Ten questions every Christian has answered a million times - Part 1/2

[TrickWithAKnife]

Don't believe everything people tell you dude.

I worked in hospitals for 3 years, and never once heard any of these stories.

Can't comment on the rest, as I got bored.

[darksneaker2000]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORING!

[peterfinnfilms]

I have some questions:

Why doesn't the Bible account for the existence of dinosaurs?

If God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree, why did he put the tree in the garden in the first place?

Why is God against homosexuals even though they have no control over their sexual orientation?

Why is Satan considered evil? In a way, he's like God's jailer, punishing the bad guys and keeping them out of Heaven.

Why are non-believers sent to Hell? They're not necessarily bad people — just mistaken.

[rhyfelur]

I think you are missing the point on the amputee question. The point is that people who claim that God heals others through them, will never claim to heal something that can be verified by a skeptical observer. Men have made such claims since the beginning times, and from every culture, and they have always had the same motive...because it benefits them personally in some way. Does it not strike you as odd that Benny Hinn heals people while simultaneously asking for your money?

[tedalias]

wow... nice comments from Slim and Godkiller... I guess since there is no God it really doesn't matter how you act?

[GodKillerAtheist]

why does God make religious people so naive and credulous?

this video is LO-troll food

[SlimShady353]

Dude, Us athiests want VISUAL evidence. Don't annswer this bullshit with more bullshit, why are there so many starving ppl, because Adam and eve. Blah blah blah, how do we even know Adam and eve have ever excisted? Do we know anyone from heaven?have we seen heaven. Go back to dream land faggot.

[Patrick1176]

listen to more black metal man fuck off your dumb have you read the bible

[Iyoossaev]

God gave us the free will. We are hence free to fix the situation ourselves. But it's people who hurt other people...

[comedyact56]

Good answers! You have a great grasp of the condition of the human race and their lack of understanding of true Christianity.

Keep up the great work!

[gtfonewfag]

he speaks like he has put a period after every word, this. is. really. boring. to. watch.

[OmvendtVideo]

Well I'm Norwegian, so I can get away with it :)

[Iyoossaev]

I am pretty sure that his English is better than your Norwegian. And keep in mind he is speaking to a camera.

[gtfonewfag]

im pretty sure i am fluent in klingon

[Iyoossaev]

Klingon is still different than Norwegian. And Klingon is actually very simple language. But still, good for you!

[avrajam]

Okay, on question 1. It would be better if you try to prove your point with objective evidence rather than subjective, I could easily claim that Allah appeared to me and healed me from cancer, but the only evidence you have for my claim is my word, as the only "evidence" of your "healing" claims is your word. If you don't use any kind of objective evidence (peer reviewed articles, historical documents, medical records, etc) your claim is as valid and true as mine

[anonazero]

his point is that its a loaded question that implies God doesn't do anything.

[pro272727]

OK, wow you really think that there was an Adam and Eve? So people are born with original sin, so what about babies that are not born?

Do you really believe that people are evil? if so you live in a sad scared little world!

and for #4 Yes, it does, just saying "it doesn't" is not a good answer.

#5 So its ok to teach some one to enslave ? as long as you doing it right.

And plz learn how to talk with out all of the "um" and "theee" and "thing". then you could have fit your videos into one.

[777cata]

from my own experience i can say that atheist are only looking for rows, not answers.

they don`t even bother to read or listen to what you have to say.

[Cafeeine]

A note: Its not that atheists think Xians can't answer these questions, its just a good way to see the way you rationalize these issues. Your answers are a good example.

[anonazero]

which is what someone with zero understanding of the philosophy that christians and the bible hold.

[anonazero]

would say.

i hit post too soon :)

[Cafeeine]

In #5 he ignores how easily the bible could have 'dealt with the reality' by saying 'You shall never own other people'. In your worldview, God was present before there was a reality of slavery, he could have nipped it in the bud, instead of passing rules favoring his pet desert tribe. And when we decided to abolish slavery, its fans and detractors alike found support in bible verses.

[makotoS13]

what you dont get is that in biblical times individual slaves were only slaves to pay off debts they otherwise would never work off and were to be set free every 7 years.

this obviously doesnt' count for another nation conquering and enslaving another culture but in ancient jewish culture a slave was more or less and employee that could leave after a few years.

look it up.

