Religion is an easy target for anyone with some capacity to reason. However, it can easily be argued that without religion, the world would be a more barbaric place. Some people seem to need it, others don't. If people would stop trying to account for the meaning and value of others' experiences, half our problems would be solved.
Sam is a crook and a nut.If a writer mistook that it is after passover that jesus died,and another before,so what is the problem?The Gospel must be true to the accounts of the writers, understanding,and write according to their interpretation and the light they had had,and not based on hearsay.Yes,one may got it wrong doesn't mean the scriptures is wrong ,it is just showing it is very accurate and very true.This kind of errors and reporting is widely known to Journalists all across
@frankielee77 The crooks and the nuts are the ones who start with "This book is the inerrant words of the Creator of the Universe!", then...when irreconcilable contradictions are continually pointed out. switch to "There are mistakes, because people wrote it according to their interpretations!"
So much for the sales pitch. So much for being inerrant. So much for being any words from any God.
Irreconcilable contradictions do not equate to 'very accurate' or 'very true'.
@frankielee77 "If a writer mistook that it is after passover that jesus died" that "writer" is supposed to be God. Are you saying God made a mistake? If not, then you must not believe the bible is the word of God. If you don't believe that, then you are already halfway to intellectual freedom. Come on over, its pretty cool over here.
Thou shalt not commit adultery ...is a commandment of God.How is it that it is barbaric?You mean those who injects Aids and broke up families,divorce an hatred,spreading diseases are not barbaric?Sam has very little intelligence.
@frankielee77 "Thou shalt not commit adultery ...is a commandment of God."
It's words in a book, not from any God. And it's a basic understanding of all cultures - including Atheistic - throughout history : don't fuck people that are married to someone else...is common sense.
@ZEDSTODT2 Sorry to disappoint you zed (if thats your real name...NOT) I am not a communist never have been but if your that interested in my political views I am a socialist....certainly hope that is cleared up for you
@cubangal1 Socialism & Communism; just two different colors of dogshit. With socialism comes secret police power, thought control, speech control, mandatory arrest, class warfare & tyranny.
Deuteronomy 22:13-21 only applicable to the Israelites 1st Mr. Harris...let me also remind you that if you actually put into context is if the woman parades as a virgin thus lying about her purity and tricking her husband. A husband is not going to marry someone who he knows isnt a virgin and then stone her...
@dkan3 - Re: Deut 22:13-21, you seem to be saying that the true meaning of the passage is that no Israelite woman who had sex before marriage should ever get married, which still seems harsh, especially since sex could have been forced upon her. Also, stoning anyone for any reason, even in the narrower sense that you mean it, is barbaric.
Islam thrives because of ignorance, not in spite of it. Excluding Indonesia over 54% of all Muslims are illiterate. Over 67% of Muslim women cannot read. Less than 1% of all scientific papers come from Muslim countries. Harvard University provides more scientific discoveries yearly than all Muslim nations combined. Spain translates more books annually than all Muslim nations. Muslim countries have the worst records of equality, civil and human rights.
3:19 Slavery was allowed with guidelines to protect the slave. It wasn't what God wanted but he allowed it. The same as God allowed Palygamy for a time but put safeguards in place to pretect the wives and offspring (Deu 21:15-17, God later however revealed his thoughts on the matter (1 Timothy 3:2). It was not a harsh cruel slavery system that Israel felt during there slavery in Egypt.
@KL8NHAJJ150N it wasn't what god wanted but he allowed it....slavery and poligamy...nice guy and don't send me a reply because I will just delete it anyway
0:46 - That is not what Deuteronomy says. There was no such thing as a wedding. The act of taking a women to bed was taking them as a wife. So by not being a virgin they were actually commiting prostitution. Deu 22:21 - "So you must clear away what is bad from your midst." It was about keeping the nation of Israel clean.
Religions like Islam & christianity are King religions - God made in the image of a medieval king. They cater to the weak-minded telling him what he wants to hear. There is nice king like God who will happily take care of ur every need for eternty, yay! Just get down on ur knees, beg & grovel like crazy, that's it
Are u a murderer, pedophile, cheated old ladies of their money? don't worry - just confess & u are done! how simple! oh BTW u have to convert
I wonder why he left out the moral failings of atheism ( and there are many ), like communism, nazism marxism, stahlinism?????? Did he forget them???? It would appear then that the doctrinal belief of atheism is a very psychotically charged belief if you're leaving out certain points to attempt to paint your opponent incorrectly.
@MrTopgearguy1 There is no logical path from "I don't believe in god" to "We need to kill everyone but us." Hitler was also christian. Every nazi soldier had on their belt "god be with us". Communism also isn't inherently evil. Its being overly idealistic, thinking that giving equal shit to everyone will work out, but its not neccasarily intentionally evil. Atheism is a rejection of a belief system, not a belief system itself.
@twilitprince Listen, I understand the plight of atheists and their desire to not be viewed as a dcotrinal belief system, BUT, as you said, there is no logical path that allows atheism to be anything but that. When science is able to state something as fact, it is because it has proven something to be so. Part of that process is by disproving other hypothesis's re: that subject matter
@twilitprince Since deity, is neither proven or disproven, either statement is faith based and qualifies as a belief. Anyway you want to say it, atheism is therefore a belief. Whether it be believing God doesn't exist, or believing there is not enough evidence to state he exists.ETC. Communisim, IS actually evil, in that it punishes those who are achievers and forces them to give up what they have accomplished and allows mankind with it's inherent characteristic laziness,
@twilitprince to lay back knowing someone else will do it. It also removes from the equation, the chance for anyone to rise up and provide himself with a better life, far better than what the government can provide him/her/them! Capitalism, by some, may look evil, however, in a capitalist system, one has the option to move themselves up the quality of life chain.
@MrTopgearguy1 Stalinism, communism, nazism and marxism, are not a doctrinal dogma of atheism. Stalin might have been an atheist, Hitler was by all accounts a Catholic, and Marx was a Jewish man. Atheism has no content, it's simply not believing that God exist and religious scripture is true. There are no moral failings of atheism, because atheims is not a doctrine of faith and scripture. The same way people are NON-RACISTS, people are NON-BELIEVERS. Atheist is just word for it.
@Faerlon123 All those doctrines are heavily populated with atheism and historically has been proven to be a major motivator of immoral systems such as these. Now, you people over there, you keep wording it wrong. Since not believeing in God and believeing in God, are both unproven statements, they both fall under the category of beliefs.
@Faerlon123 Therefore, you need to correct the wording of your improper statement. It should state that Atheism has no content, it's simply believing that God does not exist as well as believing that religious scripture is false. At that point you're making sense in your statement and it is then a correct statement. Until you do that, your statements are senseless and misleading. Hope that helps you going forward.
@MrTopgearguy1 Correction u can't say God does not exist nor can you say there is no invisible dragon watching us. Atheists are saying there is no PROOF of the existence of God - belief is not proof - it is a need to believe
Life is harsh, so people hoped for a better afterlife & religions came in to tell them what they wanted to hear. Heaven came before God - God is just the usher who holds ur ticket to Heaven, down on ur knees, beg, grovel off u go to hawaii! yippee!
@MrTopgearguy1 You need to reread my comment. I did not say that atheism is BELIEVING god does not exist. I said atheism is NOT BELIEVING god exists. I do not hold FAITH. Atheism is not a starting point. Atheism is a REACTION to THEISTS claims. Just like NON-RACISTS were are REACTION to RACISM. Religious people need to get this shit right. Stalinism,communism,nazism and marxism are political ideologies, and have nothing to do with Atheism.
@Faerlon123 It doesn't matter what order you placed the words. We as human beings, tend to rearrange words to manipulate things in an order pleasing to us. Websters clearly defines your faith of atheism as a BELIEF. You say it however you want to, but it doesn;t change a damn thing and atheists need to get that shit right. CUZ UR WRONG! Stahlinism, marxism, etc. all had their roots in atheism, as their "chairmen" were atheist and that's and they justified their political doctrines on ateism.
@MrTopgearguy1 Yes it does matter. Very clearly it does matter. I don't have an ideology that tells me have to knock on people's doors, and convert them to what I believe. Religious people do. Because their books tell them to do it. With divine permission. And btw, websters was probably written by religious people, and as you so clearly show, religious people have no clue of what they are talking about. And I repeat, Marxism is not atheistic. Look it up, you might learn something.
@MrTopgearguy1 If you actually read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto (Which I doubt you would ever do, even if you had a gun to your head, you'd rather just listen to rightwing media) You'd find that communism isn't an ideology about god, or religion or ethics or morality or any of those things. It's an approach to a different type of economic system than Capitalism. Yes, history show us that even if Stalin was a maniac, Atheism doesn't have a CREED to kill others, unlike religion.
@Faerlon123 Communism, marxism, etc. are all based on an atheistic belief that there is no God and man can do this better anyway. That's the first premise. 2nd premsie, after that it becomes a complete separation of classes. A massive servant class and a minimal ruling class. Like the democrat party manifesto, the communist and marxist ideologies are solely about aquiring power. History has proven these ideological systems to be failure, due to the greed of man!
@MrTopgearguy1, the massive servant class and the minimal ruling class is not the ideology of Marxism. Actually, the ideology is just the opposite: this is how Capitalist, particularly late Capitalist society is described, and people are supposed to rebel against it and create a better, more just society.
@Kurtlane who describes "late capitalism" as that? What is the background info on these rad's? And give me a better site name for me to look at? I can't decipher the code?
@MrTopgearguy1, that comes form standard Marxism: Marx and Engels. Followed by Lenin.
Marx describes human history as progressing through as series of periods: "primitive communism", slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism. Each stage in the beginning is progressive compared to the previous one, but later "gets stuck," and eventually resolves itself into the next stage through violent revolution.
