All have sinned and greatly offended the Holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then Hell. thats not Gods will. God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ and suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His lifes blood now He can legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your eternal salvation.
You're not being called intolerant because you think you're right. You're being called intolerant because you're being an unreasonable, insufferable douche with respect to the private beliefs and practices of others.
Christians bring alot of this ire down on themselves.
You have failed your own standard. You claim the reason why we are called intolerant is" because you're being an unreasonable, insufferable douche with respect to the private beliefs and practices of others."
How can it be the private beliefs and practices of others when you just told us?
Christians have a long history of crying oppression while they actively suppress rival belief systems. It is something they have become even more wildly aggressive about recently.
They have no respect for others, yet demand full reference of their deity from everyone. It's the worst kind of hypocrisy.
Sure, sure...in some ways, maybe both people will end up falling under the heading "intolerant". But riddle me this: will both parties consider the others' souls to be damned if they don't get on board with the sacrifice and resurrection of their deity? Will a non-believer ever harbor beliefs about the believer that extend beyond known natural boundaries?
This was one of the more nonsensical nonanswers to such a question I've ever heard. I've never heard someone say someone is intolerant just because they think they're right. Thats ridiculous. The intolerance comes from thinking that you're right and claiming that it makes you a morally superior person, and that people who are wrong are evil. Especially when you have nothing more to go on, or even less, to show that you're right and others are wrong aside from your own belief's scriptures.
@TheEpisteme Lol you're so off. If intolerance stems from claiming to be a 'morally superior person' as you state, then I would be quick to point out that genuine Christians believe they are sinners and thus morally superior to nobody. To the contrary, by your logic, it would be easy to assume that the other other person holds the position that they are morally superior by default just because they don't label themselves sinners. And then it necessarily follows that they're intolerant.
@M3PanoS Of course Christians believe they are sinners, but they also believe that their moral system is superior to any other. Even so, that is not why I see many Christians as intolerant. I see Christians as intolerant because of the tendency to vilify groups such as gays and other religious groups outside Christianity.
@JasonBensleyDrain Of course Christians believe they have a valid moral system, otherwise they wouldn't be Christian... -_- You think your moral system is correct also.
However, this isn't the issue in contention; rather, the issue is about whether the moral system has a legitimate foundation. The Christian religion has such a foundation and is the ONLY religion with such a foundation. All other religions (along with humanism) fail.
No, I don't believe in any objective morality. This is not saying that we should just let people do what they want or that if something is right for me it isn't necessarily right for somebody else. I believe we should base morality off how whichever action we are talking about affects humanity and society as a whole.
And what is the basis of Christian morality? God doesn't seem very moral to me...
@JasonBensleyDrain Your first sentence is self-defeating -you say you don't believe in objective morality, yet if I asked you you'd probably reply that your statement is objectively true or you'd like it to be.
Every sane person agrees that we should treat each other as best we can -like I already pointed out though, that is NOT the issue in contention. The issue is rather why this is so. If I was born BC, I would say God, now since I know who God is, I say Jesus.
@JasonBensleyDrain Yea, you're right -they are different. Having said that, I'm sure you believe in objective morality...so what's the problem again? Oh yea, that damn standard.
No, I don't believe there is any transcendent form of morality. Since I am an atheist I don't believe in evil or good or any supernatural forces of the sort. I believe that we all await the same fate. Hitler is going to end up the same as Gandhi. Morality has been created by humans, I think this is a good thing. But it is ever changing.
@M3PanoS To give you an example, think of art. There are many things that we all as humans agree qualify as art. Our "standard" in this case. However, there are people who will contend whether or not a certain piece is art or not. In morality there are situations such as these. Is it morally wrong for me to smoke weed or do drugs? is it morally wrong for me to get upset if I am justified, or should I deal with the situation in a calmer way. These are not so clear cut as murder or rape.
@JasonBensleyDrain You keep talking particulars which I agree are debatable. I've tried to tell you over and over that this is not the issue of contention. Rather the issue is why we even talk about these things. The very fact that people have differing opinions on moral questions means they believe they are closer to the standard.
We're just going in circles -I ask about a foundation for morality and you always talk about moral hypotheticals.
@M3PanoS I've already told you what I believe should be the foundation for morality. Setting up a moral system based on what benefits humanity as a whole.
And yeah, people do believe they are closer to the moral standard if they have differing opinions, what is your point there?
@JasonBensleyDrain Humanism? Who decides what's best? How can you get other people to agree? When someone does something that is not moral within your framework where do you get off penalizing them? The logical outworking of this philosophy just descends into a survival of the fittest type of deal...
My point is that because each person believes that he is closer to a moral standard than another that he also believes that there is an ultimate one to be strived for.
@JasonBensleyDrain Under what authority do you penalize someone? How do you decide if that action is not more detrimental? Who defines what's detrimental? Your philosophy descends into a subjective, meaningless cluster-f*ck, sorry I can't say it any other way. Whatever answers you give to these questions, I'll just question those also -it will NEVER end.
