Atheists lack scientific reasoning in their proposition that if science hasn't already detected a thing, then it does not exist. We already know that that is not true, for by their reasoning, molecules and atoms could not have existed until science detected them, nor DNA, nor the human energy field, as a few examples. Another part of it their problem is that they argue against a quite childish and impossible view of God.
@rtinsavannah Hahaha, you clearly don't even understand science if you think that is how it works. When you criticise something while simultaneously demonstrating you don't understand it one bit, it makes you look like a total fool.
@rtinsavannah The vast majority of us do not assert that God does not exist. We do not pretend to know because we accept that it is unknowable. But we still lack belief in the existence of any God because it hasn't met its burden of proof. You obviously dont understand what an atheist is.
@rtinsavannah No. Gnosticism and agnosticism deals without what we claim to 'know' while theism and atheism deals with what we believe. One can both lack belief in a God whilst simultaneously admitting that one doesn't know for sure. Therefore one can be both agnostic and atheist at the same time - an agnostic atheist. It's like 'weak atheism' and 'strong atheism.'
Can any of you religious folk anwer me this: would you still believe in GOD if there was no promise of an afterlife? Why would you continue to believe?
Having come to believe after experienced all the world has to offer, I can honestly say that nothing and nobody in and of this world has or will ever provide the peace, value, purpose and love and God does, so yes, sir regardless of the outcome per His grace I would still and wholeheartedly love and follow my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
@DIGITALSCREAMS if God didn't promise an afterlife, but merely shared his love with us on earth and compelled us to share it with others, I would still believe. A Christian's purpose is to glorify God. Our day to day goals should be these: love God, and love people.
However, God does promise an afterlife, so I'm overjoyed at the opportunity to glorify him now AND in eternity.
@myfrees Why would you live your whole life for someone you're not even sure is real? You came into this world alone, and your going to die in this world alone, so why not live in this word for yourself? Thats why i hate religion. I am not abided to live by a mythical figueres rules, only my own.
@7h3tSLDR02 well, that is good reasoning, seemingly. But we humans are built with an understanding that there most be more than just living for ourselves. Also, if everyone lived for himself, with no disregard of others, things would be pretty ugly.
The Christian mantra is this: love God and love others.
Read 1 Peter 1. Here is part:
"Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory."
@DIGITALSCREAMS if God didn't promise an afterlife, but merely shared his love with us on earth and compelled us to share it with others, I would still believe. A Christian's purpose is to glorify God. Our day to day goals should be these: love God, and love people.
However, God does promise an afterlife, so I'm overjoyed at the opportunity to glorify him now AND in eternity.
Wow....GOD.....the creator of the known Universe....loves me so much he's prepared to send me to hell for eternity if I masterbate. That makes me feel special.
@DIGITALSCREAMS You are arguing not against existence of God, but rather against some religious opinions. Those are two different things. Your argument does not support atheism, nor deny God.
@MrFoxyFox4Me I only watched for about 20 minutes and he didn't actualyl say why he wasn't an atheist, he just rambled on about some irrelevant things...
Ravi Zacharias is a charaton. Just because he is charismatic doesnot make him right. His arguments are extremely weak and it is perplexing why people wouldeve take him seriously.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 "Ravi Zacharias is a charaton" got any evidence on that? "Just because he is charismatic doesnot make him right." I don't see anyone saying otherwise.
"His arguments are extremely weak" That's only your opinion and nothing else. "it is perplexing why people wouldeve take him seriously" again, just your opinion. That is all. Take your trolling elsewhere or at least provide reasonable arguments.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 I have a habit of asking this question. Please elaborate? I don't understand how you can judge his sermon but not follow up with why you think his sermon is weak.
@DeaconDeZ I listened to this until about the 26 minute mark, he didn't give any real reason as to why he is not an atheist. I decided it wasn't worth my time after that, I have better things to do than wait around for him to give his reasons (which, judging by his other videos, are never ever good ones). Care to fill me in a bit?
@CJFCarlsson Care to back up your assertion? I listened to this until about the 26 minute mark, he didn't give any real reason as to why he is not an atheist.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 The word is "charlatan". Atheism is empty and does not hold any hope. If empty and hopelss sounds better to you than any argument for hope then you really need to explain yourself.