The exception is socialism, which transforms into communism through creative labor (or at least that's what we were taught in Soviet Union, Marx is a bit vague oh this point.)
The excellent youtube video is:
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian | George Reisman
@Kurtlane I live in a socialist country which is not transforming into the Soviet Union any time soon....I don't believe that one transforms into the other....when you only use the Soviets and Nazi Germany as examples it doesn't hold water for socialist countries of today
@cubangal1, You mean Cuba? It is just like Soviet Union. Brutal dictatorship. poor and full of shortages. Before Castro it was the wealthiest country in Latin America; now it's one of the poorest. Add to that the reign of terror that killed more people than Pinochet's regime.
@Faerlon123, I've read Communist Manifesto. We had to read it in 7th or 8th grade. It was in school curriculum in Soviet Union.
Yes, it is about a different type of economic system. But not just that.Marxism puts economics as the primary force, the "basis", and everything else as consequences - the "superstructure." Including religion and belief and all that
Marx was atheist. His grandparents were Jewish, his parents - Christians (not observant, just to fit in), and he - atheist
Here is what Marx said about religion: ""Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness."
("Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right")
"How is opposition resolved? By making it impossible. And how is religious opposition made impossible? By abolishing religion."
(The Jewish Question).
But I found that the "demand of real happiness" ends up creating far more misery than illusory happiness of religion. Particularly when there is abolishing of religion by force. What am I supposed to do with this knowledge?
@Kurtlane I just read your comment here. So far, to me it looks excellent. Good to see a discussion based on fact, and eloquently spoke...well typed! lol. You can messege me direct with that web-site you're trying to direct me to. It appears interesting.
@Kurtlane I always enjoy a GOOD solid conversation with other folks even ( and sometimes especially ) when they don't agree with me. It represents growth for all parties involved.
@MrTopgearguy1 Now Marx, lumps capitalism in with communism, etc. and states that all f them start off progressive and then "become stuck". I don't see where capitalism got stuck. Do you?
Your exposure to internet Trolls must be at a far more rarified level than the ones I have come across. Reasoned argument, with examples, does not a Troll make.
************** LIKE THIS TO KEEP IT AS TOP COMMENT **************
You've got until Jan. 16th to either register for the first time or re-register Republican or you won't be able to vote for Ron Paul in the caucus. Obviously, if you don't vote, he won't get the nomination.
Go to you state website or state DMV website and register now!
Kurtlane: you proclaim that you pick up wisdom wherever you find it, and you decry that someone is acting hateful and smug.
Yet here you are, being hateful, smug, and trite, with anyone you don't agree. Your 'wisdom' is to be petulant and immature, and to name call and belittle those with a different perspective. You are a nasty, abrasive hypocrite, and perhaps YOU need the diversity and anti-smugness training you prescribe for everyone else.
I do have a short fuse for those who deal with the entire diversity of human experience by calling it "stupid."
If Jews pray next to a wall and Muslims - with their behinds in the air and Hindus - to elephant-headed Ganesh, and Scottish men wear skirts (kilts), and Indian women - saris, and people in New Guinea - almost nothing, and Japanese eat with chopsticks,
and Jews and Arabs read from right to left, and Chinese - from top to bottom, and some don't eat pork, and some – beef, all this gets just one reaction from these types: "stupid." To them, anything that is not like what they do is stupid.
It is these characters that are stupid. By standing above all others in their smugness and arrogance, they rob themselves of real knowledge of what it really is to be human.
When a character like this barges like a drunken yob into a real conflict, trying to solve it, he only makes the conflict worse.
He goes around, calling everyone stupid, racist, mocking everything they do, then is surprised when people get sick of it and turn on him with outrage. He is the one that causes hatred and doesn't even notice it.
At the end, he will lose even the few friends he has in his own culture of his own persuasion.
@Kurtlane You have to be a troll. You and I both know Sam Harris isn't some popularity addict. He simply advocates free-thinking and rational discussion that gives no exception to religion. The fact that you interpret what Sam says the way you do makes me sad... very sad that there are people so blinded by their delusion that they must go out of their way to post over 20 youtube comments in a very weak attempt to "prove a point". Thanks for the good laugh.
@Kurtlane You have to be a troll. You and I both know Sam Harris isn't some popularity addict. He simply advocates free-thinking and rational discussion that plays no favors to religion. The fact that you interpret what Sam says the way you do makes me sad... very sad that there are people so blinded by their delusion that they must go out of their way to post over 20 youtube comments in a very weak attempt to "prove a point". Thanks for the good laugh.
@Kurtlane At least i don't get my moral compass from a book that preaches slavery, rape and the killing of children. I get my morals from an understanding of reality not an assertion of authority. Religion may be helpful to some but overall it breeds intolerance, hypocrisy, and ignorance. Faith is not a pathway to truth and my life has more meaning than your "holy" book will ever allow. Yes, i've evolved past this nonsense called religion, have you?
@Kurtlane Thanx for putting words into my mouth. Superior to others; no. PROUD to be free from religion; yes. Only the ignorant make ignorant assertions with no evidence. Thanx for proving me right.
@dkthg, I wonder who is putting words into whose mouth. You've made a whole load of assumptions about me. For example, who told you I blindly follow any specific book?
I think your feeling of superiority over others is very obvious to everyone.
Like I said, you have a long way to evolve. You might begin by reading "The Frivolity of Evil" by Theodore Dalrymple (don't worry, there is no religion there.)
@Kurtlane "who told you i blindly follow any specific book?" My mistake, i figured you at least had an explanation for the idiocy in you babbling. Keep trolling, we're done.
My principle is that I am free to pick up wisdom wherever I find it. And to get rid of stupidity wherever I find it.
Which means that I cannot belong to any specific religion. But also I cannot belong to atheism.
Because if I were, I would have to reject the Golden Rule together with the rest of the Bible. Or at least do what Sam Harris does here: use the "Not-so-golden rule" to say, “Aha, Bible, got you! You're bad after all!"
And I'm not going for these kinds of "ahas." I am not interested in these "gotcha" games. They seem stupid to me. They seem to me to be all about tribalism, about "us vs. them," about how "we" (however defined) can win over "them" (however defined).
Sam Harris in another lecture says that "religion" (the word) stands for a whole load of different things. In this, he is absolutely right. And of all these things, good and bad, the best is the death of ego. The elimination of arrogance. This is truly religion at its best.
The map of religions is totally silly. Why are Russia and central Africa colored the same? What makes the U.S. blue? Who made this stupid map? And who is at fault for this silliness, the map-maker who made it, or religions?
Who would look for truth in a map like that? Of course no rational people expect belief systems to hug national boundaries. We have freedom of religion in the U.S., don't we? So the U.S. (and not only the U.S.) should be what? Every color.
Everyone with any sense understands that. To take this silliness and criticize religion thorough it is such a red herring, I don't even know where to begin.
On the other hand, the map-maker may have meant just the majority. Then Sam Harris is misusing the map, making it say what it doesn't say. This is hypocrisy, his hypocrisy, and the fault is on him.
Sam Harris doesn't. At all. Just like a man who doesn't understand elementary laws of physics is not qualified to teach physics, so he is not qualified to teach religion, or lecture on anything about religion.
But he does lecture. And the result is just like in Tao Te Ching:
Why should I listen to Jefferson Davis as an ultimate authority on the Bible and slavery, and not to Abraham Lincoln or John Brown? Were they lesser believers than Jefferson Davis? Not at all. Perhaps if John Brown became such a strong abolitionist through the Bible (and it was through the Bible that he became abolitionist) that he gave his life, then the Bible in an indirect way does envision a day when there will be no slavery.
It is not despite theology, but because of theology that we got rid of slavery. Name me one abolitionist atheist back when slavery was around. The atheists of Ancient Greece and Rome (yes, there were atheists in those days) were not anti-slavery at all. In the American Civil Wear, those who fought against it were just as much believers as those who fought for it. Perhaps more so, because even Southerners beep inside knew, simply as human beings, that there is something wrong with this
Unfortunately, people will always find justification for anything that allows them to make a living. This was true in the days of the Bible, in the days of pre-Civil War America, and now, and forever.
It's all not quite as simple as Sam Harris makes it.
The Bible is not a logical document. Which is why so many of those self-refutations and internal contradictions are irrelevant. Moreover, seeming contradictions are often different ways of pointing to the same thing.
And often presenting one with a deliberate contradiction is a way of making one think about the issue.
The ways of teaching are complex and often illogical.
Once again, Sam Harris speaks of things he doesn't understand.
Jesus was crucified before and after Passover meal, so that Jesus becomes Passover meal – the lamb of Passover. If Harris cannot make sense of this, is it the problem of Jesus or of Harris?
(I'm not really blaming Harris for not making sense of this. It's not his fault, just his problem. Some people are tone-deaf, or altogether deaf - it's not their fault. But when a deaf man makes a lecture saying that sounds don't exist, that becomes his fault.)
There are some internal contradictions which are relevant and can make one reject a religion. After coming through the dark night of the soul. But Sam Harris wouldn't see those from ordinary irrelevant ones.
Religious books are not scientific tracts. They are more like stories, like fairy tales, which is where they come from. Taking them for scientific tracts is just stupid.
Or like poems.
Here is just the start of a poem by P.B. Shelly:
O wild West Wind, thou breath of Autumn's being,
Thou, from whose unseen presence the leaves dead
Are driven, like ghosts from an enchanter fleeing,
Imagine someone saying, "Leaves are not ghosts. In fact, there are no ghosts! There are no enchanters either, and leaves are not stricken by pestilence."
