Christian 'ethics' are not limited to christianity itself. Common sense and ethical study has even come up with an concept of meta-ethics as prayed by the guy in the video. For that normal moral sense we don't need any religion code or bible, because an average ethical study will do a better job then the outdated ethical study of the bible.
How possibly can you be an atheist christian - and really, how do you go from Jesus to Ayn Rand - self sacrifice and ayn rand cannot go together in one video...wow. dumb
You make some good points... Did you actually read the whole Bible-- from Genesis to Revelation in context w/ the Holy Spirit guiding you? Christianity is not about living a good life or about going to a church building & wondering what people think about you. The message is God's sacrificial love and renewed everlasting life for those who love Him. Jesus embodied altruism. All Good. He claimed to be the Truth. Truth never changes and can be trusted. Objectivism changes so you can't trust it.
@MrWigglyy I'm truly sorry you feel this way. Spiritual matters can't always be discerned by the mind. This is why Jesus says that a person must LOVE with all the heart, mind, soul, & strength. You need all 4 to really get what the Bible is saying. If the Spirit is not living in you, it won't make sense. But if you sincerely want to know, God will reveal Himself through it & through life experiences. You're intelligent. God designed you to speak intelligently. Hope cropperb will see this, too.
what few realize is that objectivism is hard to comprehend because so many people abuse it. The trick is to define 'good' and 'bad' correctly the first time, and not dilly dally about it. Stating that there are no objective values in itself is a contradiction, as the statement itself has is rather objective, not subjective if taken as true. Objetivism works if the morality behind it is sound, and thus far there are few truly sound moral systems in place-therefore, work on that......
@filmjunkie998 ....don't bother working on reducing what moral systems we DO have to nothing more than meaningless objective statements, because then what reason do you have to claim anything is 'wrong'? if being wrong in itself is an objective statement, objective meaning a statement held as true to more than just you, then making the two value objectivism system meaninless and arbitrary opens a pandoras box and makes all life itself appear rather meaningless. That's stupid.
Everything I heard you say as the way Christianity is, is incorrect from simple, tho' responsible Biblical study. It is clear that your view of Christianity comes from "Christians". Try the Biblical God instead.
@Wsls53 I always find personal challenges to be particularly motivating to investigate and analyze my beliefs. I could potentially enjoy a debate with you. But I'm struck by the impression that you are a sophist, and that makes it rather less enticing.
@Wsls53 I tell you that man is material, and that material things are thus definitely a concern to him. I tell you that man's mind functions independently, according to only its own standard of accepting and rejecting ideas, and that this is inescapable and pervasive. Freedom is essential to productivity, and productivity is essential to man's well-being. The universe is knowable and knowledge is defintely useful to mankind. Which objectivist premise is it you find so offensive?
@Wsls53 Note how all your attempts to criticize objectivism for being immoral are now reduced to claims of its morality not being objectifiable. And yet you say that no morality is objectifiable anyway? It seems to be you who considers murder and slavery and irrationality itself as somehow legitimate. I tell you objectivism values none of these things, and you refuse to understand. For what fear? Is your own independence from reason something you feel you must protect?
I'm a Christian-Atheist or Atheist-Christian in the sense that heaven/hell can go F OFF, and that the Blood of Christ (Vampyrism) not only purifies one, but also offers eternal life--a philosopher's stone of sorts. That's how I came to find this alien rant.
Dear sir, I would ask that you reexamine your position. Rationally, you cannot say with any surety whether a God does or does not exist. There is no scientific proof that God is a falsehood, (And of course science stems from rational thought,) and there is no proof that a God does exist either. The knowledge of whether or not there is a God is unknowable. And until it IS knowable the only rational choice is agnosticism.
But than, your reaction will be, I don't want that, cause than I can be shot by anyone. That's true. In that way only the strongest people on earth will have a good life. Still, you don't accept that, cause it isn't good for you. People who are strong like you, but not the strongest, will have enough having a moral guarding there freedoms. Week people will need a moral that gives them some support.
@OGthegame I just looked it up. It says that there are different stages of morality trough history, from egoism (their own sake) to altruism (everybody's sake). Is that what you're talking about, cause if you believe in that, it is against objectivism?
I also don't agree in that theory, cause even last century still inhumane people were preaching egoism, like Rand, or racism, like Hitler.
And even then it is just an *observation*, that is not a proof that that ideology is wrong or right.
@OGthegame There is no proof possible. Everything we can (more or less) prove, are things that are observable. But we can't see or hear any moral law anywhere. Yes, in the Bible, but you don't believe it, or in the stones Moses got, but you don't believe that either.
Objectivism is just based on nothing. They're just a bunch of selfish people that try to prove that egoism is good, just to justify themself. A danger for civilisation and nothing better than Hitler, Stalin, or other egoists.
@Wsls53 Objectivist egoism is only an answer to the old philosophical quandry of "is it really possible to commit a selfless good deed." The answer is no, because a respect of your own standard of "good" is inherently selfish. Rand accepts the good deed, and throws out the virtue of selflessness, whereas more prominently Kant accepts selflessness and throws out the virtue of a good deed. You would be surprised how many things can be justified on the basis that *it's in your own interest*.
@Wsls53 And, as by the way there are alot of things we can prove without direct observation, morality is not a physical thing but an abstraction which describes a quantifiable pattern in that which is physical. What you really observe are human actions and their consequences, and that the consequences themselves, of human happiness or unhappiness, are reducible to the fundamentals of what it is to be human, such that it is the same for everyone, in many ways at least. That is objective morality.
@Wsls53 Oftentimes you can't observe directly what it is you're trying to prove, but can prove that it logically must follow from something which you can directly observe, which is called inference. The objectivist moral system follows from the principle that your own happiness is your highest value, and that acting according to a non-self-contradictory moral standard of your own is essential to being truly happy. Since morality is to your own benefit, altruism, or selflessness, is immoral.
@Wsls53 No. Whatever twisted pleasure some people may get out of murder, it couldn't constitute a rational evaluation of their own best interests. Depriving the world you live in of the benefit of a human being, merely for its own sake, or on some contrived whim, would represent a terrible error in reasoning. Do you believe that morality can only be arbitrary, and if not to appease God's own whim would serve no purpose?
@eggory OK, I don't agree with that, I have the impression "benefit" can for you only be material. No fun doing other (insane) things. But I'll just give you another example. Do you think slave traders had no great benifit enslaving, beating and killing people? Is this moral for you? And what about killing old people. They aren't useful either?
My conclusion: objectivism is the way criminals think: only your own sake. Just like nazism is only for white Germans' sake.
Force destroys market competition and thereby stifles, and perhaps even reverses innovation. The wish to own another human being is in conflict with what makes him valuable in the first place.
Even for those who are of neutral value to you, violence begets violence.
And Nazism didn't do white Germans any good at the end of the war.
Examples can help one understand, but you can't prove anything until you grasp the underlying principle itself.
@eggory Your question is whether I think you can objectively define morality. No, I don't. We are just put on the earth for no reason (just an accident), and thus, there is also no goal in our life. We can only subjectively give it a goal: it does not have to be material, like you suppose (else you wouldn't say innovation (= new products) makes your life better). You can give value to a lot of things: killing other people, making your family happy, helping strangers,...
@eggory I think you're blind to some things and fool yourself
First paragraph: Do you really think only innovation can make your life valuable. I don't think you think very lucid here. (By the way innovation can be very dangerous as well)
Third paragraph: I meant that objectivist and nazi's share the same spirit: objectivists: everything for themselves, nazis: everything for there people.
Second paragraph: you aren't very lucid again. Like all people that ever used violence didn't get better from it: slave traders, absolute kings, colonists,... You just believe what you want to.
Further on the third paragraph: No nazi's didn't win the war. So, at the end they did something that was not good for there own. Many other kings did win a lot fighting in war, so again you just believe what you want to.
Dear guy, you're wrong. Actually, with logical reason you can't explain ANY moral point of view. For example, you probably believe state has to save guard your freedom. Sadly, there is no god given law that tells us that. So it is untrue it is a fact, like objectivists pretend. So in fact everything should be allowed.
I'm eastern Orthodox and I really like this guy and what he said. I Like the fact that he's just saying it plainly. Seems like a nice person. I hope this guy does well in his life
just came across this video, and I found it very interesting; I am currently reading Atlas Shrugged, and it has really opened my mind and confirm what I already believe; however, I am a Christian as well; you are a little off in your opinions about the purpose of the church as a "social scene" though I understand your point; I am also against "religion", but I think a true understanding of Christianity is also anti-religion, but more centered on the person of Christ, thoughts?
the ethics of christianity were good? like when the bible says it is okay to sell your daughters to pay debt? like where it says disobediant children should be stoned to death? did you ever read the bible? I suggest you get a copy, read it, and take notes on all the 'moral' ideas in there, like when jesus said to abandon your family
He is a christian. He therefore lacks faith in all the other gods (hindu, islamic, egyptian etc). Doesn't lack of faith in a god make him an atheist? Yes it does. Therefore he is a christian atheist.
