know so many christians who are so beautiful on the inside, and they attribute their amazing empathy to their god, and it makes me so sad. They believe their eternal selves will be in heaven…truth is, I don't know where our eternal selves go, or if there IS any eternal part of us. I just know that some of these people would be missed desperately if they died, and I wish they knew where their true impact was and how it could be spread even further.
You have to care about things that are greater than yourself, and you have to care more about those things than you care about the recognition that the world gives you simply because you're here. These things HAVE to matter to you, and if they don't, you're already dead.
The closest thing to immortality we really have is acting in ways that can benefit people and all living things who come after us. Belief in the supernatural / religious teachings only complicate seeing what these actions should be. Our best hope starts with acceptance of truth. We cannot prevent death but we can ease suffering and have rollick good time throughout life, learning awesome things and LOL'ing with friends.
I'm not sure if atheism offers truth. The truth can be anything you want to be true. The truth 1500 years ago was that the universe revolves around the Earth. But what atheism offers is an open mind. You have nothing to bias your observations. Your mind, in a figurative sense, is empty. But as you go on, it's not truth that you have but facts. Fact is, humans exist. Humans have existed for tens of thousands of years. Proof? Look at the fossil record.
What about the idea that there is nothing remarkable about my life. That if I didn't exist then mankind wouldn't be any worse off. Does this idea comport with truth, or not?
@elzoog I don't think anyone's mere existence makes a significant difference to humankind generally. Of course, there are certainly particulars of one's life and how one lives it that can make huge differences to humankind. But one's merely being here or not being here, no, I don't think that makes a significant difference.
A man goes to a doctor and the doctor examines him and says, "I'm sorry, you have a fatal and incurable disease. You're going to die within the month."
"
"Well, hell" the man says, "What good does that do me?"
I suppose a better diagnosis might be preferred, but the diagnosis is what it is -- if we have an incurable disease that's going to kill us in a month - then we do.
Well, we have one that tends to kill us in around 70 to 80 years. It's called "life."
@assym2006 And if God made the angels perfect and forced them to worship him then he would have been like Lucifer.
That is what Lucifer was offering at the Grand Council. prior the creation of this earth and mortal man.....to force all of us (spirit-children)to obey God to take away our agency so that he can bring us all back to God, willingly or not and to gain glory for himself.
@assym2006 I don't worship Harry Potter ..lol...but I don't have a problem if I had kids who love Harry Potter as long as they are encourage to read.
God gave all his creations angels included ,AGENCY...freedom to choose for themselves whether to follow God or not to follow him.
Lucifer was given agency as well but because of his pride he wanted the glory for himself and sought to upsurp God's rightful place and managed to convince 1/3 to follow him. continued...
Actually what each of us does with this life will have a profound effect on us on the otherside. That is one of the reasons why we are here...not to do as we please but to learn, experience...to gain knowledge both temporal and spiritual... and to prove ourselves worthy to return to our heavenly home.
You have the agency to believe what you believe is truth ... to live the life you desire. For God gave us agency the freedom to choose. Atheism denies Truth.
When you mentioned Christianity’s “model of consistency” in this video I thought of John 17:11. Where Jesus prays “that they may be one as we are one”. So Jesus prays, and the exact opposite of what he prays comes true. Christianity and divisions are synonymous. As you point out 9,000 Christian denominations. And most sadly, centuries of violence and persecutions. Thanks video and the truth seeking. You do a great job.
I found your points to be really strong and amzing, but is truth not different for every person? I also agree with your point of living for now, which is something I argue with with my fellow believers. I enjoy that you look from a personally point and you seem to debate logically and respectfully, however I disagree with the idea of schism between the Churches. I believe that from a outsiders view, one can look among many different churchs ways are draw lines. Of course the closer you get
Lol!!!! this is hilarious. I love the part when u break out the Whitney Houston. Its a shame people feel like they need someone or something to give them purpose in life. Your on point keep doing what your doing.
If my wife doesn't like the idea of having anal sex with me, is she an analphobe? Obviously not. Therefore, if I don't (or anyone of any background/belief/worldview) doesn't like the idea of homosexuality, are they a homophobe? Come on people, get over this.
@ProfMTH You match the perfect description. A lot of people say "you know liberals and/or atheists can be really smart." And it's true, they can. The problem is they are often times absent of any common sense. They trade in their common sense so they can think a certain way and say things like you just said. It's pretty difficult to talk to someone like that. Does it really need to be pointed out that being fearful of an idea and not liking an idea or two different things?
@IceKnight366 One may not like something *because* one is fearful of it. I'm sure that's not a proposition that you have trouble wrapping your mind around. In any case, 'homophobe' has come informally to mean something more than merely being afraid of homosexuals. That happens with words from time to time in living languages. But use 'heterosexist' if you prefer because your harping on this exceedingly minor thing is not serving you or your point--assuming you have one--very well at all.
@ProfMTH The issue isn't why someone doesn't like an idea (fear of an idea would certainly be in a vase minority), but that anytime someone says they don't like the idea of homosexuality, they are immediately classified as a homophobe. I'm sure you don't have a hard time wrapping your mind around this either. Sexist is just as juvenile as a phobia because in conveys a prejudice against a persons as soon as you simply disagree with their idea. “They have difficulty with common sense.”
@IceKnight366 "fear of an idea would certainly be in a vase minority"
Certainly? On what do you base that assertion?
I haven't a clear clue what you mean when you talk about someone not "lik[ing] the idea of homosexuality." If you simply mean that a person does not have a homosexual orientation and, therefore, doesn't find pleasant the idea of having sex with someone of the same gender, well, it seems unlikely that anyone would call such a person homophobic. But I suspect you mean...
(con't) @IceKnight366 ...something more and quite a bit different from that. So please tell me what you mean when you talk about someone not "lik[ing] the idea of homosexuality" and perhaps we can actually move this exchange in a meaningful direction rather than just having you whine about terms you don't like. Thanks.
@ProfMTH I can see you are starting to take this personally throwing out the personal attacks and all. I base that assertion off of the experiences of myself and of other testimonies. To meet someone who is truly fearful (not just someone who doesn't like it or who thinks it's gross) but that they are fearful of homosexuals is a fairly rare experience (maybe not to you, but for the average person who isn't homosexual). I'm kind of losing interest in this as you ask me to define common sense...
@ProfMTH ...sorts of things. I'm not sure what you are assuming the real issue is here. But I'm talking about the amount of people who call others homophobic simply because they don't like the idea or lifestyle of a homosexual (whether they have a homosexual orientation or not is irrelevant). If you think that is "unlikely" (I could easily ask how you base that assertion, you see?) you need to get out into the world more because it's common. I do have one question on a side note, I'm going...
@ProfMTH ...to assume that you believe that sexual orientation is predetermined during conception (i.e. born homosexual). How is it that you base this assertion? What source do you use to argue that this statement is true? And if I made an incorrect assumption, how is it that you came to have a homosexual orientation? Best Regards
@IceKnight366 "I can see you are starting to take this personally throwing out the personal attacks and all."
Personal attacks? What are you talking about? lol
"I'm kind of losing interest in this as you ask me to define common sense."
The spoken and unspoken assumptions in what you have to say are nothing short of amazing. No wonder you're losing interest. Your reaction indicates that your assumptions are rarely, if ever challenged.
(con't) @IceKnight366 ...that sexual orientation is predetermined during conception...."
Yet another assumption of yours. Why not just ask me whether I believe that? Too afraid your assumption might be challenged? I do *not* believe that sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual) is determined before birth. So you've spent one of your three comment boxes asking me to defend a position I do not hold and, even worse, you still haven't told me what you mean by not liking...
