity. All of mankind already accepts His appearance and activities as scientific facts, with the single exception of the deluded atheist, whose beliefs are in the extreme miniscule minority worldwide.
The lunatic atheist must present a viable argument in favor of his bizarre personal belief that God somehow doesn't exist before being taken seriously, which he has failed to do, sadly.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
God has been proven for countless centuries, and atheist dogma™ is a new invention, a newcomer attempting to upset a long-established scientifically factual conclusion -- therefore the burden of proof is on the atheist.
Purushadasa 2 years ago 2
@Purushadasa to prove something doesnt exist? I think the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence & you have none. BTW, which god are you talking about, that all this proof exists for?
Snarkathon 1 year ago
Fucking moron.
Ravloma 1 year ago
@Ravloma you calling me a moron or Puru?
Snarkathon 1 year ago
LOL, Guess, you fucking idiot.
Ravloma 1 year ago
@Purushadasa Prove it.
jswigal 1 year ago
Problem is, nobody believes you, and that's because you have no evidence for your bizarre claims about God.
The reason why the vast majority of human beings easily comprehend the ample scientific and logical evidence for God's factual appearance and activities is that they are smarter than animals. The reason why you don't is because you're not.
You fantasize that someone will someday believe you, but it won't happen: face reality.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to grasp any portion of the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities that the vast majority of intelligent human beings comprehend easily.
Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the exact same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual appearance or activities.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Where is your evidence for your claims? You have none -- everything you posted is nothing but your own unsupported, dogmatic, personal belief.
The vast majority of human beings disagree with you, and only the lower animal is on your excessively low level of "intelligence," unable to grasp any portion of the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities.
I will pray for you.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God's appearance and activities as scientific facts, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific facts anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific facts stand unchallenged and universally accepted.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
The pig also lacks the intellect to grasp any portion of the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities, but the vast majority of intelligent human beings on the planet are already convinced.
This fact speaks not a whit to God's factual existence, but rather to the lack of intelligence on the part of the pig.
Personally, I'm very happy to be counted among those of fully human intelligence in this regard -- the Theists -- as opposed to those on par with the pig.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
The atheist is always angry, scared, and confused, and that is why the world laughs at him.
The reason why the whole world rejects the atheist's arguments so readily is that they are all firmly convinced of the scientific facts of God's appearance and activities.
The Theists have nobody left to convince, but the atheist has the whole world to convince.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Who exactly is it that you imagine I need to convince? The vast majority of human beings on this planet already accept God's appearance and characteristics and activities to be scientific facts, and the atheist, whose intellect is on the exact same level as the pig, cannot be convinced of anything that goes against his dogmatic belief system anyway.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
All of God's scriptures prohibit violence and killing, and disobedience to God's scriptures is atheistic. Therefore, all violence and killing are atheistic activities, and real Theists are always in accordance with God's injunctions to be peaceful.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
The lower animal, such as the sand-flea, the snail, and the pig, also lack the intelligence to apprehend the ample scientific evidence for God.
The atheist is on the exact same level of intelligence as those creatures, and their ignorance of the facts does not change the facts.
God's factual appearance and activities are as much scientific facts as any other scientific fact known to man.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Mere "lack of belief" is a purely neutral position:
Gnostic Theists, the non-theist, and the agnostic also lack all beliefs regarding God, both positive and negative, but none of them is an atheist.
Mere lack of belief obviously does not cut it as an accurate definition of atheism -- in reality, atheism stubbornly holds the position, without any evidence at all, that God somehow doesn't exist.
Holding such a position without any evidence is entirely unscientific and illogical of the atheist.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
@Purushadasa Idiot, how could there be evidence of something that doesn't exist. The point is that there is no evidence that god DOES exist. You've got whole thing completely backwards.
LoutheFinger 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God has already proven Himself to the world. The whole world already accepts God's appearance and activities as scientific facts, with the singular exception of the crackpot atheist, who is in the extreme miniscule minority in this regard.
Before being taken seriously, the crackpot atheist must necessarily come up with at least one viable argument in favor of his bizarre dogmatic belief that God somehow doesn't exist, but so far, he fails.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
I don't have to convince anyone, because the vast majority of intelligent human beings on the planet also know that Theism is in the right, and atheism is wrong.
The vast majority always has accepted Theism and rejected atheist dogma™, and the vast majority always will.
It is the atheist who must somehow, someday do some convincing, but as of this time, you fail.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
"I don't have to convince anyone, because the vast majority of intelligent human beings on the planet also know that Theism is in the right, and atheism is wrong."