It warms my heart to see that even 50 years after it was written, Atlas Shrugged still has the power to convice others to examine their lives in a clear, logical way. Well done =)
Without a doubt. I have heard multiple references, and experienced myself, the power of Atlas Shrugged to begin opening your eyes to the world around you.
The truth will set U free(John8:32) Each one of us has the responsibility to verify what we choose to believe in (Ephesians5:10) Our life "eternal future" may be at stake(John17:3) We humans r so limited; we need the BIBLE message(Proverbs3:5-6)
GOD EXIST! The fact that we exist prove it. We r the "CONCEPTION" of a/the "CONCEPTOR", no exception. No conception built has never been greater than its conceptor. Searching for the 'Supreme' will give someone a REAL MEANING in LIFE(Ecclesiastes12:13)
Sad Millions r misled! Many have brought forth *knowledge (*=FALSE).
To live a meaningful life humans must satisfy both their physical and spiritual needs._ Matthew4:4; 5:3
Would it not be a mistake to reject even Truth because falsehood is highly flowing around? As counterfeit money, false religion has no real value but not the ‘True One’. Seek 'IT'!
To properly meet our 'spiritual need', we must heed the Bible counsel in Ephesians5:10 "Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord."
P.S. Is a 'selfish' reason needed to want to lift others out of poverty and ignorance? I personally enjoy conveying knowledge, kindness, and help to others. The central 'mystical' insight is that the bounds of the Self do not end at the epidermis. This is 'directly realized' in emptiness meditation. I believe it's a valid insight, but of course it's good to put all intuitions to the test. Realizing that the ego-mind is a cultural fiction does make giving and receiving easier, but taking harder.
I'm in a middle place today. I was brought up Catholic but rejected the irrationality at 16. At 21 I fell in love with Ayn Rand, read all her books, adopted Objectivism. At 25 I got into music, poetry, western philosophy, did LSD. 'Be Here Now' started me looking into meditation, direct experience, mindfulness, overcoming deep emotional conditioning. Intellectually now a compassionate Objectivist (if you will) with yoga, meditation, compassion, veganism. Master your mind and join the ecosystem!
2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. The devil is using the same lie he used on eve. y? because it worked on perfect human!
Second, the "altruism" of Christianity, though it tells you to give up something for nothing, actually fits an objectivist model--because after this world, if you performed the "altruism" correctly, you are rewarded infinitely--thus not fitting into the objectivist definition of altruism at all! Christian morality, in this sense, is actually not "altruistic" by objectivist definitions at all. How is it altruism when I am granted the greatest of possible rewards?
It's important for objectivists to remember a few things about "altruism." First, altruism is not by definition compulsory or non-consensual. Rand often said that giving up something for someone else was not really altruism if you truly wanted to do it. But in saying that, she has changed the definition of altruism. In fact, that is precisely the kind of "altruism" most people support. If you said you were against compulsory altruism, you would get far fewer objections.
I was actually disappointed in his lack of explanation, too. I recently became atheist after reading Ayn Rand, and I was hoping this would help my atheist friend realize altruism, too, is wrong.
I do recommend Rand, though. She's astounding, unapologetic, and extremely rational.
That why Islam came man ... You are fighting the human altered and written Christianity ... There is only one true CREATOR and his messenger is Mohammad ... Read and learn the truth of Quran ... know the purpose of your life and rest in peace ever after ... stop pointing out the faults in Bible ... Go understand why Islam is here till the end of time ...
Anyway, make sure that you don't reject God based upon what religious people have said. They do tend to be thoughtless. But it is far crazier to believe that there is no God than that there had to be a creator, no matter how diminished the influence God has on us. There's just no way all this appeared and we're all here for no reason. That's just waaaaaay to crazy to believe. We should leave some room for the idea of cosmic justice, or we're really screwed.
cropper, how do you mean altruism is wrong? Altruism is in us because of evolution. You can be an atheist but you can't be not altruistic because altruism is built into our gene
Just to clarify everything that Atheism does not believe in all sorts of things including the supernatural, but they believe in provided evidence or evidence that can be shown or evidence that can be perceived.
Atheist has nothing to do with faith, but it is the lack of belief. Atheism is not a denial of a particular belief-system (a denial is an action declaring something untrue). Hope this won't confuse you. =D One more, thing Theories is not a belief-system.
The Christian Bible has told the future many times, and will continue to. When they begin to talk about a one world currency, that was told in the Bible. And God didnt change from the old t to the new t. what are u talkin about? You really need to watch a vid on youtube called Who Created God? Where Did God Come From? Proof of God. Its smoking gun proof!
@MissKatRob Man created god because they were too afraid of death. Man created god to have control over you. Man created god because they want money lots of lots of money. Does these answer your questions?
@nctrls2 Man cant fake proof! Proof is proof! Something eternal had to be there in order for there to be anything because nothing cannot make something! Thats science! Even evolutionist science has proven that the universe had a beggining, and time had a beggining. And something eternal would have to be divine. If you dont accept that, then you wont accept anything, unless its something you want to hear.
@MissKatRob Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. =D Buahhahaha
You’re confused between the study of evolution and cosmology. Cosmology is the science of the origin and development of the universe. Evolution is the study of animal mutation by natural selection. =D hahahahha you're so cute that you have no knowledge at all. Bravo... Of course I wont accept something that has no evidence. As an Atheist would say provide me evidence that a god exist? =]
@nctrls2 I know what evo is. I was just assuming that most people who believe in evo, probably also believe that that big explosion of light made everything! You want proof? watch a vid called Who created God? Where Did God Come From? Proof of god.
@MissKatRob =) You don't believe in the theory of Evolution because it’s an observation to explain a particular animal on how they mutated through natural selection or adapted to a natural environment. The big bang theory is not a belief-system it has been proven by science and tested. The big bang theory is just saying the expanding of the universe and how it was compact and hotter state.
A theory is an observation or experiment of something, but can be proven with evidence.
@nctrls2 I agree that the big bang happened, but it was the Lord that caused it. When God said "let there be light". Thats what caused the light and energy. Nothing else could! Nothing cant make something! You know how they said that the universe is constantly expanding.. well in the Bible it says that He is constantly expanding the universe! Amen
@MissKatRob As I already said to you, you have basis for asserting that anything was ever "made" in the way that you mean it. The laws of the universe forbid the creation/destruction of energy. Stop trying to claim that you have knowledge of a time when it was created. You don't.
=) I answered your god questions earlier, but I'll answer it again. =) Man created god because they were too afraid of death, man created god to have a control over people and man created god because of money.
You haven't answer my question.
If I said I went to the beach today would you believe me?
@MissKatRob I have more support for the claim that the universe is eternal than you have for some outside eternal force creating it. Specifically, I actually have evidence; flimsy evidence, but evidence: According to the laws we know, energy cannot be created or destroyed. What support do you have for the claim that once upon a time, it was created?
@nctrls2 If you want to talk about lacking a belief in the supernatural, then use a word that means lacking a belief in the supernatural. "Atheism" is not the word that applies. I have told you again and again what "atheism" means and how that meaning is derived from the components of the word. Stop misrepresenting it as more than it is. It's people like you that result in all the confusion surrounding our position.
@Antifides Fine you made your point, but I still don't agree with you believing in supernatural. Atheism lacking the belief in supernatural and god will do fine. =(
@Antifides Well, the universe and time had a beggining. It seems energy cant be created, because its God who created it. When He said let there be light, there was. And it never stopped travelling. And you know what they proved? That the universe is constantly expanding.
@treborolyat Sorry buddy. Atheism has nothing to do with faith. =) Also you can't just call your self an agnostic its either Agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist. Agnostic means that something that you're not sure or have no clue whether its true.
There is a range in agnostic viewpoints, from agnostic atheists to agnostic theists.
So an agnostic is basically a fence sitter. They lack the critical evaluation skills to determine logically which side of the fence they sit. They want to be smart and deny without proof, yet they fear the consequences of making an incorrect determination.
That's how an atheist would see it. That is how I see it.
An agnostic may also feel that it is close minded to be objective and make a decision without proof that a God does not exist. But negative affirmations are impossible to prove. It is not scientific.
You can only prove that a God does not exist if you never find one, but it will be said that you haven't looked far enough so to speak. It is impossible prove. You can only prove a positive when you find it is true.
That is why I am atheist and not agnostic. I make logical inferences.
@ArchitectOfEvil Sorry, but every agnostic I've met has been an atheist, whether they identify as such or not. Yes, a position exists called agnostic theism. An agnostic must be one or the other, there is no middle ground.
The key here is that atheism is simply lacking belief. One can't choose to be between having belief and not having belief. They either have it or they do not.
@Antifides You are incorrect. Atheism is not lacking belief. Atheists dis-believe.
Agnostic is lacking belief. Agnostic is not making a decision. An agnostic is not one or the other, an agnostic is sitting on the fence. Look up the meaning!