(con't) @IceKnight366 ...homosexuality. So you've complained about "personal attacks" that haven't come from me, you've failed to answer the question that I asked you, and you attributed a position to me that I do not hold and demanded that I defend it. And you have the balls to say that YOU are losing interest?! Here's some free advice: bring some order to your thinking, stop assuming so much, and learn how to engage in a rational discussion with other human beings.
One thing ive never gotten....is if people are gay how can they even attempt to date women? I know I would never be able to date a guy, since im straight, no matter how hard I tried to lie to myself. And sex, thats even farther down the line!
@AbusiveAntitheist The pressures created by expectations and desires to be "normal" can get one to do things one doesn't want to do and even things one shouldn't do. Moreover, there is the drive to experiment to be sure one is as one suspects one is. It is, in a word, complicated--complications that I suspect don't play out in the same way for heterosexuals (but, of course, they have other complications in life with which to deal).
I think I'll unfortunately have to label you as facile for using honesty about one's sexual orientation as an example of the benefits of the truth: for much of human history only unhappiness and even death could arise from being too free with the truth of one's sexual orientation.
I am sorry about that I just reread my comment and yours and realized that I wasn't thinking clearly. I am sorry for posting that rather stupid remark.
Do you mean to suggest that people are never bigoted for NON-legitimate reasons?
In fact the main motivation for "homophobia" arises from a quite well-known source of bigotry: "xenophobia."
Despite my general revulsion toward religion, on this issue I'll give religion the benefit of the doubt: the main motivating factor for bigotry toward homosexuality throughout history has probably been "good old" bigotry toward those who are different
What I meant was, in my experience, if you debate a homophobe, they cannot give a reason for their bigotry without boiling it down to the bible/kuran etc. I've never met an atheist homophobe.
Living consistent with your desires is not really living in the truth. Based on your argument a pedophile who embraces their perversion instead of resiting it is living "in truth". The truth is God created humans to be heterosexual and common sense confirms that. If your version of "truth" were adopted universally the human race would cease to exist.
You're an idiot, LogosApologia. A pedophile can't begin to get the help s/he needs unless s/he is honest about being a pedophile. Living in a way that comports with truth doesn't always or necessarily mean doing what one desires.
@ProfMTH - Exactly it doesn't mean acting on it. To act in truth is to treat your disease. Your video implies that you surrendering your life to a horrible sexual attraction disorder comports with truth. If you only mean to say that you are truly amoral then Ok, fair enough. But it is a disorder.
To assume he says that being a pedophile and to act on those urges is what we call a "straw man". No in their right mind would say that being a pedophile is ok.
I believe we have a different interpretation of the term "truth." The truth Atheism offers is accepting the reality that there is no evidence any god exists. The author of this video is discussing truth as in accepting his homosexuality. I don't doubt you believe "God created humans," but you can't provide any justified reason for your belief. You probably had this ingrained in you by your parents and society and it probably gives you comfort, but there is no evidence.
You are correct that people can be heterosexual, but fail to mention that people can also define themselves as bisexual or homosexual. There have been variations in how we express our sexuality throughout time and among various species. The author's "version of truth" has always existed, yet the human race continues moving forward. Can you provide evidence that homosexuality isn't universal. It even occurs in theocratic governments that may penalize the act with death. Thanks.
I don't mean to get into some big discussion, so I'll just say one thing. So many people get stuck up on things God did, as if everything is explainable. Some things in this world are alogical. That's a truth. Another truth is that people can so easily forget the love God displayed or the fact that we no longer stone sinners, but forgive them, pray for them, encourage them, don't judge them, and continue loving them as ourselves. People forget God no longer condones slavery/genocide of any sort.
Oops, I meant to say "people forget." I'm not sure how that happened, but you'll see that in Ex. 22:21, Ps. 72:4 Pr. 14:31, Zec. 7:10, Lk 4:18 for examples of God not condoning oppression (slavery or any form of relentlessly harming others). Many times He allowed oppression for a time period so draw people back to Him. For direct slavery see God's reaction (vs.17-18) to Gen. 21:10 or 1 Tim.1:8-10. However, also says we should be obedient and endure for His namesake(Eph.6:5-9 and Tit. 2:9).
In my early Christian days the question came up in a college Christian group (in retrospect, I'm surprised the question even came up) - "What would do if you find out Jesus was really dead, and never rose from the dead?" Several, including the leader, said they would kill themselves!! Not me, I thought to myself back then, I would just get on with my life and enjoy it.
reality is both shared and different for the individual. I could stub my toe and the pain would be vivid, and to me it would be real as real could be. But, to you it's just another experience if no real relevance to yourself. Say we've got 2 couples. Couple A & Couple B. You can tell couple B that couple A's spouse died and there's not much reaction, but tell couple B that his/her own spouse died and the reaction will be much greater and more emotional. Get me?
by now it should be plain to see that, perception is very responsible for building what we determine is reality. However, detailed in theological 'truth' the concept is quite different. Seeing is usually believing, but believing is not the same as knowing. In this case there is a difference between perceived reality and actual reality. God, and the pink invisible unicorn are one and the same. People think they're true, it's nice, it's comforting to believe in god, but it doesn't make it truth.
I appreciate you comments. However, my question was directed at ProfMTH. I'm eager to hear what he thinks about it. Thanks again for your comments though.
Excellent. I humbly suggest a better definition for 'truth' is simply, 'the way things actually are'. I didn't make it up. It's from a critical thinking class I took years ago. BTW - I enjoy your videos tremendously. However, what I like most about your channel is the respect you give everyone. Keep it up!!
excellent video. recently I've been arguing that gay marraige is ok b/c though gay sex is unnatural, it is normal & healthy - similar to using contraceptives in straight marraiges. I use the term "unnatural" only b/c the fundamental evolutionary purpose of sex is procreation, putting aside for the moment the emotional/psychological benefits any kind of sex might provide, which of course, it can and does, between consenting partners. what are your thoughts on the 'unnatural but normal' theory?
I have to ask because even I'm not totally convinved of my own "unnatural but normal" theory, since there may very well be genes for homosexuality, and I'd really like an intellectual gay man's objective opinion. If thats even possible on a topic that affects you quite substantially i assume. thanks.
"I use the term "unnatural" only b/c the fundamental evolutionary purpose of sex is procreation, putting aside for the moment the emotional/psychological benefits any kind of sex might provide...."
One question (among many): Do you then view sex between two naturally sterile heterosexuals to be unnatural?
"...what are your thoughts on the 'unnatural but normal' theory?"
With all due respect, not much. Clearly, procreation is not *the* fundamental evolutionary purpose of sex for...
...human beings. This is demonstrated by the fact, for example, that unlike other animals, the human sex drive is not in sync with or tied to our reproductive capacity. You're essentially articulating a version of the (mainly Catholic) natural law argument for determining what is and is not "natural sex," only you're dressing it up in evolutionary terms. It fails either way.
"you're essentially articulating a version of the (mainly catholic) natural law argument...only you're dressing it up in evolutionary terms"
-My argument is not derived by any kind of superstitious bs, it is derived by Richard Dawkins 'Selfish Gene' theory, which argues that our bodies are a tool, a vehicle for our genes to replicate via sexual reproduction. and I am anxious to be convinced otherwise.
btw - its an argument ive been using, not a theory. bad choice of words i guess.
"My argument is not derived by any kind of superstitious bs."
I didn't say you derived it from Catholic natural law theory. I said your argument is a version of it -- one that uses evolution rather than Thomistic metaphysics to reach the same incorrect conclusion.