The vast majority at one time people thought the sun went around the earth.
sweatytoothmadman 2 years ago
No they didn't:
God's revealed scriptures have always taught the truth about the shape of the earth and the fact that it revolves around the sun.
Only atheistic so-called "science" taught that the sun revolved around the earth, but the Theists have known the truth all along.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
that's the misconception. most atheists don't reject the idea of a god and don't want a god, they reject the idea of a god from the evidence. when you reject something, you're simply stating "i don't want that". most atheists will say, i don't want religion because it's irrational. my family is buddhist, they might come back and cure cancer, while you may be burning in buddhas hell all because you kept asking for forgiveness instead of doing something about it, who knows?
ohmc303 2 years ago
@Purushadasa
You don't have to convince anyone? I'm sorry, but I must inform you that you are wrong on this position.
Atheism is the lack of belief due to a lack of credible evidence for any theistic/supernatural claim. Thus, you the theist who postulates not only the idea that there is a higher power at play, but this higher power is also personal who rules over humankind. Given that you are making the claim the burden of proof lies on you, not the atheist.
sedatedcoho 2 years ago
The majroity of people? Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy.
No such thing as atheist "dogma". Atheism is simply absence of belief in gods. Just like aunicornism is lack of belief in unicorns. Up to you to show evidence for unicorns.
Meanwhile all the evidence, through science, is for naturalism.
dbes02 2 years ago
Problem is, nobody believes you, and that's because you have no evidence for your bizarre claims about God.
The reason why the vast majority of human beings easily comprehend the ample evidence for God is that they are smarter than animals. The reason why you don't is because you're not.
You fantasize that someone will someday believe you, but it won't happen: face reality.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to grasp the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities that the vast majority of intelligent human beings comprehend easily.
Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual appearance or activities.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Where is your evidence for your claims? You have none -- everything you posted is nothing but your own unsupported, dogmatic, personal belief.
The vast majority of human beings disagree with you, and only the lower animal is on your excessively low level of "intelligence," unable to apprehend the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities.
I will pray for you.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God's appearance and activities, as scientific facts, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific facts anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific facts stand unchallenged and universally accepted.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
The atheist is always angry, scared, and confused, and that is why the world laughs at him.
The reason why the whole world rejects the atheist's arguments so readily is that they are all firmly convinced of the scientific facts of God's appearance and activities.
The Theists have nobody left to convince, but the atheist has the whole world to convince.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
All of God's scriptures prohibit violence and killing, and disobedience to God's scriptures is atheistic. Therefore, all violence and killing are atheistic activities, and real Theists are always in accordance with God's injunctions to be peaceful.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Einstein was a Theist (a Jew), Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma, a mass-murderer of Theists (Jews).
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Hitler hated all Jews, especially Jesus.
Would Jesus have approved of Hitler's well-known campaign to exterminate all Jews and all Catholics? Certainly not! Jesus WAS a Jew, and also a pacifist!
If the atheist posits that Hitler was honest in his statements, then the atheist acknowledges his sick hero-worship of Hitler.
The Theists understand that Hitler was a liar, a believer in atheist dogma™, and a mass-murderer of Theists.
Only an atheist fool would quote Hitler's lies as if reliable.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Hitler loved Darwin's nonsense, and he based his eugenics program on it directly. Thus Hitler is one of the main "heroes" of atheism.
The number one tenet of official atheist dogma™ is to lie at every opportunity, and Hitler was clearly a liar. Only a fool puts his faith in the words of a liar like Hitler, as you do, above.
CONCLUSION: Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma™, a hater of Theists (Jews and Catholics), and a ruthless killer and liar.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
rofl, so random atheist loses dicussion vs "President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry" and that means epic fail for us, lol. You better dont watch any videos with Harris, Dawkins etc 'cause you might cry..
CZKing 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ask a Christian why it is wrong to kill another human. He will say because God said so. Then ask the Christian why did God say so? He might say because we are made in the image of God. Then ask the Christian why killing a human made in the image of God is wrong. He will answer because God said so. Then ask the Christian how he knows that what God says is moral. The Christian will say because I believe it. Then ask the Christian why his personal belief should be imposed upon others.
Entropy56 2 years ago
Haahaaaaa !