How can you say every agnostic you met is atheist whether they identify as such or not? Ask them you self centered prick. You don't represent everyone.
You agreed "Yes, a position exists called agnostic theism". So stop being a hypocrite and a liar.
@ArchitectOfEvil Damn it, here I thought I was correct, but then you said I wasn't... I'm so lost and confused now.
Sorry, but agnosticism deals with knowledge, not belief. Theism is a belief; "a-" means without. Now, we're going to try an exercise, children. What do you get when you combine "without" and a belief? I think we get "without" (the) belief.
Every agnostic I've met was an atheist BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE IN GOD, YOU MORON.
@Antifides But not every agnostic is on the atheist side, you admitted yourself.
You said before "The key here is that atheism is simply lacking belief. One can't choose to be between having belief and not having belief. They either have it or they do not."
Exactly as I was saying, Agnostics cannot make up their mind.
@ArchitectOfEvil I never said that agnostic theists exist. They might, but that's irrelevant. Every agnostic I've met didn't believe in gods, and is therefore an atheist. "Atheism" simply means "without belief in gods;" I hope you can get that.
And yes, atheists do disbelief, that is, they don't have belief. Haha, I swear I just explained this.
@ArchitectOfEvil I'm sorry if you're too stupid to understand that there's no logically defendable position where one states unequivocally that gods don't exist. It's why most logical, rational atheists are agnostic atheists.
By the way, babies are agnostic atheists, too. They neither know of, nor believe in, the existence of gods. I don't have to ask them to know that.
Yes, the position exists, hypothetically, "agnostic theist," but if anyone takes that position, they're a rare breed indeed.
@Antifides But you already said that Atheist means "without belief". It does not mean as you now say "one states unequivocally that gods don't exist". They are not the same statement.
Believing in "not" something is not belief. It is a rational decision.
I see atheism as rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
@Antifides Also, babies are stupid and open minded as they know nothing. A baby does not reject Theism so they are not Atheists, you idiot Agnostic.
Anyway, are you trying to say we should think like babies? Wake up. You should learn, not just be open minded. Learn deductive and inductive reasoning.
@ArchitectOfEvil Oh, and by the way, "disbelieve" doesn't mean "believe in the lack of," it means the exact same fucking thing as "don't believe in," you abject moron.
@Antifides An Atheist rejects Theism, they do not simply lack belief. An Atheist dis-believes.
Now can you get the difference? I hope so baby.
An Agnostic lacks belief. They lack belief in something without proof and they lack the denial that something exists even though it has not been proven to exist. They will say, they don't know and it cannot be known and they think that is the most intelligent position.
Even worse, an Agnostic will not deny it even if the Theism is nonsense, as Theism is! Nonsense that is.
There are hundreds of religions or maybe thousands. Before the concept of a single God, most cultures had deities to explain natural phenomena. It's all bullshit. Full stop.
@ArchitectOfEvil What, are you trying to convince me that gods don't exist? I'm a strong (or positive) atheist AND an agnostic atheist. I DO believe gods don't exist. I do not, however, claim to know it.
That position is not as easily defendable as weak (negative) atheism, which is why most rational atheists only lack belief, and don't have a contrary belief.
Gnostic atheists, of course, are complete morons, just like gnostic theists. We can't claim to KNOW anything about the supernatural.
@Antifides What is a negative or positive Atheist? There is no such thing!
.. And then you are talking about Gnostic Atheists.
Real Atheists such as myself are not Gnostic, if that is what you are trying to say. Gnostic people believe in something supernatural. Gnostic and Theists are a similar breed. They believe in similar nonsense.
@Antifides The easiest position to defend is Agnosticism as you claim to know nothing and claim that nothing can be known for certain.It is the easiest position to defend but it lacks true critical thinking and judgement. You may think it involves critical thinking because you are being wise saying that you cannot know anything for 100%, but that is pure avoidance.
@Antifides Theism is indefensible due to its lack of rationale, however as a believer it is also impervious as things are explained in the supernatural without proof or even logic. It requires faith and lack of thought or analysis.
Atheism is actually the only position that can and must be defended with objective reasoning and logic.
Do you know the definition of Gnostic? It means believe in Spiritual things...
What kind of an Atheist is Gnostic?
You can't take the term Gnostic which actually means knowledge of spiritual things, and combine it with Atheist to mean a person that has knowledge that spiritual things (or God) do not exist.
I am an objective, logical Atheist (complete). I don't believe in supernatural, mysticism or religions.
@ArchitectOfEvil Oh, and "gnostic" in this usage has nothing to do with Gnosticism. Science has nothing to do with Scientology, either.
"you are being wise saying that you cannot know anything for 100%, but that is pure avoidance."
We can't know with any percentage of certainty, anything about the supernatural. It's a shot in the dark made by a blind man, and he'll never find out if he hit anything.
@Antifides The supernatural does not fucking exist. That is why we can't know anything about it.
If we knew about it, it wouldn't be supernatural, there would be explanations. Snap out of it you poor Agnostic fool running in circles.
Also, what does Gnostic mean in your moronic terms? You defend yourself and never explain yourself clearly.
You would be the type of person to give Scientology credit you moron. An Agnostic would say they can't prove that it is not true so it might be. Piss off.
@ArchitectOfEvil Haha, it's been fun talking to you, but it's clear that you would prefer to remain ignorant. Enjoy your irrational position of gnostic atheism.
@ArchitectOfEvil Ah, I can't help it: "gnosis" is a Greek word meaning knowledge. We generally apply it to knowledge of gods in the word "agnostic" and if you recall "a-" means "without." Technically, you can be agnostic about cookies, unaware of their existence.
"I don't believe in supernatural" - That is naturalism, you silly, silly man.
Yes, all positions after the first two are indefensible. I didn't give Scientology credit, I compared your ridiculous equivocation of terms.
@Antifides I must provide evidence that something does not exist must I? That is not ever possible. I already explained that didn't I? You cannot prove a negative, even with infinite time. You are damn stupid.
You are laughable. Sure you will destroy it. That is only in your mind. You are fucking irrational.
You are correct about one thing, an Agnostic lacks knowledge.
@ArchitectOfEvil I'm correct about all sorts of things. I like to make a habit of it.
Yes, you can't provide evidence that the supernatural doesn't exist, which means you cannot make the claim and support it. Since you can't support it, the claim has no basis in logical thought. It's irrational to make unsupportable claims. Since you've just admitted to irrationality, I really am done. And unlike you, my claim that you're irrational has support. Check and mate.
@ArchitectOfEvil Oh, I can't decide. Am I right? Are you right? Other than being completely unsupportable, just like theistic claims, your arguments are so compelling. I might just have to go around spouting that the supernatural doesn't exist, just like you do, even though you admit that you cannot provide evidence for it. Oh, I can't decide!
You can be self centered and proud while focusing on what other peoples opinions of you are by creating and illusory type projection of yourself in terms of others opinions and reactions, and then proceeding to act selfishly within that context, attempting to improve ones perception of that the status of said self projection within society, and do so without regard for the welfare of others except insofar as it might negatively effect the image they are trying to project.
Not specifically, I was more just attempting to describe a majority of humans I've come across in my short time on this here earth, though I would not be inherently opposed to the idea that most people, or at least those with whom I am culturally acquainted, exhibit certain psychopathic tendencies in their ordinary behavior.
@pilatech Very interesting. Because what you describe actually seems to be a Psychopath in his/her full glory. Manipulating the way others perceive him in an attempt to make others comfortable with him, yet actually disliking those others that he is trying to comfort. It's all a pretense to become a wolf in sheep clothes.
I suppose it is related in general, but I've simply always reserved the term psychopath to be something abnormal. I wouldn't say it's disliking others per say, so much as it is not being capable the reflexive sort of understanding to fully recognize those people and only being able to 'care' about them. Most people I find care only within a 'my' context; my friend, my spouse, my child ect. To borrow from Kant, most people fail to recognize others as ends in themselves.
@pilatech They use people for stimulation, to build their self-esteem and they invariably value people in terms of their material value.
There is a shallow quality to the emotional aspect of their stories (i.e., how they felt, why they felt that way, or how others may have felt and why). The lack of emotional intelligence is the first good sign you may be dealing with a psychopath. However they can be expert in manipulating others by playing to their emotions.
Even though my philosophical convictions all point towards objectivism, and therefore against altruism - I still find it difficult to live on an island. I like giving if I'm able to (of course not to a point where I feel negative) and to be part of a larger community, but where does one draw the line? How can I know that I'm living appropriately to reality?
@ArchitectOfEvil : What's the point in being rude - even to strangers? I care little for poor behaviour (particularly stupidity), and choose not to reward it in any one - child, adult, worker, friend, or even a stranger. What I value in others, I can reward.