"Do you view sex between two naturally sterile heterosexuals to be unnatural?" - excellent point. However, it seems to me that their sexual drive is a mutually exclusive trait from their sterility and does not drive them to sterility. whereas the sex drive of homosexuals, say, leads them to gay sex, and is thus not mutually exclusive.
"clearly, procreation is not 'the' fundamental evolutionary purpose for sex" - I would love to know what other purpose is comparably as important.
Me- "Do you view sex between two naturally sterile heterosexuals to be unnatural?"
Ngarbo00- "excellent point."
Actually, it's a question. i take it from what you wrote that you don't view sterile heterosexual sex as unnatural, but you do so despite the fact that it cannot fulfill what you've called "the fundamental evolutionary purpose of sex."
"it seems to me that their sexual drive is a mutually exclusive trait from their sterility"
"the human sex drive is not primarliy about procreation"
- i'm still inclined to disagree. Coupling undoubtedly has its evolutionary advantages. so does mere 'sex for pleasure' for a number of reasons. But ultimately, its not necesary, as demonstrated by other species that don't follow suit (though they may, and often do, engage in homosexual acts - an argument FOR 'natural' gay sex), and seem to manage just fine. these advantages seem to be incedental and secondary to procreation.
"But ultimately, its not necesary, as demonstrated by other species that don't follow suit...."
And what of the species that *do* couple, Ngarbo00? What of those that *do* have sex just for pleasure and bonding? It seems you're letting your conclusion drive your analysis here. That's not a sound way to approach matters. Moreover, you've yet to explain how sterile heterosexual sex is natural even though it cannot fulfill what you've called "the fundamental evolutionary purpose of sex."
-I already explained that the benefits are unquestionable but incidental.
"it seems you're letting your conclusion drive your analysis"
-I ALMOST conceded to this point until I remembered that I used to think it WAS 100% natural. which, by my own arguments here, it has dawned on me that it must be. funny how that work, huh?
"you've yet to explain how sterile heterosexual sex is natural..."
"you offered nothing more than an unargued asertion"
-This must be an assignment b/c I know I don't have to explain to you, sir, why the secondary benefits of sexual reproduction are just that - secondary. But for the record - sexual reproduction MUST have evolved first (then feelings of love, affection, etc..), for reasons of procreation, which would make procreation its fundamental purpose..
...Comfort, safety, recreational, social, etc. reasons for sex MUST have evolved as incidental benefits over time b/c the bioligical structures of sexual reproduction must be in place for them to have evolved the way they have, i.e., in association with sex.
"This must be an assignment b/c I know I don't have to explain to you, sir, why the secondary benefits of sexual reproduction are just that - secondary."
Look, you came here asking, "What are your thoughts on the 'unnatural but normal' theory?" I've given you my thoughts, i.e., it's little more than a dressed-up-with-evolutionary-talk version of the Catholic natural law argument that homosexuality is unnatural, it's laden with unspoken assumptions and question-begging, and so on. It...
...seems you weren't so much looking for my thoughts as for an opportunity to argue. No, you don't have to explain anything to me. Nor do I have to read any more of this gibberish. Have a nice life.
I must have made a mistake b/c my last comment was not suppose to be taken as sarcasm. I genuinly thought i was saying something you already knew and I meant it when I said 'sir'. my fault.
on the other hand, my comments have been reasonable and appropriate. and instead of addressing my last statement, which any reasonable person can see seems justified, you've decided to ignore the point, take offense and tell me off. interesting.
"you've decided to ignore the point, take offense and tell me off. interesting."
I took no offense. As to the other things: first, you're right that I'm ignoring your point because ultimately you don't have a sound one; second, I misread your comment as sarcastic. I apologize for misinterpreting what you wrote.
...'mutually exclusive' schpiel, but I realize that it only differentiated sterile hetero sex from gay sex in an abstract manner. it didn't really address the argument.
thank you very much for your time professor. I look forward to seeing the rest of your videos. cheers.
I don't like the term "Truth" as it implies without criticism or criticism should cease. It's hard to find a proper word for it - Facts themselves are pretty meaningless and don't tell you much.
It was interesting to hear that you dated women the first 20 years. Its none of our business of course, but certainly a great testimony to the fact that we can not choose whom we fall in love with!
e man i want help i want to know how you do when Everything goes to the shit, in what do you hold your self ?( i dont want to argue i just want an advise)
When everything about you turns to shit, walk away from the shit and stand up for yourself. Do something about it. Get a shower and wash the shit off.
ProfMyth,wat rant is that?Do u mean rant like Dawkins,Hitchens and in some respect Harris?Perhaps u can tell me wat atheism has contributed to science,education, human rights,free governments.Wat have u created in the last 2000 years that was not already done by christians or done in christian nations.U guys are Parasites living off christian morals and freedom.Would u express ur views so freely in Islamic Nations?of course not because cowardice runs thru ur veins.
Well, if there was any doubt about your lunacy, JiminyCricket, you've resolved it with this latest comment. Go get yourself some help. You need it. Have a good life.
What does atheism have to offer? How about peace of mind? I don't have to worry about a creepy omnipotent peeping-tom prying into my brain at any given point in the day, convicting of me thought crime, then condemning me to everlasting torture for it.
Peace of mind? What a lot of nonsense!Have you heard of Stalin, Mao,Pol Pot?I wonder how the 100 million murdered slept at night.Oh I forgot they are communists-not atheists?The question is wat has atheism done for the world? -Nothing!U r parasites on Chistian nations,u created no science,no hospitals,no charity institutes,no universities-nothing!U take over wat others have started and call it ur own.
Well, JiminyCricket1712, you've demonstrated one thing here, i.e., you're quite talented at composing and posting an assertion-laden rant. I suppose in some quarters that might be viewed as useful. Not here. But somewhere, no doubt.
Ok, so you got 3. How about Hitler? Professedly Catholic. The Crusades? The Inquisition? The battles over Israel and Palestine? Wiping out damned near every last native American? All the doing of Christians. Oh, and those atheist dictators you mentioned, weren't doing anything in the name of atheism, they just happened to be atheists. All of the shit perpetrated by the Inquisition, Crusades, and Hitler WAS done in the name of Christianity.
I'm done arguing with you wannabeebee. There's no point. You're on a level of ludicrousness that I couldn't even begin to hope in rescuing you from. Your mind is closed to criticism and suggestion so I might as well be arguing with a wall.
Wrong. Your problem seems to be you take on face value what you are told. Hitler and the Germans were threatend with extemination by the Zionist Jews around 1933. 10,000 Jews went to Germany in what was thought to be a call to arms against Hitler.
While we are on the same subject the same F#ckin Zionist were murdering British service men in Palastine after the war.
hitler believed in the christian god no question about it. you are just a troll who will say anything to try to make sense. and fail! you keep trolling the atheist videos with your forcing of your beliefs down our throats. you are no different than hitler if you belief in that shit. give up, you are a black dude from virgin islands no matter how ammount of pray will make you white
Oh, and Jiminy, I forgot to ask... what do those things you mentioned have to do with peace of mind? They're in the past you fool. Atheism gives me peace of mind and nothing you dredge up from the past will change that. Does my mention of Hitler or the Crusades or Inquisition suddenly take away the peace of mind you get from your beliefs?
Accept that not everyone thinks the same way you do and stop being a narcissist.
What the crap are you talking about? This makes no sense whatsoever. The Christian god Hitler prayed to is the same god you pray to. Period. Like it or lump it, that's the way it is.
Besides,I highly doubt the Nazi/Neo-Nazi party would welcome atheists. They are convinced that they are doing god's work which very often actually involves NOT accepting atheists or anyone else who disagrees with them.