[Cafeeine]

What part of your response discounts my claim that "In your worldview God was present before there was a reality of slavery, he could have nipped it in the bud, instead of passing rules favoring his pet desert tribe"?

"In ancient jewish culture a slave was more or less an employee" Only Jew slaves.had that privilege.Lev. 25:46 shows you wrong.

Answer me this: Would you favor a reinstatement of slavery as presented & decreed in the Bible?

[makotoS13]

your question containts faulty logic. here is why.

It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw the practice altogether.What many people fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status.

[Cafeeine]

I never claimed that it wasn't different. However claiming it was a "matter of social status" is misleading, and deceptive. After all, American slavery was also a matter of 'social status'. It was also about people being deemed property, with themselves and their offspring being inheritable goods. You are affirming my point, not disputing it.

[makotoS13]

no, im explaining why you're asking a loaded question. american slaves were sold by their own tribes out of greed to white men for cheap labor. they were treated as cattle in a huge number of cases. also, not all slaves were treated badly, maybe not even most but you dont believe that for the same reason you probably think the civil war was about slavery.

learn your history and then we can talk. until then there are too many things you're just assuming.

[Cafeeine]

You don't need to bring modern slavery into this at all, nor the ACW. I didn't . I only mentioned it to note that both sides of the slavery struggle then found support in the Bible. My claim is that the support of slavery as it existed in BCE times was deplorable. That it was a "reality" of the times tells me nothing. Murder & theft were realities as well, but those were accounted for.

Try to respond to what I said.Would you favor a reinstatement of slavery as presented & decreed in the Bible?

[makotoS13]

what you're IGNORING is the fact that the bible didn't invent slavery, it dealt with it. furthermore what you are IGNORING is that slaves were a social class back then (for the most part), not a group of people bought, sold, and treated as animals with no rights what so ever.

you IGNORE these two facts with your statement and then you want people to answer the loaded question... which is retarded.

and ALL of this is under the blanket assumption that right and wrong even EXIST.

[Cafeeine]

What you're saying would make sense if the Bible was the collected works of a nomadic people who described the morals of their society by as ordained by their god. It doesn't when you consider an all-powerful deity guiding their steps through often direct intervention. Yet biblical slaves were worse off than their contemporary Helots in Sparta.

Oh, and slaves are always a social class, the bottom one in societies were slavery is legal.

[makotoS13]

if you're an atheist what would that matter? there is nothing to answer to. the only thing that matters is a species survival. the spartans had the best way to do this: cull the weak. survival of the fittest.

right and wrong are figments of your imagination. illusions to keep order in society in a world of chaotic chance. if there is no ultimate consequence there is no good or evil.

[Cafeeine]

They are not figments of the imagination, they are figments of our intellect, like our human laws. The idea that there is a supernatural boogeyman to enforce them with eternal bliss and torment, that is a figment of the imagination.

Good and bad are what we as a society deem it to be, which is why we eventually stopped slavery, gave equal rights to women and have started caring for the environment etc. We didn't do it by clinging to books deemed holy by illiterate shepherds..

[makotoS13]

im not saying you did, i'm saying that if good and bad are only what we make... then what are you whining about when someone says something is good if you disagree? if they call it good then its good.

that is, unless you lack the conviction of your words.

this is where you pick and choose what parts of your own philosophy work and borrow from other ones to hodgepodge a semi functional idea with tons of qualifiers.

[Cafeeine]

Picking & choosing parts of existing philosophies & borrowing them to hodgepodge a semi functional idea with tons of qualifiers is just about how every moral philosophy was created, including Xianity. I don't see that as a bad thing. The bad thing is to cling to a philosophy that is no longer useful because of its supernatural baggage.

[makotoS13]

not when it comes to right and wrong. what you want to do is say "well good and bad exist but only after we created them but now we can't change the meanings of some things even though we can change the meanigns of others" which is totally false. either you can change the meaning of all of it... or you can't change the meaning of any of it.

you believe right and wrong to be "figments of intellect" which is imagination which is... fantasy.

so whats the problem with slavery if this is the case?

[Cafeeine]

What is right and wrong is determined through the intellect, through rational thought and argumentation. If you can't distinguish between that and fantasy (having a burning bush dictate things on the top of a mountain comes to mind) I can't help you.