On my worldview, it ENDS on a transcendent authority which we call God. Does God exist? I believe He came into the world and became man.
@JasonBensleyDrain You agree with moral compulsion which is a good thing, but I have to press this issue.
Unless that moral standard is universal and binding, morality doesn't exist, right? Give me the standard. I have given you mine, and I have reason to believe that it is real because of the Resurrection. What do you have to offer?
Well if it isn't then I guess not the way you're defining it. I don't really understand why you're insisting the standard must be transcendent and absolute. But I guess we're at an impasse there. And I have already given you my foundation for morality. Also, I must counter a bit here. I don't know if you're familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma, but if not it is basically this:
@JasonBensleyDrain Because if the standard isn't transcendent or absolute then it's not a standard at all. In order for something to be a standard, it has to be unchanging to the shifting sands of time -that's the whole point.
No you haven't given a foundation because you haven't shown COMPULSION.
And on the Euthyphro dilemma, here you go: watch?v=KE862nKWNTk&feature=channel_video_title
"Is something moral because it is commanded by God, or is commanded by God because it is moral"
The problem for you is this, in the first instance, there is a higher standard than God even, that transcends even him. In the second case, the problem is that morality is arbitrary. God could command rape and murder (which he in fact does) and it would be moral.
I think I'm right because all of the scientific evidence supports my view(pick whatever topic you like). You think you're right because your magic book told you so.
@BLJazzman What scientific evidence? and scientific evidence for what? You have "scientific evidence" that the Bible is not true? huh? You mean, for example that when God ordained a seven day week, that there's "scientific evidence" that there is not a seven day week??
@KingJamesBible You've got the burden of proof backwards. If you want me to believe that what the bible says is true, you need to present evidence for that. I've not seen any, but I'm open to whatever you have to offer. I believe evolution occurred because of the overwhelming evidence of it. I believe the Earth revolves around the sun because of the evidence of cosmology. Show me why I should believe the bible. BTW, congrats on choosing the KJB, much better writing in there than other versions.
Greg Koukl is an expert BS artist, and if Xtianity thinks they need to stoop this low to get their message across, then they really are on their last legs as a religion.
@wretcherwretch : IMO, tolerance means that you accept that other people have a different mindset, a different lifestyle, a different view on religion, a different view on politics or just a different look from yours even if this offends you or someone else. What bothers me about the word "tolerance" is that it's most commonly used (especially by liberals) to mask their own intolerance towards those they disagree with. They accuse other of being intolerant and use that accusation to silence them
I can agree on the definition you said but disagree on the people applying it. I could point out that people saying deliberately intolerant things often hide behind the "we're being told to not express our views!" line as a way of avoiding taking responsibility for actions. I'm not one to favor parties, but the intolerance of some conservatives has dominated the recent news, and rightfully so.
@wretch : Both liberals and neocons tend to be very ignorant, very indoctrinated, very narrowminded and very intolerant. Neocons just tend to be more ignorant and liberals tend to be more intolerant. Overall, however, neither side is better than the other and both are just slaves of corporate interests anyway. On real issues (Jews and Zionism, Iran, tax cuts for the rich, immigration, globalist capitalism, ...) no dissent is allowed and you're labeled an extremist or ridiculed by the media.
@zooooooperdooooooper hey look its an 1nternets tr0ll! Do you live under a bridge or in a cave? Why would you search for videos you despise and leave hateful comments? What could you possibly achieve by trolling on these videos... Your not changing anyones opinion, your wasting your time, and your making yourself look stupid...
@ajl36117 : Many people just happen to get emotional when they encounter people who use fairy tales and imaginary friends to mask their ignorance and prejudice and pretend that have ANY understanding of the world. I do not encourage people to use offensive language when addressing Christians and I have similar complaints about people of other faiths and atheists alike, however I do understand that some people are just so frustrated bout all this they result to using offensive language.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Doesn't mean you search for videos and leave hate comments.... Whats the point? I think anyone can agree, there is none. Be an atheist, i'm not gonna stop you, but seriously. Hate mail?
@ajl36117 : Many of these people have been treated in a hateful and discriminatory manner by Christian nutjobs for most of their lives so I guess this is what they're used to when it involves dealing with Christians. Your religion breads ignorance and prejudice...
@4thcoming : I can assure you I'm not this ZZ guy you mention ;-)
No, I haven't read anything by Kookl. Based on this interview and his videos on YouTube, I see no reason why I should care to read anything he wrote. He seems no less ignorant than Lee Strobel and other apologists of their ilk.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker ZZ is a female and I said your comments are similar to hers. This is what
Thomas Woodward talked about in his book Darwin Strikes Back and that is Darwinists and atheists not doing their homework on their opponents or on ID. I think I sent you a pm with 3 sections from Woodwards book on a few days ago. I showed Greg's book to a professor in my college and he said that Greg displays a vast knowledge of critical thinking skills and knows about contradictions and logic.