Atheist = EPIC FAIL
vnhg 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lol you know what (Psalm 14:1) says lol , nuff said.
demondagger19 2 years ago
God has already proven Himself to the world. The whole world already accepts the scientific fact that God exists along with His factual attributes and activities, with the singular exception of the crackpot atheist, who is in the extreme miniscule minority in this regard.
Before being taken seriously, the crackpot atheist must necessarily come up with at least one viable argument in favor of his bizarre dogmatic belief that God somehow doesn't exist, but so far, he fails.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
@Purushadasa just one big lol
its up to you, guys, to prove he exists.
I guess you dont belive in unicorns etc, do you ? Why not ? Or what about Santa Claus !!? Its srsly funny to read about "crackpot atheist" when its you whos lacking brain :D
CZKing 2 years ago
Hitler loved Darwin's nonsense, and he based his eugenics program on it directly.
The number one tenet of official atheist dogma is to lie at every opportunity, and Hitler was clearly a liar. Only a fool puts his faith in the words of a liar like Hitler, as the modern atheist does. Thus Hitler is one of the main "heroes" of atheism.
CONCLUSION: Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma, a hater of Theists (Jews and Catholics), and a ruthless killer and liar.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
@Purushadasa Actually Hitler was catholic, plus theory of evolution doesnt say what he said..
on the other hand bible says its ok to have slaves, to kill ettc...
CZKing 2 years ago
@Purushadasa In a proclamation to the German Nation February 1, 1933 Hitler stated, "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."
thesparitan 1 year ago
@Purushadasa Hitler was a christian dumbass. So...I guess that would make him your hero? Hmmm.....
jswigal 1 year ago
Purushadasa is a FAKE a liar, and a hypocrite.
Potandthekettle 1 year ago
That would be the duty of the atheist, if he possessed an intelligent thought, but as of this date, he has failed to disprove God, failed to disprove God's factual attributes, failed to disprove God's factual activities, failed to disprove His knowledge, and failed to disprove His love.
The atheist obviously has a long, hard road ahead of him if he expects to convince anyone of his dogmatic beliefs.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
The atheist is always angry, scared, and confused, and that is why the world laughs at him.
The reason why the whole world rejects the atheist's arguments so readily is that they are all firmly convinced of the scientific fact that God definitely exists along with His factual attributes and activities.
The Theists have nobody left to convince, but the atheist has the whole world to convince.
Purushadasa 2 years ago 2
I don't have to convince anyone, because the vast majority of human beings on the planet also know that Theism is in the right, and atheism is wrong.
The vast majority always has accepted Theism and rejected atheism, and the vast majority always will.
It is the atheist who must somehow, someday do some convincing, but as of this time, you fail.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Problem is, nobody believes you, and that's because you have no evidence for your bizarre claims about God.
The reason why the vast majority of human beings apprehend the ample evidence for God is that they are smarter than animals. The reason why you don't is because you're not.
You fantasize that someone will someday believe you, but it won't happen: face reality.
Purushadasa 2 years ago 2
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to apprehend the ample scientific evidence for God that the majority of mankind accepts.
Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual existence, His characteristics, or His activities.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so do you..LOL
emcce69 2 years ago
Where is your evidence for your claims? You have none -- everything you posted is nothing but your own unsupported, dogmatic, personal belief.
The vast majority of human beings disagree with you, and only the lower animal is on your excessively low level of "intelligence," unable to apprehend the ample evidence for God.
I will pray for you.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God, along with His factual characteristics and activities, as a scientific fact, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific fact anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific fact stands unchallenged and universally accepted.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
God has already proven Himself to the world. The whole world already accepts the scientific fact that God exists along with His factual attributes and activities, with the singular exception of the crackpot atheist, who is in the extreme miniscule minority in this regard.
Before being taken seriously, the crackpot atheist must necessarily come up with at least one viable argument in favor of his bizarre dogmatic belief that God somehow doesn't exist, but so far, he fails.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
I don't have to convince anyone, because the vast majority of human beings on the planet also know that Theism is in the right, and atheism is wrong.
The vast majority always has accepted Theism and rejected atheism, and the vast majority always will.
It is the atheist who must somehow, someday do some convincing, but as of this time, you fail.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Problem is, nobody believes you, and that's because you have no evidence for your bizarre claims about God.
The reason why the vast majority of human beings apprehend the ample evidence for God is that they are smarter than animals. The reason why you don't is because you're not.
You fantasize that someone will someday believe you, but it won't happen: face reality.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to apprehend the ample scientific evidence for God that the majority of mankind accepts.
Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual existence, His characteristics, or His activities.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Where is your evidence for your claims? You have none -- everything you posted is nothing but your own unsupported, dogmatic, personal belief.
The vast majority of human beings disagree with you, and only the lower animal is on your excessively low level of "intelligence," unable to apprehend the ample evidence for God.
I will pray for you.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God, along with His factual characteristics and activities, as a scientific fact, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific fact anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific fact stands unchallenged and universally accepted.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
You posit the personal belief that there could somehow be more than one deity, yet you offer no evidence to support your dogmatic belief. Do you have any evidence for your bizarre polytheistic belief system, or did you just make it up?
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Stating what you "think" without offering any evidence for it, as you have done, is completely unscientific, illogical, and irrational.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Yes, you got a lot more than your statistics wrong.
For one thing,"Christian" and "Islam" are not "deities."
If you could do math, then you would be able to see that your above percentages add up to 100.0% Theist and 0.0% atheist.
Actually, it's closer to 0.00001% atheist, but I do appreciate your generosity.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
God has already proven Himself to the world. The whole world already accepts the scientific fact that God exists along with His factual attributes and activities, with the singular exception of the crackpot atheist, who is in the extreme miniscule minority in this regard.
Before being taken seriously, the crackpot atheist must necessarily come up with at least one viable argument in favor of his bizarre dogmatic belief that God somehow doesn't exist, but so far, he fails.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
God has been proven for countless centuries, and atheist dogma
is a new invention, a newcomer attempting to upset a long-established scientifically factual conclusion -- therefore the burden of proof is on the atheist.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
I don't have to convince anyone, because the vast majority of human beings on the planet also know that Theism is in the right, and atheism is wrong.
The vast majority always has accepted Theism and rejected atheism, and the vast majority always will.
It is the atheist who must somehow, someday do some convincing, but as of this time, you fail.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Problem is, nobody believes you, and that's because you have no evidence for your bizarre claims about God.
The reason why the vast majority of human beings apprehend the ample evidence for God is that they are smarter than animals. The reason why you don't is because you're not.
You fantasize that someone will someday believe you, but it won't happen: face reality.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to apprehend the ample scientific evidence for God that the majority of mankind accepts.
Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual existence, His characteristics, or His activities.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God, along with His factual characteristics and activities, as a scientific fact, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific fact anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific fact stands unchallenged and universally accepted.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
The atheist can't understand why the whole world, except for him, is thoroughly convinced that God's existence along with His characteristics and activities is a scientific fact.
This is the nature of the truth -- it produces a stronger conviction than the lies of atheist dogma could ever produce, and when faced with this strong conviction, the believer in atheist dogma becomes confused, frightened, and angry.
Fully alien to truth, the atheist finds those who possess it very strange indeed!
Purushadasa 2 years ago
All of God's scriptures prohibit violence and killing, and disobedience to God's scriptures is atheistic. Therefore, all violence and killing are atheistic activities, and real Theists are always in accordance with God's injunctions to be peaceful.
This obviously includes one of the injunctions that He has taken care to make extremely well-known all over the world, "Thou shalt not kill."
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Unless a person has access to some kind of observational data on the subject at hand, he has no scientific basis to produce any conclusions about that subject.
Any conclusion reached by skipping over the observation step is called a premature conclusion, and since you have no idea what scientific method is, I am informing you that it is a "no-no."
The atheist's conclusions about God (including all of yours, above) are all premature, unscientific conclusions, and must be discounted as such.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Conversely, many, many Theists have observed God in many ways, and so they are therefore perfectly qualified to produce scientific conclusions about Him, and also qualified to pass on those factual conclusions to neutral third parties, like me.
I have no choice but to accept the conclusions of the only party with such qualifications in regards to God -- the Theists.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
God has already proven Himself to the world. The whole world already accepts the scientific fact that God exists along with His factual attributes and activities, with the singular exception of the crackpot atheist, who is in the extreme miniscule minority in this regard.
Before being taken seriously, the crackpot atheist must necessarily come up with at least one viable argument in favor of his bizarre dogmatic belief that God somehow doesn't exist, but so far, he fails.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
I don't have to convince anyone, because the vast majority of human beings on the planet also know that Theism is in the right, and atheism is wrong.
The vast majority always has accepted Theism and rejected atheism, and the vast majority always will.
It is the atheist who must somehow, someday do some convincing, but as of this time, you fail.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Problem is, nobody believes you, and that's because you have no evidence for your bizarre claims about God.