And just a little later:
Wild Spirit, which art moving everywhere;
Destroyer and preserver.
That’s religious language. I can just see Sam Harris going "Destroyer and preserver? One cannot be both. Contradiction!"
And when informed that Shelly is talking about revolution, replying, "Wind is not revolution. Wind blows straight, and revolution is revolving, rotating, cycling." And when told that it means revolution of people, responding, "People are not wheels to be rotating. This is not how human locomotion is structured."
You'd say, "This man has no idea what this poem is about."
Well. Sam Harris is just like this man. He has no idea what he is lecturing about. And yet he lectures, and people here listed with their mouths open, "Wow! Mr. Harris! You're so wise!”
Oh, come on!
We need to sing, to dance, to speak poetry and metaphor and wise nonsense. Or else we die.
How low we have fallen, that these things have to be explained.
Of course there is slavery in the Bible. And also in the Odyssey and religious books of ancient Egyptians and Babylonians. Slaver was a given in that area at that time. If there were an atheist cou8ntry back then, it too would be frull of slaves.
@Kurtlane there were very few atheists in America during the abolitionist movement. and for every Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot there were an equal (and probably greater) number of religious nuts (see middle east) leading their respective countries to shit. atheism also likely had nothing to do with their crimes. it's the absolutist mentality that they actually share with religion that led them to do evil. they wanted to be treated like gods
@smiller9295, you got one thing right: they wanted to be treated like gods. Not just treated like, they wanted to be gods. And they were worshiped as gods. And this is the ultimate proof that atheism in its true sense is impossible: people are made to be believers by their very nature. And therefore it is far better to hafve this divine seat occupied by an invisible, immaterial, incomprehensible presence than by a corrupt living human.
Sam Harris here also wants to be treted like a god. So do the others in this new atheist coalition. They have shown every sign of a cult: paranoya of others, sharp division into "us vs. them", very strong ideological bent, "knowledge" of "how to set the world right" and loads of self-righteousness. Just listen to them.
@Kurtlane So how does your comment prove what they are saying is incorrect in any way? Personal attacks are worthless. Prove what they say is illogical or flawed, and then you will have something worth considering.
@EpicPhalosophy, it's not illogical. It's narrow. The specific things they attack deeserve the attack. But they throw away the baby with the bathwater.
There are other things in religion... in life, never mind religion. There are things that wither and die whenever voices become shrill, or nothing illogical is allowed, or there is only deadly seriousness (it's not called deadly for nothing.)
Here is an example: Eskimos believe that when little children play along the shore of the Arctic ocean, God talks to them. Thinking it's no big deal, children will come home and casually mention what God said. Now it's adults' job to separate it from the rest of their children's talk and make corresponding conclusions.
This is 100% illogical. But there is something very profound in it.
@EpicPhalosophy, or take Tao Te Ching. Is it something you can logically support or refute? Of course not. Is it to be thrown into the dustbin because of this? No.
@smiller9295, as far as abolitionists, I was talking not just about America. Take Brazil, take Carribean slavery, British slavery, etc.
If slavery was abolished when there were few atheists around, it just proves that one doesn't need atheism to abolish it. Just some integrity and self-honesty.
@blaq7427 Jefferson Davis was correct. If you read the Bible, you would find countless instances of Biblical sanctioning of slavery. Christian virtue changes with respect to the era, and continually cuts away at what it believes from the Bible.
@blaq7427 "The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., a Baptist pastor from South Carolina.
@blaq7427 "Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America
Harris seems unfamiliar with religious tradition as biblical monotheists know it from personal experience and deep study. Frankly, the success of the new atheist faith would be hard to imagine without today's soaring levels of societal religious illiteracy. Harris is in fact wholly uninterested in Christianity on any level, is scripturaly ignorant, and essentially represents his own love for himself, on his own account of his "being superior" to the inferior intellects among whom he lives.
@ZEDSTODT - "Frankly, the success of the new atheist faith would be hard to imagine without today's soaring levels of societal religious illiteracy."
Oddly enough, I'd say the success of religion is completely dependent on that illiteracy - you've got to ignore a large chunk of the Bible just to get by in the modern world. For example, what would happen if you actually stoned a homosexual person to death in public in any first-world country?
@wseerldnoeoedfry You cited the Torah. Christians adhere to the Gospel. Stoning people to death is forbidden. To spent such inordinate amounts of time attacking Christianity like Harris does is a waste of energy & only assists the goals of Marxist radicals. You might as wlll give it up because we certainly arent going to reject the Gospel based upon your efforts.
@ZEDSTODT - "You cited the Torah. Christians adhere to the Gospel."
Christians still believe the Torah to be God's word. No matter what happens later He still said it, and that has to be reconciled with His 'perfect' morals.
"we certainly arent going to reject the Gospel based upon your efforts."
Exactly, nothing at all, no evidence, no argument, not even absolute proof would be enough to change your mind. That's why I'm using you as an example of why faith is a human failing.
@wseerldnoeoedfry Wrong. We dont consider the Torah to take precedent over the Gospel so its purpose is superceded by Christ. So your claim that Gods morals are corrupt is preposterous.
"Human failing"? Can you raise the dead? We already are a dead end so thats why I explore faith. If someone can actually prove to me that God is a myth & the Gospel is false then by all means, do it. I have a considerable background in science & I have yet to see anyone present definitive proof by any stretch.
@ZEDSTODT - "We dont consider the Torah to take precedent over the Gospel so its purpose is superceded by Christ."
That actually proves the opposite. If God had to correct Himself, not just clarify or adjust, but completely reverse Himself, then he can't be perfect.
@wseerldnoeoedfry I asked you if you can raise the dead but as usual you refuse to answer the question. Until someone can do that then I will continue to dig through the Gospel. That is hardly "irrational" considering its the only offer being made for ultimate survival.
@ZEDSTODT - "I asked you if you can raise the dead but as usual you refuse to answer the question."
I didn't refuse anything, I thought the answer was obvious and took the argument as rhetorical. But just to make you happy, no I can't raise the dead. I very strongly doubt that you or your supernatural friend can, either.
@ZEDSTODT - "That is hardly "irrational" considering its the only offer being made for ultimate survival."
When confronted with an unpleasant truth the mature thing to do is to face it head on. It may be hard, but I think that even you are capable of accepting the things you cannot change, and dealing with reality as best you can.
But to believe that something is true out of fear, to hide in the corner and retreat into a fantasy? Every adult human should be above such childishness.
@wseerldnoeoedfry Preposterous. I find the enormous efforts being made to attack religion to be deeply suspicious. Marxist fanatics & their allies have a vested interest in attacking Christianity so I cant take very much of what you say seriously. As for childishness, it is even more juvenile & devious to continually harangue & calumniate Christians or legislate greater anti-Christian statutes that suppress our freedom to express ourselves. Your arrogance & impudence is grotesque & evil.
I'm a capitalist, and don't subscribe to any of Marx's theories. And I have no need for the government to do anything but remain neutral.
"Your arrogance & impudence is grotesque & evil."
You claim to have knowledge of the deep secrets of the universe that few other people have, but *I'm* arrogant for pointing out that you can't back up that claim? Even your insults don't make any sense.
@wseerldnoeoedfry You stated that believing in God is only a result of fear, a fantasy, a retreat & reduced to childishness. That qualifies as arrogance to me. I could back up my claims if I had more time but not on a small window such as this. If youre a capitalist as you claim then be advised. We're very perturbed by the aggressive, anti-Christian factions who constantly attack us who mostly originate from Marxist fanatics trying to destroy our civil rights. Do not support their efforts.
@ZEDSTODT - "You stated that believing in God is only a result of fear..."
That's what *you* said - God gives you a way to avoid death. You believe because you wish it were true, and you wish it because it would save you from a danger. That's wishful thinking in order to assuage a fear. I'm sorry, but I don't know what to call that other than 'childish'.
You say the same thing about me if I said 'I don't believe in God because I don't want to be punished', and you'd be quite right to do so!
therefore it is untrue that it is despite theology that we got rid of the slaves...
this view has an ounce of truth in it, but like always from people who hate religion you will not get a full uncritical unbiased review of religion....
@ThePhysics1234 I would say that the reason that you will never get a uncritical, unbiased review of religion is because most religions (certainly the larger ones) are so filled with contradictions to itself and to compassion and knowledge that it would have to be a biased review that is -not- critical. As for the thought of equality being intrinsic to the New Testament, I would have to say that is untrue. Even the principle character of the gospels, Jesus, viewed certain people as being less
@ThePhysics1234 I apologise. Most religions contradict themselves, as well as contradicting knowledge, compassion and reason. The contradictions and fallacies are so extensive that only a biased review of these religions would not be critical. And though you've shown a few examples of Jesus implying that people had some worth, I do not think that this proves the idea of equality being intrinsic to the New Testament. Any system or theology that condones slavery, misogyny, homophobia, infanticide
"as well as contradicting knowledge, compassion and reason"
"Any system or theology that condones slavery, misogyny, homophobia, infanticide"
all of these ideas were normal in the time the bible was written, although i doubt that any jew ever bashed the head of his kid on a rock... You must contrast ideas from the bible with norms from that time, not today. Just as motion is relative to the system from which you perceive it so is progress relative to the time its happening in..
@ThePhysics1234 - "You must contrast ideas from the bible with norms from that time, not today."
No, because you can't defend an omniscient, perfect being with "well, it was better than most at that time".
And no, because if you're acknowledging that Biblical morality is outdated, you've undercut the idea that you can use the Bible as a moral guide in the modern world.
@ThePhysics1234 - "ok, so perfect god would give us perfect moral law"
No, but He would give us the best moral law we could understand, which wouldn't include killing witches and gays, genocide, etc. He could have made His law better, both for now and for then, by just leaving that stuff out.
