@hulks92 it's not if it's matter or not if it can reason , can you reason with something that's not there in the first place , light won't judge you nor comdemn you for not believing in it
OMG, that was so anying to listen to. First of, the idea that atheists get their morality from their own personal philosophy, is bullshit. We can get them from reasoning and viewing reality. Secondly, the idea that if an atheist says that killing is wrong, then that comes from the bible, is also stupid. >Because the bible doesnt tell you WHY its wrong, it just tells you that it is. Also, if you are going to follow the bible, you HAVE TO follow all of it. Or else you are lying.
How does atheists be moral without morality as you know it? It seems to me right there that your saying that you can be moral without god, therefore why does there have to be a god to be moral if we have already shown that those people without god are in fact moral?
@rustedromeo We're not saying we can be more moral without god, but that God has done nothing to provide any morals for society. Firstly, God has never been demonstrated to exist, and secondly, he's never been demonstrated to be good. All religions have adopted the secular morality that atheists already have, but instead of acknowledging that, they simply justify their new morals by re interpretating the bible, or whatever holy book they have, to match them.
@rustedromeo The common theistic answer to that comes from the idea that moral is objective. Meaning that you are given YOUR moral compass from god. So weather you accept that god gave it to you or not, you still have it. This argument though is based on the idea that moral is objective and not based on reasoning.
@gulbirk I think i get what your saying , as in what the common theist will try to say in their defense. It seems rather funny that he acknowledges you can be moral without believing in god but then you always hear alot of theists claim that your must be immoral without that belief. I also wonder if they think morality was just hard coded into us as beings or whether it has to be taught via the bible? I just can't wrap my mind around how they view reality.
@rustedromeo MOST (but probably not all) think that it is hardwired into us (objective morality). Some of those people also believe that reading the bible can then give you a BETTER understanding of morality. I think this is demonstrably false. Take this debate as an example. The guy at the left "knew" that slavery was imoral. So he was able to say that the christians who said slavery was ok, were wrong. Ergo, he already have a moral standard, and just thinks that it comes from the bible.
Mistake numero uno: Atheism is not synonym for materialism or naturalism.
Mistake number two: The idea that it's wrong to kill is older than christianity or even judaism.
Mistake number three: If our morality comes from the christian doctrine then why am a vegan and why do I think it's wrong to kill even if the god in your head tells you to and why do I think torture is always wrong? Why does my morality contradict the bible?
This guy is factually so wrong. There was a school of Hindu philosophy which was basically atheist, way back in 600 BC. I consider Buddhism also to be an atheist religion.
From wikipedia: Atheist school of hindusims believes -
"Believing that the Veda are standard (holy or divine), believing in a Creator for the world,
Bathing in holy waters for gaining punya, having pride (vanity) about one's caste,
Performing penance to absolve sins,
Are the five symptoms of having lost one's sanity."
I was enjoying this debate until this guy begins to speak; if you cannot justify your reasoning, BSing rarely works, and when it does....oh dear gods.
What utter bullshit... we are all born atheists and then indoctrinated into some bullshit beliefs (apart from Atheists born to Atheists). How can this guy believe that Atheism is a modern thing an that it only survives in a Christian world? There is just so much wrong with that, I simply don't know where to start.
Wow killing is wrong? Good thing christians told me this or I would have already gone on a mass killing spree starting with all my close friends and family... give me a fucking break. Humans realized killing wasn't beneficial to their survival since they evolved.
Um, I'm utterly lost be what Father Hans is saying...I know he's a fool and a charlatan instead of a historian, but honestly, what point was he trying to make? Is he saying that since atheists don't believe in God and generally don't believe the supernatural, then supernatural morality is absolutely rejected by them? Is he actually setting up this straw man?
@EliteDoomer that is actually trueish. atheism=rejection of theism as matt's pointed out repeatedly(even though the religious dude used the word Christian instead of theism). he'd argue that though. I'd argue it too. Lets argue together erryone except nobody gives a shit? +1 most bs in 10 minutes ever.
Why does he sound like he's making a strawman? Is he? I can't understand what his point is, even. I can't tell what his definition of "philosophical" is meant to be it shifts contexts too much.
This narrative is derived from fear. Many faiths, religions, and texts share the same moral precepts. One could also assert that the unseen is a figment of man's existence, and that moral truths can transcend one's franchise loyalty.
Atheism is a recent phenomenon? lol Atheism can not exist beyond a Christian society? lol Killing is wrong, atheists borrowed this from the bible? I guess our early ancestors killed each other for no reason which would have lead to extinction prior to the bible? Survival of a species is the foundation of morality, why isn't this seen by creationists? Evolution is the survival of the fitest, it would not be fit to murder regarding survival of the specie. This debate is humorous!
...so this guy's entire point is that BECAUSE a moral premise is given in the "Bible" then it necessarily belongs to christianity?
This dude is deluded beyond belief. None of this was reason....just religion with a bunch of fancy butterflies and swirls around it. He tried to change his language to existentialist form, but said nothing in the meantime...
Very well put...I feel the exact same way. Man can't determine the overall meaning of morality because we (mankind) have such a vast variety of morality. In this it creates tribalism, in other words, secular governments...
"Atheism does not allow the existence of anything not made from matter". Yeh... you know that microphone you are using uses that little thing called electricity? How about the radio waves that then broadcast this around the world? Yep you definately got me there. Can't possibly believe in them. Yet another religious idiot with no understanding of science whatsoever.
Morality will ultimately come from what a society, state, city, village, group, family can afford at the time based on their present circumstances needed for the continued survival of the whole.
Abortion is murder when the whole can support the child even when the mother cannot. Infantcide is justified in a hunter/gather society if the group cannot feed the mother and the new infant and has been practiced for thousands of years.
The pedophile says that atheists must necessarily derive their morality from Christian doctrine? How has Christian morality changed then? Why do all cultures view murder, lying and stealing bad?
Emotion tells me what I find acceptable and what I don't find acceptable and reason tells me how to get it.
Atheism is not a reaction to a Christian belief or society but any theistic belief system.
Hans is already sidestepping. First shying away from the word god, making it philosophical and then saying that all humans have morality, regardless of belief. But that is the whole point: morality does not require divine absolutes.
What I understand is that an atheist might have moral values just like a Christian, but they are worth less because they are not based on an invisible, super-natural being.
This guy is borderline incoherent and keeps name-dropping rhetoric like 'fundamentalist atheism', but everyone will just nod their heads and play nice and pretend like he isn't just saying whatever the hell he wants.
"Fundamentalist Athiest" ??... how can you be a hold a fundamentalist lack of belief?... Or does he mean that I fundamentally must have evidence before believing that something exists in the face of all reason. Athiests do not "believe that god doesn't exist"... they "reject the assertion that god does exist, without evidence"...
I'm an atheist and I don't think that any moral values can be justified by reason. It all depends on personal preference. You can choose to be empathetic and not kill anyone or you can choose otherwise. With reason alone you can't argue that any of those two possibilities is inferior. What do you guys think? Can you give me logical reasons not to kill my fellow people? :o
I was actually interested in this debate until i seen just how uneducated the priest was on basically everything on this subject. its like throwing a lamb to a lion.