They had the backing of the Catholic church. I've got to say, this is the first time I have ever seen the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy applied to god himself. In any case, you're convinced, I'm convinced; there's no point in arguing.
Correct, there is no point in arguing. God is a term. It isnt a description of a system of belief. Modern nazi's pray to a God that Hilter also gave hommage to. This God existed in the minds of humans long before the Catholic God came in to being.
Which part of 'done arguing with you' did you not understand? I have an open mind but this sort of discussion does not lend itself well to the comments section on youtube. Do we really want to clog up Profmth's video with irrelevant banter? You might but I don't.
I'm a little late in seeing this movie but your last two minutes could quite possibly be the most stunningly articulate and undeniable points you have ever made... which is of course saying a lot!
Oh, ProfMTH, you're such a humble guy. My comment was directed at Cafeeine. You're such a treat, I find it hard to believe that Mr. Reeves isn't already a subscriber. :)
Other than my grandmother, I only knew two other people who used that expression: my mother and a friend's mother. It still makes me laugh after all these years. ;-)
I'm a big fan of your videos, so please don't take this as anyting but a respecful critique,
But what the hell did any of that have to do with what atheism does or doesn't offer?
Again, with respect, you may as well have titled this video "why christians are often hipocritical and wrong on social issues."
Which isn't in and of its self bad, but again, the title of the video is "What does atheism offer? Truth." not: "What does atheism offer? not being religous."
I haven't finished presenting my case yet, xSpectatoronex. So I guess you'll just have to wait until I do to find out what the hell any of this has to do with what atheism has to offer. Paying attention and patience are good and useful things -- just some respectful and constructive criticism in return. Thanks.
"It seems axiomatic that truth is good" - does it?
That's a bit like saying "It seems axiomatic that God exists" in a debate on whether God exists or not. You simply state the thing you are meant to be proving, and you're done.
And how many atheists have the courage to follow 'truth' through to its logical conclusion, as Nietzsche did? 5% maybe. Now that's an atheist I respect.
"'It seems axiomatic that truth is good' - does it? That's a bit like saying 'It seems axiomatic that God exists' in a debate on whether God exists or not."
If it were all I said and I was finished, you'd have a point. However, it's not all I said and I'm not finished. So you have no point.
"And how many atheists have the courage to follow 'truth' through to its logical conclusion, as Nietzsche did?"
Nietzsche had the courage to realise that in the absence of a divine being (or some other metaphysical law or being), there is no objective or transcendental good and bad. He knew that most atheists are still in the thrall of Christian morality i.e. slave morality.
6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis. That is neither good nor bad - it's just an objective fact. Or it's a rather successful example of the will to power.
know so many christians who are so beautiful on the inside, and they attribute their amazing empathy to their god, and it makes me so sad. They believe their eternal selves will be in heaven…truth is, I don't know where our eternal selves go, or if there IS any eternal part of us. I just know that some of these people would be missed desperately if they died, and I wish they knew where their true impact was and how it could be spread even further.
h0pezbeth 1 week ago
You have to care about things that are greater than yourself, and you have to care more about those things than you care about the recognition that the world gives you simply because you're here. These things HAVE to matter to you, and if they don't, you're already dead.
h0pezbeth 1 week ago
The closest thing to immortality we really have is acting in ways that can benefit people and all living things who come after us. Belief in the supernatural / religious teachings only complicate seeing what these actions should be. Our best hope starts with acceptance of truth. We cannot prevent death but we can ease suffering and have rollick good time throughout life, learning awesome things and LOL'ing with friends.
h0pezbeth 1 week ago
"My religion is based on truth and non-violence. Truth is my God. Non-violence is the means of realising Him." - Gandhi
KayBeeEee1983 1 month ago
I'm not sure if atheism offers truth. The truth can be anything you want to be true. The truth 1500 years ago was that the universe revolves around the Earth. But what atheism offers is an open mind. You have nothing to bias your observations. Your mind, in a figurative sense, is empty. But as you go on, it's not truth that you have but facts. Fact is, humans exist. Humans have existed for tens of thousands of years. Proof? Look at the fossil record.
HimesInu 2 months ago
What about the idea that there is nothing remarkable about my life. That if I didn't exist then mankind wouldn't be any worse off. Does this idea comport with truth, or not?
elzoog 8 months ago
@elzoog I don't think anyone's mere existence makes a significant difference to humankind generally. Of course, there are certainly particulars of one's life and how one lives it that can make huge differences to humankind. But one's merely being here or not being here, no, I don't think that makes a significant difference.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
@elzoog Depends on how much you actualy do with your life.
MagnusThiHan 2 months ago
Thank you so much for being honest.
Prof keep up the excellent work..You truly are an inspiration!
Stevoukos 9 months ago
Brilliant!
shunyotube 9 months ago
@shunyotube Thanks.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
A man goes to a doctor and the doctor examines him and says, "I'm sorry, you have a fatal and incurable disease. You're going to die within the month."
"
"Well, hell" the man says, "What good does that do me?"
I suppose a better diagnosis might be preferred, but the diagnosis is what it is -- if we have an incurable disease that's going to kill us in a month - then we do.
Well, we have one that tends to kill us in around 70 to 80 years. It's called "life."
Time to accept the diagnosis.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Indeed.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@assym2006 And if God made the angels perfect and forced them to worship him then he would have been like Lucifer.
That is what Lucifer was offering at the Grand Council. prior the creation of this earth and mortal man.....to force all of us (spirit-children)to obey God to take away our agency so that he can bring us all back to God, willingly or not and to gain glory for himself.
oldgordo61 1 year ago
@assym2006 I don't worship Harry Potter ..lol...but I don't have a problem if I had kids who love Harry Potter as long as they are encourage to read.
God gave all his creations angels included ,AGENCY...freedom to choose for themselves whether to follow God or not to follow him.
Lucifer was given agency as well but because of his pride he wanted the glory for himself and sought to upsurp God's rightful place and managed to convince 1/3 to follow him. continued...
oldgordo61 1 year ago
@assym2006 So as the Devil (which btw atheists also claim doesn't exist..and that suits him just fine) would aptly put....
Eat, drink and be merry...for tommorow we may die. That is pretty much what most atheists are embracing which to me is the fairy tale.
oldgordo61 1 year ago
Actually what each of us does with this life will have a profound effect on us on the otherside. That is one of the reasons why we are here...not to do as we please but to learn, experience...to gain knowledge both temporal and spiritual... and to prove ourselves worthy to return to our heavenly home.
You have the agency to believe what you believe is truth ... to live the life you desire. For God gave us agency the freedom to choose. Atheism denies Truth.
oldgordo61 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oldgordo61 Can you provide evidence to support that claim?
esplin227 11 months ago
you look like kenneth branagh
DMHR100 1 year ago
Thank you. I stand amazed.
orkojr 1 year ago
@orkojr Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Smooth work sir. Keep kickin ass.
Horathgar42 1 year ago
@Horathgar42 Thanks a lot.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
When you mentioned Christianity’s “model of consistency” in this video I thought of John 17:11. Where Jesus prays “that they may be one as we are one”. So Jesus prays, and the exact opposite of what he prays comes true. Christianity and divisions are synonymous. As you point out 9,000 Christian denominations. And most sadly, centuries of violence and persecutions. Thanks video and the truth seeking. You do a great job.
dvkuth 1 year ago
@dvkuth Thanks very much.