I am an atheist, but would like to attempt to convince you of altruism or at least its merits. Jonas Salk invented the first effective polio vaccine. When he did he didnt patent it. When asked "Who owns this patent?", Salk replied, "No one. Could you patent the sun?". A scientist, a great mind, who was content and happy to have made a great scientific achievement and to further benieft mankind. All true science is for the good of mankind and to progress our collective understading of life.
@Sociocidal Salk's analogy was fallacious. The sun is a piece of nature (not the creation of a person's mind). Technology and even vaccines are a product of a person's mind and effort. No can't patent the sun, you didn't create it. Yes, you can patent your own work and insist on compensation for it.
@Sociocidal "our collective understading of life."
I'm sorry, I have to LOL. Only individuals "understand" life. Life can only be expereinced and perceived by the individual. I don't care how many group-thinks you attend.
As Christians we are told to "go" and make disciples. The church exist to spread the word of Jesus to all nations. He will not return until all nations have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ. Its not just a place to worship in public eye but a place to grow with others. The church is the people, not the building.
I think atheist all have a common trait there more consious they ask the questions they dont blindly live or pursue ignorance in such areas as relgion or life motives. Psychologically they are stronger as they take personal responsibility and rely heavily on proof makeing their lives and the psychi that much stronger. If you are and atheist and you know you are more consious( please look up levels of it) then hit thumbs up on this comment.
This is a wonderful video. You seem like a really good dude. I would definitly hear you out in a work enviroment though I think others would not. A person must be careful with how opinion is portrayed.
Jesus makes it clear that all who claim to be Christian are not, those who go out from us ,do so,to prove they were never of us.Jesus chooses us,we don't choose Him.All man can choose with his free will is a false religion and a false god.
I am a Christian that has also read Ayn Rand, and I would also say that altruism is wrong. My views are that too many people don't understand the Bible as it needs to be understood. I don't consider it mysticism.
I think if more people understood the Bible as they should, they would find that the ideals of objectivism are very in line with those of Christianity with the obvious atheist exception.
God isn't the altruist that most people see Him as.
I am a Christian that has also read Ayn Rand, and I would also say that altruism is wrong. My views are that too many people don't understand the Bible as it needs to be understood. I don't consider it mysticism.
I think if more people understood the Bible as they should, they would find that the ideals of objectivism are very in line with those of Christianity with the obvious atheist exception.
God isn't the altruist that most people see him as.
I am a Christian that has also read Ayn Rand, and I would also say that altruism is wrong. My views are that too many people don't understand the Bible as it needs to
Christian 'ethics' are not limited to christianity itself. Common sense and ethical study has even come up with an concept of meta-ethics as prayed by the guy in the video. For that normal moral sense we don't need any religion code or bible, because an average ethical study will do a better job then the outdated ethical study of the bible.
aadjechocolaatje 2 weeks ago
He means atheist-christian in the same way people mean atheist-jew someone who follows the moral code of the religion but doesn't believe in the god.
666or999 2 weeks ago
How possibly can you be an atheist christian - and really, how do you go from Jesus to Ayn Rand - self sacrifice and ayn rand cannot go together in one video...wow. dumb
FranklinPatriot 3 weeks ago
I think you mean agnostic theist, not atheist christian.
R3allyBored 2 months ago
isnt an athiest christan a person who believes in jesus but not the same god that full christans believe in?
victinifan13 4 months ago
You make some good points... Did you actually read the whole Bible-- from Genesis to Revelation in context w/ the Holy Spirit guiding you? Christianity is not about living a good life or about going to a church building & wondering what people think about you. The message is God's sacrificial love and renewed everlasting life for those who love Him. Jesus embodied altruism. All Good. He claimed to be the Truth. Truth never changes and can be trusted. Objectivism changes so you can't trust it.
kelouis75 4 months ago
@kelouis75 Read it again and let logic guide you. Fucking retarded isn't it?
MrWigglyy 4 months ago
@MrWigglyy I'm truly sorry you feel this way. Spiritual matters can't always be discerned by the mind. This is why Jesus says that a person must LOVE with all the heart, mind, soul, & strength. You need all 4 to really get what the Bible is saying. If the Spirit is not living in you, it won't make sense. But if you sincerely want to know, God will reveal Himself through it & through life experiences. You're intelligent. God designed you to speak intelligently. Hope cropperb will see this, too.
kelouis75 4 months ago
what few realize is that objectivism is hard to comprehend because so many people abuse it. The trick is to define 'good' and 'bad' correctly the first time, and not dilly dally about it. Stating that there are no objective values in itself is a contradiction, as the statement itself has is rather objective, not subjective if taken as true. Objetivism works if the morality behind it is sound, and thus far there are few truly sound moral systems in place-therefore, work on that......
filmjunkie998 4 months ago
@filmjunkie998 ....don't bother working on reducing what moral systems we DO have to nothing more than meaningless objective statements, because then what reason do you have to claim anything is 'wrong'? if being wrong in itself is an objective statement, objective meaning a statement held as true to more than just you, then making the two value objectivism system meaninless and arbitrary opens a pandoras box and makes all life itself appear rather meaningless. That's stupid.
filmjunkie998 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think I fell asleep for a moment there...
marxvlog 5 months ago
Everything I heard you say as the way Christianity is, is incorrect from simple, tho' responsible Biblical study. It is clear that your view of Christianity comes from "Christians". Try the Biblical God instead.
randyrocket 6 months ago
@Wsls53 I always find personal challenges to be particularly motivating to investigate and analyze my beliefs. I could potentially enjoy a debate with you. But I'm struck by the impression that you are a sophist, and that makes it rather less enticing.
eggory 6 months ago
@Wsls53 I tell you that man is material, and that material things are thus definitely a concern to him. I tell you that man's mind functions independently, according to only its own standard of accepting and rejecting ideas, and that this is inescapable and pervasive. Freedom is essential to productivity, and productivity is essential to man's well-being. The universe is knowable and knowledge is defintely useful to mankind. Which objectivist premise is it you find so offensive?
eggory 6 months ago
@Wsls53 Note how all your attempts to criticize objectivism for being immoral are now reduced to claims of its morality not being objectifiable. And yet you say that no morality is objectifiable anyway? It seems to be you who considers murder and slavery and irrationality itself as somehow legitimate. I tell you objectivism values none of these things, and you refuse to understand. For what fear? Is your own independence from reason something you feel you must protect?
eggory 6 months ago
christian atheist it's like moving at rest..LOL
OGthegame 7 months ago
I'm a Christian-Atheist or Atheist-Christian in the sense that heaven/hell can go F OFF, and that the Blood of Christ (Vampyrism) not only purifies one, but also offers eternal life--a philosopher's stone of sorts. That's how I came to find this alien rant.
johnnysbubbletop63 7 months ago
Dear sir, I would ask that you reexamine your position. Rationally, you cannot say with any surety whether a God does or does not exist. There is no scientific proof that God is a falsehood, (And of course science stems from rational thought,) and there is no proof that a God does exist either. The knowledge of whether or not there is a God is unknowable. And until it IS knowable the only rational choice is agnosticism.
Mikejr0925 7 months ago
@Mikejr0925 following your argument we must also be agnostic to space unicorns.
OGthegame 7 months ago
But than, your reaction will be, I don't want that, cause than I can be shot by anyone. That's true. In that way only the strongest people on earth will have a good life. Still, you don't accept that, cause it isn't good for you. People who are strong like you, but not the strongest, will have enough having a moral guarding there freedoms. Week people will need a moral that gives them some support.
Wsls53 8 months ago
@Wsls53 ever heard of the theory of moral develpment?
OGthegame 7 months ago
@OGthegame I just looked it up. It says that there are different stages of morality trough history, from egoism (their own sake) to altruism (everybody's sake). Is that what you're talking about, cause if you believe in that, it is against objectivism?
I also don't agree in that theory, cause even last century still inhumane people were preaching egoism, like Rand, or racism, like Hitler.
And even then it is just an *observation*, that is not a proof that that ideology is wrong or right.
Wsls53 7 months ago
@OGthegame There is no proof possible. Everything we can (more or less) prove, are things that are observable. But we can't see or hear any moral law anywhere. Yes, in the Bible, but you don't believe it, or in the stones Moses got, but you don't believe that either.
Objectivism is just based on nothing. They're just a bunch of selfish people that try to prove that egoism is good, just to justify themself. A danger for civilisation and nothing better than Hitler, Stalin, or other egoists.
Wsls53 7 months ago
@Wsls53 Objectivist egoism is only an answer to the old philosophical quandry of "is it really possible to commit a selfless good deed." The answer is no, because a respect of your own standard of "good" is inherently selfish. Rand accepts the good deed, and throws out the virtue of selflessness, whereas more prominently Kant accepts selflessness and throws out the virtue of a good deed. You would be surprised how many things can be justified on the basis that *it's in your own interest*.
eggory 6 months ago
@Wsls53 And, as by the way there are alot of things we can prove without direct observation, morality is not a physical thing but an abstraction which describes a quantifiable pattern in that which is physical. What you really observe are human actions and their consequences, and that the consequences themselves, of human happiness or unhappiness, are reducible to the fundamentals of what it is to be human, such that it is the same for everyone, in many ways at least. That is objective morality.
eggory 6 months ago
@eggory How can you prove something you can not observe? Isn't that what "objectivism" is about?