[Cafeeine]

"[...]what are you whining about[..]"

Because that was not my claim. Group morality is derived from societal consensus, not from the whims of the individual. As such, it behooves me to voice my opposition to anything I see that I consider a detriment to human society, in effect anything I consider immoral.

[makotoS13]

what you dont seem to want to admit is that whims of the individual create tides of change if they gain enough momentum.

hitler had a lot of people on his side, by your standard he was right and would've especially been right if he'd won.

if we create it we can destroy it. so you've no reason to gripe about a child molester diddling an 8 month old. if its what he wants there is no evil in it. if the whole world was okay with it not doing it would be "wrong" with your philosophy.

[Cafeeine]

"what you dont seem to want to admit is that whims of the individual create tides of change if they gain enough momentum."

I agree. And while your example is Hitler, mine's Xianity. Both had a bloody ascendance, but Nazism lost, Xianity won.If they had won you'd be saying how righteous and godly the Fuhrer was (or be dead, as the case may be). That's how societies work. You don't need to like it to understand it.

[makotoS13]

according to your logic, yes.

according to mine, no. my sense of right and wrong are not determined by society at all. do some reading on the seventh sense known as conscience.

read "the sociopath next door". there is nothing logical about human behavior in general so the suggestion that our moral code is based on logic is a faulty one.

its good that at least you admit that by your logic if hitler had won he would have been "good" and not the personification of evil by a majority vote.

[Cafeeine]

"my sense of [...] as conscience."

The collective right and wrong are determined through consensus. As you said, the pedophile's conscience supports molesting children. Doesn't mean society adopts it as well.

Re:Hitler. What you call a conscience is greatly informed from your education. In a Nazi world, that education would paint the Nazis as the 'good guys', likely hiding their worse atrocities. Doesn't mean WE would consider him good, be WE would not exist, as we are products of our culture.

[anonazero]

right because in your view right and wrong are the product of opinion.

[Cafeeine]

"if we create it [...]your philosophy."

For centuries the idea that women were equal to men was ludicrous in most of the world. This idea was also codified in the religions and no one thought it wrong. That we do so today is a product of rational thought and struggle. Can you think of a way the same could happen for baby molesting? IMO the only way large numbers of people can accept child molestation is through religious indoctrination.

[makotoS13]

it doesn't matter how, it matters if anyone finds it acceptable (see NAMBLA). lots of people agree that its okay to be a kiddie toucher but i'm certain your philosophy says "woah nelly, there is something wrong there".

if hitler had won WWII being a jew would be illegal and by your logic that would be right.

my point is that if you say that right and wrong are subjective then you say right and wrong are only illusions for order so right and wrong dont actually exist.

[Cafeeine]

"it matters if anyone finds it acceptable" Actually it matters that the majority find it acceptable, which is a different thing all together.

"right and wrong dont actually exist."

If you think of them as transcendent values independent of their relation to us, those don't exist. Those were a fiction.

Subjective does not mean arbitrary, as you seem to imply. Here, it means relative to the well-being of society, and our knowledge of our world and ourselves.

[anonazero]

subjective in this case means subjective to opinion.

[Cafeeine]

Maybe in your view, certainly not in my argument.

[anonazero]

so you say.

[Cafeeine]

Yes, so I say. And since I am describing how I used the word to make my argument, my say is what matters.

You are free to disagree with me, you are not free to redefine my position.

[makotoS13]

i dont have to disagree with you, you've already done that.

a collective opinion that shifts over time is still an opinion. if something is based on that opinion it doesn't make it fact, it makes it an accepted opinion.

this is what it all comes down to. either right and wrong are static unchanging standards or they are opinion.

either we seek to find out what right and wrong are or we create and modify what right and wrong are. there is no in between in this case.

[Cafeeine]

Are you and Anonazero the same person? This response was to him.

That said, there is a difference between something being an aggregate of opinions than being just derived from opinion. Its the difference between a state of anarchy and a state of democracy.