Of course Hitler was wrong in the Christian's eyes! Hitler, you are supposed to burn the ghettos to the ground after you kill everyone in them, silly (Deut: 13:16)
He just admitted that Atheist get their morals from a different source. If morality can be reached from a different source than God, then God is not needed.
This priest is wrong after 5 seconds into his 'speech'. He sounds like he's making a homily. Like a homily, lacks reasoning but tries to make some point never less. Doesn't identify definitions correctly, doesn't make any actual back boned claim. His arguments had very little to even do with the topic. Just sounded like he was attacking something he believes is atheism, when it's not. Gets philosophical points wrong and even gets his history wrong. For shame that he calls himself a historian.
@speadskater Yeah I agree. The only thing he really said was that atheists are not immoral, and that he doesnt understand why atheists are iffended when someone says that they get their morals from christianity.
@speadskater I don't know because this second clip persuaded me not to bother watching the rest of them. The dude is stumbling over his words too much and is making no sense, and it's really an irritating combination.
He can't reconcile the fact that truth exists independent of human understanding with atheism? How does that even work? Science as a whole is only valid only if there is some truth that is unknown to human beings! At the beginning of his statement, the father says that an agreement of definitions is necessary for a healthy debate; in that case, he really ought to be familiar with the universal definition of science before even arriving.
Poor Father Hans can't tell the difference between Atheism and Metaphysical Naturalism. (Guess we shouldn't tell him about non-theistic religions like Buddism, LOL!)
This may be true if your looking at this from the perspective of the universe. I wonder if he realizes that Christians were persecuted by the Romans because they were considered Atheists. By definition, atheism must be older than any belief in a god.
@SilvinLight I was thinking about this myself and was going to say the same, but realised that until there is a theistic belief, there cannot be an atheist viewpoint, so it can only be as old as theism. You might say before people came up with gods they were atheistic but that only holds since the invention of theism. At the time they, weren't considering themselves atheist, if you see what I mean?
@waltermh111 Ok, I think you are being somewhat more loose with the language than I am. My objection to your point may be simplified. You -could- refer to people during the renaissance as non-drivers who didn't watch TV, and this would be true. But it only has any real meaning when there is a choice.
Say I know about a concept of ghpung, is it meaningful for you to think of yourself as aghpungist, or would you require to know the concept giving it validity?
@Brascofarian I am actuallty being very strict with the language, what I said is reality. Just because something isnt named, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
How much meaning it has is irrelevent, because I agree with you, even if it doesnt matter at the time, you are right, they were non-drivers who didnt watch tv. So thanks for proving my point.
@Brascofarian The original line only was, you cant have atheism without theism, but thats not true in the literal sense, the strict sense, but yes, in a more philosophical sense, its meaningless to have a label for the lack of belief in a god unless you first create a specific god(s) to have a lack of beleif in.
@waltermh111 no, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. In the literal sense, theism came before atheism, that is why the term "theism" is part of the word "aTHEISM". Literally, you are wrong, otherwise there would be a word for atheism from which "theism" would be derived.
This is what I meant about loose usage. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but you need to be very careful of words when you invoke "literal" meanings.
Agreeing with my point about non-drivers etc, renders your initial point moot.
@Brascofarian In any sense, atheism came before theism. Maybe word theism came first, but then what are we talking about? Does it really matter to you that somebody named one already existing thing before the other?
Atheism is a lack of belief, and people lacked a belief before they believed.
Whether it was meaningful to name that or not is irrelevent
I guarantee you do not prove your point by breaking down the word. It again may show the timing of the words creations, but not of their meaning
@Brascofarian So when you boast about your better intepretation of literal meaning or whos loose, you should check yourself that your losing the purpose of the debate, which to my knowledge at least, was about what came first, the atheist or the theist in the descriptive sense, not which word came first
Might want to read back on your original post
As to your agreeing with your analogy making me moot, you must be joking right?
I said the label doesnt matter, only its description, are you dense?
@waltermh111 I wasn't boasting, a literal mean is based on the word. It's that simple.
The arguent is not even about the word, it is about the concept. without EVEN the concept of god, you cannot have theism, therefore atheism has no concept to base itself on. These things are mutually inclusive, like the concept of positive and negative. One does not make sense without the other. It's a simple concept, either you get it or you don't. It's not my problem.
@Brascofarian A lieral interpretation of the word is based on a literal intepretation of the meaning of the word, not necessarily the age of it compared to another one.
Now, if you finally agree its about the concept, but think the concept is different from the definition, well, concept wise, people still had a lack of belief in something before there was a belief.
Its not about a disbelief in something that somebody else made up, its a "lack of belief"
@waltermh111 Look, the reason this point is important is that you are falling into the trap that claims atheism is a world view that is somehow independent of religion, and it isn't. It is rejection of claims. You can't reject claims until them have been made. Therefore atheism has only been around as long as theism. It is not something in and of itself.
One thing I think we can both agree on is that atheism didn't need to exist until people started to make shit up and declaring it as truth.
@Brascofarian I have to completely agree with Waltermh111. Just because there was no name for something does not mean it did not exist. A very basic sample of this would be a child born without the parents having a name prepared for him/her. Does the child not exist until a name is given to it, of course not thats preposterous. Atheism is the default position. You are born with no knowledge therefor you know not of God. To say otherwise is completely unfounded. Dont say anything about instinct.
@CtheWolfe Hell, the earth existed for billions of years before there was even life forms on it, and far, far before there were humans to attach labels to anything.
@CtheWolfe Look, you are conflating non-physical concepts with tangible, physical things. Someone has to think of an idea before it exists, right? The point was not about words, the only reason I even brought up words is because waltermh111 was talking about "literal" meanings, which by definition are about the words. All I'm saying is until someone came up with a god concept people couldn't believe or not believe in it. Does that make sense?
@Brascofarian I know I covered this, but its so silly i must go over it again, literal refers to meaning, not the word itself, therefore, by definition the definition of the word is the most important part.
Atheism is not the counter to atheism, it is simply defined as a lack of belief in a god, not a specific one, just the concept. Even if no gods are invented yet, you still have a lack of belief in the idea of a god, in a possibility of a god, in the concept of a god.
@waltermh111 exactly!!!! A lack of belief in _GOD_! How can you have atheism as you have just defined without THEISM!?! The definition is dependent on it! That has been my whole bloody point.
@Brascofarian You are lacking the ability to understand the difference between a disbelief and a lack of belief. There doesnt have to be a god for you to lack a belief in the concept.
Seems wolfe did well enough, but I am getting bored with your ineptitude.
@waltermh111 lol the irony of you calling me inept. Sod off then, you're acting bitchy anyway so I can't really have a discussion with you. You aren't even reading the points, or you would have noticed that wolfe actually got what I was trying to say and agreed with it in the end.
@Brascofarian Sorry I forgot to get back to this, though I doubt you wanted me to.
But I just wanted to comment that you claimed Wolfe agreed with you, yet I read your whole conversation with wolfe, and he did not agree with you
Why do you need to lie, do you think I wouldnt look into your debate with him also?
I read your points / countered them, you just didnt like the answer. So just be civil and say you are done with the debate, no need for that type of attitude
@waltermh111 your counterpoints to needing to have a concious concept of god to be atheist was...?