The reason why the vast majority of human beings apprehend the ample evidence for God is that they are smarter than animals. The reason why you don't is because you're not.
You fantasize that someone will someday believe you, but it won't happen: face reality.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to apprehend the ample scientific evidence for God that the majority of mankind accepts.
Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual existence, His characteristics, or His activities.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God, along with His factual characteristics and activities, as a scientific fact, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific fact anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific fact stands unchallenged and universally accepted.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
I am confused. How can a true atheist believe in morality at all? According to them we are just complex living organisms as meaningless as a plant or a bug. Actions cannot be good or evil if there is not a supreme being do designate which are which.
ohiopigman 2 years ago 2
1. What is a "true"anything?
2. Without morals,no society would prosper,and therefor morals cannot be pertained to a supreme being.
Killer0fTheSun 2 years ago
Still yet, a code of morals would be made. Instead of looking at actions as either being good or bad as deemed by a sky wizard, you would instead of an optimized standard for society life. Instead of saying something is bad, we can say it creates a negative to society and should be changed or removed from the general population, including people.
A code for the better of everyone can be derived scientifically without having to even call it morals or god, which it technically would be.
coreygames 2 years ago
".. a supreme being to designate which are which (good or evil)"
Are you implying that the assignment of good and evil is arbitary? Could God wake up tomorrow and designate that all things hitherto considered as good are from tomorrow onwards evil, and all evil things good? If God can't, then what is good and what is evil, are independent of God. If God can, then the theist has a bigger problem with morality than the atheist. Would you be prepared to murder your own son if God told you to?
RasPesher 2 years ago
He could, but since He's not insane like you are, He doesn't.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Your answer demonstrates that you think that there is such a thing as morality without appealing to a god; otherwise my question would not be "insane." But then you swing the other way by saying that "he could." What is it like sitting on the fence?
RasPesher 2 years ago
I have never claimed that there is not such a thing as morality without appealing to "a god" [sic].
Please explain how your question could not be insane.
I haven't "swung" any way -- I simply stated some facts for your benefit: God could indeed change morality, and if He had insane thoughts like yours, He probably would, but since He is sane, not insane like you, it doesn't interest Him to change it. He understands, like any sane person would, that morality is perfect as He first designed it.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
"He understands, like any sane person would, that morality is perfect as He first designed it"
If there is no external standard for morality outside of your god, then perfect morality can only mean that god defined it. If god redefined it, then that too would be morally perfect (by defn). To think that my question is insane implies that you have some sort of double standard, that there is a moral standard outside of god to which god has to comply, any change may then fail that external test.
RasPesher 2 years ago
I'm very grateful to God for sending me an "opponent" whose posts are completely incoherent and require no direct response.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
I never claimed that it interested me to change morality. I do not know why you made that up as my initial statement was clear. Sorry I simply tried to make sense out of your totally incoherent and contradictory statements. I now understand that my guess concerning your position was wrong. It was folly of me to try; your argument was without foundation.
RasPesher 2 years ago
Yes, you are confused. Plants and bugs are not meaningless. Actions have consequences which result in pain or pleasure. Most people are born with empathy which causes them to share the pain or pleasure of others. A few people are sociopathic or psychopathic, and don't care how others feel. For them, no amount of religion will help. There is only the threat of societal punishment to prevent them from acting in a purely self serving way.
Moral codes are nothing more than social pressure.
kendalla59 2 years ago
then you belive in morality just because is write in a "holy book" abot "what GOd said" ? ANd then if there was write another things you should belive these?
sergiorgio2000 2 years ago
LOL FAIL! We atheists don't need a 'higher being' to tell us what to do. We make our own decisions. You are literally saying that people cannot decide on their own to be good or bad. What a close minded view point that is.
CurtdoggLP5 2 years ago
@ohiopigman We have personal opinions about what is good and what is bad based on our values. I don't see why you'd need a Supreme Being to have an opinion about what is good/bad.
adean2 1 year ago
I wonder if Matt "not so" Slick would think it's perfectly acceptable for parents to raise their kids to be neo-Nazi's?
I'm not comparing Christianity to Nazi-ism, but the process of indoctrination is no different.
PaulBarte 2 years ago
This isn't exactly fair. Matt Slick argues topics like this on a daily basis, im not really sure about the other guy.
mitch73kill 2 years ago
Atheist pwned!
ROFLMFAO!!!
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Wow. As an atheist, I have to say the Atheist did get owned. He was a sit atheist though. I could have answered those questions with ease, and I'm 18.
