Having an orderly society and helping one another is an evolutionary trait that heavily benefits our survival rates. A disorderly society and harming one another will greatly lower our survival rates. We are simply pack animals programmed to survive. Some people may get away with murder. It may not be pretty or fair, but that is REALITY. Your atoms will go on to become something else when you cease being you.
First is to give evidence that there is a god as a real creature. If you have soul and there is afterlife, how how will you live in the afterlife, another 14.4 billion years. Why god could create a talking snake in the myth, and why not now, when many human beings believe the non-existence of god, then the omnipotent should create real miracle to show the existence of god, that his son promised to come back, but after 2000 years nothing and never will happen. Wake up from your dreams, please !
Christians commit heiness crimes as well.....mostly by hiding behind their religion.
Google Catholic priest scandels
Jim Bakker
Jimmy Swaggart
Ted Haggard
Oral Roberts
the list goes on and on.
Atheists are regular hard working...loving .....kind to children and animals...folks just like so-called Christians.....we just have a personal relationship with reality is all.
No crime in that.
Going to church no more makes you a good person than standing in a garage makes you a car.
Societies invent laws against things like robbery and murder, because most people don't like being robbed or murdered. There is no mystery about it. We have police, courts of law, and prisons in place to try to make sure that people don't get away with hurting others. We also have laws against polluting the environment which me must all share.
We are accountable one another for our behaviour. We have justice systems in place to enforce the laws that societies deem to be fair and benificial to the community as a whole.
Humans assine value to everything, no god needed. Humans hold each other accountable for their actions most times. If Hitler hadn't commited suicide then he would have been held accountable for his actions. A god isn't necessary for that. You just want there to be so you can feel better about things that you have no control over.
Amusingly,this philosophy is so pervasive in the middle east,they still follow love this form of dictatorship till this century. The middle east,the bastion of MightMakesRight-ism. Whether it be human,or godly. Anyway,to sum up,no one's opinions are unquestionable,even a god's opinion. So your example opinion,flawed or not,can not be trumped with a god's opinion. Temporarily granting the extremely important basic fact, that those gods' existences are in serious question.
. . . , to give his own philosophy more "intrinsic value (but no authority is 100%,even a god's)to what these men chose to give value to. (regardless how wise or noble you think these leaders are) Elevating their gods,to a SINGLE 1 universal creator,is just an attempt to grab even more power. (still not 100% authority)
Essentially, the moral philosophy followed here is,authoritarian dictators where Might Makes Right! are what we all need to follow unquestionably.
Additionally tackling the very premise of your argument,divine authority isn't absolute. The origins of all religions are based on this flaw. In order to command the masses the HUMAN authorities needed an unquestionable basis for their authority/opinions,as their own might doesn't make them 100% right and unquestionable. So gods were subverted (or created) to be even mightier,to make the leaders' proclamations,mightier. Gods are just a man's voice,pretending to be a god
Societal ideas of value are based on custom and sometimes usefulness.Instrinsic value is different and cannot be assigned without a divine declaration. Example: Humans are a parasite infestation of earth, and it is therfore a moral imperative to exterminate them (or at least cull the human herd) to save other intrinsicaly valuable species.
@NadNareek God did cull the human herd once, he might do it again. (He said he wouldn't send another Flood, he didn't say he wouldn't do something else to achieve the same end.)
@NadNareek You are right, humanity is an ecological desaster, and if we want to show any respect to nature (YOU would call it god's creation), we must change our ways. I am not even mentioning the fact that we are cutting off the branch we are sitting on, and when it snaps, that will force us to change.
It appears you do not comprehend the definition of "value". Your first error is assigning an intrinsic quality to the concept of value. Value is CONTEXTUAL, it presupposes a beneficiary---of value to whom and for what? Value (like all human concepts) does not float in space as a disconnected absolute nor does it exist by divine command.
Bottom line... you confuse objective reality with authoritarianism and cannot distinguish the contextual from the intrinsic.
@sweetsweatyfeet One can distinguish instrumental use or value (water to a plant) from intrinsic value as an inherent property. Humans have instrinsic value but by what authority?......God said: "Let us make man in our own image."
@NadNareek An itrinsic property is not a "value". It's an attribute that defines an object. Value requires a subject who is a beneficiary of the value in question. Human life is of value to us because we have a built in instinct to survive--human life is not intrinsically valuable apart from that. You are an intrinsicist which is typical for a Christian since that is what is follows when you assume reality is defined by divine command.
@NadNareek I disagree. The existence of god would not make things intrinsic, just commanded. Argument from authority is no different than "might is right". Authority is not objectivity.
But there is a reality that is knowable to the extant we can study it. Whereas god is entirely fabricated and very much one of the "individual fantasies" you mentioned; an early attempt by man to account for things he could not comprehend.
You could take this very basic instinct and filter it through time. We're an increasingly intelligent species, and our priorities, our instincts (and from there feelings), become more and more complex by the years. What we have in the case of animals is, in the end, interchangeable with affection.
As far as I am concerned, everything came from our survival instinct and became much more than that with time. It has clearly come to a point where we have trouble attributing it.
No it's not, religious or not, outside of ultra conservative religions, most would agree. Your argument requires a cynical view of humanity and selfish imperative originating in religion itself.
Humans are social..
I'm in Europe, the vast majority here believe in evolution, have little or no religion (God as Nature a common concept).
criminals (damaged pp & nuts) is what law & social services are for.
Places with least crime usually the least religious.
@SiGhast Hello, i'm not trying to argue your point, mainly because I agree with a good portion of it, but want to add a topic of consideration. Even if emotions are a response to survival instincs and assuming it can be clearly attributed, nature still holds no bias towards complex forms compared to simpler forms..
If value is added by the involved parites, it becomes a subjective issue, negating true worth and only expressing a given worth. Making man, animals, and rocks equal.
Most of us don't even seem to be valuing them with any consistency. First and foremost, we don't seem to value anything by just simple "humans #1, animals #2, materials #3" categories; there are a lot of subtle levels here. The worth we attribute to various animals seem to be random, to be honest. I think it boils down to what animals are of use to us, and in the end SURVIVAL is the main instinct guiding us. We keep pets as trustworthy companions.
This isn't necessarily an arguement for atheism, but it's a thought this brought up.
Did we or did we not decide the value of CURRENCY ourselves? Was that, too, God's doing? If it was us, could we not apply value to what we, essentially, WANT to? Along these lines, we are also seperating the value of a rock from the value of gold. Not that these two have any ACTUAL worth; we've chosen it.