To quote Wolfe "But to need to be consciously aware of the issue does make sense to realise you are atheist or at least make a decision about that. I believe your last point really clarified your position. And I do feel you are correct in that sense."
You read the whole conversation, but missed this? Who is telling lies/ inept?
@waltermh111 "You cant grasp simple stuff" except you forget my first post. This amazing insight you have a grasp of was the position I originally held - atheism as a default - until I realised that atheism is a postion -rational- people are forced into by theistic claims. You go your route and I'll go mine. I'm sorry we fell out over this, it's not worth it.
@Brascofarian then stop responding to him! holy shit...i just made me a moral. nonetheless, I am human afterall ! and the lesson is : don't continue argueing when there is no common ground, else there be greater conflict. i suppose perhaps that is what our liberal society confers upon us today
@whatisnot1 ??? That finished 3 weeks ago!!! LMAO!
There is common ground, we are both atheist, he just thinks atheism can be non-conscious, I disagree, I think it is a response to a theological claim. It's pretty much the weak atheism/strong atheism debate, but he refuses to acknowledge the point.
@Brascofarian Ah, I see. that is interesting. I'm new to watching such debates, so I just got excited and didn't bother to both check the time frame of the comment or the arguement going on. i'm not an idiot i can just be impulsive, especially when listening to a vid..i'll scroll down and whatever I hear them saying I apply to a comment of my choosing LOL, weird eh?
I'll actually read what you guys were saying, cuz they are interesting view points.
@Brascofarian Well no because before the god concept? What did people believe? Not in a god right? Thus there was atheism though it was unnamed the concept, the thought, the idea of nothing was present? Right? It was not until someone said hey maybe there is a god that things changed. Ideas work the same as tangible physical things. You can stumble onto a theory or a mathematical equation only to name it after you have found it. Name does not predate idea. You have to have the idea to name it.
@CtheWolfe Let me put it to you this way. A theist asked me once what was before the Big Bang. I told him that the question did not make sense because time was created in the Big Bang. "Before" is a time dependant concept so his question was illogical. What you seem to be arguing is that because the word and concept "before" exists now, that his question is perfectly legitimate. Can you not see the flaw in the logic?
@Brascofarian That is in a slightly different context you are talking about something that resides out side of time. In an actual time frame like the one we live in and come up with ideas and concepts so forth and so forth. Quite often the concept, idea or theory exists before it is actually given a name. Nothing we do now or have thought of is outside time. So everything we do follows a chronological order. So my statements are completely logical. I am not referring to some ultimate begining.
@Brascofarian I am arguing that the actual "non belief" of a god predates the belief in a god. And with time firmly in place this is completely logical. Sort of the fact we some how manage to break space and time this will not change. So this is not flawed you are just looking at it from an abnormal context outside of the time we are firmly rooted in.
@CtheWolfe And as well atheism is not the rejection of claims of a god. Though we do reject claims of a god. Atheism is just the non belief of a god. Which like I said is the default position. You are born not knowing god thus have no belief in him. You are born atheist, not until someone tells you of god does he come into existence for you. I mean its no different than Santa or the Easter Bunny. You aren't born with the knowledge that on Dec 24th Santa is going to bring you presents are you?
@CtheWolfe The logic is the same. What you actually had was not people not-believing like they weren't non-stamp collecting. You just had people. You can't count them as atheist because there was nothing for them to be atheist about. You have to be conciously aware of the issue. It's a prerequisite of being atheist. To claim otherwise legitimises the facile theist claim that our definition of atheism means dogs and cats and rocks are atheist too. Are you prepared to accept that? I'm not.
@Brascofarian Well technically a rock cannot be an atheist by your definition. But actually when you put it that way your argument completely makes sense. I suppose I have never thought of it outside the terms of contextual time frame. But to need to be consciously aware of the issue does make sense to realise you are atheist or at least make a decision about that. I believe your last point really clarified your position. And I do feel you are correct in that sense.
@Brascofarian This is interesting I seem to have found myself at a sort of cross roads because of your last statement. I feel I have always been atheist because I have always lacked a belief in god. However it was not until I heard of god that I consciously dismissed the notion of it. I suppose really from the atheist perspective god is not a significant idea so it has no real impact. Like I dont believe in unicorns and its not a moral issue for me. Interesting. Good point you have made!
@Brascofarian You cannot say that a the lack of something does not exist before there is this "something" to make it exist. Its like me saying that you did not exist before you were born. Or that the theory of gravity did not exist until newton thought of it and after coming to a conclusion named it. And classifications/names change all the time. Don't be caught up on the actual word. Sure theism came before theism if you are looking purely at word. But were talking seconds here.
@Brascofarian And in all actuality you have no proof either way which word was though of first or from which they were originally derived. I mean from which language do they originally derive? I mean English as we know is relatively new. Was it done in italian, greek, latin or any other long before it was translated into the words me and you know them as? Atheism or theism. Actual words dont matter its the concepts behind them.
@Brascofarian As for second point. I altready addressed how meaningfulness of something is different from the original line that you cant have something without something
But being something positive is different than being something negative, especially in relation to belief systems
All christians are atheist against other gods. It may be meaningless to them that its so, but its still so
Sure, none of this is meaningful to me outside of the context of social discussion, but its still there
@Brascofarian They were not considering themselves as atheists but they were atheists anyway. The word did not exist, the concept did not exist, but since they had no god, they were ahteists. Do you know the meaning of atheist at least?
@neko2808 no, not really. You can only be atheist to claims of gods. To say you can be unconsciously atheist is falling into the facile argument put by theists that, by that definition, dogs and cats are atheist. I'm not happy with that. I believe being atheist is a considered point of view at least.
Atheism is the default belief/state of all living reasoning human beings (and all other species that we are aware of) before any endoctrinisation takes place and a religion is taught to the influential child.
One needs to be 'taught' about the god(s) to know they exist.
1:25 someone laughs because I think that anyone who's actually done (non-biased) research on Atheism knows the definition this guy gives is ridiculous.
"Christian moral tradition has shaped what we know of western culture..."
The priest has got it backwards. It's actually secularism that shaped western culture DESPITE of Christianity. In the US, it was adhering to the constitution & not the Bible is what dragged Christianity into our current enlightenment. And the dragging continues to this very day as youre reading this.
"If an atheist says killing is wrong... he is borrowing from the precept first delivered in the text of christian scripture"
It was at this point where I declared Matt the winner because seriously... pre-Moses, people clearly just walked around slitting each other's throats.
Lots of people desire a rigid moral code that a belief in God provides. I just don't see why those same people can't skip the irrational God belief and go right to their desire for morality, which is after all, fueling their beliefs.
That would make a certain amount of sense, if Christians were the first people to consider killing people to be wrong. But they aren't. Neither are they the most passionate in their defense of life, as killing can be quite acceptable in certain circumstances, whereas there are philosophies that are much less tolerant of violence.
"The shifting winds of the day" is poetic license at best, but it does describe the atheist's embrace of the unknown, as opposed to the ligatures of scriptural absolutism, binding and blinding the mind of the frightened theist.
@Illyria23alyssa if they hide it then they aren't understanding the general shallowness of most 'religious' people. there is nothing to fear, unless you live in a religious totalitarian state, which we do not.
@ohdoshutit I think he meant during the times of those religious totalitarian states.