@CJFCarlsson Thank you for correcting my typo, though you didn't need to because it was obviously just a typo. Nice strawman argument there. I do not argue for atheism because it "sounds better," I am arguing for atheism because it is more likely to be true. Please explain how the lack of belief in a God is empty and hopeless, please bear in mind that the majority of Buddhists are also technically atheists because their religion does not include the belief in any sort of God.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 It does not sound better and lack of an alternative can not sound better. There is no hope in atheism, nor a lot of substance to it and you have not been arguing it.
@CJFCarlsson Define "substance," I have not been arguing, you are correct, I have been asking you to explain your assertions. So far you have only been making them. Nothing else. Will you please explain your reasoning? Because if you wont/can't then you might as well accept defeat.
So matter spontaneously appeared out of thin air to cause a Big Bang? According to the law of conservation of energy, energy (which is required for the Big Bang) cannot CREATE OR DESTROY ITSELF, it can only change form. The total amount of energy in an isolated system (ex: the universe) stays the same. If atheism is so likely to be true, then there'd be no energy, nothing. You need something sur-natural to penetrate the system and bring the energy for anything to happen to your atheist system.
@TheRifleNoob The Big Bang theory does not say that the singularity of matter came "from nothing"; it simply postulates its existence and then proceeds from there. The answer to the question of what came before the Big Bang is simply "No one knows yet." There are a number of scientific hypotheses on what was before the Big Bang but none of these have been demonstrated conclusively to be true...
@TheRifleNoob .. But just because science doesn't know for sure doesn't make your Bronze-age myth the best aexplanation by default:
No.1: There is no evidence to support it.
No.2: There are lots of other religions providing a so-called "explanation" and they all (including yours) have the same amount of evidence to support them, zero.
Mr Zacharia is a very well spoken man with convictions, and defends the Christian version of God. Ravi believes that by winning an argument unquestionably in his audiences' eyes...it must then be declared truth. It doesn't matter how valid his points are, or how many people say yes I agree with that, or how many bibles get printed(in 'x' amount of languages), or how many laws get written, or how many jails they build to put the non-believers in.....
It's impossible for an individual to truly KNOW anything, until they had their own experience. ALL of Europe believed the world was flat. You would be ridiculed if you ever told someone "You won't KNOW if the world is truly flat, until you see for yourself." Basically through fear, instead of knowing, they could just say that they're positive in their convictions(same thing right?) They'd show you quotes, poems, books, and maps of the waters falling off the Earth, etc....
Their view of the world then remains intact once again, no change of taught beliefs ever has to take place in anyone's life if they don't choose it, still only meaning that there is a seemingly, individual mind, allowing or accepting a version of the universe that makes them feel comfortable enough to want to live in it; of course based only on the information that has been provided by others...you could raise an army at the drop of a hat if you got people to believe God wanted such a war.
Atheism isn't a philosophy, first of all. Atheism is just the lack of belief in unprovable beings. Sorry Ravi, you fail at life, try thinking on your own for a little bit with an open mind.
He is saying purpose gives life meaning... We give life purpose, so doesn't that mean we create life's meaning? Man, this guy isn't all that smart, I'm must smarter. You guys should hear me speak, I am also Indian.
There is no problem with subjective morality, especially when 'absolute morality' like what is proffessed in the bible would include acts such as stoning to death people who work on the 'Sabbath.' Yeh, you heard.
I'm an atheist and I must say I felt slightly insulted by some of the things that were said in this talk. He made a very common mistake of viewing everyone of a kind of beleif as the same. I would think that far from all atheist lack moral grounds. Moral comes from upbringing and experience, not from a book that just tells me how to behave and do.
Whenever I help someone or do anything else that is a good deed, I do it for that person, and because it feels right, not out of fear of hell.
@Kissekissemiss You failed to grasp his and Nietzsche's point. Atheists are perfectly capable of living moral lives, but without a Lawgiver, objective morality is a myth. In other words, all morality is subjective and subject to cultural upbringing. A rapist born into a society that deems rape to be socially acceptable must not be punished as that was simply how he was raised.
This is simply wrong. The fact of the matter is that even WITH a god, morality is still subjective. Ask yourself this: what makes something good or evil? Is it something God decides? Or is it something independent of God?
If independent of God, then he's not necessary; he's simply a messenger of something that exists independent of himself. If he decides what is good or bad, then they are subjective - based on his whims opinions.
@Politicimo . To say that something is objective is to say that it is independent of what people think or perceive. For something to be objective, it must be mind-independent.By contrast, to say that something is subjective is just to say that it is not objective; that is to say, it is dependent on what human persons think or perceive.