"No, but He would give us the best moral law we could understand"
he gave the best moral law "they back then" could understand... killing witches, gays and genocide was allready present in that time in society. With some rules some things are regulated , like if you beat your slave and he dies within 2 days you should be punished, it might sound cruel but there were no rules for beating a slave before that. So it is a progress.
@ThePhysics1234 - "he gave the best moral law "they back then" could understand... killing witches, gays and genocide was allready present in that time in society"
And they couldn't possibly understand God merely *leaving out* recommendations of those things?
possibly understand God merely *leaving out* recommendations
it was intuitive to them that God would recommend these things. They are the ones who are actually recomending it, or do you think that god did exist and gave humans a worse moral law then people of the time already had.
god of the OT is a perception of the people of that time, it says more about the people of that time then about god.
the biggest problem i have with explaining people is that they dont understand that concepts like inequality and slavery were normal up until 150 years ago, and then people project post modern ideas onto stone age societies.
if your an atheist then you believe people wrote the bible without god, why would they put a moral law worse then the one within society of that time?
@ThePhysics1234 - "the biggest problem i have with explaining people is that they dont understand that concepts like inequality and slavery were normal up until 150 years ago, and then people project post modern ideas onto stone age societies."
I'm not criticizing *those societies*, who were making slow moral progress as human beings. I'm criticizing the idea that they had a *perfect* moral guide, because even you and I could have done better.
@ThePhysics1234 - "people of that time, yes, and if we lived in that time we would say exactly the same things as they did..."
Quite true. But any fallible human from our culture could do better, and God, in order to be perfect, has to do *at least* as well as any human being could ever possibly do. You can't claim that God has timeless, perfect morality while He's saying things that an average grade-schooler would know are blatantly evil.
"and God, in order to be perfect, has to do *at least* as well as any human being could ever possibly do"
lets assume that in 300 years everybody will be vegetarians , so if its perfect moral law that you dont eat meat, how can you expect that people from today or 3000 years ago to understand it or write it in their holy books?
@ThePhysics1234 - "how can you expect that people from today or 3000 years ago to understand it or write it in their holy books?"
I don't. I just expect those future people (and God) not to tell us that eating meat is moral, and then tell us later on that it's not moral. Going from "stone gays to death" to "gays are OK" isn't just a moral improvement, it's *contradictory*. Merely *leaving out* the first would have been more moral.
this only means that there is no fixed truth, there are only perceptions of the truth and that we should take truth statements or moral statements relative and aplicable to change
even jessu himselfs says to the pharesees that its not ok to divorce your wife even though the scriptures said otherwise, he said its because of their unrighteousness that this law was put in place.
we teach children electron has a trajectory, while in college you learn that it does not...
@ThePhysics1234 - "if god knows or has perfect morality does that mean that he is going to say it to the cave men who will not understand it, what is the point of that"
I'm fine with God not explaining morality in complete detail. I'm not OK with deliberately adding things that make it less moral. Again, why not just leave out the stoning gays to death?
@ThePhysics1234 - "WHY WOULD GOD OR MAN PUT THINGS ANYWHERE THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE LESS MORAL?"
The real answer is that they didn't - the people didn't know better and God didn't write the Bible.
"BECAUSE IT WAS NORMAL 50 YEARS AGO AND LET ALONE 2000"
So because it was normal, God had to condone it? He couldn't possibly have just left all mention of homosexuality out of His book? What kind of supreme being are we talking about, one that bows to peer pressure?
"He couldn't possibly have just left all mention of homosexuality out of His book?"
DUDE WE AS A SOCIETY ARE NOT AGREED ON HOMOSEXALITY !!!!! why the hell would he put out something taht was designated as wrong up untill 50 years ago
hey why didnt he say you can mary your sister? or you cant eat meat? why? are those things wrong? no they are not wrong for a man 500 years from now but it is for us, i mean what the fcuk...
god didnt write the bible but he could leave homosexuality out of it, well if he didnt wrote it then it wasn't he who should let anything out does it?
"So because it was normal, God had to condone it?"
im not saying god wrote the bible , and yes you heard me right, but you need to understand the cultural relativism before you say that something is immoral. On which standard are you making a judgment?
Religion is an easy target for anyone with some capacity to reason. However, it can easily be argued that without religion, the world would be a more barbaric place. Some people seem to need it, others don't. If people would stop trying to account for the meaning and value of others' experiences, half our problems would be solved.
odat83 6 days ago
Sam is a crook and a nut.If a writer mistook that it is after passover that jesus died,and another before,so what is the problem?The Gospel must be true to the accounts of the writers, understanding,and write according to their interpretation and the light they had had,and not based on hearsay.Yes,one may got it wrong doesn't mean the scriptures is wrong ,it is just showing it is very accurate and very true.This kind of errors and reporting is widely known to Journalists all across
frankielee77 3 weeks ago
@frankielee77 The crooks and the nuts are the ones who start with "This book is the inerrant words of the Creator of the Universe!", then...when irreconcilable contradictions are continually pointed out. switch to "There are mistakes, because people wrote it according to their interpretations!"
So much for the sales pitch. So much for being inerrant. So much for being any words from any God.
Irreconcilable contradictions do not equate to 'very accurate' or 'very true'.
TheHigherVoltage 2 weeks ago
@frankielee77 "If a writer mistook that it is after passover that jesus died" that "writer" is supposed to be God. Are you saying God made a mistake? If not, then you must not believe the bible is the word of God. If you don't believe that, then you are already halfway to intellectual freedom. Come on over, its pretty cool over here.
Jusoon 1 week ago
Thou shalt not commit adultery ...is a commandment of God.How is it that it is barbaric?You mean those who injects Aids and broke up families,divorce an hatred,spreading diseases are not barbaric?Sam has very little intelligence.
frankielee77 3 weeks ago
@frankielee77 "Thou shalt not commit adultery ...is a commandment of God."
It's words in a book, not from any God. And it's a basic understanding of all cultures - including Atheistic - throughout history : don't fuck people that are married to someone else...is common sense.
TheHigherVoltage 2 weeks ago
despite theology we got rid of slavery.....Sam Harris....now if we could just get rid of theology Sam...thank you for your intelligence
cubangal1 1 month ago
@cubangal1 A Communist praising another Communist. What a surprise..NOT!
ZEDSTODT2 3 weeks ago
@ZEDSTODT2 Sorry to disappoint you zed (if thats your real name...NOT) I am not a communist never have been but if your that interested in my political views I am a socialist....certainly hope that is cleared up for you
cubangal1 3 weeks ago
@cubangal1 Socialism & Communism; just two different colors of dogshit. With socialism comes secret police power, thought control, speech control, mandatory arrest, class warfare & tyranny.
ZEDSTODT2 3 weeks ago
Deuteronomy 22:13-21 only applicable to the Israelites 1st Mr. Harris...let me also remind you that if you actually put into context is if the woman parades as a virgin thus lying about her purity and tricking her husband. A husband is not going to marry someone who he knows isnt a virgin and then stone her...
dkan3 1 month ago
@dkan3 oh wow, that makes the bible entirely so much more moral then anything written in all of history.
Ohloveeh 1 month ago
@dkan3 - Re: Deut 22:13-21, you seem to be saying that the true meaning of the passage is that no Israelite woman who had sex before marriage should ever get married, which still seems harsh, especially since sex could have been forced upon her. Also, stoning anyone for any reason, even in the narrower sense that you mean it, is barbaric.
GameShowGuy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Islam thrives because of ignorance, not in spite of it. Excluding Indonesia over 54% of all Muslims are illiterate. Over 67% of Muslim women cannot read. Less than 1% of all scientific papers come from Muslim countries. Harvard University provides more scientific discoveries yearly than all Muslim nations combined. Spain translates more books annually than all Muslim nations. Muslim countries have the worst records of equality, civil and human rights.
greenarcher180 1 month ago
3:19 Slavery was allowed with guidelines to protect the slave. It wasn't what God wanted but he allowed it. The same as God allowed Palygamy for a time but put safeguards in place to pretect the wives and offspring (Deu 21:15-17, God later however revealed his thoughts on the matter (1 Timothy 3:2). It was not a harsh cruel slavery system that Israel felt during there slavery in Egypt.
KL8NHAJJ150N 1 month ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N it wasn't what god wanted but he allowed it....slavery and poligamy...nice guy and don't send me a reply because I will just delete it anyway
cubangal1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
0:46 - That is not what Deuteronomy says. There was no such thing as a wedding. The act of taking a women to bed was taking them as a wife. So by not being a virgin they were actually commiting prostitution. Deu 22:21 - "So you must clear away what is bad from your midst." It was about keeping the nation of Israel clean.
KL8NHAJJ150N 1 month ago
Comment removed
KL8NHAJJ150N 1 month ago
Religions like Islam & christianity are King religions - God made in the image of a medieval king. They cater to the weak-minded telling him what he wants to hear. There is nice king like God who will happily take care of ur every need for eternty, yay! Just get down on ur knees, beg & grovel like crazy, that's it
Are u a murderer, pedophile, cheated old ladies of their money? don't worry - just confess & u are done! how simple! oh BTW u have to convert
ramaraksha01 1 month ago
I wonder why he left out the moral failings of atheism ( and there are many ), like communism, nazism marxism, stahlinism?????? Did he forget them???? It would appear then that the doctrinal belief of atheism is a very psychotically charged belief if you're leaving out certain points to attempt to paint your opponent incorrectly.