So you say (if I'm right) it is observable that people get happy or unhappy if other people do certain things to them, or don't care about them.
But does that mean that there is a moral law?
And if there was, then I suppose you think altruism is good?
Wsls53 6 months ago
@Wsls53 Oftentimes you can't observe directly what it is you're trying to prove, but can prove that it logically must follow from something which you can directly observe, which is called inference. The objectivist moral system follows from the principle that your own happiness is your highest value, and that acting according to a non-self-contradictory moral standard of your own is essential to being truly happy. Since morality is to your own benefit, altruism, or selflessness, is immoral.
eggory 6 months ago
@eggory So if I get you right, killing people for fun is moral for you.
Wsls53 6 months ago
@Wsls53 No. Whatever twisted pleasure some people may get out of murder, it couldn't constitute a rational evaluation of their own best interests. Depriving the world you live in of the benefit of a human being, merely for its own sake, or on some contrived whim, would represent a terrible error in reasoning. Do you believe that morality can only be arbitrary, and if not to appease God's own whim would serve no purpose?
eggory 6 months ago
@eggory OK, I don't agree with that, I have the impression "benefit" can for you only be material. No fun doing other (insane) things. But I'll just give you another example. Do you think slave traders had no great benifit enslaving, beating and killing people? Is this moral for you? And what about killing old people. They aren't useful either?
My conclusion: objectivism is the way criminals think: only your own sake. Just like nazism is only for white Germans' sake.
Wsls53 6 months ago
@Wsls53 I don't think you answered my question.
Force destroys market competition and thereby stifles, and perhaps even reverses innovation. The wish to own another human being is in conflict with what makes him valuable in the first place.
Even for those who are of neutral value to you, violence begets violence.
And Nazism didn't do white Germans any good at the end of the war.
Examples can help one understand, but you can't prove anything until you grasp the underlying principle itself.
eggory 6 months ago
@eggory Your question is whether I think you can objectively define morality. No, I don't. We are just put on the earth for no reason (just an accident), and thus, there is also no goal in our life. We can only subjectively give it a goal: it does not have to be material, like you suppose (else you wouldn't say innovation (= new products) makes your life better). You can give value to a lot of things: killing other people, making your family happy, helping strangers,...
Wsls53 6 months ago
@eggory I think you're blind to some things and fool yourself
First paragraph: Do you really think only innovation can make your life valuable. I don't think you think very lucid here. (By the way innovation can be very dangerous as well)
Third paragraph: I meant that objectivist and nazi's share the same spirit: objectivists: everything for themselves, nazis: everything for there people.
Wsls53 6 months ago
@eggory
Second paragraph: you aren't very lucid again. Like all people that ever used violence didn't get better from it: slave traders, absolute kings, colonists,... You just believe what you want to.
Further on the third paragraph: No nazi's didn't win the war. So, at the end they did something that was not good for there own. Many other kings did win a lot fighting in war, so again you just believe what you want to.
Wsls53 6 months ago
Dear guy, you're wrong. Actually, with logical reason you can't explain ANY moral point of view. For example, you probably believe state has to save guard your freedom. Sadly, there is no god given law that tells us that. So it is untrue it is a fact, like objectivists pretend. So in fact everything should be allowed.
Wsls53 8 months ago
I'm eastern Orthodox and I really like this guy and what he said. I Like the fact that he's just saying it plainly. Seems like a nice person. I hope this guy does well in his life
JohnTheHutDweller 8 months ago
Comment removed
marke726 8 months ago
just came across this video, and I found it very interesting; I am currently reading Atlas Shrugged, and it has really opened my mind and confirm what I already believe; however, I am a Christian as well; you are a little off in your opinions about the purpose of the church as a "social scene" though I understand your point; I am also against "religion", but I think a true understanding of Christianity is also anti-religion, but more centered on the person of Christ, thoughts?
marke726 8 months ago
What is a Christian atheist? Is that like an emaciated obese person?
cosg9531 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow, Ayn Rand of the Illuminati certainly had a gay following, and yes the Illuminati.
Den12tribe 8 months ago
the ethics of christianity were good? like when the bible says it is okay to sell your daughters to pay debt? like where it says disobediant children should be stoned to death? did you ever read the bible? I suggest you get a copy, read it, and take notes on all the 'moral' ideas in there, like when jesus said to abandon your family
johnmonk66 8 months ago 2
Do you think you could slow down the pace even more? You are losing the objectivist snails and turtles.
weeweedup 9 months ago
Nobody fucking cares. GO have sex with islam.
DEMOCRATSareRACISTS 9 months ago
you know i want to watch through alot fo videos but seriously it's like alot of videos are set on slo-mo....caffeine people!!!!!!
theomegawerty 9 months ago
WTF is an Atheist Christian?
HyperboreanRex 9 months ago 14
@HyperboreanRex an atheist christian is a person who doesn't believe in god, but accepts the teachings of the bible.
fidefreestyle 9 months ago
@HyperboreanRex
One way to interpret it is:
He is a christian. He therefore lacks faith in all the other gods (hindu, islamic, egyptian etc). Doesn't lack of faith in a god make him an atheist? Yes it does. Therefore he is a christian atheist.
mozcito939 6 months ago
It warms my heart to see that even 50 years after it was written, Atlas Shrugged still has the power to convice others to examine their lives in a clear, logical way. Well done =)
iamthemudkip 9 months ago 9
@iamthemudkip
You really think AS does that?
HyperboreanRex 9 months ago
@HyperboreanRex
Without a doubt. I have heard multiple references, and experienced myself, the power of Atlas Shrugged to begin opening your eyes to the world around you.
iamthemudkip 9 months ago
@HyperboreanRex It opened my eyes to shitty writing and worse "philosophy".
IamLiterallyRetarded 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOVE TO ALL!
Please, take notice of the world's troubles. There are real understandings and hope profusely in God's Word, the Bible:
The world is managed_ 1John 5:19 Revelation12:7-12
Predicted changes in People’s behaviors _ 2Timothy 3:1-5
Major +/- developments_ Mathew 24:7,8,14,21,22
The True God will act soon_ Revelation16:13-14 Daniel 2:44
We too must act so to be saved_ Revelation18:4 Zephaniah2:3 John17:3 Mathew6:9-11,33,34 Mark13:13
A New World, at hand_ Psalm37:9-11 2Peter3:8-13
plptous 10 months ago
The truth will set U free(John8:32) Each one of us has the responsibility to verify what we choose to believe in (Ephesians5:10) Our life "eternal future" may be at stake(John17:3) We humans r so limited; we need the BIBLE message(Proverbs3:5-6)
GOD EXIST! The fact that we exist prove it. We r the "CONCEPTION" of a/the "CONCEPTOR", no exception. No conception built has never been greater than its conceptor. Searching for the 'Supreme' will give someone a REAL MEANING in LIFE(Ecclesiastes12:13)
plptous 10 months ago
@plptous How stupid does a person need to be to expect biblical quotes to start convincing atheists?
To see the bible as a source of wisdom you first have to believe in the concept of gods. Pointing to the bible to argue with atheists is futile.
"Look it says right here this nine dollar bill is legal tender for all debts public and private! Look at that signature! What more proof do you need?"
MartinJWillett 10 months ago
Sad Millions r misled! Many have brought forth *knowledge (*=FALSE).
To live a meaningful life humans must satisfy both their physical and spiritual needs._ Matthew4:4; 5:3
Would it not be a mistake to reject even Truth because falsehood is highly flowing around? As counterfeit money, false religion has no real value but not the ‘True One’. Seek 'IT'!
To properly meet our 'spiritual need', we must heed the Bible counsel in Ephesians5:10 "Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord."
plptous 10 months ago
@plptous said, "Sad Millions r misled!"
Just not the millions you're thinking of.
JamesMorlan 10 months ago
P.S. Is a 'selfish' reason needed to want to lift others out of poverty and ignorance? I personally enjoy conveying knowledge, kindness, and help to others. The central 'mystical' insight is that the bounds of the Self do not end at the epidermis. This is 'directly realized' in emptiness meditation. I believe it's a valid insight, but of course it's good to put all intuitions to the test. Realizing that the ego-mind is a cultural fiction does make giving and receiving easier, but taking harder.
slurslee 10 months ago
I'm in a middle place today. I was brought up Catholic but rejected the irrationality at 16. At 21 I fell in love with Ayn Rand, read all her books, adopted Objectivism. At 25 I got into music, poetry, western philosophy, did LSD. 'Be Here Now' started me looking into meditation, direct experience, mindfulness, overcoming deep emotional conditioning. Intellectually now a compassionate Objectivist (if you will) with yoga, meditation, compassion, veganism. Master your mind and join the ecosystem!
slurslee 10 months ago
2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. The devil is using the same lie he used on eve. y? because it worked on perfect human!
starin64 10 months ago
Second, the "altruism" of Christianity, though it tells you to give up something for nothing, actually fits an objectivist model--because after this world, if you performed the "altruism" correctly, you are rewarded infinitely--thus not fitting into the objectivist definition of altruism at all! Christian morality, in this sense, is actually not "altruistic" by objectivist definitions at all. How is it altruism when I am granted the greatest of possible rewards?