@Politicimo Our obligation to a particular ethical system must transcend personal preference because it is dependent on the minds of man or they are just completely illusory as would be under socio-biological evolution. God is by definition the greatest conceivable being, and a being which is the paradigm of goodness is greater than one which merely exemplifies goodness. Such a being would possess all perfections to a maximal degree and possess no imperfections.
@Marduniya Morality is subjective and culturally relative. Go ask the Nazi's if murder was a good thing. You think God gives a flying fuck? No, because he doesn't exist.
@Politicimo If such a being exists, then that being's moral attributes would be the right moral attributes, the bridge between is and ought, as God is the least arbitrary stopping point.
Smoke and mirrors once again, but never is the issue address. This is no gods, there is no evidence of gods. And yes sane people do reject the existence of Gods, Santa Claus, Pixies, Gnomeo, and all other bullshit presented without any evidence at all. Good public speaker, but still utter bullshit.
Great, inspiring words... Some people try to dissociate atheist thinking from Adolf Hitler, when it is clear that the impact of such ideology, thru Hitler, was devastating.
@gatsbyfaulkner "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - HITLER
@anglicantian religion can be pretty dastardly on one's birth certificate. But recent historians tell us that he was no longer under the Catholic tutelage when he let go of it possibly at age nine. He joined occult such as one by Hans Bluer and Aleister Crowly. So I know WELL he WAS a Catholic; at least that's what his birth certificate said.
@Neueregel I'll be honest...I'm not sure what was well-thought out about your statement. Firstly, it appears you are merely trying to discredit Ravi Zacharias by inferring that you have never heard of him, which doesn't really hold any weight. Secondly, what if I simply said, "Atheism is the worst idea ever made in the human brain." What weight does this hold, and what about this statement is well thought-out.
@jensenc86 What he meant to say was, "the idea of God has done more harm than good and it needs to die out." Is that "well thought-out" enough for ya?
@CntthnkO15 There will still be plenty of harm if you remove the "idea of God". As long as humans exist there will still be harm, there will still be wars, and there will still be pain. Not to mention, I would be careful making blanket statements. Of course, I'm pretty sure you don't care what I have to say, I don't feel a sense of mutual respect from you. I hope our intention in talking about meaning in life is to educate and help others, not to simply boost our egos with hot air.
@jensenc86 If the idea of God didn't exist, there would still be this worthless monetary system, which is the cause of most homegrown crime. So, you are wrong for saying, "as long as humans exist." What you should of said is, "as long as money exists." I have no ego, I have total control of it.
@CntthnkO15 I'm not quite sure what "worthless monetary system" you are talking about? Could be referring to a lot of things. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "homegrown crime?" Now, you saying "as long as money exist" as being the real problem, well, I can't agree with that. Money was created by humans and is used by humans. Nothing is in itself evil, but can be used as evil. Even the idea of God is not evil in itself. An atomic bomb is not evil, only when you decide to drop it.
@jensenc86 There is one monetary system, either it uses fiat or gold currency. Why create things that would create inequality and pain? Money, God, and weapons do both of them. Homegrown crime is any everyday crimes, theft, murder, rape, etc. that occur in society. I didn't know if you would get it or not, and you didn't.
@CntthnkO15 ...thanks for replying, but I'm curious about my main point about money not really being the issue. You didn't address that at all. Thanks.
@jensenc86 Money is the issue dude. If it exists, there will be people who take advantage is it's power... That is the point. This race is so obscenely morally deprived due to the rampant and mindless acceptance of this monetary system that directly creates selfishness, we can't blame anything, but the system. You are trying to say humans are to blame, obviously, it's because of the system though. Change the system, change the human race and it's moral and ethical values, and it needs change.
@CntthnkO15 ....Money is power, simply because humans have made it that way. You could never remove enough of anything to stop humans from misusing power. When there wasn't money, people controlled the elements, such as water and food, and so on and so forth. That is why I say that if you wish to remove pain and suffering you must remove humans, so to leave it plainly, pain isn't going anywhere, whether you remove the idea of God or not.