CurtdoggLP5 2 years ago
I have to agree with you -- atheism got totally slammed in this video, and it's hard for me to admit it, because I believe in atheism too.
I understand now about the meaning of the moral argument, which most of its detractors in this comments section obviously do not.
Dr, Slick is very good, and I'm going to look into some more of his videos now.
AtheosZero 2 years ago 3
That guy didn't run out of answers, he gave up on the debate because the Christian has very old views on athieism. He said it's wrong for the atheist to teach their children to be open-minded. That is the same argument for Christianity. I have to admit he wasn't a very good debater :P.
spankthereasoner 2 years ago
"He said it's wrong for the atheist to teach their children to be open-minded."
No he didn't, he said it was the atheist's opinion that it was wrong for christian parents to teach their kids christian values and that it was fine for the atheist to hold that personal opinion. Then he said it would be unacceptable for the atheist to impose his opinion on the christian parents. He never said it was wrong for the atheist to teach his kids about freethinking.
Sophiethefembot 2 years ago
aha brilliant. The failure to account for objective morality
RazzleMcDazzle989 2 years ago
thats a gift of the HOLY SPIRIT!!!!!!
1of1000 2 years ago
Why would Matt Slick go to an atheist convention, start arguing with someone knowing that the man would disagree, and then get offended that the guy doesn't want to hear pro-Xtian arguments at an atheist convention?
If I were sitting in a church, I wouldn't run up to people and start an argument that I knew would offend them. I would certainly apologize if I did offend them.
ManicEightBall 2 years ago
"Legality is always moral, in my opinion."
...Are you serious?
What if it was legal to behead Christians? Is THAT moral?
"Thank you for rudely walking away."
...Again, are you serious? Because he didn't want to sit through what could have become hours of arguments he's probably heard a million times before?
He even said, "Enjoy" as he was going. He didn't go, "Fuck off," or anything like that.
I don't do "atheist conventions," but I imagine that those who do don't want that.
TheLithp 2 years ago
He did not run out of answers, Matt Slick just refused to even make an effort to understand them.
LanceDirk 2 years ago
When a Christian parent indoctrinates their children into Christianity, it should be considered child abuse. At that age, a child has no ability to judge rationally, you could convince them that Santa is real, for instance (as is evidenced in that many parents do). This in itself isn't that big of a deal, except that by being Christian they must then be traumatized by stories of eternal suffering, and told how they are worthless sinners, ever evil, unworthy of love. It is emotional abuse.
angelwhite 2 years ago
But at best, that would be morally neutral, because children who are born in atheist families adopt the some, if not all, of the same conclusions that THEIR parents make as well. Their parents can say things like "religion is a virus" or "religion is the greatest cause of violence in all of history" or "if you believe in God, then you've been brainwashed." By your reasoning, that would be equally abusive, emotionally speaking. So what you're saying is a double standard.
BassP86 2 years ago
Yes, if an atheist indoctrinated their children into their beliefs that would be abusive. As a parent, you do not have to destroy your child's critical thinking, I know even Christians who do not force their children to believe Christianity, it is almost scary you think this is inevitable. There is a difference, though, in that atheism doesn't emotionally abuse them on top of it with stories of eternal torture, and an inherited unavoidable sinful state. But regardless, it shouldn't happen ever.
angelwhite 2 years ago
"it is almost scary you think this is inevitable." - I never said that at all. It came across from your comment that YOU believed that Christianity as a whole, does this. I am glad thought that you recognize that atheists have done this too. However, it not good to put more incredulity to Christians for indoctrination, because it labels the religion based on what its FOLLOWERS do, not by what its claims to truth are.
BassP86 2 years ago
My conclusion of abuse is not an assessment of whether Christianity is true, it is an assessment of whether it is abusive, and I find that it is, because of what it does to it's followers, and causes them to do to others. Further, it is not the the believer I have a problem with (directly) it is the belief. When the belief manifests the believer to act, the problem is not the "follower" it is the principles being followed.
angelwhite 2 years ago
Also, having an opinion that the child knows about is not the same as indoctrinating. Indoctrinating is when you tell the child what they think, not what you think. It relies on emotional blackmail, taking advantage of ignorance and trust, "peer" pressure, and careful control of interactions and influences in order to intentionally introduce bias into the child's experiences, and willfully distort their experiences and thinking to mimic the desired outcome.
angelwhite 2 years ago
"it shouldn't happen ever." - But the problem is, if you're an atheist, there is no logical basis with which to defend your moral affirmations. Which is precisely the point that Matt Slick was telling this gentleman in this video. To say that indoctrination is wrong, might just as well be good, according the lack of a logical basis. If you argue that it is wrong because the child is not developed enough that only assumes MORE unsubstantiated moral judgments, which begs the question.