[makotoS13]

yeah, i didn't pay attention to when i which name was logged in.

ag⋅gre⋅gate /adj., n. ˈægrɪgɪt, -ˌgeɪt; v. ˈægrɪˌgeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [adj., n. ag-ri-git, -geyt; v. ag-ri-geyt] Show IPA adjective, noun, verb, -gat⋅ed, -gat⋅ing.

adjective

1. formed by the conjunction or collection of particulars into a whole mass or sum; total; combined: the aggregate amount of indebtedness.

i disagree and the dictionary does too :)

[Cafeeine]

You may disagree, but the dictionary says nothing contrary to my position. The combination of opinions is not the same thing as any single opinion.

Elections represent the aggregate will of the people, but their end result may not be 100% satisfactory for any single voter.

[makotoS13]

"The combination of opinions is not the same thing as any single opinion."

uhm, duh?

25+35=60 and 60 is not the same as 61 but if you add 15 instead of 25 your final product changes.

added values represent opinions and the SUM is the SUM of those opinions. individual opinions shape the course of history and sometimes even one man makes a difference (i.e. hitler).

the SUM is not the same as the properties added to achieve that sum, correct, but they determine WHAT that sum is.

[makotoS13]

you just equated right and wrong to the outcome of an election which is literally determined by a vote.

we're done here, either you dont want to admit that if enough people say its okay to let NAMBLA have their way it would be right and good and legal for men to have sex with little boys.

this is why your philosophy doesn't work... because you KNOW this isn't true. that good and evil aren't based on what we vote on. the sooner you see that the better.

[Cafeeine]

The voting analogy was given for you to understand why aggregate does not equal sum.I find myself having to explain every term to you and it is frustrating to do so in 500 char boxes. Your NAMBLA example would never happen in a rational society but you know what societies treat children mainly girls as property and sexual objects?Theocracies and cults, who will claim their actions as right, just like you. Youre painting a morality as objective, w/o a warrant to, and its skewing your perspective.

[makotoS13]

put two and two together... the total sum of our opinions equals social acceptance. this means social acceptance is formed exclusively from opinion. call it feeling, call it rational means, call it whatever, but its opinion.

"Your NAMBLA example would never happen in a rational society"

really? the greeks and romans were fine with molestation. there is even a reference to the boy lovers of athens in the movie/book 300....

does that make it right?

according to your philosophy... yes.

[Cafeeine]

It was right for them, just like slavery and female oppression was right for BCE Jews and CE Christians. We now know better, and we reject all those things, which is my point all along. Morality, along with we think is right and wrong will change along with society. To think there is a transcendent unchanging value of right and wrong is to look at reality with blinders on.

[makotoS13]

maybe in your view but not in my mind.

i'm sorry, i have a problem with murder, child molestation, stealing, and rape and it doesn't matter if the whole world said it was okay i would still see it as wrong.

you clearly are not of the same opinion so since we've established that i think our talk is over.

[Cafeeine]

Of course you think that. So do I. This is how we were brought up, and you are giving me some of the most clear-cut moral issues that have likely been forming since we stopped being nomadic hunters. They don't need to be divine to be correct.

Those morals aren't where we differ. Its that you fail to understand how we arrived at those morals. Yet you seem to have a problem distinguishing rational thought processes with products of the imagination, so you may have a lot more to learn.

[makotoS13]

investigate the world of psychology, particularly the study of sociopathy, and you will discover that our ability to determine right from wrong has very little to do with logic. its been proven time and time again that our perception of good and evil is not based on logic. if anything it is based on a feeling. a perception of a standard that exists (contrived or static, doesn't matter at this point) it is a PERCEPTION not our INVENTION.

read the sociopath next door. it will be an eye opener.

[Cafeeine]

I will, if you look into the various mores societies have had historically. The things people, even christians, have held to be true and right and good have changed many times. And was that in each and every one of these societies people likely claimed that their personal values were not their own invention, but something they just 'knew' to be obviously true, from outside themselves. Heck, Muslims feel that good is the will of Allah, and would dispute any point of disagreement.

[Cafeeine]

I looked at the Amazon page for "Sociopath next door". It looks like an interesting book (bookmarked it), but one that deals with individuals. I thought I made it clear that my argument is of collective consensus. There is a reason we place sociopaths and psychopaths in mental hospitals, because they are incompatible with society. Any David Koresh cannot alone change the morals of society.

[makotoS13]

1. the book doesn't only deal with conscience of specific people. it deals with the problem of conscience as whole.