@jensenc86 Again, why create something that causes inequality? As long as it's there, there will be people misusing it, and you seem to understand this. How the fuck is someone going to own something where a system doesn't allow things to be owned? They can't control "the elements" if they can't have property of it. The current system allows such idiocy.
this is so deep. its amazing how well he develops his points. if i was an atheist, it would be pretty hard to have any kind of comeback to his argument
Atheists lack scientific reasoning in their proposition that if science hasn't already detected a thing, then it does not exist. We already know that that is not true, for by their reasoning, molecules and atoms could not have existed until science detected them, nor DNA, nor the human energy field, as a few examples. Another part of it their problem is that they argue against a quite childish and impossible view of God.
rtinsavannah 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rtinsavannah Hahaha, you clearly don't even understand science if you think that is how it works. When you criticise something while simultaneously demonstrating you don't understand it one bit, it makes you look like a total fool.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 weeks ago
@rtinsavannah The vast majority of us do not assert that God does not exist. We do not pretend to know because we accept that it is unknowable. But we still lack belief in the existence of any God because it hasn't met its burden of proof. You obviously dont understand what an atheist is.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 weeks ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 By definition that is not atheism, but agnosticism. Read up on it.
rtinsavannah 2 weeks ago
@rtinsavannah No. Gnosticism and agnosticism deals without what we claim to 'know' while theism and atheism deals with what we believe. One can both lack belief in a God whilst simultaneously admitting that one doesn't know for sure. Therefore one can be both agnostic and atheist at the same time - an agnostic atheist. It's like 'weak atheism' and 'strong atheism.'
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 weeks ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Thanks, Frankie. I guess words get watered down a lot in modern society.
rtinsavannah 1 week ago
@rtinsavannah Well, the meaning of the word 'agnostic' is kind of ambiguous like that.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 week ago
Can any of you religious folk anwer me this: would you still believe in GOD if there was no promise of an afterlife? Why would you continue to believe?
DIGITALSCREAMS 3 weeks ago
Having come to believe after experienced all the world has to offer, I can honestly say that nothing and nobody in and of this world has or will ever provide the peace, value, purpose and love and God does, so yes, sir regardless of the outcome per His grace I would still and wholeheartedly love and follow my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
myriamtuttle 3 weeks ago 2
@DIGITALSCREAMS if God didn't promise an afterlife, but merely shared his love with us on earth and compelled us to share it with others, I would still believe. A Christian's purpose is to glorify God. Our day to day goals should be these: love God, and love people.
However, God does promise an afterlife, so I'm overjoyed at the opportunity to glorify him now AND in eternity.
myfrees 3 weeks ago
@myfrees Why would you live your whole life for someone you're not even sure is real? You came into this world alone, and your going to die in this world alone, so why not live in this word for yourself? Thats why i hate religion. I am not abided to live by a mythical figueres rules, only my own.
7h3tSLDR02 2 weeks ago
@7h3tSLDR02 well, that is good reasoning, seemingly. But we humans are built with an understanding that there most be more than just living for ourselves. Also, if everyone lived for himself, with no disregard of others, things would be pretty ugly.
The Christian mantra is this: love God and love others.
Read 1 Peter 1. Here is part:
"Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory."
myfrees 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DIGITALSCREAMS if God didn't promise an afterlife, but merely shared his love with us on earth and compelled us to share it with others, I would still believe. A Christian's purpose is to glorify God. Our day to day goals should be these: love God, and love people.
However, God does promise an afterlife, so I'm overjoyed at the opportunity to glorify him now AND in eternity.
myfrees 3 weeks ago
@DIGITALSCREAMS The inner knowing that one is spirit causes one to know of God's existance. No promises needed.
rtinsavannah 2 weeks ago
Wow....GOD.....the creator of the known Universe....loves me so much he's prepared to send me to hell for eternity if I masterbate. That makes me feel special.
DIGITALSCREAMS 3 weeks ago
@DIGITALSCREAMS You are arguing not against existence of God, but rather against some religious opinions. Those are two different things. Your argument does not support atheism, nor deny God.
rtinsavannah 2 weeks ago
YOUTUBE COMMENTS
DrCharisma1 1 month ago
What? An hour and eight minutes?? I'm not watching all that. Could someone give me a summary???
MrFoxyFox4Me 1 month ago
@MrFoxyFox4Me I only watched for about 20 minutes and he didn't actualyl say why he wasn't an atheist, he just rambled on about some irrelevant things...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 All of it is relevant. For a solid argument, one needs to set the stage. Listen to the lecture. He makes his case.
rtinsavannah 2 weeks ago
Ravi Zacharias is a charaton. Just because he is charismatic doesnot make him right. His arguments are extremely weak and it is perplexing why people wouldeve take him seriously.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 "Ravi Zacharias is a charaton" got any evidence on that? "Just because he is charismatic doesnot make him right." I don't see anyone saying otherwise.