Odd how God didn't answer Jesus' prayer, isn't it? I think there's a video in that. Thanks for the inspiration. :-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
LOL @ Blooming homosexuality! I bet that your awakening was an awesome time of discovery.
geewillie1986 1 year ago
@geewillie1986 It was pretty awesome. :-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
thanks for the lol's, man
thedayitriedtodie 1 year ago
@thedayitriedtodie You're welcome.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I found your points to be really strong and amzing, but is truth not different for every person? I also agree with your point of living for now, which is something I argue with with my fellow believers. I enjoy that you look from a personally point and you seem to debate logically and respectfully, however I disagree with the idea of schism between the Churches. I believe that from a outsiders view, one can look among many different churchs ways are draw lines. Of course the closer you get
audiedrdoom 1 year ago
Lol!!!! this is hilarious. I love the part when u break out the Whitney Houston. Its a shame people feel like they need someone or something to give them purpose in life. Your on point keep doing what your doing.
m0kn33marc 1 year ago
@m0kn33marc "I love the part when u break out the Whitney Houston."
;-) Thanks. And thanks for the comment and nice words. Most appreciated.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
If my wife doesn't like the idea of having anal sex with me, is she an analphobe? Obviously not. Therefore, if I don't (or anyone of any background/belief/worldview) doesn't like the idea of homosexuality, are they a homophobe? Come on people, get over this.
IceKnight366 1 year ago
@IceKnight366 "If my wife doesn't like the idea of having anal sex with me, is she an analphobe?"
She may be. One would need to know why she "doesn't like the idea of having anal sex."
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH You match the perfect description. A lot of people say "you know liberals and/or atheists can be really smart." And it's true, they can. The problem is they are often times absent of any common sense. They trade in their common sense so they can think a certain way and say things like you just said. It's pretty difficult to talk to someone like that. Does it really need to be pointed out that being fearful of an idea and not liking an idea or two different things?
IceKnight366 1 year ago
@IceKnight366 One may not like something *because* one is fearful of it. I'm sure that's not a proposition that you have trouble wrapping your mind around. In any case, 'homophobe' has come informally to mean something more than merely being afraid of homosexuals. That happens with words from time to time in living languages. But use 'heterosexist' if you prefer because your harping on this exceedingly minor thing is not serving you or your point--assuming you have one--very well at all.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH The issue isn't why someone doesn't like an idea (fear of an idea would certainly be in a vase minority), but that anytime someone says they don't like the idea of homosexuality, they are immediately classified as a homophobe. I'm sure you don't have a hard time wrapping your mind around this either. Sexist is just as juvenile as a phobia because in conveys a prejudice against a persons as soon as you simply disagree with their idea. “They have difficulty with common sense.”
IceKnight366 1 year ago
@IceKnight366 "fear of an idea would certainly be in a vase minority"
Certainly? On what do you base that assertion?
I haven't a clear clue what you mean when you talk about someone not "lik[ing] the idea of homosexuality." If you simply mean that a person does not have a homosexual orientation and, therefore, doesn't find pleasant the idea of having sex with someone of the same gender, well, it seems unlikely that anyone would call such a person homophobic. But I suspect you mean...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @IceKnight366 ...something more and quite a bit different from that. So please tell me what you mean when you talk about someone not "lik[ing] the idea of homosexuality" and perhaps we can actually move this exchange in a meaningful direction rather than just having you whine about terms you don't like. Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I can see you are starting to take this personally throwing out the personal attacks and all. I base that assertion off of the experiences of myself and of other testimonies. To meet someone who is truly fearful (not just someone who doesn't like it or who thinks it's gross) but that they are fearful of homosexuals is a fairly rare experience (maybe not to you, but for the average person who isn't homosexual). I'm kind of losing interest in this as you ask me to define common sense...
IceKnight366 1 year ago
@ProfMTH ...sorts of things. I'm not sure what you are assuming the real issue is here. But I'm talking about the amount of people who call others homophobic simply because they don't like the idea or lifestyle of a homosexual (whether they have a homosexual orientation or not is irrelevant). If you think that is "unlikely" (I could easily ask how you base that assertion, you see?) you need to get out into the world more because it's common. I do have one question on a side note, I'm going...
IceKnight366 1 year ago
@ProfMTH ...to assume that you believe that sexual orientation is predetermined during conception (i.e. born homosexual). How is it that you base this assertion? What source do you use to argue that this statement is true? And if I made an incorrect assumption, how is it that you came to have a homosexual orientation? Best Regards
IceKnight366 1 year ago
@IceKnight366 "I can see you are starting to take this personally throwing out the personal attacks and all."
Personal attacks? What are you talking about? lol
"I'm kind of losing interest in this as you ask me to define common sense."
The spoken and unspoken assumptions in what you have to say are nothing short of amazing. No wonder you're losing interest. Your reaction indicates that your assumptions are rarely, if ever challenged.
"I'm going to assume that you believe...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @IceKnight366 ...that sexual orientation is predetermined during conception...."
Yet another assumption of yours. Why not just ask me whether I believe that? Too afraid your assumption might be challenged? I do *not* believe that sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual) is determined before birth. So you've spent one of your three comment boxes asking me to defend a position I do not hold and, even worse, you still haven't told me what you mean by not liking...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @IceKnight366 ...homosexuality. So you've complained about "personal attacks" that haven't come from me, you've failed to answer the question that I asked you, and you attributed a position to me that I do not hold and demanded that I defend it. And you have the balls to say that YOU are losing interest?! Here's some free advice: bring some order to your thinking, stop assuming so much, and learn how to engage in a rational discussion with other human beings.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
One thing ive never gotten....is if people are gay how can they even attempt to date women? I know I would never be able to date a guy, since im straight, no matter how hard I tried to lie to myself. And sex, thats even farther down the line!
AbusiveAntitheist 1 year ago
@AbusiveAntitheist The pressures created by expectations and desires to be "normal" can get one to do things one doesn't want to do and even things one shouldn't do. Moreover, there is the drive to experiment to be sure one is as one suspects one is. It is, in a word, complicated--complications that I suspect don't play out in the same way for heterosexuals (but, of course, they have other complications in life with which to deal).
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I think I'll unfortunately have to label you as facile for using honesty about one's sexual orientation as an example of the benefits of the truth: for much of human history only unhappiness and even death could arise from being too free with the truth of one's sexual orientation.
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
"I think I'll unfortunately have to label you as facile...."
Somehow I am going to manage to get on with my life despite this.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...get on with my life...
Somehow I thought you might :)
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheGunslingr 2 years ago
Comment removed
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
I am sorry about that I just reread my comment and yours and realized that I wasn't thinking clearly. I am sorry for posting that rather stupid remark.
TheGunslingr 2 years ago
No prob.
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
Thanks mainly to the dictates of religion... There is no non-religious legitimate argument against homosexuality.
alexvegas 2 years ago
@alexvegas: That's a strange response to my post.
Do you mean to suggest that people are never bigoted for NON-legitimate reasons?
In fact the main motivation for "homophobia" arises from a quite well-known source of bigotry: "xenophobia."
Despite my general revulsion toward religion, on this issue I'll give religion the benefit of the doubt: the main motivating factor for bigotry toward homosexuality throughout history has probably been "good old" bigotry toward those who are different
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
What I meant was, in my experience, if you debate a homophobe, they cannot give a reason for their bigotry without boiling it down to the bible/kuran etc. I've never met an atheist homophobe.
alexvegas 2 years ago
That blooming flower was both hilarious and for some reason mildly disturbing...
;)
raythetse 2 years ago
LOL. As was my first sexual experience with another guy.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Living consistent with your desires is not really living in the truth. Based on your argument a pedophile who embraces their perversion instead of resiting it is living "in truth". The truth is God created humans to be heterosexual and common sense confirms that. If your version of "truth" were adopted universally the human race would cease to exist.