@4thcoming : Just because someone is a professor, that doesn't mean he has a clue. Here in Europe all universities have pretty high standards but in the US pretty much any moron can start his own university. As a consequence, the difference between Ivy League universities like Harvard or Yale and your average Christian diploma mill (where charlatans like Kent Hovint get their titles) couldn't be greater.
I already mentioned pretty strong arguments against ID in previous communication with you.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker I go to a secular college. Also may Universities were founded by Christians and bases on Christian principles. "How many books on our side - the ID side - have you read?" I asked, adding, "I would assume, of course, that you've read Darwin's Black Box, Our most important book?" cont...
@OutOfTheBoxThinker His answer was short and truthful, "I haven't really read any books on the topic. I read a few essay's." In a way, I was not surprised by his answer, but I was still shocked. "How unscholarly" I
thought to myself, "for a college president to write a vehement, wholesale denunciation of ID without having done any serious homework on the topic." -Thomas Woodward in Darwin Strikes Back.
@4thc : The evidence is overwhelming in favor of evolution and the arguments for ID are based solely on logical fallacies. I addressed this before. So why doesn't this convince you or any other fundamentalist Christians you say?
Fundamentalist Christians seem to live in their own little fantasy world where logic is shoved aside and replaced by emotional arguments. Craig and Strobel are masters in this sort of emotional rhetoric and have attacted quite an audience, but their logic is laugable !
@OutOfTheBoxThinker See my below comments. Have you ever read any books on ID? I myself have read books from Darwins Origin to Dawkins The God Delusion. Author Bruce Shieman points out in his book An Atheist Defends Religion that fundamentalist and militant atheists have ruined science along with Fundamentalist religious people as well. There are many flaws in Evolution. Interesting to note that author Thomas Woodwards books are about the rhetoric & history of ID and Darwinian evolution.
@4th:I don't see a single reason to read any material on ID any more than I see a reason to read the nonsense of Craig or Strobel. I thusfar haven't heard a single argument in favor of ID that's both logically valid and consistent with the scientific evidence. Only if that changes will I consider reading such literature. Meanwhile, I have better things to do.
No, there aren't flaws in evolution. It's true, though, that neo-Marxists have messed up the human sciences, but that's a different issue
@OutOfTheBoxThinker If your not willing to read the material how do u know if it is nonsense? That's kinda like judging a book by it's cover, right?? Logical discernment, requires we withhold judgement & weigh the evidence???
I think all u have done here is listen to 1 side of the story. I know for a fact there is much plausible evidence for creation that is excepted by our scientific community. There is hundreds of yrs of historical evidence with published works. What sciences interest u?
@MajesticCyru : I have looked at every single argument for ID I could find so far. As long as they can't provide a single argument in favor of ID that's both logically valid and consistent with the scientific evidence, then what's the point? If they can't make a valid point in their populist propaganda, why would they be able to make a valid point in a 300 page book?
What sciences interest me? Anything from maths and physics to psychology and sociology I'd say ;-)
@OutOfTheBoxThinker "Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.
R u sure u listened 2 all the science from both sides, because these "new" atheist r religious bugs. I have no time for religion. I believe in ID & in JC but not in man-made religion. I find JC was a rebel who through out the $ changers & was killed 4 his teachings ..that threatened religious people of his day.
@MajesticCyru : You're referencing a quote by a Creationist engineer who died in 1945 from a book written by a biologist written in 1954 explaining why religion is a threat to science. Not only is this quote totally irrelevant since scientific advances have provided a vast amount of DNA evidence for evolution since 1954, maybe you should actually read Riddle's "The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought" as its perspective is little different from Dawkins' or Hitchens'.
I will confirm quote, as I feel your right. Thank u 4 confirming it's origin. Now i'm more sure of its truth. I respect how u c differently, but I disagree with u & retired Dawkin when saying science has proven evolution. Or that science can claim The big bang, when everything with a beginning has a cause. This has shown 2 b telling of ID.
We know there is no Junk DNA, which proves complexity & telling of ID. Many Biochemist agree, hence ID has gained ground with scientist
@MajesticCyru : My girlfriend is actually a bio-engineer specialised in DNA research and everything she's learnt about DNA during her education and work has only confirmed the reality of evolution. DNA shows us exactly how and when one species developed into another.
Also, scientists don't KNOW whether the Big Bang truely was the beginning of the universe and if your God doesn't need a cause there's no reason to assume the universe needs one. Your making one unproven assumption after the other
When most of the world is controlled by Vatican's Banking & Oil Cartels; saying your girl is their student proves nothing!