He was commenting on how its not new, though even in americas history people have been killed or ostracised for being non-believers, whether they admitted it or it was believed to be so, heretics and the like
Depended on where you were of course
But before that, as you may know, even other denominations of christianity were persecuted and run out of their own lands, how do you think it was to be open atheist
It hurts when not even a person like this good man here doesn't understand what atheism is and what it isn't. But I guess I'll watch the entire thing anyway, even though I'm a bit disappointed. I really thought it would be a standard way beyond Matt's random callers. Or at least someone who knew exactly what he was talking about.
This man is very uneducated. The Greek word Athos is far from recent. As it happens atheism is the default setting. We just happen to be more vocal about it these days.
I like how he defines atheist as the materialistic type completely disregarding the spiritual Buddhist or even that atheists can have any sort of batshit insane spiritual ideals
I can;t believe that this guy has, it appears, more formal education than Matt, but his statement looked a lot less sophisticated and a lot more like talking to little kids? "You have to understand, m'kay?" "We are clear on this, right?" "You're following me?" You don't have to add these after each statement. Unless you know you're wrong and are presenting a spin.
This guys is an ass. You have to talk about your god as in the unseen man, the invisible dad, the guy who watches your every move and convict you of thought crime
... did that guy just say "Fundamentalist Atheist"!?
NinthNova 4 months ago 3
@hulks92 it's not if it's matter or not if it can reason , can you reason with something that's not there in the first place , light won't judge you nor comdemn you for not believing in it
Kenlock11 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so pretty much he agree's with the atheist ? i thought this was a debate
FIGHTFANNERD3 7 months ago
Comment removed
FIGHTFANNERD3 7 months ago
this guy started out good, but lost me pretty quickly
neclark2 8 months ago 2
OMG, that was so anying to listen to. First of, the idea that atheists get their morality from their own personal philosophy, is bullshit. We can get them from reasoning and viewing reality. Secondly, the idea that if an atheist says that killing is wrong, then that comes from the bible, is also stupid. >Because the bible doesnt tell you WHY its wrong, it just tells you that it is. Also, if you are going to follow the bible, you HAVE TO follow all of it. Or else you are lying.
gulbirk 9 months ago
This priest was decent. I thought his argument was about as well-developed as time would allow.
But I do think they should of had a Roman Catholic as their guest, instead ;)
APrognosticator 9 months ago
@APrognosticator Cause Roman Catholic priests are superior to Orthodox priests? XD
TheStarvingSamurai 4 days ago
I'm not deaf and I don't know sign language but I think I could make more sense out of the sign language interpreter than this guy.
I can't wrap my mind around that much BS
robvlob 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I believe in things that are not matter, light!
Hulks92 9 months ago
How can a grown man be so stupid?
TheLuckySaGe 10 months ago
How does atheists be moral without morality as you know it? It seems to me right there that your saying that you can be moral without god, therefore why does there have to be a god to be moral if we have already shown that those people without god are in fact moral?
rustedromeo 10 months ago
@rustedromeo We're not saying we can be more moral without god, but that God has done nothing to provide any morals for society. Firstly, God has never been demonstrated to exist, and secondly, he's never been demonstrated to be good. All religions have adopted the secular morality that atheists already have, but instead of acknowledging that, they simply justify their new morals by re interpretating the bible, or whatever holy book they have, to match them.
BigLundi 10 months ago
@BigLundi I completely agree with you there
rustedromeo 10 months ago
@rustedromeo The common theistic answer to that comes from the idea that moral is objective. Meaning that you are given YOUR moral compass from god. So weather you accept that god gave it to you or not, you still have it. This argument though is based on the idea that moral is objective and not based on reasoning.
gulbirk 9 months ago
@gulbirk I think i get what your saying , as in what the common theist will try to say in their defense. It seems rather funny that he acknowledges you can be moral without believing in god but then you always hear alot of theists claim that your must be immoral without that belief. I also wonder if they think morality was just hard coded into us as beings or whether it has to be taught via the bible? I just can't wrap my mind around how they view reality.
rustedromeo 9 months ago
@rustedromeo MOST (but probably not all) think that it is hardwired into us (objective morality). Some of those people also believe that reading the bible can then give you a BETTER understanding of morality. I think this is demonstrably false. Take this debate as an example. The guy at the left "knew" that slavery was imoral. So he was able to say that the christians who said slavery was ok, were wrong. Ergo, he already have a moral standard, and just thinks that it comes from the bible.
gulbirk 9 months ago
Mistake numero uno: Atheism is not synonym for materialism or naturalism.
Mistake number two: The idea that it's wrong to kill is older than christianity or even judaism.
Mistake number three: If our morality comes from the christian doctrine then why am a vegan and why do I think it's wrong to kill even if the god in your head tells you to and why do I think torture is always wrong? Why does my morality contradict the bible?
MsGrrargh 11 months ago
Looks a little like Steve jobs
Chucklor11 11 months ago
He talks a lot about atheism, there must be not much to say about his bullshit religion.
dutchbb1979 11 months ago
so embarrassing that someone can say so much rubbish , and believe theyve proved and argued their corner..... pathetic
drumlover666 11 months ago 7
all i hear from this man is im right i right
FutureScience2012 11 months ago
"Can there be morality without God? No, I argue there can't be."
I'm an atheist, and I'm a moral person. You lose.
IJUSTLOVETURTLES 11 months ago 4
This guy is factually so wrong. There was a school of Hindu philosophy which was basically atheist, way back in 600 BC. I consider Buddhism also to be an atheist religion.
From wikipedia: Atheist school of hindusims believes -
"Believing that the Veda are standard (holy or divine), believing in a Creator for the world,
Bathing in holy waters for gaining punya, having pride (vanity) about one's caste,
Performing penance to absolve sins,
Are the five symptoms of having lost one's sanity."
putteringpluie 11 months ago
what the hell is he talking about? He mumbles doesn't he?
torm0 11 months ago
Never before has a man spoken so much yet said so little!
dycarbon1 1 year ago 5
@dycarbon1 indeed
EliteDoomer 11 months ago
Comment removed
dycarbon1 1 year ago
Point? What point? All he did was babble.
I knocked back 2 beer while staring blankly at the floor.
Paetaor 1 year ago
So, did he make a point or not? All I heard was babble.
BloodRedLegend 1 year ago 5
There are certain levels of cringe I'm willing to endure listening to apologists, but this is simply torture.
namnack 1 year ago
I was enjoying this debate until this guy begins to speak; if you cannot justify your reasoning, BSing rarely works, and when it does....oh dear gods.
supleted 1 year ago 2
What utter bullshit... we are all born atheists and then indoctrinated into some bullshit beliefs (apart from Atheists born to Atheists). How can this guy believe that Atheism is a modern thing an that it only survives in a Christian world? There is just so much wrong with that, I simply don't know where to start.
xNoReligionx 1 year ago
If you don't actually listen to what he says it sounds pretty good.
Arikiel 1 year ago 3
Wow killing is wrong? Good thing christians told me this or I would have already gone on a mass killing spree starting with all my close friends and family... give me a fucking break. Humans realized killing wasn't beneficial to their survival since they evolved.
humandelusion 1 year ago
Um, I'm utterly lost be what Father Hans is saying...I know he's a fool and a charlatan instead of a historian, but honestly, what point was he trying to make? Is he saying that since atheists don't believe in God and generally don't believe the supernatural, then supernatural morality is absolutely rejected by them? Is he actually setting up this straw man?