LogosApologia 2 years ago
You're an idiot, LogosApologia. A pedophile can't begin to get the help s/he needs unless s/he is honest about being a pedophile. Living in a way that comports with truth doesn't always or necessarily mean doing what one desires.
Now go back to your tornado watch.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
@ProfMTH - Exactly it doesn't mean acting on it. To act in truth is to treat your disease. Your video implies that you surrendering your life to a horrible sexual attraction disorder comports with truth. If you only mean to say that you are truly amoral then Ok, fair enough. But it is a disorder.
LogosApologia 2 years ago
As I said, LogosApologia, you're an idiot. The profound stupidity and bigotry you exhibit are the functional equivalent of a disease.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
To assume he says that being a pedophile and to act on those urges is what we call a "straw man". No in their right mind would say that being a pedophile is ok.
mdgraden 2 years ago
@LogosApologia 1/2
I believe we have a different interpretation of the term "truth." The truth Atheism offers is accepting the reality that there is no evidence any god exists. The author of this video is discussing truth as in accepting his homosexuality. I don't doubt you believe "God created humans," but you can't provide any justified reason for your belief. You probably had this ingrained in you by your parents and society and it probably gives you comfort, but there is no evidence.
futurepsycdoc 2 years ago
@LogosApologia 2/2
You are correct that people can be heterosexual, but fail to mention that people can also define themselves as bisexual or homosexual. There have been variations in how we express our sexuality throughout time and among various species. The author's "version of truth" has always existed, yet the human race continues moving forward. Can you provide evidence that homosexuality isn't universal. It even occurs in theocratic governments that may penalize the act with death. Thanks.
futurepsycdoc 2 years ago
@LogosApologia lol.. small brains are something to be ashamed of.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
Excellent - 5 stars!
ltlmsmetal 2 years ago
Thanks a lot.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I don't mean to get into some big discussion, so I'll just say one thing. So many people get stuck up on things God did, as if everything is explainable. Some things in this world are alogical. That's a truth. Another truth is that people can so easily forget the love God displayed or the fact that we no longer stone sinners, but forgive them, pray for them, encourage them, don't judge them, and continue loving them as ourselves. People forget God no longer condones slavery/genocide of any sort.
Mehrunissah93 2 years ago
"Please forget God no longer condones slavery/genocide of any sort."
When exactly did your god decide to stop condoning these things, Mehrunissah?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Oops, I meant to say "people forget." I'm not sure how that happened, but you'll see that in Ex. 22:21, Ps. 72:4 Pr. 14:31, Zec. 7:10, Lk 4:18 for examples of God not condoning oppression (slavery or any form of relentlessly harming others). Many times He allowed oppression for a time period so draw people back to Him. For direct slavery see God's reaction (vs.17-18) to Gen. 21:10 or 1 Tim.1:8-10. However, also says we should be obedient and endure for His namesake(Eph.6:5-9 and Tit. 2:9).
Mehrunissah93 2 years ago
you did say people forget
he just misquoted you accidentally
ali921812 2 years ago
thats what i would like to know..amazing video btw.
toolegit2quittttt 2 years ago
subbed.
toolegit2quittttt 2 years ago
@toolegit2quittttt
Thanks! Welcome to the channel.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
In my early Christian days the question came up in a college Christian group (in retrospect, I'm surprised the question even came up) - "What would do if you find out Jesus was really dead, and never rose from the dead?" Several, including the leader, said they would kill themselves!! Not me, I thought to myself back then, I would just get on with my life and enjoy it.
averagebear1 2 years ago
Hi!
How do you define 'reality' in your definition of truth? Specifically, is reality something different for all of us or is it the same? Thank you.
CharlieCornhole 2 years ago
reality is both shared and different for the individual. I could stub my toe and the pain would be vivid, and to me it would be real as real could be. But, to you it's just another experience if no real relevance to yourself. Say we've got 2 couples. Couple A & Couple B. You can tell couple B that couple A's spouse died and there's not much reaction, but tell couple B that his/her own spouse died and the reaction will be much greater and more emotional. Get me?
Xeletoph 2 years ago
by now it should be plain to see that, perception is very responsible for building what we determine is reality. However, detailed in theological 'truth' the concept is quite different. Seeing is usually believing, but believing is not the same as knowing. In this case there is a difference between perceived reality and actual reality. God, and the pink invisible unicorn are one and the same. People think they're true, it's nice, it's comforting to believe in god, but it doesn't make it truth.
Xeletoph 2 years ago
I appreciate you comments. However, my question was directed at ProfMTH. I'm eager to hear what he thinks about it. Thanks again for your comments though.
CharlieCornhole 2 years ago
What is the question, Charlie?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
How do you define 'reality' in your definition of truth? Specifically is reality something different for all of us or is it the same?
CharlieCornhole 2 years ago
Reality is the same for everyone. Reality is the way things are.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Excellent. I humbly suggest a better definition for 'truth' is simply, 'the way things actually are'. I didn't make it up. It's from a critical thinking class I took years ago. BTW - I enjoy your videos tremendously. However, what I like most about your channel is the respect you give everyone. Keep it up!!
CharlieCornhole 2 years ago
Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
A well-done vid; thanks for posting. I liked the Thomas Nagel saying at 5:52.
Bfdidc 2 years ago
Thanks a lot. Nagel is always a plus. ;-)
ProfMTH 2 years ago
A magnificent video, mate.
Thanks for reminding us why truth is better than myth.
MatthiasFarland 2 years ago
You're welcome. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
excellent video. recently I've been arguing that gay marraige is ok b/c though gay sex is unnatural, it is normal & healthy - similar to using contraceptives in straight marraiges. I use the term "unnatural" only b/c the fundamental evolutionary purpose of sex is procreation, putting aside for the moment the emotional/psychological benefits any kind of sex might provide, which of course, it can and does, between consenting partners. what are your thoughts on the 'unnatural but normal' theory?
ngarbo00 2 years ago
I have to ask because even I'm not totally convinved of my own "unnatural but normal" theory, since there may very well be genes for homosexuality, and I'd really like an intellectual gay man's objective opinion. If thats even possible on a topic that affects you quite substantially i assume. thanks.
ngarbo00 2 years ago
"I use the term "unnatural" only b/c the fundamental evolutionary purpose of sex is procreation, putting aside for the moment the emotional/psychological benefits any kind of sex might provide...."
One question (among many): Do you then view sex between two naturally sterile heterosexuals to be unnatural?
"...what are your thoughts on the 'unnatural but normal' theory?"
With all due respect, not much. Clearly, procreation is not *the* fundamental evolutionary purpose of sex for...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...human beings. This is demonstrated by the fact, for example, that unlike other animals, the human sex drive is not in sync with or tied to our reproductive capacity. You're essentially articulating a version of the (mainly Catholic) natural law argument for determining what is and is not "natural sex," only you're dressing it up in evolutionary terms. It fails either way.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"you're essentially articulating a version of the (mainly catholic) natural law argument...only you're dressing it up in evolutionary terms"
-My argument is not derived by any kind of superstitious bs, it is derived by Richard Dawkins 'Selfish Gene' theory, which argues that our bodies are a tool, a vehicle for our genes to replicate via sexual reproduction. and I am anxious to be convinced otherwise.
btw - its an argument ive been using, not a theory. bad choice of words i guess.
ngarbo00 2 years ago
"My argument is not derived by any kind of superstitious bs."
I didn't say you derived it from Catholic natural law theory. I said your argument is a version of it -- one that uses evolution rather than Thomistic metaphysics to reach the same incorrect conclusion.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"Do you view sex between two naturally sterile heterosexuals to be unnatural?" - excellent point. However, it seems to me that their sexual drive is a mutually exclusive trait from their sterility and does not drive them to sterility. whereas the sex drive of homosexuals, say, leads them to gay sex, and is thus not mutually exclusive.