The Big Bang theory was 1st claimed by evolutionist. Now it's a plausible explanation pointing to ID & a cause ..just as proper carbon dating points to a young earth. Conclusive evidence shows the Universe moving apart. The moon is moving away form the earth and the Sun is shrinking, both of which are telling evidence of a young earth :)
@MajesticCyru : (1) The banking, oil and pharmaceutical cartels are controlled by the Rothschilds and other top Jewish families. The Vatican lost most of its power during the last two centuries. (2) My girlfriend is a scientist. She isn't anyone's student. (3) The Big Bang theory was first coined by a Catholic priest. Regardless, though, it doesn't imply ID at all. (4) Carbon dating does not point to a young earth. (5) The universe is moving apart and we can trace it back to 15 bill. years ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker 1) There called Crypto-Jews -sworn elegance 2 Vatican & the Rothschild family has always been part of the Cartel, including Queen of England 2) The Vatican lost it's popularity but continues 2 acquire power with role in UN & IMF bank 3)Yes Big bang plausible & since universe is thought 2 have a beginning then it MUST have a cause. ID is best possibility proposed thus far. There r many premises 4 this argument -2 many 2 list. Proven no ..but a great theist defense 4 debate. :)
@MajesticCyru (1) The English crown has been under control of the cartel for about 200 years and the Vatican for about a few decades. Both the queen and the pope have become mere puppets of the Rothschilds and their friends. (2) As the power of the Jews rose, the power of Rome decreased. In Europe, Catholicism is disappearing. The Vatican is clearly not in charge. (3) The universe is not generally thought to have a cause and the Big Bang is not generally accepted as its beginning.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker LOL 1) Cartel means their all in bed-together feeding off each other. The Vatican CIA & NASA connection makes Crypto-JEWS "their" puppets. 2) As Freemasonry & Corruption rose, public acceptance decreased, but the Queen's Protestants took over. 2b) The Swiss Guard (Popes untouchable Army) keeps the churches treasures, hence the location of IMF Bank. 3) Science & Education has been hijacked. Yet, theist majority believes Universe was caused -minority believe it does not. :)
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Hateful and discriminatory? Ignorance and prejudice? Those are words that describe muslim radicals and people like you, not Christians.... Christians are anything but hateful and discriminatory. * breeds? What's that supposed to mean? I'n tired of this so im not going to respond anymore -_-
@ajl36117 : Actually, American atheists in the Bible belt who dare to speak openly of their atheistic beliefs are constantly discriminated by religious zealots for no other reason but being an atheist. The same is true for other areas, but not as extreme. You really have no idea how common hatemongering and discrimination by Christians really is if you've never been one of their usual targets.
Usually it isn't intolerant, its ignorance people claim. And there are lots of Christians who make fun of and insult others. Now if its intolerance they claim its usually to relevance of the inability to understand things like separation of church and state that some Theists don't get or refuse. Another example is mandatory prayer in school, where many think its fine, by which they are ignoring all other religious peoples wishes and atheists to not have their children subjected to it.
Hey, great guest...the music ( with warbling syth patch) needs to go down at least 20db...it's in the way...sorry...Thanks..,.Greg's one of my fave teachers.
This has been flagged as spam show
All have sinned and greatly offended the Holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then Hell. thats not Gods will. God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ and suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His lifes blood now He can legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your eternal salvation.
mamainmancj 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That sounds an awful lot like relativism.
boonskety 3 months ago
You're not being called intolerant because you think you're right. You're being called intolerant because you're being an unreasonable, insufferable douche with respect to the private beliefs and practices of others.
Christians bring alot of this ire down on themselves.
Mathenaut 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mathenaut
You have failed your own standard. You claim the reason why we are called intolerant is" because you're being an unreasonable, insufferable douche with respect to the private beliefs and practices of others."
How can it be the private beliefs and practices of others when you just told us?
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
@Mathenaut What a tolerant and completely informed thing to say.
ChristianApologics 2 weeks ago
@ChristianApologics
Problem is, it's true.
Mathenaut 2 weeks ago
@Mathenaut Boy, you are deep.
ChristianApologics 1 week ago
@ChristianApologics
The irony is something to be appreciated.
Mathenaut 1 week ago
@Mathenaut what do you mean by respecting the private beliefs of others?
jordan19862000 1 day ago
@jordan19862000
Christians have a long history of crying oppression while they actively suppress rival belief systems. It is something they have become even more wildly aggressive about recently.
They have no respect for others, yet demand full reference of their deity from everyone. It's the worst kind of hypocrisy.
Mathenaut 19 hours ago
Not wanting to change your beliefs when they are proven wrong is idiotic.
To challenge other fellow's beliefs without having your own beliefs checked is arrogant and stupid.
keksinnot 4 months ago
Sure, sure...in some ways, maybe both people will end up falling under the heading "intolerant". But riddle me this: will both parties consider the others' souls to be damned if they don't get on board with the sacrifice and resurrection of their deity? Will a non-believer ever harbor beliefs about the believer that extend beyond known natural boundaries?
drumrnva 6 months ago
I think all these arguments consist of people trying to convince people not willing to be convinced, it's going no where
nad77772 6 months ago
This was one of the more nonsensical nonanswers to such a question I've ever heard. I've never heard someone say someone is intolerant just because they think they're right. Thats ridiculous. The intolerance comes from thinking that you're right and claiming that it makes you a morally superior person, and that people who are wrong are evil. Especially when you have nothing more to go on, or even less, to show that you're right and others are wrong aside from your own belief's scriptures.