AngryScissor 11 months ago
It's important for objectivists to remember a few things about "altruism." First, altruism is not by definition compulsory or non-consensual. Rand often said that giving up something for someone else was not really altruism if you truly wanted to do it. But in saying that, she has changed the definition of altruism. In fact, that is precisely the kind of "altruism" most people support. If you said you were against compulsory altruism, you would get far fewer objections.
AngryScissor 11 months ago
You Objectivists need to play Bioshock ;)
Krshwunk 11 months ago
If I stand in front of some books and declare myself an athiest that makes me more intellectualy honost than you.
lkmutschler 11 months ago
Whoa you move from religion and altruism is incorrect, to they are bad without a reason, what's up with that?
snowman5689 11 months ago
@snowman5689
I was actually disappointed in his lack of explanation, too. I recently became atheist after reading Ayn Rand, and I was hoping this would help my atheist friend realize altruism, too, is wrong.
I do recommend Rand, though. She's astounding, unapologetic, and extremely rational.
electrictom234 11 months ago
@electrictom234 The instant I began thinking about God I became an Atheist. Atheism is an axiom.
joestl314 11 months ago
@joestl314 If atheism is an axiom then it cannot be proven. You okay with that?
Krshwunk 11 months ago
That why Islam came man ... You are fighting the human altered and written Christianity ... There is only one true CREATOR and his messenger is Mohammad ... Read and learn the truth of Quran ... know the purpose of your life and rest in peace ever after ... stop pointing out the faults in Bible ... Go understand why Islam is here till the end of time ...
habooble 11 months ago
@habooble Go fuck yourself and your Sister and your Donkey. Camel driver.
Stop pointing out faults in the Bible... hahahahahahaha.
Ok shall I just believe anything you say to me?
Fuck Mohammed up the ass, he was a rapist child molester.
He married a 6 year old and fucked her when she was 9. He is a sick cunt.
If hell was real, he'd be there.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
Pff... Objectivism, the ultimate pseudo-philosophy for pseudo-intellectuals.
ThePowerpuffGirIs 11 months ago
@ThePowerpuffGirIs
Pseudo eh?
That seems pretty generous if you ask me
pilatech 11 months ago
Anyway, make sure that you don't reject God based upon what religious people have said. They do tend to be thoughtless. But it is far crazier to believe that there is no God than that there had to be a creator, no matter how diminished the influence God has on us. There's just no way all this appeared and we're all here for no reason. That's just waaaaaay to crazy to believe. We should leave some room for the idea of cosmic justice, or we're really screwed.
robertsutter 1 year ago
cropper, how do you mean altruism is wrong? Altruism is in us because of evolution. You can be an atheist but you can't be not altruistic because altruism is built into our gene
screenflicker1 1 year ago
I'm an atheist that believes in reincarnation, and reincarnation is spiritual, thus atheists can believe in the supernatural.
By definition, atheism just means no god, if it were to mean no supernatural that'd be realism or aspiritualism
War4Gore 1 year ago
Just to clarify everything that Atheism does not believe in all sorts of things including the supernatural, but they believe in provided evidence or evidence that can be shown or evidence that can be perceived.
Atheist has nothing to do with faith, but it is the lack of belief. Atheism is not a denial of a particular belief-system (a denial is an action declaring something untrue). Hope this won't confuse you. =D One more, thing Theories is not a belief-system.
nctrls2 1 year ago
The Christian Bible has told the future many times, and will continue to. When they begin to talk about a one world currency, that was told in the Bible. And God didnt change from the old t to the new t. what are u talkin about? You really need to watch a vid on youtube called Who Created God? Where Did God Come From? Proof of God. Its smoking gun proof!
MissKatRob 1 year ago
@MissKatRob Man created god because they were too afraid of death. Man created god to have control over you. Man created god because they want money lots of lots of money. Does these answer your questions?
nctrls2 1 year ago
@nctrls2 Man cant fake proof! Proof is proof! Something eternal had to be there in order for there to be anything because nothing cannot make something! Thats science! Even evolutionist science has proven that the universe had a beggining, and time had a beggining. And something eternal would have to be divine. If you dont accept that, then you wont accept anything, unless its something you want to hear.
MissKatRob 1 year ago
@MissKatRob Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. =D Buahhahaha
You’re confused between the study of evolution and cosmology. Cosmology is the science of the origin and development of the universe. Evolution is the study of animal mutation by natural selection. =D hahahahha you're so cute that you have no knowledge at all. Bravo... Of course I wont accept something that has no evidence. As an Atheist would say provide me evidence that a god exist? =]
nctrls2 1 year ago
@nctrls2 I know what evo is. I was just assuming that most people who believe in evo, probably also believe that that big explosion of light made everything! You want proof? watch a vid called Who created God? Where Did God Come From? Proof of god.
MissKatRob 1 year ago
@MissKatRob =) You don't believe in the theory of Evolution because it’s an observation to explain a particular animal on how they mutated through natural selection or adapted to a natural environment. The big bang theory is not a belief-system it has been proven by science and tested. The big bang theory is just saying the expanding of the universe and how it was compact and hotter state.
A theory is an observation or experiment of something, but can be proven with evidence.
nctrls2 1 year ago
@nctrls2 I agree that the big bang happened, but it was the Lord that caused it. When God said "let there be light". Thats what caused the light and energy. Nothing else could! Nothing cant make something! You know how they said that the universe is constantly expanding.. well in the Bible it says that He is constantly expanding the universe! Amen
MissKatRob 1 year ago
@MissKatRob As I already said to you, you have basis for asserting that anything was ever "made" in the way that you mean it. The laws of the universe forbid the creation/destruction of energy. Stop trying to claim that you have knowledge of a time when it was created. You don't.
Antifides 1 year ago
Comment removed
nctrls2 1 year ago
@MissKatRob
=) I answered your god questions earlier, but I'll answer it again. =) Man created god because they were too afraid of death, man created god to have a control over people and man created god because of money.
You haven't answer my question.
If I said I went to the beach today would you believe me?
nctrls2 1 year ago
@MissKatRob So if I said I went to the beach today would you believe me?
nctrls2 1 year ago
@MissKatRob I have more support for the claim that the universe is eternal than you have for some outside eternal force creating it. Specifically, I actually have evidence; flimsy evidence, but evidence: According to the laws we know, energy cannot be created or destroyed. What support do you have for the claim that once upon a time, it was created?
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides Occult is religion and that is supernatural.
1 supernatural powers paranormal, psychic, magic, magical, occult, mystic, mystical, superhuman, supernormal; rare extramundane.
2 a supernatural being ghostly, phantom, spectral, otherworldly, unearthly, unnatural.
They all came from supernatural. Your a joke don't even reply or think to reply.
nctrls2 1 year ago
@nctrls2 If you want to talk about lacking a belief in the supernatural, then use a word that means lacking a belief in the supernatural. "Atheism" is not the word that applies. I have told you again and again what "atheism" means and how that meaning is derived from the components of the word. Stop misrepresenting it as more than it is. It's people like you that result in all the confusion surrounding our position.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides atheism is what it is. It means you dont believe there is a god!
MissKatRob 1 year ago
@MissKatRob That statement is accurate, congratulations. I don't see why you're repeating something I've been trying to tell ncrtl2 for two days now.
Just make sure you don't confuse it with "belief that there is no god."
Antifides 1 year ago
@nctrls2 If I believe in fairies, leprechauns, genies, and spirits, but not in gods, I'm still an atheist.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides Fine you made your point, but I still don't agree with you believing in supernatural. Atheism lacking the belief in supernatural and god will do fine. =(
nctrls2 1 year ago
@nctrls2 there are so many supernatural ocurances. and its either demons, or The Lord or His Angels. Christianity is the real deal! And you know it!
MissKatRob 1 year ago
@MissKatRob No I don't know it. How would you assume it is Christianity out of millions of other religions anyway
War4Gore 1 year ago
@War4Gore because thats the one with the most attention and evidence. And God said He would draw people in. And thats whats happening
MissKatRob 1 year ago
@Antifides Well, the universe and time had a beggining. It seems energy cant be created, because its God who created it. When He said let there be light, there was. And it never stopped travelling. And you know what they proved? That the universe is constantly expanding.
MissKatRob 1 year ago
@MissKatRob Then God would need a beginning eh?
War4Gore 1 year ago
@MissKatRob "It seems energy can't be created because God created it." Stop lying. You have no knowledge of that. You made it up just now.