"clearly, procreation is not 'the' fundamental evolutionary purpose for sex" - I would love to know what other purpose is comparably as important.
ngarbo00 2 years ago
Me- "Do you view sex between two naturally sterile heterosexuals to be unnatural?"
Ngarbo00- "excellent point."
Actually, it's a question. i take it from what you wrote that you don't view sterile heterosexual sex as unnatural, but you do so despite the fact that it cannot fulfill what you've called "the fundamental evolutionary purpose of sex."
"it seems to me that their sexual drive is a mutually exclusive trait from their sterility"
Exactly the point. The human sex drive...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...is not primarily about procreation.
"I would love to know what other purpose is comparably as important."
Think of the evolutionary advantages of coupling. That should help you figure it out.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"the human sex drive is not primarliy about procreation"
- i'm still inclined to disagree. Coupling undoubtedly has its evolutionary advantages. so does mere 'sex for pleasure' for a number of reasons. But ultimately, its not necesary, as demonstrated by other species that don't follow suit (though they may, and often do, engage in homosexual acts - an argument FOR 'natural' gay sex), and seem to manage just fine. these advantages seem to be incedental and secondary to procreation.
ngarbo00 2 years ago
"But ultimately, its not necesary, as demonstrated by other species that don't follow suit...."
And what of the species that *do* couple, Ngarbo00? What of those that *do* have sex just for pleasure and bonding? It seems you're letting your conclusion drive your analysis here. That's not a sound way to approach matters. Moreover, you've yet to explain how sterile heterosexual sex is natural even though it cannot fulfill what you've called "the fundamental evolutionary purpose of sex."
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"and what of the species that *do* couple"
-I already explained that the benefits are unquestionable but incidental.
"it seems you're letting your conclusion drive your analysis"
-I ALMOST conceded to this point until I remembered that I used to think it WAS 100% natural. which, by my own arguments here, it has dawned on me that it must be. funny how that work, huh?
"you've yet to explain how sterile heterosexual sex is natural..."
- actually, I thought I had with the...
ngarbo00 2 years ago
"I already explained that the benefits are unquestionable but incidental."
Actually, you offered nothing more than an unargued assertion to that effect. I would encourage you to delve into it a bit more.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"you offered nothing more than an unargued asertion"
-This must be an assignment b/c I know I don't have to explain to you, sir, why the secondary benefits of sexual reproduction are just that - secondary. But for the record - sexual reproduction MUST have evolved first (then feelings of love, affection, etc..), for reasons of procreation, which would make procreation its fundamental purpose..
ngarbo00 2 years ago
...Comfort, safety, recreational, social, etc. reasons for sex MUST have evolved as incidental benefits over time b/c the bioligical structures of sexual reproduction must be in place for them to have evolved the way they have, i.e., in association with sex.
ngarbo00 2 years ago
"This must be an assignment b/c I know I don't have to explain to you, sir, why the secondary benefits of sexual reproduction are just that - secondary."
Look, you came here asking, "What are your thoughts on the 'unnatural but normal' theory?" I've given you my thoughts, i.e., it's little more than a dressed-up-with-evolutionary-talk version of the Catholic natural law argument that homosexuality is unnatural, it's laden with unspoken assumptions and question-begging, and so on. It...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...seems you weren't so much looking for my thoughts as for an opportunity to argue. No, you don't have to explain anything to me. Nor do I have to read any more of this gibberish. Have a nice life.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I must have made a mistake b/c my last comment was not suppose to be taken as sarcasm. I genuinly thought i was saying something you already knew and I meant it when I said 'sir'. my fault.
on the other hand, my comments have been reasonable and appropriate. and instead of addressing my last statement, which any reasonable person can see seems justified, you've decided to ignore the point, take offense and tell me off. interesting.
ngarbo00 2 years ago
"you've decided to ignore the point, take offense and tell me off. interesting."
I took no offense. As to the other things: first, you're right that I'm ignoring your point because ultimately you don't have a sound one; second, I misread your comment as sarcastic. I apologize for misinterpreting what you wrote.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...'mutually exclusive' schpiel, but I realize that it only differentiated sterile hetero sex from gay sex in an abstract manner. it didn't really address the argument.
thank you very much for your time professor. I look forward to seeing the rest of your videos. cheers.
ngarbo00 2 years ago
You're welcome.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I don't like the term "Truth" as it implies without criticism or criticism should cease. It's hard to find a proper word for it - Facts themselves are pretty meaningless and don't tell you much.
Scotracer 2 years ago
God is alive and well!
SummerSunshine1988 2 years ago
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, SummerSunshine.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Another classic!
It was interesting to hear that you dated women the first 20 years. Its none of our business of course, but certainly a great testimony to the fact that we can not choose whom we fall in love with!
RobotzAreAwesome 3 years ago
e man i want help i want to know how you do when Everything goes to the shit, in what do you hold your self ?( i dont want to argue i just want an advise)
orfe1110 3 years ago
I don't understand the question.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
orfe1110
When everything about you turns to shit, walk away from the shit and stand up for yourself. Do something about it. Get a shower and wash the shit off.
You are the only one who can do this.
draagon66 3 years ago
At 3:50, lower right hand corner, is that FantasticBabblings by any chance?
rasmus90 3 years ago
No, it's not.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Love this video. Thats all I have to say.
NightwishDreamer 3 years ago
Thanks. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"Hitler. I doubt if his belief was of a catholic nature.I think he believed in another God other than that strain of religion.
---
You still dont get it do you?
Hitler did not beleive in the christian God."
Oh yeah he did. "I doubt" and "I believe" are GREAT arguments. Please, do read some history books, or if you're too lazy, look it up on wikipedia.
Nicx950 3 years ago
ProfMyth,wat rant is that?Do u mean rant like Dawkins,Hitchens and in some respect Harris?Perhaps u can tell me wat atheism has contributed to science,education, human rights,free governments.Wat have u created in the last 2000 years that was not already done by christians or done in christian nations.U guys are Parasites living off christian morals and freedom.Would u express ur views so freely in Islamic Nations?of course not because cowardice runs thru ur veins.
JiminyCricket1712 3 years ago
Well, if there was any doubt about your lunacy, JiminyCricket, you've resolved it with this latest comment. Go get yourself some help. You need it. Have a good life.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
What does atheism have to offer? How about peace of mind? I don't have to worry about a creepy omnipotent peeping-tom prying into my brain at any given point in the day, convicting of me thought crime, then condemning me to everlasting torture for it.
Bobbiethejean 3 years ago
Peace of mind? What a lot of nonsense!Have you heard of Stalin, Mao,Pol Pot?I wonder how the 100 million murdered slept at night.Oh I forgot they are communists-not atheists?The question is wat has atheism done for the world? -Nothing!U r parasites on Chistian nations,u created no science,no hospitals,no charity institutes,no universities-nothing!U take over wat others have started and call it ur own.
JiminyCricket1712 3 years ago
Well, JiminyCricket1712, you've demonstrated one thing here, i.e., you're quite talented at composing and posting an assertion-laden rant. I suppose in some quarters that might be viewed as useful. Not here. But somewhere, no doubt.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Ok, so you got 3. How about Hitler? Professedly Catholic. The Crusades? The Inquisition? The battles over Israel and Palestine? Wiping out damned near every last native American? All the doing of Christians. Oh, and those atheist dictators you mentioned, weren't doing anything in the name of atheism, they just happened to be atheists. All of the shit perpetrated by the Inquisition, Crusades, and Hitler WAS done in the name of Christianity.