CrazySatanicInfidel 1 year ago
You lost me father when you said Atheism can only exist in a Christian society.
EliteDoomer 1 year ago 8
@EliteDoomer that is actually trueish. atheism=rejection of theism as matt's pointed out repeatedly(even though the religious dude used the word Christian instead of theism). he'd argue that though. I'd argue it too. Lets argue together erryone except nobody gives a shit? +1 most bs in 10 minutes ever.
Loyadd 11 months ago
Why does he sound like he's making a strawman? Is he? I can't understand what his point is, even. I can't tell what his definition of "philosophical" is meant to be it shifts contexts too much.
FortisConscius 1 year ago
Wow... and here I thought this guy was going to be competent.
DTiberius 1 year ago
This guy has clearly never heard of David Hume.
stealspell 1 year ago
He then says "if you are blind you can't experience the light". Er, yes you can you feel the heat of light on your skin.
lewisner 1 year ago
He tries to say we didn't know it was wrong to kill before moses? What about all the religions before moses which also said that?
lewisner 1 year ago
If he says "philosophical" one more damn time...
di739 1 year ago 6
by observing morality in the past we agnoledge that it has CHANGED CONSTANLY during the ages.the christian morality set has changed.
how?
-simple,by giving a different interpretation to the biblical text
SM150819 1 year ago
The priest's argument is little and futile, but he isn't as bad as some people I've heard.
Some people are so stuffed headfirst into an egg shell, so far down and deep that they can spew light at a rate of 3/second
pccrazy1000 1 year ago
This narrative is derived from fear. Many faiths, religions, and texts share the same moral precepts. One could also assert that the unseen is a figment of man's existence, and that moral truths can transcend one's franchise loyalty.
Resistant79 1 year ago
Atheism is a recent phenomenon? lol Atheism can not exist beyond a Christian society? lol Killing is wrong, atheists borrowed this from the bible? I guess our early ancestors killed each other for no reason which would have lead to extinction prior to the bible? Survival of a species is the foundation of morality, why isn't this seen by creationists? Evolution is the survival of the fitest, it would not be fit to murder regarding survival of the specie. This debate is humorous!
strikenetter 1 year ago
...so this guy's entire point is that BECAUSE a moral premise is given in the "Bible" then it necessarily belongs to christianity?
This dude is deluded beyond belief. None of this was reason....just religion with a bunch of fancy butterflies and swirls around it. He tried to change his language to existentialist form, but said nothing in the meantime...
FrizzKid05 1 year ago
i don't even have to rip on this guy!
shnosmas 1 year ago
No man has ever fitted more bullshit into ten minutes
Shaunspa 1 year ago 49
@Shaunspa You must've never heard of Kent Hovind. lol
tacoliqour 1 year ago
@Talondas
Very well put...I feel the exact same way. Man can't determine the overall meaning of morality because we (mankind) have such a vast variety of morality. In this it creates tribalism, in other words, secular governments...
monopolydevil 1 year ago
Boooooo ...
websnarf 1 year ago 2
It sounds like he's giving a sermon.
c0unterph0bia 1 year ago 28
The priest is a pedo!
He has the rapist glasses and the pedophile beard!
All he needs is the Public Masturbation Trench Coat!
ArcyTheFurryArcanine 1 year ago
what utter bullshit.
mbturner625 1 year ago
"Atheism does not allow the existence of anything not made from matter". Yeh... you know that microphone you are using uses that little thing called electricity? How about the radio waves that then broadcast this around the world? Yep you definately got me there. Can't possibly believe in them. Yet another religious idiot with no understanding of science whatsoever.
ragerancher 1 year ago
Morality will ultimately come from what a society, state, city, village, group, family can afford at the time based on their present circumstances needed for the continued survival of the whole.
Abortion is murder when the whole can support the child even when the mother cannot. Infantcide is justified in a hunter/gather society if the group cannot feed the mother and the new infant and has been practiced for thousands of years.
Morality is subject circumstance.
Talondas 1 year ago
The pedophile says that atheists must necessarily derive their morality from Christian doctrine? How has Christian morality changed then? Why do all cultures view murder, lying and stealing bad?
Emotion tells me what I find acceptable and what I don't find acceptable and reason tells me how to get it.
tempemonkey2323 1 year ago
Atheism is not a reaction to a Christian belief or society but any theistic belief system.
Hans is already sidestepping. First shying away from the word god, making it philosophical and then saying that all humans have morality, regardless of belief. But that is the whole point: morality does not require divine absolutes.
What I understand is that an atheist might have moral values just like a Christian, but they are worth less because they are not based on an invisible, super-natural being.
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
Wow...this guy just went ahead speaking even though Matt already refuted his rambling incoherent point..
Existentialisht 1 year ago
What is this guy a professor of?
Existentialisht 1 year ago
@Existentialisht Nothing useful I'm sure.
jussts 1 year ago
@Existentialisht Truthology.
Brascofarian 1 year ago
This guy is borderline incoherent and keeps name-dropping rhetoric like 'fundamentalist atheism', but everyone will just nod their heads and play nice and pretend like he isn't just saying whatever the hell he wants.
no1sjester 1 year ago
This guy is a crazy person.
Redfingers 1 year ago
"Fundamentalist Athiest" ??... how can you be a hold a fundamentalist lack of belief?... Or does he mean that I fundamentally must have evidence before believing that something exists in the face of all reason. Athiests do not "believe that god doesn't exist"... they "reject the assertion that god does exist, without evidence"...
lewiar 1 year ago
this guy is a snake oil salesman!
kevrs2 1 year ago
Fundamentalist atheism...
I went all Palmfaced and shat brix.
mtillberg 1 year ago
The question this priest should have asked is "Does atheism even acknowledge the independent existance of transcendent supernatural dice?" :P
ObakeOnna 1 year ago
I'm an atheist and I don't think that any moral values can be justified by reason. It all depends on personal preference. You can choose to be empathetic and not kill anyone or you can choose otherwise. With reason alone you can't argue that any of those two possibilities is inferior. What do you guys think? Can you give me logical reasons not to kill my fellow people? :o
PokeRapper5000 1 year ago
I was actually interested in this debate until i seen just how uneducated the priest was on basically everything on this subject. its like throwing a lamb to a lion.
Delinexwow 1 year ago
At 7:25 someones cellphone goes off with the power ranger's theme.
Axias85 1 year ago
hes right we can not live by bread alone!! we need water too, and hamburgers. ;)
UrbanFury12 1 year ago
Of course Hitler was wrong in the Christian's eyes! Hitler, you are supposed to burn the ghettos to the ground after you kill everyone in them, silly (Deut: 13:16)
MacabreManifesto 1 year ago
Cthulhu's crooked toenails! How many times does this guy repeat the same phrase?
Macrochenia 1 year ago
He just admitted that Atheist get their morals from a different source. If morality can be reached from a different source than God, then God is not needed.
TianSan 1 year ago
He really said that atheism came from an extenstion of christianity? WOW. Read some of the ancient Greek wiritngs. This guy came unprepared.