2. who do you think makes up the collective? WE do. the collective consensus is created by the individual. thus, the individual matters.

[Cafeeine]

1.Fair enough, I can't comment until I actually read it.

Yes, the individual matters. But as you probably know, it is very hard to get other people to follow something different. If I suddenly decide it would be a good idea to greet people by dumping strawberry jam down their trousers, It is not likely that will catch on.

[makotoS13]

sociopaths like hitler don't have a problem with it. i keep using that as an example not for shock value but as a perfect example of people sincerely believing that the things they were doing (which were horrible) were right and justified.

read the book then message me. i really think it will clear up a lot of gray area for you.

[Cafeeine]

Hitler wasn't an island. He built on a Germany impoverished and shamed from WWI, and on prejudices fostering for centuries. And yet Hitler is not an issue to my argument. Nazism was appealing to Germany because it promised to restore them to a place of power. It gradually became dominant and then declared itself the only viable morality. This is what can happen when you consider your POV objectively true above all others.

[makotoS13]

yep.

[Cafeeine]

I am not claiming that slavery was instituted or established in the Bible, nor do I need to to make my point.

Slavery is deemed acceptable as long as certain rules are met, rules that guarrantee more the dignity of the 'chosen people' than that of people in general.

It described it, it presented the ways by which it was acceptable, treated ownership of humans as proper, decreed who you can own, sell & inherit. You dont 'deal' with slavery including a slaver's manual.

[makotoS13]

v. de·creed, de·cree·ing, de·crees

v. tr.

To ordain, establish, or decide by decree.

[makotoS13]

furthermore the question "Would you favor a reinstatement of slavery as presented & decreed in the Bible?" says that the bible decreed/ordained/established by law the practice of slavery which simply isn't true so you're asking a question that doesn't have an answer.

so would i support the practice of slavery as the bible as presented and decreed by the bible? no, because it didn't invent or establish or bring into existence the practice of slavery.

your philosophical boat is full of fail.

[Cafeeine]

In attempting to avoid answering you are doing similar linguistic gymnastics as the video poster. I never stated the bible invented, established or brought into existence slavery. It did present an form it found acceptable and decreed rules on its management. This is what I asked you to comment on, and this is what you completely fail to answer.

Look out, your straw men are showing.

[makotoS13]

"I never stated the bible invented, established or brought into existence slavery."

you did when you used "decreed" in your question.

im not playing semantics, im forcing you to see that your question has buried assumptions in it.

[Cafeeine]

To decree something does not solely mean to establish, it can also regulate, which is what the Bible does. As I mentioned multiple times that I agree the BIble did not establish slavery, I obviously did not mean that definition, and this is a poor excuse for you to evade answering.

Let's phrase it differently: Would you support the rules regarding slavery in the Bible becoming international law?

[makotoS13]

just to be crystal clear i want you to tell me what you think those rules are. your words, listed. thats fair right?

[makotoS13]

just to give you a heads up i dont support anything becoming international law.

[Cafeeine]

I disagree. I have a quite good idea of the philosophy of Xians and some of the preposterous ideas they accept.

See #2. He bends over backwards to avoid blaming god. Even when he mentions natural disasters, he quickly jumps back to the human factor. Never mind the absurdity of setting the universe on "self-destruct" because of two people's actions. He sidesteps #3, ignores #4 completely.

[makotoS13]

a person with a comprehensive understanding of the mechanics of philosophy would know that your statements are made only to provoke, not to communicate, because as you've noted you dont want information in return to be processed: you want a reaction for the sake of your own amusement.

great communication skills.

[Cafeeine]

I was not the original maker of the video, I'm just expressing my views on it. I have asked and received an abundance of information from theists, going back to when I was one.

What I am looking for is honest answers. If the ones I get provide me with amusement, that is completely unrelated.

As the quote says: "If you don't want your beliefs laughed at, you shouldn't have so funny beliefs"

[makotoS13]

i dont care if you laugh at my beliefs, that is between you and God.

[Cafeeine]

"i dont care if you laugh at my beliefs, that is between you and God."

Tell me, are you of the theological persuasion that says that those in Heaven will be looking down in Hell at those in torment and rejoicing?

[makotoS13]

nope.

[Cafeeine]

Fine.

[makotoS13]

FINE!