TheEpisteme 8 months ago
@TheEpisteme Lol you're so off. If intolerance stems from claiming to be a 'morally superior person' as you state, then I would be quick to point out that genuine Christians believe they are sinners and thus morally superior to nobody. To the contrary, by your logic, it would be easy to assume that the other other person holds the position that they are morally superior by default just because they don't label themselves sinners. And then it necessarily follows that they're intolerant.
:D
M3PanoS 8 months ago 2
@M3PanoS Of course Christians believe they are sinners, but they also believe that their moral system is superior to any other. Even so, that is not why I see many Christians as intolerant. I see Christians as intolerant because of the tendency to vilify groups such as gays and other religious groups outside Christianity.
JasonBensleyDrain 6 months ago
@JasonBensleyDrain Of course Christians believe they have a valid moral system, otherwise they wouldn't be Christian... -_- You think your moral system is correct also.
However, this isn't the issue in contention; rather, the issue is about whether the moral system has a legitimate foundation. The Christian religion has such a foundation and is the ONLY religion with such a foundation. All other religions (along with humanism) fail.
M3PanoS 6 months ago
@M3PanoS
No, I don't believe in any objective morality. This is not saying that we should just let people do what they want or that if something is right for me it isn't necessarily right for somebody else. I believe we should base morality off how whichever action we are talking about affects humanity and society as a whole.
And what is the basis of Christian morality? God doesn't seem very moral to me...
JasonBensleyDrain 6 months ago
@JasonBensleyDrain Your first sentence is self-defeating -you say you don't believe in objective morality, yet if I asked you you'd probably reply that your statement is objectively true or you'd like it to be.
Every sane person agrees that we should treat each other as best we can -like I already pointed out though, that is NOT the issue in contention. The issue is rather why this is so. If I was born BC, I would say God, now since I know who God is, I say Jesus.
M3PanoS 6 months ago
@M3PanoS
No, believing in objectivity and believing in objective morality are very different.
And what makes you so sure that Jesus is the source of all morality?
JasonBensleyDrain 6 months ago
@JasonBensleyDrain Yea, you're right -they are different. Having said that, I'm sure you believe in objective morality...so what's the problem again? Oh yea, that damn standard.
I've done some reading here and there.
M3PanoS 6 months ago
@M3PanoS How do you justify saying that you "are sure" I believe in objective morality?
JasonBensleyDrain 6 months ago
@JasonBensleyDrain Oh you don't?
M3PanoS 6 months ago
@M3PanoS *sigh*
No, I don't believe there is any transcendent form of morality. Since I am an atheist I don't believe in evil or good or any supernatural forces of the sort. I believe that we all await the same fate. Hitler is going to end up the same as Gandhi. Morality has been created by humans, I think this is a good thing. But it is ever changing.
JasonBensleyDrain 6 months ago
@M3PanoS To give you an example, think of art. There are many things that we all as humans agree qualify as art. Our "standard" in this case. However, there are people who will contend whether or not a certain piece is art or not. In morality there are situations such as these. Is it morally wrong for me to smoke weed or do drugs? is it morally wrong for me to get upset if I am justified, or should I deal with the situation in a calmer way. These are not so clear cut as murder or rape.
JasonBensleyDrain 6 months ago
@JasonBensleyDrain You keep talking particulars which I agree are debatable. I've tried to tell you over and over that this is not the issue of contention. Rather the issue is why we even talk about these things. The very fact that people have differing opinions on moral questions means they believe they are closer to the standard.
We're just going in circles -I ask about a foundation for morality and you always talk about moral hypotheticals.
M3PanoS 6 months ago
@M3PanoS I've already told you what I believe should be the foundation for morality. Setting up a moral system based on what benefits humanity as a whole.
And yeah, people do believe they are closer to the moral standard if they have differing opinions, what is your point there?
JasonBensleyDrain 6 months ago
@JasonBensleyDrain Humanism? Who decides what's best? How can you get other people to agree? When someone does something that is not moral within your framework where do you get off penalizing them? The logical outworking of this philosophy just descends into a survival of the fittest type of deal...
My point is that because each person believes that he is closer to a moral standard than another that he also believes that there is an ultimate one to be strived for.
M3PanoS 6 months ago
@M3PanoS Us as humans do, you can't necessarily get everyone to agree, I would penalize them because to not do so would be detrimental to humanity.
JasonBensleyDrain 6 months ago
@JasonBensleyDrain Under what authority do you penalize someone? How do you decide if that action is not more detrimental? Who defines what's detrimental? Your philosophy descends into a subjective, meaningless cluster-f*ck, sorry I can't say it any other way. Whatever answers you give to these questions, I'll just question those also -it will NEVER end.
On my worldview, it ENDS on a transcendent authority which we call God. Does God exist? I believe He came into the world and became man.
M3PanoS 6 months ago
@JasonBensleyDrain There is NO morality without compulsion.
M3PanoS 6 months ago
@M3PanoS I completely agree, but why does the compulsion have to be God?
JasonBensleyDrain 6 months ago
@JasonBensleyDrain You agree with moral compulsion which is a good thing, but I have to press this issue.