Enochsfury 1 year ago 2
This priest is wrong after 5 seconds into his 'speech'. He sounds like he's making a homily. Like a homily, lacks reasoning but tries to make some point never less. Doesn't identify definitions correctly, doesn't make any actual back boned claim. His arguments had very little to even do with the topic. Just sounded like he was attacking something he believes is atheism, when it's not. Gets philosophical points wrong and even gets his history wrong. For shame that he calls himself a historian.
Entertainmentwf 1 year ago
This guy makes no sense at all.
I believe in many things that can't be measured. I just don't think that when I do something good, it's because some made-up creature.
MithranArkanere 1 year ago
Oh I can't wait for matt to destroy this retard.
MetalCatharsis 1 year ago
This priest is very boring, he reminds me of Ben Stein.
colombus66 1 year ago
@colombus66 He hasn't started blaming the Holocaust on atheism, but he's got the same level of public speaking ability.
Macrochenia 1 year ago
@speadskater Yeah I agree. The only thing he really said was that atheists are not immoral, and that he doesnt understand why atheists are iffended when someone says that they get their morals from christianity.
bangNL94 1 year ago
I watched this entire video, but i feel like he didn't really say anything. Am I the only one who got that feeling?
speadskater 1 year ago 21
@speadskater - This guy spun in circles...... I got nothing...... he repeatedly misused a bunch of buzz words in no form whatsoever..
nudsh 1 year ago
@speadskater I don't know because this second clip persuaded me not to bother watching the rest of them. The dude is stumbling over his words too much and is making no sense, and it's really an irritating combination.
M0US3P0T4TO 1 year ago
@speadskater I don't know about you but I heard tons of assertions. Baseless, cockamamie assertions
mbturner625 1 year ago
@speadskater Agreed. I feel like he managed to back himself into a corner without the aid of Matt.
nycgroove1 1 year ago
He can't reconcile the fact that truth exists independent of human understanding with atheism? How does that even work? Science as a whole is only valid only if there is some truth that is unknown to human beings! At the beginning of his statement, the father says that an agreement of definitions is necessary for a healthy debate; in that case, he really ought to be familiar with the universal definition of science before even arriving.
TennysonXII 1 year ago
Poor Father Hans can't tell the difference between Atheism and Metaphysical Naturalism. (Guess we shouldn't tell him about non-theistic religions like Buddism, LOL!)
MangaFanGuy 1 year ago
ROFL!! soo atheism is a knock off of christianity? ahha yay!
XDigdug45X 1 year ago
"Atheism is a relatively recent phenomenon."
This may be true if your looking at this from the perspective of the universe. I wonder if he realizes that Christians were persecuted by the Romans because they were considered Atheists. By definition, atheism must be older than any belief in a god.
SilvinLight 1 year ago 34
@SilvinLight I was thinking about this myself and was going to say the same, but realised that until there is a theistic belief, there cannot be an atheist viewpoint, so it can only be as old as theism. You might say before people came up with gods they were atheistic but that only holds since the invention of theism. At the time they, weren't considering themselves atheist, if you see what I mean?
Brascofarian 1 year ago
@Brascofarian A word is only used to describe something that is already there.
A person is an atheist, deist, etc... whether they like the label or not.
For instance, Sam Harris hates the use of the word atheist, yet he is one whether he likes it or not
There was atheism even before the word was created because atheism only means a lack of belief in god(s)
Even if nobody told you of the word god, you still lack a belief in it, as with everything else you dont currently believe
waltermh111 1 year ago 2
@waltermh111 Ok, I think you are being somewhat more loose with the language than I am. My objection to your point may be simplified. You -could- refer to people during the renaissance as non-drivers who didn't watch TV, and this would be true. But it only has any real meaning when there is a choice.
Say I know about a concept of ghpung, is it meaningful for you to think of yourself as aghpungist, or would you require to know the concept giving it validity?
Brascofarian 1 year ago
@Brascofarian I am actuallty being very strict with the language, what I said is reality. Just because something isnt named, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
How much meaning it has is irrelevent, because I agree with you, even if it doesnt matter at the time, you are right, they were non-drivers who didnt watch tv. So thanks for proving my point.
waltermh111 1 year ago
@Brascofarian The original line only was, you cant have atheism without theism, but thats not true in the literal sense, the strict sense, but yes, in a more philosophical sense, its meaningless to have a label for the lack of belief in a god unless you first create a specific god(s) to have a lack of beleif in.
waltermh111 1 year ago
@waltermh111 no, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. In the literal sense, theism came before atheism, that is why the term "theism" is part of the word "aTHEISM". Literally, you are wrong, otherwise there would be a word for atheism from which "theism" would be derived.
This is what I meant about loose usage. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but you need to be very careful of words when you invoke "literal" meanings.
Agreeing with my point about non-drivers etc, renders your initial point moot.
Brascofarian 1 year ago
@Brascofarian In any sense, atheism came before theism. Maybe word theism came first, but then what are we talking about? Does it really matter to you that somebody named one already existing thing before the other?
Atheism is a lack of belief, and people lacked a belief before they believed.
Whether it was meaningful to name that or not is irrelevent
I guarantee you do not prove your point by breaking down the word. It again may show the timing of the words creations, but not of their meaning
waltermh111 1 year ago
@Brascofarian So when you boast about your better intepretation of literal meaning or whos loose, you should check yourself that your losing the purpose of the debate, which to my knowledge at least, was about what came first, the atheist or the theist in the descriptive sense, not which word came first
Might want to read back on your original post
As to your agreeing with your analogy making me moot, you must be joking right?
I said the label doesnt matter, only its description, are you dense?
waltermh111 1 year ago
@waltermh111 I wasn't boasting, a literal mean is based on the word. It's that simple.
The arguent is not even about the word, it is about the concept. without EVEN the concept of god, you cannot have theism, therefore atheism has no concept to base itself on. These things are mutually inclusive, like the concept of positive and negative. One does not make sense without the other. It's a simple concept, either you get it or you don't. It's not my problem.
Brascofarian 1 year ago
@Brascofarian A lieral interpretation of the word is based on a literal intepretation of the meaning of the word, not necessarily the age of it compared to another one.
Now, if you finally agree its about the concept, but think the concept is different from the definition, well, concept wise, people still had a lack of belief in something before there was a belief.
Its not about a disbelief in something that somebody else made up, its a "lack of belief"
waltermh111 1 year ago
@waltermh111 Look, the reason this point is important is that you are falling into the trap that claims atheism is a world view that is somehow independent of religion, and it isn't. It is rejection of claims. You can't reject claims until them have been made. Therefore atheism has only been around as long as theism. It is not something in and of itself.
One thing I think we can both agree on is that atheism didn't need to exist until people started to make shit up and declaring it as truth.
Brascofarian 1 year ago
@Brascofarian I have to completely agree with Waltermh111. Just because there was no name for something does not mean it did not exist. A very basic sample of this would be a child born without the parents having a name prepared for him/her. Does the child not exist until a name is given to it, of course not thats preposterous. Atheism is the default position. You are born with no knowledge therefor you know not of God. To say otherwise is completely unfounded. Dont say anything about instinct.
CtheWolfe 1 year ago
@CtheWolfe Hell, the earth existed for billions of years before there was even life forms on it, and far, far before there were humans to attach labels to anything.