"His arguments are extremely weak" That's only your opinion and nothing else. "it is perplexing why people wouldeve take him seriously" again, just your opinion. That is all. Take your trolling elsewhere or at least provide reasonable arguments.
biscuitbuilder 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 I have a habit of asking this question. Please elaborate? I don't understand how you can judge his sermon but not follow up with why you think his sermon is weak.
DeaconDeZ 1 month ago
@DeaconDeZ His sermon is over an hour long. Do you really expect me to do that?
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Yes. You took the time to leave a comment, why not explain it.
DeaconDeZ 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeaconDeZ I listened to this until about the 26 minute mark, he didn't give any real reason as to why he is not an atheist. I decided it wasn't worth my time after that, I have better things to do than wait around for him to give his reasons (which, judging by his other videos, are never ever good ones). Care to fill me in a bit?
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Because atheism is hopeless and empty? So anything else already is one point up from that.
And Ravi Z isn't that bad.
CJFCarlsson 1 month ago
@CJFCarlsson Care to back up your assertion? I listened to this until about the 26 minute mark, he didn't give any real reason as to why he is not an atheist.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 The word is "charlatan". Atheism is empty and does not hold any hope. If empty and hopelss sounds better to you than any argument for hope then you really need to explain yourself.
CJFCarlsson 1 month ago
@CJFCarlsson Thank you for correcting my typo, though you didn't need to because it was obviously just a typo. Nice strawman argument there. I do not argue for atheism because it "sounds better," I am arguing for atheism because it is more likely to be true. Please explain how the lack of belief in a God is empty and hopeless, please bear in mind that the majority of Buddhists are also technically atheists because their religion does not include the belief in any sort of God.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 It does not sound better and lack of an alternative can not sound better. There is no hope in atheism, nor a lot of substance to it and you have not been arguing it.
CJFCarlsson 1 month ago
@CJFCarlsson Define "substance," I have not been arguing, you are correct, I have been asking you to explain your assertions. So far you have only been making them. Nothing else. Will you please explain your reasoning? Because if you wont/can't then you might as well accept defeat.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
So matter spontaneously appeared out of thin air to cause a Big Bang? According to the law of conservation of energy, energy (which is required for the Big Bang) cannot CREATE OR DESTROY ITSELF, it can only change form. The total amount of energy in an isolated system (ex: the universe) stays the same. If atheism is so likely to be true, then there'd be no energy, nothing. You need something sur-natural to penetrate the system and bring the energy for anything to happen to your atheist system.
TheRifleNoob 1 month ago
@TheRifleNoob The Big Bang theory does not say that the singularity of matter came "from nothing"; it simply postulates its existence and then proceeds from there. The answer to the question of what came before the Big Bang is simply "No one knows yet." There are a number of scientific hypotheses on what was before the Big Bang but none of these have been demonstrated conclusively to be true...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
Comment removed
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRifleNoob .. But just because science doesn't know for sure doesn't make your Bronze-age myth the best aexplanation by default:
No.1: There is no evidence to support it.
No.2: There are lots of other religions providing a so-called "explanation" and they all (including yours) have the same amount of evidence to support them, zero.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
Mr Zacharia is a very well spoken man with convictions, and defends the Christian version of God. Ravi believes that by winning an argument unquestionably in his audiences' eyes...it must then be declared truth. It doesn't matter how valid his points are, or how many people say yes I agree with that, or how many bibles get printed(in 'x' amount of languages), or how many laws get written, or how many jails they build to put the non-believers in.....
Truthseeker5683 2 months ago
It's impossible for an individual to truly KNOW anything, until they had their own experience. ALL of Europe believed the world was flat. You would be ridiculed if you ever told someone "You won't KNOW if the world is truly flat, until you see for yourself." Basically through fear, instead of knowing, they could just say that they're positive in their convictions(same thing right?) They'd show you quotes, poems, books, and maps of the waters falling off the Earth, etc....