Of course THIS isn't an issue of morality, but see those as basics of value.
@SiGhast societal values are based on custom and sometimes usefulness.....instrinsic value is different and this is what cannot be assigned without a divine declaration......example: humans are a parasite infestation of earth and it is a moral imperative to exterminate them (or at least cull the herd) to save other intrinsicaly valuable species.....make an argument against it.
HAVE you noticed that Atheism has evolved into it's own religion or if you will a cult? They even have their own belief system and a hierarchy that forms a type of church structure? It seems they are mirroring or mimicking the very thing they claim to hate?They like to be called" Humanist"[ to love the human experience] or as Paul put it "Lovers of them selves"..just stopped to say hi
Perhaps, the way in which values exists is because humans and other beings can assign value to things. One way in which accountability exists is because humans can hold people accountable; people (and nature) give consequences to other people’s actions. Essentially, beings create value and accountability.
@NadNareek Here is an interesting response: If values come only from God, who is God and what are His values worth? Is it nothing? If not, then by the same reasoning human value is also worth something (whether God exists or not). I give my values my own worth and other people give my values a different worth.
Just because you don't belive in eternal punishment doen't mean you will murder and steal think about the crusades they killed thousands in the name of god and the biggest non-profit orginization in America that gives 1 billion dollars a year to starving children in Africa
I don't do good deeds for fear of punishment. If you only do good deeds in fear of retribution than you are more likley to go to hell than those who do it because it is right
Ultimate justice yeah right! ist it christianity that teaches all sins are forgiven if you repent? So all murderers in jail, of which at least 80% claims to be christian ( in America that is) are forgiven? Wow that's some real ultimate accountablility
Dan--Have you read any of the popular and recent books by the so-called "new atheists" (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) or other scientists, philosophers and bible scholars (Price, Dennett)? These writers (and a growing chorus of others) address very thoroughly the points you raise. Harris's "The Moral Landscape" and Shermer's "The Believing Brain" propose evidence-based mechanisms for Darwinian evolution of the moral principles you discuss. Their ideas aren't new, just the scientific support.
@juliuschas So how about you? Do you believe in free moral choice or not? On what basis and why do you think it matters? If human behavior is only material, ultimately nothing is right and wrong.
@NadNareek Not sure what you mean by "free choice," if it's something other than making a choice "free" of coercion by some other person. I can't think of any choice I've made that is "free" in the sense of offering an infinite number of options. As for right and wrong, my experience is that I have some internal sense of a difference, and the only explanation I've ever heard is that it's a combination of innate thought patterns (including, e.g., emotions) and learning from other people.
"every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe — spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort" - Einstein (1936)
@NadNareek This is the wrong approach. Einstein's opinion shouldn't matter, for or against the existence of God. Both sides try to use him. It's the wrong way to go about it. There are great scientists who are believers, and great scientists who aren't.
The Buddhists I know believe the self is an illusion and that personal identity is not preserved after death. This logically means there is absolutely no personal accountability.
@NadNareek To be fair there are just as many versions of Buddhism as there are denominations of Christianity. Some believe as you say, others don't. In common with Hinduism there is the idea of karma in some versions of Buddhism, so there is some accountability I guess.
According to your god, working on the sabbath day is punishable by death, that is just one of many absurd and ridiculous rules that the bible teaches us to live by. I am and athiest but that does not compell me to go and steal or kill just because I can get away with it. Just becease you don't like the fact that people can act without consequence that doesnt make hevean or hell real. On another note, what makes human life so important why are we more important that any other animal.
You're on to something Dan. Morals, for example, are made up things by humans. There is no objective proof saying what's right or wrong. Also there is no objective proof of any deity. As an atheist, I think and choose what is morally right or wrong. How do you know that any "god" knows from right or wrong? There isn't a shred of reason behind it. Being able to think for yourself what is right or wrong is far greater than any imaginary being.
"A true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death, the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders that we are not going to be judged...the opium of modernity is that humans are free to do as they please." Czeslaw Milosz, Polish Nobel Prize winner
@NadNareek Just because somebody says a catchy phrase, or won an award doesn't qualify everything that comes from their mind...it's almost like you're IDOLIZING him :p. To imply that all atheists are raving, scoundrels without moral sense is insulting and absurdly ignorant. Atheism let's one think for themselves using only the tools of reason, logic, and objective evidence. I'm fairly certain opium doesn't do that. I think Nietzsche has more credibility than Czeslaw Milosz.
@NadNareek You've got me there. I couldn't give up my life in that scenario ... and neither would the vast majority of people who call themselves Christian.
Dan, your religion is about being good so you can earn a reward and not being evil through fear of penalty. Well were there a God how could he not see through such a transparent ruse?
Your God would have to be the ultimate mug falling for that!
God the omnigullible!
Here's an idea: Why not do the right thing JUST because it's the right thing, not because you hope for a reward?
@sysyphus0jones Caring is valid and fear is an added motivation to do right. Caring is easy when there is plenty, but when there is deprivation, would you sacrifice your life for a starving stranger? It would be irrational to do so if this is your only life.
@NadNareek One example of this is what's referred to as "kin selection" in biology, where individuals possess behaviors that benefit the reproductive success of close kin, rather than themselves, which nevertheless may lead to its own genes being propagated more effectively because their kin share so many of their own genes.
It sounds a bit sick to insinuate that people have a moral obligation to commit suicide so a single starving stranger can eat their flesh anyway.
@NadNareek It would be irrational anyway. God doesn't expect that much. Plus He'd question your motivation. If you only did it because you thought it would please Him, and not because it was the right thing to do in itself, He might not like that. If you only did it to score points and get in to Heaven, and get in early, then that might fall under the same category as suicide being a sin.
Dan, you xians have the ultimate get out clause! If Hitler or Stalin (your examples) had repented at the last, then they too would be forgiven regardless of the appalling things they did: That's SOME accountability you've got there mate!
@NadNareek It only works if you truly mean it. Being afraid of death as many people are they may have asked for it but if they didn't truly repent then it doesn't work. I have a feeling they would not have repented, as evil people don't usually consider *themselves* evil. Hitler probably thought he was doing good. It's not true that he was an atheist, though, just a false Christian as were many of his top people. That's not the case with Stalin of course.