MrTopgearguy1 1 month ago
@MrTopgearguy1 There is no logical path from "I don't believe in god" to "We need to kill everyone but us." Hitler was also christian. Every nazi soldier had on their belt "god be with us". Communism also isn't inherently evil. Its being overly idealistic, thinking that giving equal shit to everyone will work out, but its not neccasarily intentionally evil. Atheism is a rejection of a belief system, not a belief system itself.
twilitprince 1 month ago
@twilitprince Listen, I understand the plight of atheists and their desire to not be viewed as a dcotrinal belief system, BUT, as you said, there is no logical path that allows atheism to be anything but that. When science is able to state something as fact, it is because it has proven something to be so. Part of that process is by disproving other hypothesis's re: that subject matter
MrTopgearguy1 1 month ago
@twilitprince Since deity, is neither proven or disproven, either statement is faith based and qualifies as a belief. Anyway you want to say it, atheism is therefore a belief. Whether it be believing God doesn't exist, or believing there is not enough evidence to state he exists.ETC. Communisim, IS actually evil, in that it punishes those who are achievers and forces them to give up what they have accomplished and allows mankind with it's inherent characteristic laziness,
MrTopgearguy1 1 month ago
@twilitprince to lay back knowing someone else will do it. It also removes from the equation, the chance for anyone to rise up and provide himself with a better life, far better than what the government can provide him/her/them! Capitalism, by some, may look evil, however, in a capitalist system, one has the option to move themselves up the quality of life chain.
MrTopgearguy1 1 month ago
@MrTopgearguy1 Stalinism, communism, nazism and marxism, are not a doctrinal dogma of atheism. Stalin might have been an atheist, Hitler was by all accounts a Catholic, and Marx was a Jewish man. Atheism has no content, it's simply not believing that God exist and religious scripture is true. There are no moral failings of atheism, because atheims is not a doctrine of faith and scripture. The same way people are NON-RACISTS, people are NON-BELIEVERS. Atheist is just word for it.
Faerlon123 1 month ago
@Faerlon123 All those doctrines are heavily populated with atheism and historically has been proven to be a major motivator of immoral systems such as these. Now, you people over there, you keep wording it wrong. Since not believeing in God and believeing in God, are both unproven statements, they both fall under the category of beliefs.
MrTopgearguy1 1 month ago
@Faerlon123 Therefore, you need to correct the wording of your improper statement. It should state that Atheism has no content, it's simply believing that God does not exist as well as believing that religious scripture is false. At that point you're making sense in your statement and it is then a correct statement. Until you do that, your statements are senseless and misleading. Hope that helps you going forward.
MrTopgearguy1 1 month ago
@MrTopgearguy1 Correction u can't say God does not exist nor can you say there is no invisible dragon watching us. Atheists are saying there is no PROOF of the existence of God - belief is not proof - it is a need to believe
Life is harsh, so people hoped for a better afterlife & religions came in to tell them what they wanted to hear. Heaven came before God - God is just the usher who holds ur ticket to Heaven, down on ur knees, beg, grovel off u go to hawaii! yippee!
ramaraksha01 1 month ago
@MrTopgearguy1 You need to reread my comment. I did not say that atheism is BELIEVING god does not exist. I said atheism is NOT BELIEVING god exists. I do not hold FAITH. Atheism is not a starting point. Atheism is a REACTION to THEISTS claims. Just like NON-RACISTS were are REACTION to RACISM. Religious people need to get this shit right. Stalinism,communism,nazism and marxism are political ideologies, and have nothing to do with Atheism.
Faerlon123 1 month ago
@Faerlon123 It doesn't matter what order you placed the words. We as human beings, tend to rearrange words to manipulate things in an order pleasing to us. Websters clearly defines your faith of atheism as a BELIEF. You say it however you want to, but it doesn;t change a damn thing and atheists need to get that shit right. CUZ UR WRONG! Stahlinism, marxism, etc. all had their roots in atheism, as their "chairmen" were atheist and that's and they justified their political doctrines on ateism.
MrTopgearguy1 1 month ago
@MrTopgearguy1 Yes it does matter. Very clearly it does matter. I don't have an ideology that tells me have to knock on people's doors, and convert them to what I believe. Religious people do. Because their books tell them to do it. With divine permission. And btw, websters was probably written by religious people, and as you so clearly show, religious people have no clue of what they are talking about. And I repeat, Marxism is not atheistic. Look it up, you might learn something.
Faerlon123 1 month ago
@MrTopgearguy1 If you actually read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto (Which I doubt you would ever do, even if you had a gun to your head, you'd rather just listen to rightwing media) You'd find that communism isn't an ideology about god, or religion or ethics or morality or any of those things. It's an approach to a different type of economic system than Capitalism. Yes, history show us that even if Stalin was a maniac, Atheism doesn't have a CREED to kill others, unlike religion.
Faerlon123 1 month ago
@Faerlon123 Communism, marxism, etc. are all based on an atheistic belief that there is no God and man can do this better anyway. That's the first premise. 2nd premsie, after that it becomes a complete separation of classes. A massive servant class and a minimal ruling class. Like the democrat party manifesto, the communist and marxist ideologies are solely about aquiring power. History has proven these ideological systems to be failure, due to the greed of man!
MrTopgearguy1 1 month ago
@MrTopgearguy1, the massive servant class and the minimal ruling class is not the ideology of Marxism. Actually, the ideology is just the opposite: this is how Capitalist, particularly late Capitalist society is described, and people are supposed to rebel against it and create a better, more just society.
What happens in reality - that's another story.
Please watch:
watch?v=oHpXjm78Pjs
it's very good.
Kurtlane 1 month ago
@Kurtlane who describes "late capitalism" as that? What is the background info on these rad's? And give me a better site name for me to look at? I can't decipher the code?
MrTopgearguy1 1 month ago
@MrTopgearguy1, that comes form standard Marxism: Marx and Engels. Followed by Lenin.
Marx describes human history as progressing through as series of periods: "primitive communism", slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism. Each stage in the beginning is progressive compared to the previous one, but later "gets stuck," and eventually resolves itself into the next stage through violent revolution.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 1 month ago
The exception is socialism, which transforms into communism through creative labor (or at least that's what we were taught in Soviet Union, Marx is a bit vague oh this point.)
The excellent youtube video is:
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian | George Reisman
There is also a very good 18-part series
Heaven on Earth The Rise and Fall of Socialism
also on youtube.
Kurtlane 1 month ago
@Kurtlane I live in a socialist country which is not transforming into the Soviet Union any time soon....I don't believe that one transforms into the other....when you only use the Soviets and Nazi Germany as examples it doesn't hold water for socialist countries of today
cubangal1 3 weeks ago
@cubangal1, You mean Cuba? It is just like Soviet Union. Brutal dictatorship. poor and full of shortages. Before Castro it was the wealthiest country in Latin America; now it's one of the poorest. Add to that the reign of terror that killed more people than Pinochet's regime.
Kurtlane 2 weeks ago
@Faerlon123, I've read Communist Manifesto. We had to read it in 7th or 8th grade. It was in school curriculum in Soviet Union.
Yes, it is about a different type of economic system. But not just that.Marxism puts economics as the primary force, the "basis", and everything else as consequences - the "superstructure." Including religion and belief and all that
Marx was atheist. His grandparents were Jewish, his parents - Christians (not observant, just to fit in), and he - atheist
(cont)
Kurtlane 1 month ago
Here is what Marx said about religion: ""Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness."
("Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right")
(cont.)
Kurtlane 1 month ago
"How is opposition resolved? By making it impossible. And how is religious opposition made impossible? By abolishing religion."
(The Jewish Question).
But I found that the "demand of real happiness" ends up creating far more misery than illusory happiness of religion. Particularly when there is abolishing of religion by force. What am I supposed to do with this knowledge?
Kurtlane 1 month ago
@Kurtlane I just read your comment here. So far, to me it looks excellent. Good to see a discussion based on fact, and eloquently spoke...well typed! lol. You can messege me direct with that web-site you're trying to direct me to. It appears interesting.
MrTopgearguy1 1 month ago
@MrTopgearguy1, thank you very much. I am glad someone understands.
Kurtlane 1 month ago
@Kurtlane I always enjoy a GOOD solid conversation with other folks even ( and sometimes especially ) when they don't agree with me. It represents growth for all parties involved.
MrTopgearguy1 1 month ago
@MrTopgearguy1 Now Marx, lumps capitalism in with communism, etc. and states that all f them start off progressive and then "become stuck". I don't see where capitalism got stuck. Do you?
MrTopgearguy1 1 month ago
I'm a Christian... and I wasn't at all impressed with this. It sounds like something you could hear from any atheist troll on the internet.
patrckhh20 2 months ago
Comment removed
GhostTheSmoker 1 month ago
Comment removed
GhostTheSmoker 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@patrckhh20 What didn't you like about it? The full video link is in the description. Maybe you should watch it. He makes excellent points.
GhostTheSmoker 1 month ago
@patrckhh20
Your exposure to internet Trolls must be at a far more rarified level than the ones I have come across. Reasoned argument, with examples, does not a Troll make.
revjimbob 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
************** LIKE THIS TO KEEP IT AS TOP COMMENT **************
You've got until Jan. 16th to either register for the first time or re-register Republican or you won't be able to vote for Ron Paul in the caucus. Obviously, if you don't vote, he won't get the nomination.
Go to you state website or state DMV website and register now!
1ePoo 2 months ago
All who do not believe in the spaghetti monster shall burn eternally in marinara sauce.
BradfordFitness 2 months ago
@BradfordFitness Religion makes me hungry. Good thing Catholic =D!
movcrit 2 months ago
Kurtlane: you proclaim that you pick up wisdom wherever you find it, and you decry that someone is acting hateful and smug.