Truthseeker5683 2 months ago
Their view of the world then remains intact once again, no change of taught beliefs ever has to take place in anyone's life if they don't choose it, still only meaning that there is a seemingly, individual mind, allowing or accepting a version of the universe that makes them feel comfortable enough to want to live in it; of course based only on the information that has been provided by others...you could raise an army at the drop of a hat if you got people to believe God wanted such a war.
Truthseeker5683 2 months ago
Atheism isn't a philosophy, first of all. Atheism is just the lack of belief in unprovable beings. Sorry Ravi, you fail at life, try thinking on your own for a little bit with an open mind.
CntthnkO15 3 months ago 2
He is saying purpose gives life meaning... We give life purpose, so doesn't that mean we create life's meaning? Man, this guy isn't all that smart, I'm must smarter. You guys should hear me speak, I am also Indian.
CntthnkO15 3 months ago
@Mirewood Why use such emotionally loaded words?
Legomyegoorj 3 months ago
There is no problem with subjective morality, especially when 'absolute morality' like what is proffessed in the bible would include acts such as stoning to death people who work on the 'Sabbath.' Yeh, you heard.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 4 months ago 4
I'm an atheist and I must say I felt slightly insulted by some of the things that were said in this talk. He made a very common mistake of viewing everyone of a kind of beleif as the same. I would think that far from all atheist lack moral grounds. Moral comes from upbringing and experience, not from a book that just tells me how to behave and do.
Whenever I help someone or do anything else that is a good deed, I do it for that person, and because it feels right, not out of fear of hell.
Kissekissemiss 4 months ago
@Kissekissemiss You failed to grasp his and Nietzsche's point. Atheists are perfectly capable of living moral lives, but without a Lawgiver, objective morality is a myth. In other words, all morality is subjective and subject to cultural upbringing. A rapist born into a society that deems rape to be socially acceptable must not be punished as that was simply how he was raised.
Marduniya 4 months ago
@Marduniya
This is simply wrong. The fact of the matter is that even WITH a god, morality is still subjective. Ask yourself this: what makes something good or evil? Is it something God decides? Or is it something independent of God?
If independent of God, then he's not necessary; he's simply a messenger of something that exists independent of himself. If he decides what is good or bad, then they are subjective - based on his whims opinions.
Politicimo 4 months ago
@Politicimo . To say that something is objective is to say that it is independent of what people think or perceive. For something to be objective, it must be mind-independent.By contrast, to say that something is subjective is just to say that it is not objective; that is to say, it is dependent on what human persons think or perceive.
Marduniya 4 months ago
@Politicimo Our obligation to a particular ethical system must transcend personal preference because it is dependent on the minds of man or they are just completely illusory as would be under socio-biological evolution. God is by definition the greatest conceivable being, and a being which is the paradigm of goodness is greater than one which merely exemplifies goodness. Such a being would possess all perfections to a maximal degree and possess no imperfections.
Marduniya 4 months ago
@Marduniya Morality is subjective and culturally relative. Go ask the Nazi's if murder was a good thing. You think God gives a flying fuck? No, because he doesn't exist.
CntthnkO15 3 months ago
@CntthnkO15 A lot of emotion, but no substance. Perhaps you should expand upon your statements.
Marduniya 3 months ago
@Marduniya What is there to expand on? Lol, the point is very clear. God doesn't exist.
CntthnkO15 3 months ago
@CntthnkO15 How do you go from a baseless claim that morality is subjective and make a quantum leap that God does not exist?
Marduniya 3 months ago
@Politicimo If such a being exists, then that being's moral attributes would be the right moral attributes, the bridge between is and ought, as God is the least arbitrary stopping point.
Marduniya 4 months ago
Theists love the word Truth because it's unfalsifiable and insists on itself. On the contrary, they hate the F word- "facts."
feee99 5 months ago 2
Smoke and mirrors once again, but never is the issue address. This is no gods, there is no evidence of gods. And yes sane people do reject the existence of Gods, Santa Claus, Pixies, Gnomeo, and all other bullshit presented without any evidence at all. Good public speaker, but still utter bullshit.
voidless42 6 months ago
i like what he is sayin when you lock god out you must undrestand what you have lockd in ... AND BE ABILL TO LIVE WITH IT
charlesmoore1975 7 months ago
What is this babble?
violinistncomposer 7 months ago
Great, inspiring words... Some people try to dissociate atheist thinking from Adolf Hitler, when it is clear that the impact of such ideology, thru Hitler, was devastating.