@NadNareek Somebody could plan out doing all sorts of bad things, as long as they "repent to god". Forgiveness, one human to another, is amazing. Forgiveness from an imaginary deity can and is used as a license to get away with anything. Organized crime groups, such as the Sicilian Mafia, do this kind of thing all the time to 'excuse' them of their deeds; fully knowing they will do bad things again.
No accountability without God.... Well Dan, whether or not there is, how on Earth (or anywhere else) can this be an argument FOR the existence of God? Because OTHERWISE life would be so unfair?
@NadNareek that's a nice sound byte Dan, but it still begs the question.
You see, even if you're right, it STILL doesn't mean that therefore there MUST BE ultimate accountability. Just because somehow it would be so much better if it were true doesn't make it true ...
I couldn't detect in your video any reason for the "Dawkins" in the title but I'll give you a connection Dan: You have The God Delusion.
@NadNareek He's right, actually. It's not an argument for God's existence. If this is what your faith rests on it isn't real. Anyone can believe in something they've seen. Faith by definition is believing without seeing.
@NadNareek A true believer doesn't need evidence. What virtue is there in believing when you've seen. Not that the archeological evidence is enough, of course. You *still* need faith.
Suicides per 100,000 people per year (World Health Org - 2008) Rank 1. Lithuania 2. Belarus 3. Russia 4. Slovenia 5. Hungary 6. Kazakhstan 7. Latvia Suicide is highest in these historically atheist countries. It happens wherever atheism grows.
@NadNareek strange because elsewhere you seem to think that atheists value their lives more than Christians.
Dan: correlation does not imply causation. All the countries you mention also happen to have bitterly cold winters: Correlation, causation ...? Do you see the problem?
@NadNareek "Followers of religions that strongly prohibit suicide, like Christianity and Islam, have a higher suicide rate than those religions which have no strong prohibition eg Buddhism and Hinduism."
Planning to convert Dan?
source: Google "religioustolerance Facts about suicide"
What can answer the cry of the human spirit facing the void, the crematorium, alone and abandonned in the dark? You may answer: "There is no one to answer" and "Just embrace the void" and "It is what it is." If you find this unsatisfying, just accept it. Shout if you need to......or meditate yourself into cessation.
All those silly christendogs have a need for a got to keep themselves straight in life.So, thus, there are biljons of insaine people and just a few whom can better the world.
Well I'm Buddhist/Athiest, and I have never in my life as an athiest thought to or actually committed theft, rape, murder, purposeful pain, or ANY negative inflictions unto others for that matter. so i don't see what this video is getting at. can't i just live by my own rules and not do any of the above? (and now i'm being very unbuddhist, refered to myself about 1/2 a billion times in 1 text :-S ).
PART 2--Since nothing can be truly yours then nothing can be truly stolen. The only absolute thing is life. This is the only thing that is truly yours. I don't believe in God because I don't believe in good or evil. Right or wrong. So there couldn't be an almighty entity who truly cared about trivial things such as lying, stealing, adultery. These things are in fact destructive behaviors, but only in the society that we created. Not to mention the Bible is obviously the word of man, not god.
PART 1---You make it sound like there is this universal sense of good and evil. That stealing is inherently "wrong" when right, wrong, good, evil, etc. are all things that people invent. They are just simply abstract ideas. What constitutes something being yours? The fact you bought it? Or maybe it was a gift to you? The only connection between you and this object are things you invent called meanings and words. They are just possessions that you call yours but nothing is truly owned by anyone.
History has proven that Atheism drives people into killing others because there are now laws and no consequences. Atheists are dangerous because they just don't care.
If you need god to stop you from doing bad things then you are pathetic, an if you are religious you can just twist your own bullshit dogma to say it's ok
@NadNareek actually that's specifically definable to humanism right there. atheism encompasses humanism mainly as a defiance against religion i'll admit, but nevertheless, humanism is a much broader ideal on situations and their handlings.
@blakdust3 God did not stop you from making a strawman.
"He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."
I am sorry but this is not an argument. This is just a moral problem a very significant one true. As an atheist trust me I am disturbed by this lack of "extraterrestrial" justice. This is why I am very keen on the judicial justice even if it is not perfect. It is important to me. This is why I was very upset when "Mother" Teresa asked the good people of Bhopal to forgive Union Carbide India Limited. I think that believe in gods justice sometimes prevents the only justice which IMHO counts.
Whether or not we want someone to be accountable doesn't change whether or not he will be. Even if it were nice if everyone had to answer for everything they did, that doesn't make it true.
And what was so amazing about this "prediction" anyway? The Romans were engaged in an empire building in the region. That is bound to involve rebellions and sieges of power bases.
So then an easily predictable event that anyway was only "predicted" after it happened.
date sources: wikipedia: "Siege of Jerusalem" & "New Testament"
And what was so amazing about this "prediction" anyway? The Romans were engaged in an empire building in the region. That is bound to involve rebellions and sieges of power bases.
So then an easily predictable event that anyway was only "predicted" after it happened.
Sources: wikipedia: "Siege of Jerusalem" & "New Testament"
@sysyphus0jones What is amazing is that the early Christians fled Jerusalem before the seige because Jesus told them to flee. If the text was written post-70 CE, what motive did the writer have in not describing the fulfillment that would have actually vindicated Jesus who had been crucified earlier? Also, why do we see Christians and Jews still living in Jerusalem throughout the gospel records?
The conclusion is obvious: the scripture is pre-70 AD and Jesus was a prophet of God.
@NadNareek I don't have a prophetic text Dan because such things are impossible. But I can make an educated guess about about the future, like this one: "NadNareek will this day spike this message!"
That's given you a dilemma my friend: Spike it (go on you know you want to), or prove my prediction wrong ...
@sysyphus0jones If the seige of Jerusalem was predicted after it happened, why did the author not include a description of its fulfillment to vindicate Jesus as a true prophet?? Why could not the Romans have enslaved the population (as they customarily did) rather than destroy it?
The siege and conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans: 70 CE.
Mark, the earliest book of the NT had been dated about the same time (Coincidence? Hardly) The rest of the NT was written still later, indeed continuing well into into the 2nd Century CE
Even the dullest of minds ought to be able to grasp that a book written during and after some event, that contains a "prediction" of that event, is more simply explained as forgery.