BassP86 2 years ago
All morality is bigotry (atheists' and religionists' alike), all morality begs the question, my statement may be about behavior, but it is not about morality. (the use of the word "ever" was a poor choice on my part, similar to saying "no one knows" or "everybody went to the beach" or other hyperbolic statements.) Also, I did not use the word "wrong", you chose that word to turn my statement about destructive behaviour (an objective concept) into a statement about morality (always dogmatic).
angelwhite 2 years ago
"my statement may be about behavior, but...not about morality." - Angel, you made a statement about what OUGHT to be & what NOT ought to be. If indoctrination should never happen, then you are logically making a MORAL judgment which contradicts your position. Therefore either you must remain NEUTRAL at best towards indoctrination, stop arguing that shouldn't happen, or withdraw your position of how all morality is bigotry. If you don't do either of these, then you live w/ systemic contradiction.
BassP86 2 years ago
'You ought to not wear shorts when its snowing". A statement about proper behaviour. Is it a moral statement? No, I know of no moral claim that it's a sin to wear shorts in the snow. Your argument fails because behavioural conclusions are not required to be moral. You don't wear shorts because it's cold and you don't abuse children because it is psychologically harmful, it results in undesirable consequences. This is cause and effect, the only objective way to arrive at behavioural conclusions.
angelwhite 2 years ago
"You ought to not wear shorts when its snowing" - Ah, this is an argument I've heard before and it is the fallacy of equivocation. You're equating 2 different kinds of actions to be the same thing. 1 action is the kind where only you yourself are affected by the action. The 2nd is where OTHERS are affected by the action as well. They are not the same. When you bring forth actions that affect others then there is conflict of opposing motives and intentions, thus the morality issue is brought up.
BassP86 2 years ago
However, even if we grant for the sake of argument that both types of actions ARE the same, they are not BOTH objective. Psychologically harmful is a matter of opinion whereas one freezing if he or she goes outside lacking the "appropriate" clothing is a precondition, and not an opinion.
So actually your argument grants my point.
BassP86 2 years ago
"You should not drive on the wrong side of the road". Not because it's a sin, but because you'll cause accidents. "U shud not write lyke dis". Not because it is a sin, but because others have difficulty reading it. These are not equivocal (nor was the last). All decisions can be amoral, some are just more obvious.
Psychological harm is not a matter of opinion. It is well documented, independently verified. In the same way that clothing is determined to be appropriate, behaviour is as well.
angelwhite 2 years ago
If it's independently verified, then that IS opinion. You cannot document "psychological harm" in itself, only the EFFECTS of the action. "Psychological harm" is a LABEL you apply to the effects. You're assuming the effects contain the label in and of themselves.
"All decisions can be amoral, some are just more obvious." - Just? That's begging the question. You assume the nature to be self-explanatory with ALL actions. I'm sorry but my point still stands as you're arguing in a circle.
BassP86 2 years ago
How is independent verification an opinion? You and I can independently verify that 1+1=2, this is not an opinion. How is psychological harm undocumented? Depression, for example, is extensively documented.
I believe I have shown 1) behaviour considered to be moral can be derived from amoral sources, 2) decision making between traditionally moral and amoral choices is the same.
That does not beg the question. And it's superior to morality, as it represents the best decision for the situation.
angelwhite 2 years ago
"You and I can independently verify that 1+1=2, this is not an opinion." - That is actually not an independent verification, that's a universal precondition. It remains true regardless of whether or not it is verified by an external source.
"I believe I have shown 1) behaviour considered to be moral can be derived from amoral sources, 2) decision making between traditionally moral and amoral choices is the same." - That's an appeal to correlation, which is a fallacy.
BassP86 2 years ago
And we know it is true, because we have independently verified it, this is why we do this. How do you suggest we determine truth? I do not understand your arguments, are you are saying that abuse is not damaging?
It is not an appeal to correlation, please take an Introduction to Philosophy course, as you continue to misapply fallacies. These are not appeals, these are my points. It is now your turn to show how a moral conclusion ever can hope to be better than an amoral one.
angelwhite 2 years ago
"How do you suggest we determine truth?" - What is true, is true independently of our verifying it. Ex: I do not determine that I am ultimately a human being as opposed to an amoeba. Reality itself preconditions that. It's ironic how you say that we determine truth, yet you say how morality is bigotry when AMORALITY could just as equally be bigotry.