Bobbiethejean 3 years ago
Hitler. I doubt if his belief was of a catholic nature.I think he believed in another God other than that strain of religion.
Crusades? Crusades was an exscuse to gain wealth and lands. Yes it used religion as an exscuse.
Israel and palestine? More of a gain in land.
Again using religion as an exscuse. Native Americans?
Again to gain land.
wannabeebee 3 years ago
I'm done arguing with you wannabeebee. There's no point. You're on a level of ludicrousness that I couldn't even begin to hope in rescuing you from. Your mind is closed to criticism and suggestion so I might as well be arguing with a wall.
Bobbiethejean 3 years ago
Wrong. Your problem seems to be you take on face value what you are told. Hitler and the Germans were threatend with extemination by the Zionist Jews around 1933. 10,000 Jews went to Germany in what was thought to be a call to arms against Hitler.
While we are on the same subject the same F#ckin Zionist were murdering British service men in Palastine after the war.
wannabeebee 3 years ago
So just because you cant get your head around things that is your problem.
Rescue me from what exactly?
Ah you want me to become an atheist?
I have been sh#t on by atheists and people in religion. All ex soldiers go throught that process.
wannabeebee 3 years ago
ludicrousness?
The whole f#ckin man made world was built from such things. If you are an atheist then good luck. Just dont be telling people they should be.
wannabeebee 3 years ago
hitler believed in the christian god no question about it. you are just a troll who will say anything to try to make sense. and fail! you keep trolling the atheist videos with your forcing of your beliefs down our throats. you are no different than hitler if you belief in that shit. give up, you are a black dude from virgin islands no matter how ammount of pray will make you white
mazdaplz 3 years ago
Oh, and Jiminy, I forgot to ask... what do those things you mentioned have to do with peace of mind? They're in the past you fool. Atheism gives me peace of mind and nothing you dredge up from the past will change that. Does my mention of Hitler or the Crusades or Inquisition suddenly take away the peace of mind you get from your beliefs?
Accept that not everyone thinks the same way you do and stop being a narcissist.
Bobbiethejean 3 years ago
Yep. But the neo nazis from Alabama pray to their God. The same God that Wagner wrote music around. The same God that HITLER
viewed as God.
That isnt my God but I dont see atheists attending the nazi rallies and disputing their God.
If you feel so strongly go and argue with a nazi about their beleif.
I am sure they would welcome you.
wannabeebee 3 years ago
Wannabeebee:
What the crap are you talking about? This makes no sense whatsoever. The Christian god Hitler prayed to is the same god you pray to. Period. Like it or lump it, that's the way it is.
Besides,I highly doubt the Nazi/Neo-Nazi party would welcome atheists. They are convinced that they are doing god's work which very often actually involves NOT accepting atheists or anyone else who disagrees with them.
Bobbiethejean 3 years ago
Nope. The nazi God is a different God than the christian God. You see this is where the confusion comes in.
This is something I have done quite a bit of research on.
Exactly my point. If an atheist want an argument with people who believe in a God then go ahead and argue at a nazi rally.
Their God isnt my God by the way.
wannabeebee 3 years ago
Wanna:
They had the backing of the Catholic church. I've got to say, this is the first time I have ever seen the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy applied to god himself. In any case, you're convinced, I'm convinced; there's no point in arguing.
Bobbiethejean 3 years ago
Correct, there is no point in arguing. God is a term. It isnt a description of a system of belief. Modern nazi's pray to a God that Hilter also gave hommage to. This God existed in the minds of humans long before the Catholic God came in to being.
Did the catholic church back Hitler?
Define who the catholic church was at that time?
wannabeebee 3 years ago
The catholic church had no choice but to back Hitler. Doesnt mean to say that Hitler believed in their God. I dont think he did.
wannabeebee 3 years ago
You still dont get it do you?
Hitler did not beleive in the christian God.
His God came from pre christian religion.
Open your mind.
God is merely a word. The christian God wasnt known by the word God in the early days or even now by speakers of the same language that Jesus spoke.
Christian Arabs call their god Allah.
So do the muslims.
wannabeebee 3 years ago
Wanna:
Which part of 'done arguing with you' did you not understand? I have an open mind but this sort of discussion does not lend itself well to the comments section on youtube. Do we really want to clog up Profmth's video with irrelevant banter? You might but I don't.
Bobbiethejean 3 years ago
Fine by me. Be a happy atheist.
And refrain from knocking peoples belief with out first doing some study.
Go with God and peace bro.
wannabeebee 3 years ago
I'm a little late in seeing this movie but your last two minutes could quite possibly be the most stunningly articulate and undeniable points you have ever made... which is of course saying a lot!
CharlieDevilDog 3 years ago
Thanks *very* much, Charlie.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
You are a breath of fresh air!! Keep up the phenomenal videos!!
daisyannmae 3 years ago
Thanks, Daisyannmae.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Prof, well done!
stumbled on you through bberchin. Good stuff. On to part 2!
Cafeeine 3 years ago
Thanks very much, Cafeeine. I'm glad you got here. :-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
You are in for a real treat!
AstoundedAtheist 3 years ago
From Cafeeine, you mean? Or did you hear that Keanu Reeves wants to be one of my suscribers? ;-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Oh, ProfMTH, you're such a humble guy. My comment was directed at Cafeeine. You're such a treat, I find it hard to believe that Mr. Reeves isn't already a subscriber. :)
AstoundedAtheist 3 years ago
Well, alas to say, he isn't. But I soldier on. lol
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Ass over teacups lol I'm using that now.
macman13 3 years ago
"Ass over teacups lol I'm using that now."
Other than my grandmother, I only knew two other people who used that expression: my mother and a friend's mother. It still makes me laugh after all these years. ;-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
*stands and applauds*
115305668 3 years ago
Thanks very much, 115405668.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Nearly missed this, excellent as usual.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Thanks very much, Bitbutter.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I'm a big fan of your videos, so please don't take this as anyting but a respecful critique,
But what the hell did any of that have to do with what atheism does or doesn't offer?
Again, with respect, you may as well have titled this video "why christians are often hipocritical and wrong on social issues."
Which isn't in and of its self bad, but again, the title of the video is "What does atheism offer? Truth." not: "What does atheism offer? not being religous."
xSpectatoronex 3 years ago
I haven't finished presenting my case yet, xSpectatoronex. So I guess you'll just have to wait until I do to find out what the hell any of this has to do with what atheism has to offer. Paying attention and patience are good and useful things -- just some respectful and constructive criticism in return. Thanks.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
fair enough, I look forward to it.
xSpectatoronex 3 years ago
"It seems axiomatic that truth is good" - does it?
That's a bit like saying "It seems axiomatic that God exists" in a debate on whether God exists or not. You simply state the thing you are meant to be proving, and you're done.
And how many atheists have the courage to follow 'truth' through to its logical conclusion, as Nietzsche did? 5% maybe. Now that's an atheist I respect.
bushfingers 3 years ago
"'It seems axiomatic that truth is good' - does it? That's a bit like saying 'It seems axiomatic that God exists' in a debate on whether God exists or not."
If it were all I said and I was finished, you'd have a point. However, it's not all I said and I'm not finished. So you have no point.
"And how many atheists have the courage to follow 'truth' through to its logical conclusion, as Nietzsche did?"
Meaning?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Nietzsche had the courage to realise that in the absence of a divine being (or some other metaphysical law or being), there is no objective or transcendental good and bad. He knew that most atheists are still in the thrall of Christian morality i.e. slave morality.
6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis. That is neither good nor bad - it's just an objective fact. Or it's a rather successful example of the will to power.
bushfingers 3 years ago