"without religion no moral value" HAHAHAHA. You mean the moral value of the KKK, Islamic states killing homosexuals, Usama Bin Laden, Crusaders, Israel - Palestine war, Christian fundementalists killing abortionist doctors, Imagine all these "moral things" humanity would have never seen without Religion. Unlike Theists evolutionists does not tell you to kill people for not having a certain belief, and plus that they have proof.
@NadNareek Religious or not they're always going to be humans in this world who will do what you would consider evil things. Your argument is that religion would minimize that type of behavior, yet you had only came up with two examples of atheists who have committed bad deeds versus the six Mokokabomo provided. Not to mention other examples like how less than 1% of American jail population are atheist, while all the rest are religious. Please Google it if you do not believe me. We are good!
@Brandonlm2010 Atheism is something people pass in and out of due to periods or moments of unbelief. On this basis, most of the guilty in prison are there because of their unbelief.
@NadNareek Not true. Not all people pass "in and out of" Atheism like it is a mood or feeling. It is a logic based point of view gained through thinking. Saying that all Atheists are in jail because of their unbelief is a bias generalization, and you ignore the fact that the prisoners who are religious were not stopped by their beliefs. The fact is that a lower percentage of Atheists are in jail from the total Atheist population that religious.
@NadNareek Individual crimes committed by Atheists are not the only thing to focus on. What about the MILLIONS of people who had died from all the wars caused by and for religion. Any wars/genocide caused by Atheist leadership were not started for the purpose of spreading Atheism, while religious wars and genocide were started to spread religion. Not to mention that overall deaths from the attempts to spread religion is in the millions. While spreading Atheism has little to none as a result.
@NadNareek I was not implying that it Atheism had nothing to do with what those people had done. I was only saying that it was not for the purpose of spreading Atheism. History has proved that religion has not stopped others from killing millions. You also still do not have a counter argument for the point I made about wars started by religious leaders were meant to spread religion. Or the argument that more had died over all from religion related events.
@NadNareek Yes. Not believing in a god had nothing to do with it. They had other reasons for doing what they did. A lack of believing in your god out of the myriad of others didn't have a single thing at all to do with what they did.
@NadNareek Bolshevism/Communism was a system with strong 'religion' characteristics, it's opposition to real religions is like opposition to a rival religion, Atheism is just not believing in supernatural, that's all, nothing 'evil' about it
@NadNareek You are an outright liar for saying that. But when has truth ever got in the way of proselytizing?
The facts are that in the US, 10% are non-believers overall. If you go to the top of the intellectual scale - the American Academy of Science - 90% are non-believers. In the prison population, 2% are non-believers.
These widely published and accepted data are available online should you be incredulous.
@NadNareek Have you done a study to see if you're right? Your experience and actual evidence are not the same. The majority of the population of people in U.S. prisons as of this moment are Christian. Does that mean that all christians are violent criminals? NO! The same can be said for atheists.
@Brandonlm2010 If you want me to give you more examples of bad deeds commited by religious people just ask me, cause i can give you hundreds : ) Sad to see how this guy has based his whole life on an insane belief.
@NadNareek Stalin's and Mao's states (and Hitler's, too) were both systems that encouraged people to shut their own brains down and follow the leader without question. THAT is evil, not atheism per se. Scientific atheism encourages independant thought, making people less susceptible to such movements.
@NadNareek Nothing has ever killed more people then religion, if religious people like cared about the value of humans they should give religion up. And your question makes no point These two killed people because they were insane dictators. Think of all the innocent people who would have been alive today if it wouldnt have been for a ridiculous believe in god. Think of all the young boys who wouldnt have been molested by catholic pedophile priests and the list goes on forever.
basically, if there was no god, or if u didn't believe in god, you'd go on a raping spree, because then you'd only be relying on your mere self and society to prevent u from becoming a barbarian?
@NadNareek yes they had also both had black hair. does that mean everyone with black hair wants to kill millions of peaple? the difference of them and everyone i took up in my last comment is that, stalin and mao didnt kill in the name of atheism. the other ones did. and another differense is, mao and stalin only killed peaple in their life time. religion has killed peaple for thousands of years and unless everone in the world becomes atheists, it will keep killing
God of the bible is not moral. He kills, he is jealous and he is insecure. As long as you love him and never deny him you will always be forgiven for any crime. If you do good but deny him and don't love him, he will torture you forever. He is also an incompetent. Adam & Eve were completely flawed. Satan & 1/3 of his followers rebelled. He still couldn't get things right and killed everything in the flood. He kills his own son. If there was a god I couldn't worship such an idiot.
"If there is no god there is no way to assign value to anything." You could do what the ancients did. Make up a non-disprovable deity, assert that this deity finds this or that moral or immoral, then get followers to believe it. You have just created a seemingly unquestionable position that dictates morality without a deity actually having to exist. The only problem is that you can do this more than once and have two non-disprovable places to dictate morality from that can contradict.
Atheists have been silenced. Jesus' prophecy of the utter destruction of Jerusalem is proof of who he is, proof of God, and proof of scripture as words from God.
@NadNareek OK, that one. I thought that "utter" means something like "total" and "forever".
Is it really such a stroke of genius? It does not need a prophet to prophecy that messing with the Romans was not a good idea and would result in the destruction of the city.
And even if Jesus was a genius, why would that "proof" god?
@PortCharmers The Romans did not HAVE to destroy Jerusalem and exterminate the occupants. They could have enslaved the Jews and made the city an outpost. Jesus told Christians to flee which they did before the destruction because they believed Jesus was telling the truth not only about that but also about who he claimed to be.
I mean the fact that Jesus told the truth about the destruction of the city (assuming it is a fact) does not mean he was right about everything else, too.
@PortCharmers From a historical method approach, Jesus' accuracy in predicting something that did transpire, lends credibility to him and to the document as historically reliable. The reverse would also be true: if the city had not been utterly destroyed and the inhabitants slaughtered, Jesus' credibility and that of the document would be undermined.
@PortCharmers From a historical method approach, Jesus' accuracy in predicting something that did transpire, lends credibility to him and to the document as historically reliable. The reverse would also be true: if the city had not been utterly destroyed and the inhabitants slaughtered, Jesus' credibility and that of the document would be undermined.
The only reason most human beings in western society don't continuously commit crimes is the knowledge that there are authorities, preserving the their laws, which were created by men (not by God). I think it's safe to say that the only thing more powerfull than mankind, is the law, which is created by men. Quite an accomplishment, quite something to live for.