Now to my point on morality itself...
BassP86 2 years ago
Morality has a point of reference, whereas amorality does not. Whenever you argue that X is "better" you invoke a moral judgment, not an amoral one. You invoke value to a human being as if he or she is worth something, but even your grants that value is illusory. That is precisely what John Gray, a best-selling atheist author in the UK said in his book Straw Dogs. He said that to label abuse as "wrong" or "unbeneficial" is a lie, because abuse occurs in ALL other animal species. (cont.)
BassP86 2 years ago
In regards to depression, we have to understand that the state of the brain during depression itself IS documented. But the problem is when you argue that depression is BENEFICIAL or HARMFUL, then you are placing arbitrary labels on the RESULTS of the such emotional states. In other words, you are using the RESULTS of that action or event as your BASIS for why it is beneficial, harmful, etc. That is not objective, that is circular reasoning.
BassP86 2 years ago
Also if depression IS beneficial, according to your position, then that begs the questions as to why it couldn't be otherwise.
The state of the brain is documented, but the condition of it being "better" or "worse", is NOT documented whatsoever. You claim the results to be "beneficial" or "harmful", which are completely arbitrary labels. Your position logically entails that the alleged "benefits" and "harms" are really not "benefits" or "harms" at all. They are simply results and nothing else.
BassP86 2 years ago
"Your position logically entails that the alleged "benefits" and "harms" are really not "benefits" or "harms" at all. They are simply results and nothing else."
Yes, they are simply results, but they are results that we interpret as desirable and undesirable. Depression is undesirable, a negative detrimental result. This is not a label, this is physiology, if the dictionary changed, the state of mind we describe with the word "depression" would not. The state of our mind is objective (like 1+1)
angelwhite 2 years ago
"Yes, they are simply results, but they are results that we interpret as desirable and undesirable." - Precisely my point Angel. You interpret one thing as beneficial, when clearly your position GRANTS that it could just as easily be otherwise. That's what YOUR argument entails. You claim that abuse is negative, when your position grants that it could equally be positive. The irony is that you're denying that abuse could be anything BUT negative, and that is where you are committing the fallacy.
BassP86 2 years ago
He said "...Darwinian theory tells us that an interest in truth is not needed for survival or reproduction. More often it is a disadvantage. Deception is common among primates and birds.... Truth has no systematic evolutionary advantage over error. Quite to the contrary, evolution will select for a degree of self-deception, rendering some fact and motives unconscious so as not to betray - by the subtle signs of self-knowledge - the deception being practiced." (cont.)
BassP86 2 years ago
What Gray is saying is if we say that things such as deception should not happen, then we are in violation of what evolution is all about. To label things as abusive is denying that WHATEVER helps the species to survive is advantageous, even abuse. To deny this is put value on our fellow humans as opposed to other animals. He calls this religion. "Humanism is not science, but religion - the post-Christian faith that humans can make a world better than any in which they have so far lived."
BassP86 2 years ago
Morally acceptable:
Parents teaching child that stealing is wrong.
Morally acceptable:
Parents explaining the immorality of stealing by offering the Golden Rule as explanation and further explaining the consequences by social law.
Morally unacceptable:
Parents explaining the immorality of stealing by offering the Ten Commandments as explanation and further explaining the consequences by religious verse.
SenariXarn 2 years ago
Why is it immoral to teach the immorality of stealing via Ten Commandments and religious consequences?
Because religious consequences are so real to the abstract mind of a child that the eternal torture of hell is real and frightening.
Teaching a child that sin will lead to hell may make that child behave in accordance with the Ten Commandments, but they will have a warped sense of justice and self-worth.
Better that children know the present and living consequences of their actions.
SenariXarn 2 years ago
hi - can you please tell me if you think stealing is wrong, and if it is, why?
thanks.
LBSdrumz 2 years ago
Stealing is wrong because it is depriving another individual the right that you have. It is impressing your will upon another individual's human rights.
That's it.
You can quantify it as the Golden Rule if you want to.
SenariXarn 2 years ago
Atheists, take note.
you can't "run away" when you meet God and are held accountable. swallow your pride and repent.
CapnnOrdinary 3 years ago
take note Christians, when you die you cannot relive your wasted time.
bkstudio1990 3 years ago
"Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither."
C. S. Lewis
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
Comment removed