Unless that moral standard is universal and binding, morality doesn't exist, right? Give me the standard. I have given you mine, and I have reason to believe that it is real because of the Resurrection. What do you have to offer?
M3PanoS 6 months ago
@M3PanoS
Well if it isn't then I guess not the way you're defining it. I don't really understand why you're insisting the standard must be transcendent and absolute. But I guess we're at an impasse there. And I have already given you my foundation for morality. Also, I must counter a bit here. I don't know if you're familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma, but if not it is basically this:
1/2
JasonBensleyDrain 6 months ago
@JasonBensleyDrain Because if the standard isn't transcendent or absolute then it's not a standard at all. In order for something to be a standard, it has to be unchanging to the shifting sands of time -that's the whole point.
No you haven't given a foundation because you haven't shown COMPULSION.
And on the Euthyphro dilemma, here you go: watch?v=KE862nKWNTk&feature=channel_video_title
M3PanoS 6 months ago
@M3PanoS
Cont:
"Is something moral because it is commanded by God, or is commanded by God because it is moral"
The problem for you is this, in the first instance, there is a higher standard than God even, that transcends even him. In the second case, the problem is that morality is arbitrary. God could command rape and murder (which he in fact does) and it would be moral.
JasonBensleyDrain 6 months ago
@TheEpisteme So do you think that not claiming that your view is morally superior is the morally superior way to look at it?
jsbodybuilding2 8 months ago
@jsbodybuilding2 No, that would be an infinitely regressive argument. Not making a claim is simply not making a claim.
TheEpisteme 8 months ago
I meant based.
4thcoming 10 months ago
Great video!
4thcoming 11 months ago
I think I'm right because all of the scientific evidence supports my view(pick whatever topic you like). You think you're right because your magic book told you so.
BLJazzman 11 months ago
@BLJazzman What scientific evidence? and scientific evidence for what? You have "scientific evidence" that the Bible is not true? huh? You mean, for example that when God ordained a seven day week, that there's "scientific evidence" that there is not a seven day week??
KingJamesBible 11 months ago
@KingJamesBible You've got the burden of proof backwards. If you want me to believe that what the bible says is true, you need to present evidence for that. I've not seen any, but I'm open to whatever you have to offer. I believe evolution occurred because of the overwhelming evidence of it. I believe the Earth revolves around the sun because of the evidence of cosmology. Show me why I should believe the bible. BTW, congrats on choosing the KJB, much better writing in there than other versions.
BLJazzman 11 months ago
Greg Koukl is an expert BS artist, and if Xtianity thinks they need to stoop this low to get their message across, then they really are on their last legs as a religion.
brainjuice00 1 year ago
Haven't ever heard the definition of "intolerant" be "thinking you're right".
No, I would define "intolerant" as "actively seeking to undermine the rights of specific groups" or the like.
wretcherwretch 1 year ago
@wretcherwretch : IMO, tolerance means that you accept that other people have a different mindset, a different lifestyle, a different view on religion, a different view on politics or just a different look from yours even if this offends you or someone else. What bothers me about the word "tolerance" is that it's most commonly used (especially by liberals) to mask their own intolerance towards those they disagree with. They accuse other of being intolerant and use that accusation to silence them
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
I can agree on the definition you said but disagree on the people applying it. I could point out that people saying deliberately intolerant things often hide behind the "we're being told to not express our views!" line as a way of avoiding taking responsibility for actions. I'm not one to favor parties, but the intolerance of some conservatives has dominated the recent news, and rightfully so.
wretcherwretch 1 year ago
@wretch : Both liberals and neocons tend to be very ignorant, very indoctrinated, very narrowminded and very intolerant. Neocons just tend to be more ignorant and liberals tend to be more intolerant. Overall, however, neither side is better than the other and both are just slaves of corporate interests anyway. On real issues (Jews and Zionism, Iran, tax cuts for the rich, immigration, globalist capitalism, ...) no dissent is allowed and you're labeled an extremist or ridiculed by the media.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Manipulative psycho fuck. Christians believe they have imaginary friends who tell them to bully, bash, and murder gay boys. Criminal insanity.
zooooooperdooooooper 1 year ago 3
@zooooooperdooooooper hey look its an 1nternets tr0ll! Do you live under a bridge or in a cave? Why would you search for videos you despise and leave hateful comments? What could you possibly achieve by trolling on these videos... Your not changing anyones opinion, your wasting your time, and your making yourself look stupid...
ajl36117 1 year ago
@ajl36117 : Many people just happen to get emotional when they encounter people who use fairy tales and imaginary friends to mask their ignorance and prejudice and pretend that have ANY understanding of the world. I do not encourage people to use offensive language when addressing Christians and I have similar complaints about people of other faiths and atheists alike, however I do understand that some people are just so frustrated bout all this they result to using offensive language.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Doesn't mean you search for videos and leave hate comments.... Whats the point? I think anyone can agree, there is none. Be an atheist, i'm not gonna stop you, but seriously. Hate mail?
ajl36117 1 year ago
@ajl36117 : Many of these people have been treated in a hateful and discriminatory manner by Christian nutjobs for most of their lives so I guess this is what they're used to when it involves dealing with Christians. Your religion breads ignorance and prejudice...