gatsbyfaulkner 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gatsbyfaulkner "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - HITLER
pewp89 7 months ago
@gatsbyfaulkner
You know bloody well Hitler was a catholic.
anglicantian 5 months ago
@anglicantian religion can be pretty dastardly on one's birth certificate. But recent historians tell us that he was no longer under the Catholic tutelage when he let go of it possibly at age nine. He joined occult such as one by Hans Bluer and Aleister Crowly. So I know WELL he WAS a Catholic; at least that's what his birth certificate said.
gatsbyfaulkner 5 months ago
I was an atheist before watching this video, and I'm an amused atheist after seeing it.
ndrthrdr1 8 months ago 3
who the heck is Zacharias? Also, god is the worst idea ever made in the human brain.
Neueregel 8 months ago
@Neueregel Wow, what a well thought-out statement.
kaolin4887 8 months ago
@kaolin4887 thanks
Neueregel 8 months ago
@Neueregel I'll be honest...I'm not sure what was well-thought out about your statement. Firstly, it appears you are merely trying to discredit Ravi Zacharias by inferring that you have never heard of him, which doesn't really hold any weight. Secondly, what if I simply said, "Atheism is the worst idea ever made in the human brain." What weight does this hold, and what about this statement is well thought-out.
jensenc86 7 months ago 32
@jensenc86 What he meant to say was, "the idea of God has done more harm than good and it needs to die out." Is that "well thought-out" enough for ya?
CntthnkO15 3 months ago
@CntthnkO15 There will still be plenty of harm if you remove the "idea of God". As long as humans exist there will still be harm, there will still be wars, and there will still be pain. Not to mention, I would be careful making blanket statements. Of course, I'm pretty sure you don't care what I have to say, I don't feel a sense of mutual respect from you. I hope our intention in talking about meaning in life is to educate and help others, not to simply boost our egos with hot air.
jensenc86 3 months ago
@jensenc86 If the idea of God didn't exist, there would still be this worthless monetary system, which is the cause of most homegrown crime. So, you are wrong for saying, "as long as humans exist." What you should of said is, "as long as money exists." I have no ego, I have total control of it.
CntthnkO15 3 months ago
@CntthnkO15 I'm not quite sure what "worthless monetary system" you are talking about? Could be referring to a lot of things. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "homegrown crime?" Now, you saying "as long as money exist" as being the real problem, well, I can't agree with that. Money was created by humans and is used by humans. Nothing is in itself evil, but can be used as evil. Even the idea of God is not evil in itself. An atomic bomb is not evil, only when you decide to drop it.
jensenc86 3 months ago
@jensenc86 There is one monetary system, either it uses fiat or gold currency. Why create things that would create inequality and pain? Money, God, and weapons do both of them. Homegrown crime is any everyday crimes, theft, murder, rape, etc. that occur in society. I didn't know if you would get it or not, and you didn't.
CntthnkO15 3 months ago
@CntthnkO15 ...thanks for replying, but I'm curious about my main point about money not really being the issue. You didn't address that at all. Thanks.
jensenc86 3 months ago
@jensenc86 Money is the issue dude. If it exists, there will be people who take advantage is it's power... That is the point. This race is so obscenely morally deprived due to the rampant and mindless acceptance of this monetary system that directly creates selfishness, we can't blame anything, but the system. You are trying to say humans are to blame, obviously, it's because of the system though. Change the system, change the human race and it's moral and ethical values, and it needs change.
CntthnkO15 2 months ago
@CntthnkO15 ....Money is power, simply because humans have made it that way. You could never remove enough of anything to stop humans from misusing power. When there wasn't money, people controlled the elements, such as water and food, and so on and so forth. That is why I say that if you wish to remove pain and suffering you must remove humans, so to leave it plainly, pain isn't going anywhere, whether you remove the idea of God or not.
jensenc86 3 months ago
@jensenc86 Again, why create something that causes inequality? As long as it's there, there will be people misusing it, and you seem to understand this. How the fuck is someone going to own something where a system doesn't allow things to be owned? They can't control "the elements" if they can't have property of it. The current system allows such idiocy.
CntthnkO15 3 months ago
this is so deep. its amazing how well he develops his points. if i was an atheist, it would be pretty hard to have any kind of comeback to his argument
bige1093 10 months ago
I was balled over with this talk just awesome !
Jen8973 10 months ago 6
Ravi...Wonderful!!!
TheKendarji 1 year ago 24