Macrochenia 1 year ago
@Macrochenia Thank you this is another extremely basic example to add to my previous point. Well put!
CtheWolfe 1 year ago
@CtheWolfe Look, you are conflating non-physical concepts with tangible, physical things. Someone has to think of an idea before it exists, right? The point was not about words, the only reason I even brought up words is because waltermh111 was talking about "literal" meanings, which by definition are about the words. All I'm saying is until someone came up with a god concept people couldn't believe or not believe in it. Does that make sense?
Brascofarian 1 year ago
@Brascofarian I know I covered this, but its so silly i must go over it again, literal refers to meaning, not the word itself, therefore, by definition the definition of the word is the most important part.
Atheism is not the counter to atheism, it is simply defined as a lack of belief in a god, not a specific one, just the concept. Even if no gods are invented yet, you still have a lack of belief in the idea of a god, in a possibility of a god, in the concept of a god.
waltermh111 1 year ago
@waltermh111 exactly!!!! A lack of belief in _GOD_! How can you have atheism as you have just defined without THEISM!?! The definition is dependent on it! That has been my whole bloody point.
Brascofarian 1 year ago
@Brascofarian You are lacking the ability to understand the difference between a disbelief and a lack of belief. There doesnt have to be a god for you to lack a belief in the concept.
Seems wolfe did well enough, but I am getting bored with your ineptitude.
waltermh111 1 year ago
@waltermh111 lol the irony of you calling me inept. Sod off then, you're acting bitchy anyway so I can't really have a discussion with you. You aren't even reading the points, or you would have noticed that wolfe actually got what I was trying to say and agreed with it in the end.
Brascofarian 1 year ago
@Brascofarian Sorry I forgot to get back to this, though I doubt you wanted me to.
But I just wanted to comment that you claimed Wolfe agreed with you, yet I read your whole conversation with wolfe, and he did not agree with you
Why do you need to lie, do you think I wouldnt look into your debate with him also?
I read your points / countered them, you just didnt like the answer. So just be civil and say you are done with the debate, no need for that type of attitude
Seems inept was proper use
waltermh111 1 year ago
@waltermh111 your counterpoints to needing to have a concious concept of god to be atheist was...?
To quote Wolfe "But to need to be consciously aware of the issue does make sense to realise you are atheist or at least make a decision about that. I believe your last point really clarified your position. And I do feel you are correct in that sense."
You read the whole conversation, but missed this? Who is telling lies/ inept?
Thanks for wasting yet more of my time.
Brascofarian 1 year ago
@Brascofarian Yes, Wolfe did go wrong there
As he said, outside the scope of time, contextual or not, the definition is again and again, the lack of belief, not the disbelief
I lacked a belief in god til I was told about god. Then once I rejected it, I regained that lack of belief
If you want to keep making the definition what it isnt, then yes, you can be right
The absense of belief, as another word to use, again, does not need a god to exist
Honestly, I am done. You cant grasp simple stuff
waltermh111 1 year ago
@waltermh111 "You cant grasp simple stuff" except you forget my first post. This amazing insight you have a grasp of was the position I originally held - atheism as a default - until I realised that atheism is a postion -rational- people are forced into by theistic claims. You go your route and I'll go mine. I'm sorry we fell out over this, it's not worth it.
Brascofarian 1 year ago
@Brascofarian then stop responding to him! holy shit...i just made me a moral. nonetheless, I am human afterall ! and the lesson is : don't continue argueing when there is no common ground, else there be greater conflict. i suppose perhaps that is what our liberal society confers upon us today
whatisnot1 1 year ago
@whatisnot1 ??? That finished 3 weeks ago!!! LMAO!
There is common ground, we are both atheist, he just thinks atheism can be non-conscious, I disagree, I think it is a response to a theological claim. It's pretty much the weak atheism/strong atheism debate, but he refuses to acknowledge the point.
Brascofarian 1 year ago
@Brascofarian Ah, I see. that is interesting. I'm new to watching such debates, so I just got excited and didn't bother to both check the time frame of the comment or the arguement going on. i'm not an idiot i can just be impulsive, especially when listening to a vid..i'll scroll down and whatever I hear them saying I apply to a comment of my choosing LOL, weird eh?
I'll actually read what you guys were saying, cuz they are interesting view points.
whatisnot1 1 year ago
@Brascofarian Well no because before the god concept? What did people believe? Not in a god right? Thus there was atheism though it was unnamed the concept, the thought, the idea of nothing was present? Right? It was not until someone said hey maybe there is a god that things changed. Ideas work the same as tangible physical things. You can stumble onto a theory or a mathematical equation only to name it after you have found it. Name does not predate idea. You have to have the idea to name it.
CtheWolfe 1 year ago
@CtheWolfe Let me put it to you this way. A theist asked me once what was before the Big Bang. I told him that the question did not make sense because time was created in the Big Bang. "Before" is a time dependant concept so his question was illogical. What you seem to be arguing is that because the word and concept "before" exists now, that his question is perfectly legitimate. Can you not see the flaw in the logic?
Brascofarian 1 year ago
@Brascofarian That is in a slightly different context you are talking about something that resides out side of time. In an actual time frame like the one we live in and come up with ideas and concepts so forth and so forth. Quite often the concept, idea or theory exists before it is actually given a name. Nothing we do now or have thought of is outside time. So everything we do follows a chronological order. So my statements are completely logical. I am not referring to some ultimate begining.
CtheWolfe 1 year ago
@Brascofarian I am arguing that the actual "non belief" of a god predates the belief in a god. And with time firmly in place this is completely logical. Sort of the fact we some how manage to break space and time this will not change. So this is not flawed you are just looking at it from an abnormal context outside of the time we are firmly rooted in.
CtheWolfe 1 year ago
@CtheWolfe And as well atheism is not the rejection of claims of a god. Though we do reject claims of a god. Atheism is just the non belief of a god. Which like I said is the default position. You are born not knowing god thus have no belief in him. You are born atheist, not until someone tells you of god does he come into existence for you. I mean its no different than Santa or the Easter Bunny. You aren't born with the knowledge that on Dec 24th Santa is going to bring you presents are you?
CtheWolfe 1 year ago
@CtheWolfe The logic is the same. What you actually had was not people not-believing like they weren't non-stamp collecting. You just had people. You can't count them as atheist because there was nothing for them to be atheist about. You have to be conciously aware of the issue. It's a prerequisite of being atheist. To claim otherwise legitimises the facile theist claim that our definition of atheism means dogs and cats and rocks are atheist too. Are you prepared to accept that? I'm not.
Brascofarian 1 year ago
@Brascofarian Well technically a rock cannot be an atheist by your definition. But actually when you put it that way your argument completely makes sense. I suppose I have never thought of it outside the terms of contextual time frame. But to need to be consciously aware of the issue does make sense to realise you are atheist or at least make a decision about that. I believe your last point really clarified your position. And I do feel you are correct in that sense.
CtheWolfe 1 year ago
@Brascofarian This is interesting I seem to have found myself at a sort of cross roads because of your last statement. I feel I have always been atheist because I have always lacked a belief in god. However it was not until I heard of god that I consciously dismissed the notion of it. I suppose really from the atheist perspective god is not a significant idea so it has no real impact. Like I dont believe in unicorns and its not a moral issue for me. Interesting. Good point you have made!