Yet here you are, being hateful, smug, and trite, with anyone you don't agree. Your 'wisdom' is to be petulant and immature, and to name call and belittle those with a different perspective. You are a nasty, abrasive hypocrite, and perhaps YOU need the diversity and anti-smugness training you prescribe for everyone else.
tetrabromobisphenol 2 months ago
@tetrabromobisphenol, same to you, baby.
Kurtlane 1 month ago
Comment removed
dkthg 2 months ago
I do have a short fuse for those who deal with the entire diversity of human experience by calling it "stupid."
If Jews pray next to a wall and Muslims - with their behinds in the air and Hindus - to elephant-headed Ganesh, and Scottish men wear skirts (kilts), and Indian women - saris, and people in New Guinea - almost nothing, and Japanese eat with chopsticks,
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
and Jews and Arabs read from right to left, and Chinese - from top to bottom, and some don't eat pork, and some – beef, all this gets just one reaction from these types: "stupid." To them, anything that is not like what they do is stupid.
It is these characters that are stupid. By standing above all others in their smugness and arrogance, they rob themselves of real knowledge of what it really is to be human.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
When a character like this barges like a drunken yob into a real conflict, trying to solve it, he only makes the conflict worse.
He goes around, calling everyone stupid, racist, mocking everything they do, then is surprised when people get sick of it and turn on him with outrage. He is the one that causes hatred and doesn't even notice it.
At the end, he will lose even the few friends he has in his own culture of his own persuasion.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
This is one case where diversity training seems appropriate. Or perhaps anti-smugness and anti-arrogance training.
Kurtlane 2 months ago
Comment removed
kamikaze1827 1 month ago
@Kurtlane You have to be a troll. You and I both know Sam Harris isn't some popularity addict. He simply advocates free-thinking and rational discussion that gives no exception to religion. The fact that you interpret what Sam says the way you do makes me sad... very sad that there are people so blinded by their delusion that they must go out of their way to post over 20 youtube comments in a very weak attempt to "prove a point". Thanks for the good laugh.
kamikaze1827 1 month ago
@kamikaze1827, sorry, but I don't think you understand what I wrote. Maybe you should read it again, and think about it.
Kurtlane 1 month ago
@Kurtlane
What the fuck are you on about?
revjimbob 1 month ago
I'm not even properly religious. I pick up wisdom wherever I find it, and reject stupidity, arrogance and narrow-mindedness wherever I find that.
I am just defending freedom of thought from this latest onslaught.
Perhaps you need diversity training. So you may learn to respect human differences.
Kurtlane 2 months ago
@Kurtlane You have to be a troll. You and I both know Sam Harris isn't some popularity addict. He simply advocates free-thinking and rational discussion that plays no favors to religion. The fact that you interpret what Sam says the way you do makes me sad... very sad that there are people so blinded by their delusion that they must go out of their way to post over 20 youtube comments in a very weak attempt to "prove a point". Thanks for the good laugh.
kamikaze1827 1 month ago
Perhaps one day our time will be known as The Rise and Fall of the Arrogant Atheist.
The fall is inevitable. Arrogance always breeds its own downfall.
Kurtlane 2 months ago
I don't need a book of fairtales and contradictions to live my life.
dkthg 2 months ago
Truth and logic is NOT an opinion. FAITH is. ENOUGH of this silliness, let's EVOLVE!
dkthg 2 months ago
@dkthg, yes, I just looked at your youtube home page. You have a lot of evolving to do.
Kurtlane 2 months ago
@Kurtlane At least i don't get my moral compass from a book that preaches slavery, rape and the killing of children. I get my morals from an understanding of reality not an assertion of authority. Religion may be helpful to some but overall it breeds intolerance, hypocrisy, and ignorance. Faith is not a pathway to truth and my life has more meaning than your "holy" book will ever allow. Yes, i've evolved past this nonsense called religion, have you?
dkthg 2 months ago
@dkthg, like I said, you have a long way yet to evolve. Your post, full of pride you feel about being superior to others, only confirms that.
Kurtlane 2 months ago
@Kurtlane Thanx for putting words into my mouth. Superior to others; no. PROUD to be free from religion; yes. Only the ignorant make ignorant assertions with no evidence. Thanx for proving me right.
dkthg 2 months ago
@dkthg, I wonder who is putting words into whose mouth. You've made a whole load of assumptions about me. For example, who told you I blindly follow any specific book?
I think your feeling of superiority over others is very obvious to everyone.
Like I said, you have a long way to evolve. You might begin by reading "The Frivolity of Evil" by Theodore Dalrymple (don't worry, there is no religion there.)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
@Kurtlane "who told you i blindly follow any specific book?" My mistake, i figured you at least had an explanation for the idiocy in you babbling. Keep trolling, we're done.
dkthg 2 months ago
@dkthg, good, fuck off.
Kurtlane 2 months ago
@Kurtlane Great 'wisdom' you have gathered. First comment I read by you is "fuck off"... indeed a great person and worthy to live on this planet.
scrap222666 2 months ago
My principle is that I am free to pick up wisdom wherever I find it. And to get rid of stupidity wherever I find it.
Which means that I cannot belong to any specific religion. But also I cannot belong to atheism.
Because if I were, I would have to reject the Golden Rule together with the rest of the Bible. Or at least do what Sam Harris does here: use the "Not-so-golden rule" to say, “Aha, Bible, got you! You're bad after all!"
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
And I'm not going for these kinds of "ahas." I am not interested in these "gotcha" games. They seem stupid to me. They seem to me to be all about tribalism, about "us vs. them," about how "we" (however defined) can win over "them" (however defined).
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
Sam Harris in another lecture says that "religion" (the word) stands for a whole load of different things. In this, he is absolutely right. And of all these things, good and bad, the best is the death of ego. The elimination of arrogance. This is truly religion at its best.
Can atheism do that?
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
The map of religions is totally silly. Why are Russia and central Africa colored the same? What makes the U.S. blue? Who made this stupid map? And who is at fault for this silliness, the map-maker who made it, or religions?
Who would look for truth in a map like that? Of course no rational people expect belief systems to hug national boundaries. We have freedom of religion in the U.S., don't we? So the U.S. (and not only the U.S.) should be what? Every color.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
Everyone with any sense understands that. To take this silliness and criticize religion thorough it is such a red herring, I don't even know where to begin.
On the other hand, the map-maker may have meant just the majority. Then Sam Harris is misusing the map, making it say what it doesn't say. This is hypocrisy, his hypocrisy, and the fault is on him.
India too has freedom of religion.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
"Elephant-headed god Ganesh exists and must be worshipped."
Let me put it this way: A God that only exists is not a true God. A God that only does not exist is also not a true God.
Ganesh exists and not exists.
Once one takes and absorbs and understands this illogical statement, one will be on the way of understanding religion.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
Sam Harris doesn't. At all. Just like a man who doesn't understand elementary laws of physics is not qualified to teach physics, so he is not qualified to teach religion, or lecture on anything about religion.
But he does lecture. And the result is just like in Tao Te Ching:
Those who know don't speak.
Those who speak don't know.
He speaks, and doesn't know.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
Why should I listen to Jefferson Davis as an ultimate authority on the Bible and slavery, and not to Abraham Lincoln or John Brown? Were they lesser believers than Jefferson Davis? Not at all. Perhaps if John Brown became such a strong abolitionist through the Bible (and it was through the Bible that he became abolitionist) that he gave his life, then the Bible in an indirect way does envision a day when there will be no slavery.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
It is not despite theology, but because of theology that we got rid of slavery. Name me one abolitionist atheist back when slavery was around. The atheists of Ancient Greece and Rome (yes, there were atheists in those days) were not anti-slavery at all. In the American Civil Wear, those who fought against it were just as much believers as those who fought for it. Perhaps more so, because even Southerners beep inside knew, simply as human beings, that there is something wrong with this
(cont)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
Unfortunately, people will always find justification for anything that allows them to make a living. This was true in the days of the Bible, in the days of pre-Civil War America, and now, and forever.
It's all not quite as simple as Sam Harris makes it.
The Bible is not a logical document. Which is why so many of those self-refutations and internal contradictions are irrelevant. Moreover, seeming contradictions are often different ways of pointing to the same thing.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
And often presenting one with a deliberate contradiction is a way of making one think about the issue.
The ways of teaching are complex and often illogical.
Once again, Sam Harris speaks of things he doesn't understand.
Jesus was crucified before and after Passover meal, so that Jesus becomes Passover meal – the lamb of Passover. If Harris cannot make sense of this, is it the problem of Jesus or of Harris?
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
(I'm not really blaming Harris for not making sense of this. It's not his fault, just his problem. Some people are tone-deaf, or altogether deaf - it's not their fault. But when a deaf man makes a lecture saying that sounds don't exist, that becomes his fault.)
There are some internal contradictions which are relevant and can make one reject a religion. After coming through the dark night of the soul. But Sam Harris wouldn't see those from ordinary irrelevant ones.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
Religious books are not scientific tracts. They are more like stories, like fairy tales, which is where they come from. Taking them for scientific tracts is just stupid.
Or like poems.
Here is just the start of a poem by P.B. Shelly:
O wild West Wind, thou breath of Autumn's being,
Thou, from whose unseen presence the leaves dead
Are driven, like ghosts from an enchanter fleeing,
Yellow, and black, and pale, and hectic red,
Pestilence-stricken multitudes:
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
Imagine someone saying, "Leaves are not ghosts. In fact, there are no ghosts! There are no enchanters either, and leaves are not stricken by pestilence."
And just a little later:
Wild Spirit, which art moving everywhere;
Destroyer and preserver.
That’s religious language. I can just see Sam Harris going "Destroyer and preserver? One cannot be both. Contradiction!"