This is not science vs religion as the brain-dead media portrays it. This is Information science vs Neo-Darwinian mythology. Good science vs bad science. Darwinism has to assume itself true to survive, intelligent design relies on empirical investigation in real-time.
This man is so naive to the way reality really works. It's an almost childish way of thinking he presents us with. I thought he might say something really challenging where I do not have a ready answer to, but this was really weak. You may look like Darwin and you get extra credit for being a Canadian, but you Sir are dramatically misinformed.
@ NadNareek - I don't follow your comment. Are you claiming that just because people can imagine there being a god, that god must exist? If that's what you mean, that's ridiculous; the same reasoning can be used to "prove" the existence of gnomes. Or Santa Claus.
Oh - what messianic prophecies have "come true"? Give me an example.
@Stevoukos You use the word 'wrong' on what grounds? To be consistent you should be saying pedophilia is just different perhaps by virtue of being gentically different. The universe is amoral and so are humans...... if no god.
@NadNareek how do you know that your god is anymore real than the other billions of deities? where is your proof. And regarding to your video, we do not get our morals from religion, we get them from our society, you don't see people stoning their defiant teenagers anymore do you? well in some cases.....but I hope that you think it's wrong to own slaves and stone kids..
@kpgpwi64 If we get our morals from society as you say, then it is morally right to stone kids if society says so, right? They bury twins alive in Brazilian tribes....morally OK too? How do I know my god is true? By hundreds of detailed messianic prophecies corroborated as fulfilled.
@NadNareek you do not need a god to tell you it is immoral to kill your own species, it hinders survival and progression, that's just common sense. And there never was any proof of the prophecies ever being fulfilled, there is no scientific proof. Just like there is no proof of any other deities every existing, they're are just fairy tales. alchemy was replaced by chemistry, astronomy replaced astrology. It's time for religion to be replaced by science and positively progress the human race.
@NadNareek Society would never say to stone children because in order to have an actual stable society, there must be a sense of peace and comfort - Low crime rate. To have a flourishing and stable society there must be set morals. Such as...Killing, stealing/robbing, respect. etc. If a society said it was okay to kill and steal, then it wouldn't really be a society now would it? On that note, it's not just societies that form morals, it's the sole human capability of being empathetic.
@KittyzKatterz Empathy occurs in varying degrees and is situational and sometimes absnet in some individuals. Is it bad, wrong, or genetically defective to lack empathy? If you say yes, you do not believe only in science.
@NadNareek If you're going to have a debate, stay on topic. We're talking about Morality, not the level of empathy in certain individuals. Because there are people that break the law and cause disturbance in society does not = higher power/s. If you want to discuss that, you first have to come to an understanding of the human mind and the reasons as to why a particular person would act/do certain things.
@NadNareek "Peculiarity of the human species?" Moralitiy is present in every communal species. The piranha is a classic example; did God give them Ten Commandments so that they wouldn't eat each other? Morality is a construct of both education and instinct. Admittedly, some Western morals have clear biblical roots. However, the God of the bible is arguably the most immoral ficticious character in history. For instance, the story of Job, in which God callously allows Satan to tortue Job.
@NadNareek Science explains empathy - when we watch people do things, we feel (partly) what they feel. This helps us in many ways such as learning things, learning *not* to do things (I saw someone get burned and they were obviously in pain, so my brain made me feel a bit of pain as a lesson).
This is partly why people get a kick out of watching sport where they support a team or athlete, effectively winning/losing by proxy.
The higher being you are accountable to is human history.
@NadNareek The christian god is amoral. He condones and details how to own slaves. He also gives instances when to kill your own children, and yet you judge Brazilian tribes? Heinous! If the christian god is true, he is an evildoer. Read your Bible. Read Deuteronomy and Leviticus in particular. And which messianic prophesies are you referring to here? I also recommend learning Hebrew. It will shed a lot of light on messianic prophesies for you.
A belief in god isn't necessary to lead your life righteously. If it helps, go for it, but holding onto something such as a personal god, to encourage your actions tricks your mind. How can one truly refine their mind so that its in harmony with nature, if an obstacle lies in between. It is like forcing women to cover up to prevent lustful thoughts,when ultimately its man who is at fault. Morality arises from appreciating everything is beautiful in its own way.
You do not deny natural desire, if you have risen above it. To deny natural desire is to force unhappiness on yourself through denial. Detachment is to feel and realise what is, isn't really the be all and end all of living. To Live with true freedom, doesn't involve for example the craving and later enjoyment of eating whatever you want, but simply eating to nourish the body. Organised religion enforces rules of life through god, spirituality makes us look within.
@NadNareek So you feel this way about women? And you feel you need a god to stop you from committing those acts. Maybe if you saw all women younger then yourself as daughters, older then yourself as mothers and grandmothers, and those around the same age as sisters you would think differently. Is your mind really pure, if you are lusting after women but denying yourself of those urges for both moral and legal reasons.
@0:18 Hmm. Maybe someday we will all answer for our crimes against rocks.
We looked down on rocks, thought they had no consciousness. We stepped on them, piled them into walls and confined them with cement, prevented them from reaching spiritual fulfillment, from realizing their full potential. But they were better than any of us.
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
That's right, human life doesn't have value in the greater scheme of things. It has value to other humans though. Value, morals, etc, those can alle exist without god.
"Don't be an asshole". Not because god will punish your ass, but because other people suffer because of you.
You expect me to believe your atheist assertion that the immense complexity of the universe came from nothing and without any contribution of information or intelligent direction? I do not believe your assertion. See Einstein, Flew, and others.
hello
DawkinsDebunked 2 weeks ago
Having an orderly society and helping one another is an evolutionary trait that heavily benefits our survival rates. A disorderly society and harming one another will greatly lower our survival rates. We are simply pack animals programmed to survive. Some people may get away with murder. It may not be pretty or fair, but that is REALITY. Your atoms will go on to become something else when you cease being you.
45H3R4H 1 month ago in playlist My Top Videos
First is to give evidence that there is a god as a real creature. If you have soul and there is afterlife, how how will you live in the afterlife, another 14.4 billion years. Why god could create a talking snake in the myth, and why not now, when many human beings believe the non-existence of god, then the omnipotent should create real miracle to show the existence of god, that his son promised to come back, but after 2000 years nothing and never will happen. Wake up from your dreams, please !
reichtum168j 1 month ago
Christians commit heiness crimes as well.....mostly by hiding behind their religion.
Google Catholic priest scandels
Jim Bakker
Jimmy Swaggart
Ted Haggard
Oral Roberts
the list goes on and on.