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker You sound like ZZ on Cryptozoologydotcom's evolution vs creationism debate forum.
4thcoming 10 months ago
@4thcoming : I can assure you I'm not this ZZ guy you mention ;-)
No, I haven't read anything by Kookl. Based on this interview and his videos on YouTube, I see no reason why I should care to read anything he wrote. He seems no less ignorant than Lee Strobel and other apologists of their ilk.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 10 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker ZZ is a female and I said your comments are similar to hers. This is what
Thomas Woodward talked about in his book Darwin Strikes Back and that is Darwinists and atheists not doing their homework on their opponents or on ID. I think I sent you a pm with 3 sections from Woodwards book on a few days ago. I showed Greg's book to a professor in my college and he said that Greg displays a vast knowledge of critical thinking skills and knows about contradictions and logic.
4thcoming 10 months ago
@4thcoming : Just because someone is a professor, that doesn't mean he has a clue. Here in Europe all universities have pretty high standards but in the US pretty much any moron can start his own university. As a consequence, the difference between Ivy League universities like Harvard or Yale and your average Christian diploma mill (where charlatans like Kent Hovint get their titles) couldn't be greater.
I already mentioned pretty strong arguments against ID in previous communication with you.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 10 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker I go to a secular college. Also may Universities were founded by Christians and bases on Christian principles. "How many books on our side - the ID side - have you read?" I asked, adding, "I would assume, of course, that you've read Darwin's Black Box, Our most important book?" cont...
4thcoming 10 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker His answer was short and truthful, "I haven't really read any books on the topic. I read a few essay's." In a way, I was not surprised by his answer, but I was still shocked. "How unscholarly" I
thought to myself, "for a college president to write a vehement, wholesale denunciation of ID without having done any serious homework on the topic." -Thomas Woodward in Darwin Strikes Back.
4thcoming 10 months ago
@4thc : The evidence is overwhelming in favor of evolution and the arguments for ID are based solely on logical fallacies. I addressed this before. So why doesn't this convince you or any other fundamentalist Christians you say?
Fundamentalist Christians seem to live in their own little fantasy world where logic is shoved aside and replaced by emotional arguments. Craig and Strobel are masters in this sort of emotional rhetoric and have attacted quite an audience, but their logic is laugable !
OutOfTheBoxThinker 10 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker See my below comments. Have you ever read any books on ID? I myself have read books from Darwins Origin to Dawkins The God Delusion. Author Bruce Shieman points out in his book An Atheist Defends Religion that fundamentalist and militant atheists have ruined science along with Fundamentalist religious people as well. There are many flaws in Evolution. Interesting to note that author Thomas Woodwards books are about the rhetoric & history of ID and Darwinian evolution.
4thcoming 10 months ago
Comment removed
OutOfTheBoxThinker 10 months ago
@4th:I don't see a single reason to read any material on ID any more than I see a reason to read the nonsense of Craig or Strobel. I thusfar haven't heard a single argument in favor of ID that's both logically valid and consistent with the scientific evidence. Only if that changes will I consider reading such literature. Meanwhile, I have better things to do.
No, there aren't flaws in evolution. It's true, though, that neo-Marxists have messed up the human sciences, but that's a different issue
OutOfTheBoxThinker 10 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker If your not willing to read the material how do u know if it is nonsense? That's kinda like judging a book by it's cover, right?? Logical discernment, requires we withhold judgement & weigh the evidence???
I think all u have done here is listen to 1 side of the story. I know for a fact there is much plausible evidence for creation that is excepted by our scientific community. There is hundreds of yrs of historical evidence with published works. What sciences interest u?
MajesticCyru 9 months ago in playlist Fishhuntace christian various
@MajesticCyru : I have looked at every single argument for ID I could find so far. As long as they can't provide a single argument in favor of ID that's both logically valid and consistent with the scientific evidence, then what's the point? If they can't make a valid point in their populist propaganda, why would they be able to make a valid point in a 300 page book?
What sciences interest me? Anything from maths and physics to psychology and sociology I'd say ;-)
OutOfTheBoxThinker 9 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker "Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.
R u sure u listened 2 all the science from both sides, because these "new" atheist r religious bugs. I have no time for religion. I believe in ID & in JC but not in man-made religion. I find JC was a rebel who through out the $ changers & was killed 4 his teachings ..that threatened religious people of his day.
MajesticCyru 9 months ago
@MajesticCyru : You're referencing a quote by a Creationist engineer who died in 1945 from a book written by a biologist written in 1954 explaining why religion is a threat to science. Not only is this quote totally irrelevant since scientific advances have provided a vast amount of DNA evidence for evolution since 1954, maybe you should actually read Riddle's "The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought" as its perspective is little different from Dawkins' or Hitchens'.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 9 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker
I will confirm quote, as I feel your right. Thank u 4 confirming it's origin. Now i'm more sure of its truth. I respect how u c differently, but I disagree with u & retired Dawkin when saying science has proven evolution. Or that science can claim The big bang, when everything with a beginning has a cause. This has shown 2 b telling of ID.