Antifides 1 year ago
Antifides please read it in order. 1, 2 and 3.
nctrls2 1 year ago
I think this guy is a practicing idiot. Atheism is as much a position of faith. Should rather be an agnostic, that is a more honest position.
treborolyat 1 year ago
@treborolyat Sorry buddy. Atheism has nothing to do with faith. =) Also you can't just call your self an agnostic its either Agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist. Agnostic means that something that you're not sure or have no clue whether its true.
nctrls2 1 year ago
@treborolyat Like most atheists, I am an agnostic atheist.
I lack knowledge of the existence of gods, and am therefore agnostic.
I lack belief in the existence of gods, and am thus atheistic.
Both positions are perfectly honest.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides An agnostic is not atheist.
There is a range in agnostic viewpoints, from agnostic atheists to agnostic theists.
So an agnostic is basically a fence sitter. They lack the critical evaluation skills to determine logically which side of the fence they sit. They want to be smart and deny without proof, yet they fear the consequences of making an incorrect determination.
That's how an atheist would see it. That is how I see it.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
An agnostic may also feel that it is close minded to be objective and make a decision without proof that a God does not exist. But negative affirmations are impossible to prove. It is not scientific.
You can only prove that a God does not exist if you never find one, but it will be said that you haven't looked far enough so to speak. It is impossible prove. You can only prove a positive when you find it is true.
That is why I am atheist and not agnostic. I make logical inferences.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
@ArchitectOfEvil Sorry, but every agnostic I've met has been an atheist, whether they identify as such or not. Yes, a position exists called agnostic theism. An agnostic must be one or the other, there is no middle ground.
The key here is that atheism is simply lacking belief. One can't choose to be between having belief and not having belief. They either have it or they do not.
Antifides 11 months ago
@Antifides You are incorrect. Atheism is not lacking belief. Atheists dis-believe.
Agnostic is lacking belief. Agnostic is not making a decision. An agnostic is not one or the other, an agnostic is sitting on the fence. Look up the meaning!
How can you say every agnostic you met is atheist whether they identify as such or not? Ask them you self centered prick. You don't represent everyone.
You agreed "Yes, a position exists called agnostic theism". So stop being a hypocrite and a liar.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
@ArchitectOfEvil Damn it, here I thought I was correct, but then you said I wasn't... I'm so lost and confused now.
Sorry, but agnosticism deals with knowledge, not belief. Theism is a belief; "a-" means without. Now, we're going to try an exercise, children. What do you get when you combine "without" and a belief? I think we get "without" (the) belief.
Every agnostic I've met was an atheist BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE IN GOD, YOU MORON.
Antifides 11 months ago
@Antifides But not every agnostic is on the atheist side, you admitted yourself.
You said before "The key here is that atheism is simply lacking belief. One can't choose to be between having belief and not having belief. They either have it or they do not."
Exactly as I was saying, Agnostics cannot make up their mind.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
@ArchitectOfEvil I never said that agnostic theists exist. They might, but that's irrelevant. Every agnostic I've met didn't believe in gods, and is therefore an atheist. "Atheism" simply means "without belief in gods;" I hope you can get that.
And yes, atheists do disbelief, that is, they don't have belief. Haha, I swear I just explained this.
Antifides 11 months ago
@ArchitectOfEvil I'm sorry if you're too stupid to understand that there's no logically defendable position where one states unequivocally that gods don't exist. It's why most logical, rational atheists are agnostic atheists.
By the way, babies are agnostic atheists, too. They neither know of, nor believe in, the existence of gods. I don't have to ask them to know that.
Yes, the position exists, hypothetically, "agnostic theist," but if anyone takes that position, they're a rare breed indeed.
Antifides 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Antifides But you already said that Atheist means "without belief". It does not mean as you now say "one states unequivocally that gods don't exist". They are not the same statement.
Believing in "not" something is not belief. It is a rational decision.
I see atheism as rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
@Antifides Also, babies are stupid and open minded as they know nothing. A baby does not reject Theism so they are not Atheists, you idiot Agnostic.
Anyway, are you trying to say we should think like babies? Wake up. You should learn, not just be open minded. Learn deductive and inductive reasoning.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
@ArchitectOfEvil Oh, and by the way, "disbelieve" doesn't mean "believe in the lack of," it means the exact same fucking thing as "don't believe in," you abject moron.
Antifides 11 months ago
@Antifides An Atheist rejects Theism, they do not simply lack belief. An Atheist dis-believes.
Now can you get the difference? I hope so baby.
An Agnostic lacks belief. They lack belief in something without proof and they lack the denial that something exists even though it has not been proven to exist. They will say, they don't know and it cannot be known and they think that is the most intelligent position.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
Even worse, an Agnostic will not deny it even if the Theism is nonsense, as Theism is! Nonsense that is.
There are hundreds of religions or maybe thousands. Before the concept of a single God, most cultures had deities to explain natural phenomena. It's all bullshit. Full stop.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
@ArchitectOfEvil What, are you trying to convince me that gods don't exist? I'm a strong (or positive) atheist AND an agnostic atheist. I DO believe gods don't exist. I do not, however, claim to know it.
That position is not as easily defendable as weak (negative) atheism, which is why most rational atheists only lack belief, and don't have a contrary belief.
Gnostic atheists, of course, are complete morons, just like gnostic theists. We can't claim to KNOW anything about the supernatural.
Antifides 11 months ago
@Antifides What is a negative or positive Atheist? There is no such thing!
.. And then you are talking about Gnostic Atheists.
Real Atheists such as myself are not Gnostic, if that is what you are trying to say. Gnostic people believe in something supernatural. Gnostic and Theists are a similar breed. They believe in similar nonsense.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
@Antifides The easiest position to defend is Agnosticism as you claim to know nothing and claim that nothing can be known for certain.It is the easiest position to defend but it lacks true critical thinking and judgement. You may think it involves critical thinking because you are being wise saying that you cannot know anything for 100%, but that is pure avoidance.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
@Antifides Theism is indefensible due to its lack of rationale, however as a believer it is also impervious as things are explained in the supernatural without proof or even logic. It requires faith and lack of thought or analysis.
Atheism is actually the only position that can and must be defended with objective reasoning and logic.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
@ArchitectOfEvil You're an idiot. Here it is again, last time:
agnostic weak atheist: doesn't claim to know, doesn't believe
agnostic strong atheist: doesn't claim to know, believes in the lack
gnostic strong atheist: claims to know, believes in the lack
agnostic theist: doesn't claim to know, believes
gnostic theist: claims to know, believes
The first is most atheists. The second is me, and I believe you take the indefensible third position. That does follow from your lack of logic.
Antifides 11 months ago
@Antifides You are corrupting the whole concept.
Gnostic Atheist is meaningless.
Do you know the definition of Gnostic? It means believe in Spiritual things...
What kind of an Atheist is Gnostic?
You can't take the term Gnostic which actually means knowledge of spiritual things, and combine it with Atheist to mean a person that has knowledge that spiritual things (or God) do not exist.
I am an objective, logical Atheist (complete). I don't believe in supernatural, mysticism or religions.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
@Antifides The 3rd position is not indefensible. It is simply critical and makes judgement.
The 4th and 5th positions are indefensible and impervious simultaneously.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
@ArchitectOfEvil Oh, and "gnostic" in this usage has nothing to do with Gnosticism. Science has nothing to do with Scientology, either.
"you are being wise saying that you cannot know anything for 100%, but that is pure avoidance."
We can't know with any percentage of certainty, anything about the supernatural. It's a shot in the dark made by a blind man, and he'll never find out if he hit anything.
Wise or not, I'm being logical.
Antifides 11 months ago
@Antifides The supernatural does not fucking exist. That is why we can't know anything about it.
If we knew about it, it wouldn't be supernatural, there would be explanations. Snap out of it you poor Agnostic fool running in circles.
Also, what does Gnostic mean in your moronic terms? You defend yourself and never explain yourself clearly.
You would be the type of person to give Scientology credit you moron. An Agnostic would say they can't prove that it is not true so it might be. Piss off.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
@ArchitectOfEvil Haha, it's been fun talking to you, but it's clear that you would prefer to remain ignorant. Enjoy your irrational position of gnostic atheism.
Antifides 11 months ago
@ArchitectOfEvil Ah, I can't help it: "gnosis" is a Greek word meaning knowledge. We generally apply it to knowledge of gods in the word "agnostic" and if you recall "a-" means "without." Technically, you can be agnostic about cookies, unaware of their existence.
"I don't believe in supernatural" - That is naturalism, you silly, silly man.
Yes, all positions after the first two are indefensible. I didn't give Scientology credit, I compared your ridiculous equivocation of terms.
Antifides 11 months ago
@ArchitectOfEvil "The supernatural does not fucking exist." Provide evidence or logic to support your claim. I'll destroy it.
"claim that nothing can be known for certain." - epistemological solipsism.
"An agnostic lacks belief." - no, an agnostic lacks knowledge.
"But you already said that Atheist means 'without belief.'" Yes.