Atheists are regular hard working...loving .....kind to children and animals...folks just like so-called Christians.....we just have a personal relationship with reality is all.
No crime in that.
Going to church no more makes you a good person than standing in a garage makes you a car.
fab42 1 month ago
"Atheism is a disease of the soul, before it becomes an error of the understanding." - Plato
NadNareek 2 months ago
@NadNareek Do you believe in Zeus?
PortCharmers 1 week ago
Societies invent laws against things like robbery and murder, because most people don't like being robbed or murdered. There is no mystery about it. We have police, courts of law, and prisons in place to try to make sure that people don't get away with hurting others. We also have laws against polluting the environment which me must all share.
dingodavid 2 months ago
We are accountable one another for our behaviour. We have justice systems in place to enforce the laws that societies deem to be fair and benificial to the community as a whole.
dingodavid 2 months ago
Humans assine value to everything, no god needed. Humans hold each other accountable for their actions most times. If Hitler hadn't commited suicide then he would have been held accountable for his actions. A god isn't necessary for that. You just want there to be so you can feel better about things that you have no control over.
lautz73 2 months ago
(reply 4/4)
Amusingly,this philosophy is so pervasive in the middle east,they still follow love this form of dictatorship till this century. The middle east,the bastion of MightMakesRight-ism. Whether it be human,or godly. Anyway,to sum up,no one's opinions are unquestionable,even a god's opinion. So your example opinion,flawed or not,can not be trumped with a god's opinion. Temporarily granting the extremely important basic fact, that those gods' existences are in serious question.
jinitron 3 months ago
(reply 3 of 4)
. . . , to give his own philosophy more "intrinsic value (but no authority is 100%,even a god's)to what these men chose to give value to. (regardless how wise or noble you think these leaders are) Elevating their gods,to a SINGLE 1 universal creator,is just an attempt to grab even more power. (still not 100% authority)
Essentially, the moral philosophy followed here is,authoritarian dictators where Might Makes Right! are what we all need to follow unquestionably.
jinitron 3 months ago
Additionally tackling the very premise of your argument,divine authority isn't absolute. The origins of all religions are based on this flaw. In order to command the masses the HUMAN authorities needed an unquestionable basis for their authority/opinions,as their own might doesn't make them 100% right and unquestionable. So gods were subverted (or created) to be even mightier,to make the leaders' proclamations,mightier. Gods are just a man's voice,pretending to be a god
(reply 2/4)
jinitron 3 months ago
Societal ideas of value are based on custom and sometimes usefulness.Instrinsic value is different and cannot be assigned without a divine declaration. Example: Humans are a parasite infestation of earth, and it is therfore a moral imperative to exterminate them (or at least cull the human herd) to save other intrinsicaly valuable species.
Make an argument against it.
NadNareek 3 months ago
@NadNareek God did cull the human herd once, he might do it again. (He said he wouldn't send another Flood, he didn't say he wouldn't do something else to achieve the same end.)
mrjjking77 3 months ago
@NadNareek Religion for you is I think a good thing. You're clearly very troubled.
mrjjking77 1 month ago
@NadNareek You are right, humanity is an ecological desaster, and if we want to show any respect to nature (YOU would call it god's creation), we must change our ways. I am not even mentioning the fact that we are cutting off the branch we are sitting on, and when it snaps, that will force us to change.
PortCharmers 1 week ago
If God exists, morality has a transcendent compass. If God does not exist, we are as ships on the sea without direction.
NadNareek 3 months ago
It appears you do not comprehend the definition of "value". Your first error is assigning an intrinsic quality to the concept of value. Value is CONTEXTUAL, it presupposes a beneficiary---of value to whom and for what? Value (like all human concepts) does not float in space as a disconnected absolute nor does it exist by divine command.
Bottom line... you confuse objective reality with authoritarianism and cannot distinguish the contextual from the intrinsic.
sweetsweatyfeet 3 months ago
@sweetsweatyfeet One can distinguish instrumental use or value (water to a plant) from intrinsic value as an inherent property. Humans have instrinsic value but by what authority?......God said: "Let us make man in our own image."
NadNareek 3 months ago
@NadNareek An itrinsic property is not a "value". It's an attribute that defines an object. Value requires a subject who is a beneficiary of the value in question. Human life is of value to us because we have a built in instinct to survive--human life is not intrinsically valuable apart from that. You are an intrinsicist which is typical for a Christian since that is what is follows when you assume reality is defined by divine command.
sweetsweatyfeet 3 months ago
@sweetsweatyfeet Without God, there is no instrinic value....just individual fantasies of intangible realities.
NadNareek 3 months ago
@NadNareek I disagree. The existence of god would not make things intrinsic, just commanded. Argument from authority is no different than "might is right". Authority is not objectivity.
But there is a reality that is knowable to the extant we can study it. Whereas god is entirely fabricated and very much one of the "individual fantasies" you mentioned; an early attempt by man to account for things he could not comprehend.
sweetsweatyfeet 3 months ago
You could take this very basic instinct and filter it through time. We're an increasingly intelligent species, and our priorities, our instincts (and from there feelings), become more and more complex by the years. What we have in the case of animals is, in the end, interchangeable with affection.
As far as I am concerned, everything came from our survival instinct and became much more than that with time. It has clearly come to a point where we have trouble attributing it.
SiGhast 3 months ago
@SiGhast a bold and humble admission for an atheist.
NadNareek 3 months ago
@NadNareek "a bold and humble admission"
No it's not, religious or not, outside of ultra conservative religions, most would agree. Your argument requires a cynical view of humanity and selfish imperative originating in religion itself.
Humans are social..
I'm in Europe, the vast majority here believe in evolution, have little or no religion (God as Nature a common concept).
criminals (damaged pp & nuts) is what law & social services are for.
Places with least crime usually the least religious.
marsCubed 2 months ago
@SiGhast Hello, i'm not trying to argue your point, mainly because I agree with a good portion of it, but want to add a topic of consideration. Even if emotions are a response to survival instincs and assuming it can be clearly attributed, nature still holds no bias towards complex forms compared to simpler forms..
If value is added by the involved parites, it becomes a subjective issue, negating true worth and only expressing a given worth. Making man, animals, and rocks equal.
Inverita1 2 months ago
Regarding animals...