We know there is no Junk DNA, which proves complexity & telling of ID. Many Biochemist agree, hence ID has gained ground with scientist
MajesticCyru 9 months ago
@MajesticCyru : My girlfriend is actually a bio-engineer specialised in DNA research and everything she's learnt about DNA during her education and work has only confirmed the reality of evolution. DNA shows us exactly how and when one species developed into another.
Also, scientists don't KNOW whether the Big Bang truely was the beginning of the universe and if your God doesn't need a cause there's no reason to assume the universe needs one. Your making one unproven assumption after the other
OutOfTheBoxThinker 9 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker LOL Politics
:)
When most of the world is controlled by Vatican's Banking & Oil Cartels; saying your girl is their student proves nothing!
The Big Bang theory was 1st claimed by evolutionist. Now it's a plausible explanation pointing to ID & a cause ..just as proper carbon dating points to a young earth. Conclusive evidence shows the Universe moving apart. The moon is moving away form the earth and the Sun is shrinking, both of which are telling evidence of a young earth :)
MajesticCyru 9 months ago
@MajesticCyru : (1) The banking, oil and pharmaceutical cartels are controlled by the Rothschilds and other top Jewish families. The Vatican lost most of its power during the last two centuries. (2) My girlfriend is a scientist. She isn't anyone's student. (3) The Big Bang theory was first coined by a Catholic priest. Regardless, though, it doesn't imply ID at all. (4) Carbon dating does not point to a young earth. (5) The universe is moving apart and we can trace it back to 15 bill. years ago
OutOfTheBoxThinker 9 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker 1) There called Crypto-Jews -sworn elegance 2 Vatican & the Rothschild family has always been part of the Cartel, including Queen of England 2) The Vatican lost it's popularity but continues 2 acquire power with role in UN & IMF bank 3)Yes Big bang plausible & since universe is thought 2 have a beginning then it MUST have a cause. ID is best possibility proposed thus far. There r many premises 4 this argument -2 many 2 list. Proven no ..but a great theist defense 4 debate. :)
MajesticCyru 9 months ago
@MajesticCyru (1) The English crown has been under control of the cartel for about 200 years and the Vatican for about a few decades. Both the queen and the pope have become mere puppets of the Rothschilds and their friends. (2) As the power of the Jews rose, the power of Rome decreased. In Europe, Catholicism is disappearing. The Vatican is clearly not in charge. (3) The universe is not generally thought to have a cause and the Big Bang is not generally accepted as its beginning.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 9 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker LOL 1) Cartel means their all in bed-together feeding off each other. The Vatican CIA & NASA connection makes Crypto-JEWS "their" puppets. 2) As Freemasonry & Corruption rose, public acceptance decreased, but the Queen's Protestants took over. 2b) The Swiss Guard (Popes untouchable Army) keeps the churches treasures, hence the location of IMF Bank. 3) Science & Education has been hijacked. Yet, theist majority believes Universe was caused -minority believe it does not. :)
MajesticCyru 9 months ago
@ajl36117 : * breeds
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Hateful and discriminatory? Ignorance and prejudice? Those are words that describe muslim radicals and people like you, not Christians.... Christians are anything but hateful and discriminatory. * breeds? What's that supposed to mean? I'n tired of this so im not going to respond anymore -_-
ajl36117 1 year ago
@ajl36117 : Actually, American atheists in the Bible belt who dare to speak openly of their atheistic beliefs are constantly discriminated by religious zealots for no other reason but being an atheist. The same is true for other areas, but not as extreme. You really have no idea how common hatemongering and discrimination by Christians really is if you've never been one of their usual targets.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago 2
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Have you ever read Greg's book Tactics OOTBT?
4thcoming 10 months ago
@ajl36117 Did your Invisible Cloud Father tell you to say that? Or his Magic Zombie Son? How's that choose-not-to-be-gay thing working out for you?
zooooooperdooooooper 1 year ago
Comment removed
zooooooperdooooooper 1 year ago
That is one cool and original set up you got there. Very nice.
philos71 1 year ago
Usually it isn't intolerant, its ignorance people claim. And there are lots of Christians who make fun of and insult others. Now if its intolerance they claim its usually to relevance of the inability to understand things like separation of church and state that some Theists don't get or refuse. Another example is mandatory prayer in school, where many think its fine, by which they are ignoring all other religious peoples wishes and atheists to not have their children subjected to it.
Draknid 1 year ago
Hey, great guest...the music ( with warbling syth patch) needs to go down at least 20db...it's in the way...sorry...Thanks..,.Greg's one of my fave teachers.
Tahquitz 1 year ago
I like Koukl. He remains calm and is quite good in discussions. It would be cool to see him do more videos.
ProTheist 2 years ago
Greg Koukl has been my favorite guest so far.
None of the other's have said anything I can relate to.
orangesfromlondon 2 years ago