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
And when informed that Shelly is talking about revolution, replying, "Wind is not revolution. Wind blows straight, and revolution is revolving, rotating, cycling." And when told that it means revolution of people, responding, "People are not wheels to be rotating. This is not how human locomotion is structured."
You'd say, "This man has no idea what this poem is about."
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
Well. Sam Harris is just like this man. He has no idea what he is lecturing about. And yet he lectures, and people here listed with their mouths open, "Wow! Mr. Harris! You're so wise!”
Oh, come on!
We need to sing, to dance, to speak poetry and metaphor and wise nonsense. Or else we die.
How low we have fallen, that these things have to be explained.
Kurtlane 2 months ago
Of course there is slavery in the Bible. And also in the Odyssey and religious books of ancient Egyptians and Babylonians. Slaver was a given in that area at that time. If there were an atheist cou8ntry back then, it too would be frull of slaves.
Kurtlane 3 months ago
Slavery was abolished by religious people. All abolitionists were deeply religious.
Find me one atheist abolitionist back when slavery was around in the West.
At the same time, atheists like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot created slavery in their countries.
Kurtlane 3 months ago
@Kurtlane there were very few atheists in America during the abolitionist movement. and for every Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot there were an equal (and probably greater) number of religious nuts (see middle east) leading their respective countries to shit. atheism also likely had nothing to do with their crimes. it's the absolutist mentality that they actually share with religion that led them to do evil. they wanted to be treated like gods
smiller9295 3 months ago
@smiller9295, you got one thing right: they wanted to be treated like gods. Not just treated like, they wanted to be gods. And they were worshiped as gods. And this is the ultimate proof that atheism in its true sense is impossible: people are made to be believers by their very nature. And therefore it is far better to hafve this divine seat occupied by an invisible, immaterial, incomprehensible presence than by a corrupt living human.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 3 months ago
Sam Harris here also wants to be treted like a god. So do the others in this new atheist coalition. They have shown every sign of a cult: paranoya of others, sharp division into "us vs. them", very strong ideological bent, "knowledge" of "how to set the world right" and loads of self-righteousness. Just listen to them.
God forbid these characters ever come to power.
Kurtlane 3 months ago
@Kurtlane So how does your comment prove what they are saying is incorrect in any way? Personal attacks are worthless. Prove what they say is illogical or flawed, and then you will have something worth considering.
EpicPhalosophy 3 months ago
@EpicPhalosophy, it's not illogical. It's narrow. The specific things they attack deeserve the attack. But they throw away the baby with the bathwater.
There are other things in religion... in life, never mind religion. There are things that wither and die whenever voices become shrill, or nothing illogical is allowed, or there is only deadly seriousness (it's not called deadly for nothing.)
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 months ago
Here is an example: Eskimos believe that when little children play along the shore of the Arctic ocean, God talks to them. Thinking it's no big deal, children will come home and casually mention what God said. Now it's adults' job to separate it from the rest of their children's talk and make corresponding conclusions.
This is 100% illogical. But there is something very profound in it.
Kurtlane 2 months ago
@EpicPhalosophy, or take Tao Te Ching. Is it something you can logically support or refute? Of course not. Is it to be thrown into the dustbin because of this? No.
Kurtlane 2 months ago
@smiller9295, as far as abolitionists, I was talking not just about America. Take Brazil, take Carribean slavery, British slavery, etc.
If slavery was abolished when there were few atheists around, it just proves that one doesn't need atheism to abolish it. Just some integrity and self-honesty.
Kurtlane 3 months ago
@blaq7427 Jefferson Davis was correct. If you read the Bible, you would find countless instances of Biblical sanctioning of slavery. Christian virtue changes with respect to the era, and continually cuts away at what it believes from the Bible.
Coldannon 3 months ago
Sam Harris seems to be unaware that christian put an end to slavery
blaq7427 3 months ago
@blaq7427 You seem to be unaware that you are an idiot
drewpluta 3 months ago 5
@blaq7427 "The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., a Baptist pastor from South Carolina.
MrBigInfidel 3 months ago
@blaq7427 "Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America
MrBigInfidel 3 months ago
@MrBigInfidel You're quoting Jefferson Davis ? Really? Clearly Davis was a paragon of christian virtue. LOL
blaq7427 3 months ago
Sam Harris is boss
Endymos 3 months ago 22
@Endymos My Catholic mum called him "handsome" the other day. Atheism win!
robertedge 1 month ago
/watch?v=0KXwEiWaCmI&feature=channel_video_title
116gaara 4 months ago
Harris seems unfamiliar with religious tradition as biblical monotheists know it from personal experience and deep study. Frankly, the success of the new atheist faith would be hard to imagine without today's soaring levels of societal religious illiteracy. Harris is in fact wholly uninterested in Christianity on any level, is scripturaly ignorant, and essentially represents his own love for himself, on his own account of his "being superior" to the inferior intellects among whom he lives.
ZEDSTODT 4 months ago
@ZEDSTODT - "Frankly, the success of the new atheist faith would be hard to imagine without today's soaring levels of societal religious illiteracy."
Oddly enough, I'd say the success of religion is completely dependent on that illiteracy - you've got to ignore a large chunk of the Bible just to get by in the modern world. For example, what would happen if you actually stoned a homosexual person to death in public in any first-world country?
And atheism isn't a faith.
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
@wseerldnoeoedfry You cited the Torah. Christians adhere to the Gospel. Stoning people to death is forbidden. To spent such inordinate amounts of time attacking Christianity like Harris does is a waste of energy & only assists the goals of Marxist radicals. You might as wlll give it up because we certainly arent going to reject the Gospel based upon your efforts.
ZEDSTODT 3 months ago
@ZEDSTODT - "You cited the Torah. Christians adhere to the Gospel."
Christians still believe the Torah to be God's word. No matter what happens later He still said it, and that has to be reconciled with His 'perfect' morals.
"we certainly arent going to reject the Gospel based upon your efforts."
Exactly, nothing at all, no evidence, no argument, not even absolute proof would be enough to change your mind. That's why I'm using you as an example of why faith is a human failing.
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
@wseerldnoeoedfry Wrong. We dont consider the Torah to take precedent over the Gospel so its purpose is superceded by Christ. So your claim that Gods morals are corrupt is preposterous.
"Human failing"? Can you raise the dead? We already are a dead end so thats why I explore faith. If someone can actually prove to me that God is a myth & the Gospel is false then by all means, do it. I have a considerable background in science & I have yet to see anyone present definitive proof by any stretch.
ZEDSTODT 3 months ago
@ZEDSTODT - "We dont consider the Torah to take precedent over the Gospel so its purpose is superceded by Christ."
That actually proves the opposite. If God had to correct Himself, not just clarify or adjust, but completely reverse Himself, then he can't be perfect.
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
@ZEDSTODT - "Human failing"?
Yes, faith is a cognitive bias - favoring certain ideas over others without a rational justification.
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
@wseerldnoeoedfry I asked you if you can raise the dead but as usual you refuse to answer the question. Until someone can do that then I will continue to dig through the Gospel. That is hardly "irrational" considering its the only offer being made for ultimate survival.
ZEDSTODT 3 months ago
@ZEDSTODT - "I asked you if you can raise the dead but as usual you refuse to answer the question."
I didn't refuse anything, I thought the answer was obvious and took the argument as rhetorical. But just to make you happy, no I can't raise the dead. I very strongly doubt that you or your supernatural friend can, either.
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
@ZEDSTODT - "That is hardly "irrational" considering its the only offer being made for ultimate survival."
When confronted with an unpleasant truth the mature thing to do is to face it head on. It may be hard, but I think that even you are capable of accepting the things you cannot change, and dealing with reality as best you can.
But to believe that something is true out of fear, to hide in the corner and retreat into a fantasy? Every adult human should be above such childishness.
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
@wseerldnoeoedfry Preposterous. I find the enormous efforts being made to attack religion to be deeply suspicious. Marxist fanatics & their allies have a vested interest in attacking Christianity so I cant take very much of what you say seriously. As for childishness, it is even more juvenile & devious to continually harangue & calumniate Christians or legislate greater anti-Christian statutes that suppress our freedom to express ourselves. Your arrogance & impudence is grotesque & evil.
ZEDSTODT 3 months ago
@ZEDSTODT you sir/ma'am, are a moron.
DngerousRadical 3 months ago
@DungeaterRadical Oh thank now lets jump for joy, jump for joy & jump for joy!
ZEDSTODT 3 months ago
@ZEDSTODT - "Marxist fanatics" "legislate greater anti-Christian statutes"
I'm a capitalist, and don't subscribe to any of Marx's theories. And I have no need for the government to do anything but remain neutral.
"Your arrogance & impudence is grotesque & evil."
You claim to have knowledge of the deep secrets of the universe that few other people have, but *I'm* arrogant for pointing out that you can't back up that claim? Even your insults don't make any sense.
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
@wseerldnoeoedfry You stated that believing in God is only a result of fear, a fantasy, a retreat & reduced to childishness. That qualifies as arrogance to me. I could back up my claims if I had more time but not on a small window such as this. If youre a capitalist as you claim then be advised. We're very perturbed by the aggressive, anti-Christian factions who constantly attack us who mostly originate from Marxist fanatics trying to destroy our civil rights. Do not support their efforts.
ZEDSTODT 3 months ago
@ZEDSTODT - "You stated that believing in God is only a result of fear..."
That's what *you* said - God gives you a way to avoid death. You believe because you wish it were true, and you wish it because it would save you from a danger. That's wishful thinking in order to assuage a fear. I'm sorry, but I don't know what to call that other than 'childish'.
You say the same thing about me if I said 'I don't believe in God because I don't want to be punished', and you'd be quite right to do so!
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
@ZEDSTODT - "That qualifies as arrogance to me."