CtheWolfe 1 year ago
@Brascofarian You cannot say that a the lack of something does not exist before there is this "something" to make it exist. Its like me saying that you did not exist before you were born. Or that the theory of gravity did not exist until newton thought of it and after coming to a conclusion named it. And classifications/names change all the time. Don't be caught up on the actual word. Sure theism came before theism if you are looking purely at word. But were talking seconds here.
CtheWolfe 1 year ago
@Brascofarian And in all actuality you have no proof either way which word was though of first or from which they were originally derived. I mean from which language do they originally derive? I mean English as we know is relatively new. Was it done in italian, greek, latin or any other long before it was translated into the words me and you know them as? Atheism or theism. Actual words dont matter its the concepts behind them.
CtheWolfe 1 year ago
@Brascofarian As for second point. I altready addressed how meaningfulness of something is different from the original line that you cant have something without something
But being something positive is different than being something negative, especially in relation to belief systems
All christians are atheist against other gods. It may be meaningless to them that its so, but its still so
Sure, none of this is meaningful to me outside of the context of social discussion, but its still there
waltermh111 1 year ago
@Brascofarian They were not considering themselves as atheists but they were atheists anyway. The word did not exist, the concept did not exist, but since they had no god, they were ahteists. Do you know the meaning of atheist at least?
neko2808 1 year ago
@neko2808 no, not really. You can only be atheist to claims of gods. To say you can be unconsciously atheist is falling into the facile argument put by theists that, by that definition, dogs and cats are atheist. I'm not happy with that. I believe being atheist is a considered point of view at least.
Brascofarian 1 year ago
@SilvinLight
It is not a relatively recent phenomenon.
Atheism is the default belief/state of all living reasoning human beings (and all other species that we are aware of) before any endoctrinisation takes place and a religion is taught to the influential child.
One needs to be 'taught' about the god(s) to know they exist.
1:25 someone laughs because I think that anyone who's actually done (non-biased) research on Atheism knows the definition this guy gives is ridiculous.
FoxBatinaHat 1 year ago
@SilvinLight atheisme is as old as man exist,or if you prefer as religions existe
mystisme 1 year ago
@SilvinLight
Good word. Good word.
dycarbon1 1 year ago
You know this whole time, Matt was chomping at the bit to lay into this guy.
RDog4484 1 year ago
6:05
"Christian moral tradition has shaped what we know of western culture..."
The priest has got it backwards. It's actually secularism that shaped western culture DESPITE of Christianity. In the US, it was adhering to the constitution & not the Bible is what dragged Christianity into our current enlightenment. And the dragging continues to this very day as youre reading this.
88Keyz101 1 year ago
6:10 - 6:27
"If an atheist says killing is wrong... he is borrowing from the precept first delivered in the text of christian scripture"
It was at this point where I declared Matt the winner because seriously... pre-Moses, people clearly just walked around slitting each other's throats.
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus Evwen more important, post-moses, jews stopped slitting each others throats, the only race without murder. Oh wait ...
I know, you get into no true scotsman fallacy there. Its not really a jew if he commits murder.
waltermh111 1 year ago
Lots of people desire a rigid moral code that a belief in God provides. I just don't see why those same people can't skip the irrational God belief and go right to their desire for morality, which is after all, fueling their beliefs.
MassacreBlast 1 year ago
sigh... trying to claim the existence of the immeasurable again, I am not impressed.
Roobitz 1 year ago
That would make a certain amount of sense, if Christians were the first people to consider killing people to be wrong. But they aren't. Neither are they the most passionate in their defense of life, as killing can be quite acceptable in certain circumstances, whereas there are philosophies that are much less tolerant of violence.
Brandt761 1 year ago
"The shifting winds of the day" is poetic license at best, but it does describe the atheist's embrace of the unknown, as opposed to the ligatures of scriptural absolutism, binding and blinding the mind of the frightened theist.
DonQuixotedeKaw 1 year ago
Love and Marriage ...... Catholic Priests and Pedophile Rape
ShalloeThought 1 year ago
Did that Nut Job from Expelled grow a beard ?
ShalloeThought 1 year ago
wow. what a load. smelled it all the way from here in oz.
maikit333 1 year ago
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having heard this.
Roan7995 1 year ago
Atheism is not a new thing. Atheists were often and still are afraid to publicly announce their non-beliefs, for fear of prosecution.
Illyria23alyssa 1 year ago
@Illyria23alyssa if they hide it then they aren't understanding the general shallowness of most 'religious' people. there is nothing to fear, unless you live in a religious totalitarian state, which we do not.
ohdoshutit 1 year ago
@ohdoshutit I think he meant during the times of those religious totalitarian states.
He was commenting on how its not new, though even in americas history people have been killed or ostracised for being non-believers, whether they admitted it or it was believed to be so, heretics and the like
Depended on where you were of course
But before that, as you may know, even other denominations of christianity were persecuted and run out of their own lands, how do you think it was to be open atheist
waltermh111 1 year ago
I almost hit thumbs down because this guys argument was so bad
Illyria23alyssa 1 year ago
Subtitles would help me tremendously.
Illyria23alyssa 1 year ago
Am I the only one who noticed that he used the two arguments Matt refuted LESS THAN TWO MINUTES AGO?
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
It hurts when not even a person like this good man here doesn't understand what atheism is and what it isn't. But I guess I'll watch the entire thing anyway, even though I'm a bit disappointed. I really thought it would be a standard way beyond Matt's random callers. Or at least someone who knew exactly what he was talking about.
bleunt 1 year ago
I accidentally liked this video.. well, push like if you think this guy as a vote for Matt!!
ricoswerve1260 1 year ago
Lots of flowery language with little substance.
aliasbrush 1 year ago
The cultural imperialist says "what".
sinmantyx 1 year ago
I like how Matt's opponent shamelessly makes so many blatantly wrong assertions.
AtheistDave89 1 year ago
This man is very uneducated. The Greek word Athos is far from recent. As it happens atheism is the default setting. We just happen to be more vocal about it these days.
keithzworld 1 year ago
I like how he defines atheist as the materialistic type completely disregarding the spiritual Buddhist or even that atheists can have any sort of batshit insane spiritual ideals
dragonmatt5 1 year ago
Wow, 2 min into his 10 min intro and he has already made 3 false statements, and this is just the beginning. I can see where this is headed.
whanethewhip 1 year ago 9
Silly - no pagans thought murder was wrong because morality comes from christianity?
This is a sad commentary on the utter ignorance of theists and/or their utter contempt for the truth.
proudfootz 1 year ago
I can;t believe that this guy has, it appears, more formal education than Matt, but his statement looked a lot less sophisticated and a lot more like talking to little kids? "You have to understand, m'kay?" "We are clear on this, right?" "You're following me?" You don't have to add these after each statement. Unless you know you're wrong and are presenting a spin.
mornmeril 1 year ago
This guys is an ass. You have to talk about your god as in the unseen man, the invisible dad, the guy who watches your every move and convict you of thought crime
What an uneducated fucking dick head
qruiters 1 year ago
Straw man, false assertions, lots of babbling.
Typical apologist for theism.
BrokenCurtain 1 year ago