Most of us don't even seem to be valuing them with any consistency. First and foremost, we don't seem to value anything by just simple "humans #1, animals #2, materials #3" categories; there are a lot of subtle levels here. The worth we attribute to various animals seem to be random, to be honest. I think it boils down to what animals are of use to us, and in the end SURVIVAL is the main instinct guiding us. We keep pets as trustworthy companions.
SiGhast 3 months ago
This isn't necessarily an arguement for atheism, but it's a thought this brought up.
Did we or did we not decide the value of CURRENCY ourselves? Was that, too, God's doing? If it was us, could we not apply value to what we, essentially, WANT to? Along these lines, we are also seperating the value of a rock from the value of gold. Not that these two have any ACTUAL worth; we've chosen it.
Of course THIS isn't an issue of morality, but see those as basics of value.
SiGhast 3 months ago
@SiGhast societal values are based on custom and sometimes usefulness.....instrinsic value is different and this is what cannot be assigned without a divine declaration......example: humans are a parasite infestation of earth and it is a moral imperative to exterminate them (or at least cull the herd) to save other intrinsicaly valuable species.....make an argument against it.
NadNareek 3 months ago
HAVE you noticed that Atheism has evolved into it's own religion or if you will a cult? They even have their own belief system and a hierarchy that forms a type of church structure? It seems they are mirroring or mimicking the very thing they claim to hate?They like to be called" Humanist"[ to love the human experience] or as Paul put it "Lovers of them selves"..just stopped to say hi
buddy85442 3 months ago
Perhaps, the way in which values exists is because humans and other beings can assign value to things. One way in which accountability exists is because humans can hold people accountable; people (and nature) give consequences to other people’s actions. Essentially, beings create value and accountability.
floydnelson92 4 months ago
@floydnelson92 If value comes only from me, who am I and what are my values worth? Nobody and Nothing
NadNareek 4 months ago
@NadNareek Here is an interesting response: If values come only from God, who is God and what are His values worth? Is it nothing? If not, then by the same reasoning human value is also worth something (whether God exists or not). I give my values my own worth and other people give my values a different worth.
floydnelson92 4 months ago
Proverbs 19:3 "The foolishness of man ruins his way, and his heart rages against the LORD."
NadNareek 4 months ago
Just because you don't belive in eternal punishment doen't mean you will murder and steal think about the crusades they killed thousands in the name of god and the biggest non-profit orginization in America that gives 1 billion dollars a year to starving children in Africa
I don't do good deeds for fear of punishment. If you only do good deeds in fear of retribution than you are more likley to go to hell than those who do it because it is right
Ralathon1 5 months ago
@Ralathon1 WHY do good deeds? to humans? not to worms?
NadNareek 4 months ago
Ultimate justice yeah right! ist it christianity that teaches all sins are forgiven if you repent? So all murderers in jail, of which at least 80% claims to be christian ( in America that is) are forgiven? Wow that's some real ultimate accountablility
Hindrik1986 5 months ago
Dan--Have you read any of the popular and recent books by the so-called "new atheists" (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) or other scientists, philosophers and bible scholars (Price, Dennett)? These writers (and a growing chorus of others) address very thoroughly the points you raise. Harris's "The Moral Landscape" and Shermer's "The Believing Brain" propose evidence-based mechanisms for Darwinian evolution of the moral principles you discuss. Their ideas aren't new, just the scientific support.
juliuschas 5 months ago
@juliuschas So how about you? Do you believe in free moral choice or not? On what basis and why do you think it matters? If human behavior is only material, ultimately nothing is right and wrong.
NadNareek 5 months ago
@NadNareek Not sure what you mean by "free choice," if it's something other than making a choice "free" of coercion by some other person. I can't think of any choice I've made that is "free" in the sense of offering an infinite number of options. As for right and wrong, my experience is that I have some internal sense of a difference, and the only explanation I've ever heard is that it's a combination of innate thought patterns (including, e.g., emotions) and learning from other people.
juliuschas 5 months ago
"every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe — spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort" - Einstein (1936)
NadNareek 5 months ago
@NadNareek This is the wrong approach. Einstein's opinion shouldn't matter, for or against the existence of God. Both sides try to use him. It's the wrong way to go about it. There are great scientists who are believers, and great scientists who aren't.
mrjjking77 5 months ago
The Buddhists I know believe the self is an illusion and that personal identity is not preserved after death. This logically means there is absolutely no personal accountability.
NadNareek 5 months ago
@NadNareek To be fair there are just as many versions of Buddhism as there are denominations of Christianity. Some believe as you say, others don't. In common with Hinduism there is the idea of karma in some versions of Buddhism, so there is some accountability I guess.
mrjjking77 5 months ago
According to your god, working on the sabbath day is punishable by death, that is just one of many absurd and ridiculous rules that the bible teaches us to live by. I am and athiest but that does not compell me to go and steal or kill just because I can get away with it. Just becease you don't like the fact that people can act without consequence that doesnt make hevean or hell real. On another note, what makes human life so important why are we more important that any other animal.
link1565Version2 5 months ago
You're on to something Dan. Morals, for example, are made up things by humans. There is no objective proof saying what's right or wrong. Also there is no objective proof of any deity. As an atheist, I think and choose what is morally right or wrong. How do you know that any "god" knows from right or wrong? There isn't a shred of reason behind it. Being able to think for yourself what is right or wrong is far greater than any imaginary being.
biggrigga 5 months ago
"A true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death, the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders that we are not going to be judged...the opium of modernity is that humans are free to do as they please." Czeslaw Milosz, Polish Nobel Prize winner
NadNareek 5 months ago
@NadNareek Just because somebody says a catchy phrase, or won an award doesn't qualify everything that comes from their mind...it's almost like you're IDOLIZING him :p. To imply that all atheists are raving, scoundrels without moral sense is insulting and absurdly ignorant. Atheism let's one think for themselves using only the tools of reason, logic, and objective evidence. I'm fairly certain opium doesn't do that. I think Nietzsche has more credibility than Czeslaw Milosz.
biggrigga 5 months ago
@NadNareek You've got me there. I couldn't give up my life in that scenario ... and neither would the vast majority of people who call themselves Christian.
sysyphus0jones 6 months ago
Thanks for allow my posts Dan
You have gone up in my estimations
sysyphus0jones 6 months ago
Dan, your religion is about being good so you can earn a reward and not being evil through fear of penalty. Well were there a God how could he not see through such a transparent ruse?
Your God would have to be the ultimate mug falling for that!