"It does not mean as you now say 'one states unequivocally that gods don't exist.'" I never said that.
Antifides 11 months ago
@Antifides I must provide evidence that something does not exist must I? That is not ever possible. I already explained that didn't I? You cannot prove a negative, even with infinite time. You are damn stupid.
You are laughable. Sure you will destroy it. That is only in your mind. You are fucking irrational.
You are correct about one thing, an Agnostic lacks knowledge.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
@ArchitectOfEvil I'm correct about all sorts of things. I like to make a habit of it.
Yes, you can't provide evidence that the supernatural doesn't exist, which means you cannot make the claim and support it. Since you can't support it, the claim has no basis in logical thought. It's irrational to make unsupportable claims. Since you've just admitted to irrationality, I really am done. And unlike you, my claim that you're irrational has support. Check and mate.
Antifides 11 months ago
@Antifides I realize that you like to make a "habit" of being right. It is an unfounded and poor habit.
Somewhat like a religious person. You simply cannot make judgement.
It probably penetrates every area of your life, such as often wondering if you made the right choice or indecisive about what to order for dinner.
And please! Stop it! You probably can't even play chess.
You don't want to think. That's fine with me. I will leave the last word to you because that is obviously what you want.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
@ArchitectOfEvil Oh, I can't decide. Am I right? Are you right? Other than being completely unsupportable, just like theistic claims, your arguments are so compelling. I might just have to go around spouting that the supernatural doesn't exist, just like you do, even though you admit that you cannot provide evidence for it. Oh, I can't decide!
Antifides 11 months ago
@Antifides blah blah blah blah blah blah...
blah blah blah blah..
blah blah.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
You can be self centered and proud while focusing on what other peoples opinions of you are by creating and illusory type projection of yourself in terms of others opinions and reactions, and then proceeding to act selfishly within that context, attempting to improve ones perception of that the status of said self projection within society, and do so without regard for the welfare of others except insofar as it might negatively effect the image they are trying to project.
pilatech 1 year ago
@pilatech Are you talking about a Psychopath. It sounds like that.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
@ArchitectOfEvil
Not specifically, I was more just attempting to describe a majority of humans I've come across in my short time on this here earth, though I would not be inherently opposed to the idea that most people, or at least those with whom I am culturally acquainted, exhibit certain psychopathic tendencies in their ordinary behavior.
pilatech 11 months ago
@pilatech Very interesting. Because what you describe actually seems to be a Psychopath in his/her full glory. Manipulating the way others perceive him in an attempt to make others comfortable with him, yet actually disliking those others that he is trying to comfort. It's all a pretense to become a wolf in sheep clothes.
Like a workplace Psychopath.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
@ArchitectOfEvil
I suppose it is related in general, but I've simply always reserved the term psychopath to be something abnormal. I wouldn't say it's disliking others per say, so much as it is not being capable the reflexive sort of understanding to fully recognize those people and only being able to 'care' about them. Most people I find care only within a 'my' context; my friend, my spouse, my child ect. To borrow from Kant, most people fail to recognize others as ends in themselves.
pilatech 11 months ago
@pilatech A Psychopath is an extreme example of what you described.
For the most part a psychopath never remains attached to anyone or anything.
They live a "predatory" lifestyle, feel little or no regret, and little or no remorse - except when they are caught.
They need relationships, but see people as obstacles to overcome and be eliminated. If not, they see people in terms of how they can be used.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
@pilatech They use people for stimulation, to build their self-esteem and they invariably value people in terms of their material value.
There is a shallow quality to the emotional aspect of their stories (i.e., how they felt, why they felt that way, or how others may have felt and why). The lack of emotional intelligence is the first good sign you may be dealing with a psychopath. However they can be expert in manipulating others by playing to their emotions.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mr. Cropperb, can you expand on why you say altruism is wrong and also when is giving ever right?
Karoogirl84 1 year ago
Mr. Cropperb, can you expand on why you say altruism is wrong and when is giving ever right?
Karoogirl84 1 year ago
can't believe i wasn't subscribed.
MirageScience 1 year ago
Comment removed
Karoogirl84 1 year ago
Even though my philosophical convictions all point towards objectivism, and therefore against altruism - I still find it difficult to live on an island. I like giving if I'm able to (of course not to a point where I feel negative) and to be part of a larger community, but where does one draw the line? How can I know that I'm living appropriately to reality?
Karoogirl84 1 year ago
@Karoogirl84 Altruism is not just giving or helping.
Altruism is "selfless" concern for the welfare of others.
If you risk your own life for "others", meaning anyone.
ArchitectOfEvil 1 year ago
@ArchitectOfEvil - that makes perfect sense to me. Giving should be a pleasure.
thx.
Karoogirl84 1 year ago
@Karoogirl84 You are totally dumb or I misunderstood you.
Are you saying that it is sensible to have selfless concern for others, where others means strangers!
If so you are a fool. Poor you.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
@ArchitectOfEvil : What's the point in being rude - even to strangers? I care little for poor behaviour (particularly stupidity), and choose not to reward it in any one - child, adult, worker, friend, or even a stranger. What I value in others, I can reward.
Karoogirl84 11 months ago
@Karoogirl84 I was not rude. That was your perception.
I was giving my opinion and asking you to clarify what you meant.
As if you could reward me anyway, snap out of it. You have nothing to offer me.
ArchitectOfEvil 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArchitectOfEvil - that makes perfect sense to me. Giving should be a pleasure.
thanks
Karoogirl84 1 year ago
I am an atheist, but would like to attempt to convince you of altruism or at least its merits. Jonas Salk invented the first effective polio vaccine. When he did he didnt patent it. When asked "Who owns this patent?", Salk replied, "No one. Could you patent the sun?". A scientist, a great mind, who was content and happy to have made a great scientific achievement and to further benieft mankind. All true science is for the good of mankind and to progress our collective understading of life.
Sociocidal 1 year ago
@Sociocidal Salk's analogy was fallacious. The sun is a piece of nature (not the creation of a person's mind). Technology and even vaccines are a product of a person's mind and effort. No can't patent the sun, you didn't create it. Yes, you can patent your own work and insist on compensation for it.
SumoQuerubim 1 year ago
@Sociocidal "our collective understading of life."
I'm sorry, I have to LOL. Only individuals "understand" life. Life can only be expereinced and perceived by the individual. I don't care how many group-thinks you attend.
SumoQuerubim 1 year ago
@Sociocidal That's not altruism. He didn't have much interest in money. He was a genius bent on discovery.
He may be ethical but it's not an example of altruism.
ArchitectOfEvil 1 year ago
The old and new testament DO have the same God.
97antwon 1 year ago
As Christians we are told to "go" and make disciples. The church exist to spread the word of Jesus to all nations. He will not return until all nations have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ. Its not just a place to worship in public eye but a place to grow with others. The church is the people, not the building.
Brancozzy02 1 year ago
Now it's time for you to reject Objectivism. Rand has some good criticisms of other philosophies but is blind to her own issues.
ReligionOfNice 1 year ago
Technically Buddhism doesn't have a god.
NavyGod777 1 year ago
pseudo intellectual !
probber66 1 year ago
I think atheist all have a common trait there more consious they ask the questions they dont blindly live or pursue ignorance in such areas as relgion or life motives. Psychologically they are stronger as they take personal responsibility and rely heavily on proof makeing their lives and the psychi that much stronger. If you are and atheist and you know you are more consious( please look up levels of it) then hit thumbs up on this comment.
arcaniondeath666 1 year ago
This is a wonderful video. You seem like a really good dude. I would definitly hear you out in a work enviroment though I think others would not. A person must be careful with how opinion is portrayed.
jschaferesque 1 year ago
I'm glad you found a religion that suits you (:
TimothyBragan 1 year ago
Jesus makes it clear that all who claim to be Christian are not, those who go out from us ,do so,to prove they were never of us.Jesus chooses us,we don't choose Him.All man can choose with his free will is a false religion and a false god.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
Cropperb, you are awesome.
eastofakron1 1 year ago
Cropperb, I really appreciate that you reuploaded this video. I am very happy to see it posted again.
SculptedThoughts 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am a Christian that has also read Ayn Rand, and I would also say that altruism is wrong. My views are that too many people don't understand the Bible as it needs to be understood. I don't consider it mysticism.
I think if more people understood the Bible as they should, they would find that the ideals of objectivism are very in line with those of Christianity with the obvious atheist exception.
God isn't the altruist that most people see Him as.
CodeWolf2000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am a Christian that has also read Ayn Rand, and I would also say that altruism is wrong. My views are that too many people don't understand the Bible as it needs to be understood. I don't consider it mysticism.
I think if more people understood the Bible as they should, they would find that the ideals of objectivism are very in line with those of Christianity with the obvious atheist exception.
God isn't the altruist that most people see him as.
CodeWolf2000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am a Christian that has also read Ayn Rand, and I would also say that altruism is wrong. My views are that too many people don't understand the Bible as it needs to