Even if it were arrogance, I don't know how my judging you could possibly be as arrogant as claiming to know about the Divine Secrets of the Universe.
"I could back up my claims ... small window"
*my user name*@gmail.com
"...Marxist fanatics trying to destroy our civil rights. Do not support their efforts."
Don't worry about that, there's no satisfaction in winning a rigged fight.
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wseerldnoeoedfry Look at his channel, he is an anti-Semitic 9/11truther conspiracy theorist. Waste no more time on this low-life.
drabarne 3 months ago
Man after watching this video I want to go out and whip sum ol niggas!
sstyrant88 4 months ago
therefore it is untrue that it is despite theology that we got rid of the slaves...
this view has an ounce of truth in it, but like always from people who hate religion you will not get a full uncritical unbiased review of religion....
ThePhysics1234 4 months ago
@ThePhysics1234 I would say that the reason that you will never get a uncritical, unbiased review of religion is because most religions (certainly the larger ones) are so filled with contradictions to itself and to compassion and knowledge that it would have to be a biased review that is -not- critical. As for the thought of equality being intrinsic to the New Testament, I would have to say that is untrue. Even the principle character of the gospels, Jesus, viewed certain people as being less
NoOnesWord 4 months ago
@NoOnesWord
"are so filled with contradictions to itself and to compassion and knowledge that it would have to be a biased review that is -not- critical."
im sory i dont understand this sentence
ThePhysics1234 4 months ago
@ThePhysics1234 I apologise. Most religions contradict themselves, as well as contradicting knowledge, compassion and reason. The contradictions and fallacies are so extensive that only a biased review of these religions would not be critical. And though you've shown a few examples of Jesus implying that people had some worth, I do not think that this proves the idea of equality being intrinsic to the New Testament. Any system or theology that condones slavery, misogyny, homophobia, infanticide
NoOnesWord 4 months ago
@NoOnesWord
"as well as contradicting knowledge, compassion and reason"
"Any system or theology that condones slavery, misogyny, homophobia, infanticide"
all of these ideas were normal in the time the bible was written, although i doubt that any jew ever bashed the head of his kid on a rock... You must contrast ideas from the bible with norms from that time, not today. Just as motion is relative to the system from which you perceive it so is progress relative to the time its happening in..
ThePhysics1234 3 months ago
@ThePhysics1234 - "You must contrast ideas from the bible with norms from that time, not today."
No, because you can't defend an omniscient, perfect being with "well, it was better than most at that time".
And no, because if you're acknowledging that Biblical morality is outdated, you've undercut the idea that you can use the Bible as a moral guide in the modern world.
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
@wseerldnoeoedfry
"No, because you can't defend an omniscient, perfect being with "well, it was better than most at that time"."
ok, so perfect god would give us perfect moral law
11 of god's commandment : do not eat meat because animals feel pain like you do.
what would happen what do you think?
the last guy that came with radical ideas like "love your enemies" was killed...
we are not ready to accept or uphold perfect moral law...
ThePhysics1234 3 months ago
@ThePhysics1234 - "ok, so perfect god would give us perfect moral law"
No, but He would give us the best moral law we could understand, which wouldn't include killing witches and gays, genocide, etc. He could have made His law better, both for now and for then, by just leaving that stuff out.
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
@wseerldnoeoedfry
"No, but He would give us the best moral law we could understand"
he gave the best moral law "they back then" could understand... killing witches, gays and genocide was allready present in that time in society. With some rules some things are regulated , like if you beat your slave and he dies within 2 days you should be punished, it might sound cruel but there were no rules for beating a slave before that. So it is a progress.
is eating meat bad.
ThePhysics1234 3 months ago
@ThePhysics1234 - "he gave the best moral law "they back then" could understand... killing witches, gays and genocide was allready present in that time in society"
And they couldn't possibly understand God merely *leaving out* recommendations of those things?
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
@wseerldnoeoedfry
possibly understand God merely *leaving out* recommendations
it was intuitive to them that God would recommend these things. They are the ones who are actually recomending it, or do you think that god did exist and gave humans a worse moral law then people of the time already had.
god of the OT is a perception of the people of that time, it says more about the people of that time then about god.
ThePhysics1234 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThePhysics1234 - "it was intuitive to them that God would recommend these things. They are the ones who are actually recomending it"
"god of the OT is a perception of the people of that time"
Exactly, God is invention of people, and His attitudes reflect those of the society that invented Him.
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
@wseerldnoeoedfry
the biggest problem i have with explaining people is that they dont understand that concepts like inequality and slavery were normal up until 150 years ago, and then people project post modern ideas onto stone age societies.
if your an atheist then you believe people wrote the bible without god, why would they put a moral law worse then the one within society of that time?
ThePhysics1234 3 months ago
@ThePhysics1234 - "the biggest problem i have with explaining people is that they dont understand that concepts like inequality and slavery were normal up until 150 years ago, and then people project post modern ideas onto stone age societies."
I'm not criticizing *those societies*, who were making slow moral progress as human beings. I'm criticizing the idea that they had a *perfect* moral guide, because even you and I could have done better.
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
@wseerldnoeoedfry
because even you and I could have done better.
better then who
people of that time, yes, and if we lived in that time we would say exactly the same things as they did...
ThePhysics1234 3 months ago
@ThePhysics1234 - "people of that time, yes, and if we lived in that time we would say exactly the same things as they did..."
Quite true. But any fallible human from our culture could do better, and God, in order to be perfect, has to do *at least* as well as any human being could ever possibly do. You can't claim that God has timeless, perfect morality while He's saying things that an average grade-schooler would know are blatantly evil.
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
@wseerldnoeoedfry
"and God, in order to be perfect, has to do *at least* as well as any human being could ever possibly do"
lets assume that in 300 years everybody will be vegetarians , so if its perfect moral law that you dont eat meat, how can you expect that people from today or 3000 years ago to understand it or write it in their holy books?
ThePhysics1234 3 months ago
@ThePhysics1234 - "how can you expect that people from today or 3000 years ago to understand it or write it in their holy books?"
I don't. I just expect those future people (and God) not to tell us that eating meat is moral, and then tell us later on that it's not moral. Going from "stone gays to death" to "gays are OK" isn't just a moral improvement, it's *contradictory*. Merely *leaving out* the first would have been more moral.
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
@wseerldnoeoedfry
this only means that there is no fixed truth, there are only perceptions of the truth and that we should take truth statements or moral statements relative and aplicable to change
even jessu himselfs says to the pharesees that its not ok to divorce your wife even though the scriptures said otherwise, he said its because of their unrighteousness that this law was put in place.
we teach children electron has a trajectory, while in college you learn that it does not...
ThePhysics1234 3 months ago
@ThePhysics1234 - "this only means that there is no fixed truth"
To me, that's just an admission that you don't have any way to defend your ideas. It's the last refuge of a person who simply has no argument.
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wseerldnoeoedfry
"It's the last refuge of a person who simply has no argument."
Your last comment is a "no argument" since you did not argue nothing against mine
ThePhysics1234 3 months ago
@wseerldnoeoedfry
"He's saying things that an average grade-schooler would know are blatantly evil."
schoolgrader from what time?
if god knows or has perfect morality does that mean that he is going to say it to the cave men who will not understand it, what is the point of that
we learn in stages
ThePhysics1234 3 months ago
@ThePhysics1234 - "if god knows or has perfect morality does that mean that he is going to say it to the cave men who will not understand it, what is the point of that"
I'm fine with God not explaining morality in complete detail. I'm not OK with deliberately adding things that make it less moral. Again, why not just leave out the stoning gays to death?
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
@wseerldnoeoedfry
"I'm not OK with deliberately adding things that make it less moral."
WHY WOULD GOD OR MAN PUT THINGS ANYWHERE THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE LESS MORAL?????????? ANSWER THIS
LESS MORAL BY WHICH STANDARD???????
"Again, why not just leave out the stoning gays to death?"
BECAUSE IT WAS NORMAL 50 YEARS AGO AND LET ALONE 2000
ThePhysics1234 3 months ago
@ThePhysics1234 - "WHY WOULD GOD OR MAN PUT THINGS ANYWHERE THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE LESS MORAL?"
The real answer is that they didn't - the people didn't know better and God didn't write the Bible.
"BECAUSE IT WAS NORMAL 50 YEARS AGO AND LET ALONE 2000"
So because it was normal, God had to condone it? He couldn't possibly have just left all mention of homosexuality out of His book? What kind of supreme being are we talking about, one that bows to peer pressure?
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wseerldnoeoedfry
"He couldn't possibly have just left all mention of homosexuality out of His book?"
DUDE WE AS A SOCIETY ARE NOT AGREED ON HOMOSEXALITY !!!!! why the hell would he put out something taht was designated as wrong up untill 50 years ago
hey why didnt he say you can mary your sister? or you cant eat meat? why? are those things wrong? no they are not wrong for a man 500 years from now but it is for us, i mean what the fcuk...
ThePhysics1234 3 months ago
@wseerldnoeoedfry
god didnt write the bible but he could leave homosexuality out of it, well if he didnt wrote it then it wasn't he who should let anything out does it?
"So because it was normal, God had to condone it?"
im not saying god wrote the bible , and yes you heard me right, but you need to understand the cultural relativism before you say that something is immoral. On which standard are you making a judgment?
ThePhysics1234 3 months ago
@ThePhysics1234 - "god didnt write the bible" "you need to understand the cultural relativism"
That's a completely different subject than the one we were discussing.
wseerldnoeoedfry 3 months ago
@wseerldnoeoedfry
alright lets assume god did influence writing of the bible
and you say he should have leave out some parts
should he leave out that eating meat is wrong?