God the omnigullible!
Here's an idea: Why not do the right thing JUST because it's the right thing, not because you hope for a reward?
As usual, expecting you to spike my reply
sysyphus0jones 6 months ago
Dan, I don't kill or steal because these are immoral things to do: Not because I fear punishment from your imaginary buddy.
As usual, expecting you to spike my reply
sysyphus0jones 6 months ago
@sysyphus0jones Caring is valid and fear is an added motivation to do right. Caring is easy when there is plenty, but when there is deprivation, would you sacrifice your life for a starving stranger? It would be irrational to do so if this is your only life.
NadNareek 6 months ago
@NadNareek One example of this is what's referred to as "kin selection" in biology, where individuals possess behaviors that benefit the reproductive success of close kin, rather than themselves, which nevertheless may lead to its own genes being propagated more effectively because their kin share so many of their own genes.
It sounds a bit sick to insinuate that people have a moral obligation to commit suicide so a single starving stranger can eat their flesh anyway.
Gnomefro 6 months ago
@NadNareek It would be irrational anyway. God doesn't expect that much. Plus He'd question your motivation. If you only did it because you thought it would please Him, and not because it was the right thing to do in itself, He might not like that. If you only did it to score points and get in to Heaven, and get in early, then that might fall under the same category as suicide being a sin.
mrjjking77 6 months ago
@NadNareek
only error is they both were educated
and you are uneducated gutter trash
sykeo123 5 months ago
@sykeo123 sometimes I like to approve grossly insulting comments of atheists
NadNareek 5 months ago
Dan, you xians have the ultimate get out clause! If Hitler or Stalin (your examples) had repented at the last, then they too would be forgiven regardless of the appalling things they did: That's SOME accountability you've got there mate!
As usual, expecting you to spike my reply
sysyphus0jones 6 months ago
@sysyphus0jones Yes forgiveness is amazing....it's the good news.
NadNareek 6 months ago
@NadNareek It only works if you truly mean it. Being afraid of death as many people are they may have asked for it but if they didn't truly repent then it doesn't work. I have a feeling they would not have repented, as evil people don't usually consider *themselves* evil. Hitler probably thought he was doing good. It's not true that he was an atheist, though, just a false Christian as were many of his top people. That's not the case with Stalin of course.
mrjjking77 6 months ago
@NadNareek Somebody could plan out doing all sorts of bad things, as long as they "repent to god". Forgiveness, one human to another, is amazing. Forgiveness from an imaginary deity can and is used as a license to get away with anything. Organized crime groups, such as the Sicilian Mafia, do this kind of thing all the time to 'excuse' them of their deeds; fully knowing they will do bad things again.
biggrigga 5 months ago
No accountability without God.... Well Dan, whether or not there is, how on Earth (or anywhere else) can this be an argument FOR the existence of God? Because OTHERWISE life would be so unfair?
As usual, expecting you to spike my reply
sysyphus0jones 6 months ago
@sysyphus0jones Without ultimate accountability there is ultimately no accountability or morality.
NadNareek 6 months ago
@NadNareek that's a nice sound byte Dan, but it still begs the question.
You see, even if you're right, it STILL doesn't mean that therefore there MUST BE ultimate accountability. Just because somehow it would be so much better if it were true doesn't make it true ...
I couldn't detect in your video any reason for the "Dawkins" in the title but I'll give you a connection Dan: You have The God Delusion.
sysyphus0jones 6 months ago
@NadNareek He's right, actually. It's not an argument for God's existence. If this is what your faith rests on it isn't real. Anyone can believe in something they've seen. Faith by definition is believing without seeing.
mrjjking77 6 months ago
@mrjjking77 Faith is not blind if it is based on evidence. See my Biblical Archaeology Discoveries.
NadNareek 5 months ago
@NadNareek A true believer doesn't need evidence. What virtue is there in believing when you've seen. Not that the archeological evidence is enough, of course. You *still* need faith.
mrjjking77 5 months ago
Dan, I am an atheist and yet I value people far above rocks and trees! Astonishing!
As usual, expecting you to spike my reply
sysyphus0jones 6 months ago
@sysyphus0jones You may value people above rocks but not because of atheism.
NadNareek 6 months ago
@NadNareek I didn't say it was BECAUSE of atheism Dan
You're the one making the unproven connections.
sysyphus0jones 6 months ago
NadNareek 6 months ago
@NadNareek strange because elsewhere you seem to think that atheists value their lives more than Christians.
Dan: correlation does not imply causation. All the countries you mention also happen to have bitterly cold winters: Correlation, causation ...? Do you see the problem?
sysyphus0jones 6 months ago
@NadNareek "Followers of religions that strongly prohibit suicide, like Christianity and Islam, have a higher suicide rate than those religions which have no strong prohibition eg Buddhism and Hinduism."
Planning to convert Dan?
source: Google "religioustolerance Facts about suicide"
sysyphus0jones 6 months ago
An atheist can't tell me what I had for breakfast, and yet he knows that in all the universe there is no God?
jimmyjojo4321 6 months ago
What can answer the cry of the human spirit facing the void, the crematorium, alone and abandonned in the dark? You may answer: "There is no one to answer" and "Just embrace the void" and "It is what it is." If you find this unsatisfying, just accept it. Shout if you need to......or meditate yourself into cessation.
NadNareek 6 months ago
All those silly christendogs have a need for a got to keep themselves straight in life.So, thus, there are biljons of insaine people and just a few whom can better the world.
Lou
Zepo616 7 months ago
Well I'm Buddhist/Athiest, and I have never in my life as an athiest thought to or actually committed theft, rape, murder, purposeful pain, or ANY negative inflictions unto others for that matter. so i don't see what this video is getting at. can't i just live by my own rules and not do any of the above? (and now i'm being very unbuddhist, refered to myself about 1/2 a billion times in 1 text :-S ).
lloydgar01 7 months ago
@brokebackoddsac and there is nothing 'wrong' with sociopathy....in fact it could be an advancement in human evolution
NadNareek 7 months ago
PART 2--Since nothing can be truly yours then nothing can be truly stolen. The only absolute thing is life. This is the only thing that is truly yours. I don't believe in God because I don't believe in good or evil. Right or wrong. So there couldn't be an almighty entity who truly cared about trivial things such as lying, stealing, adultery. These things are in fact destructive behaviors, but only in the society that we created. Not to mention the Bible is obviously the word of man, not god.
Slaytounge 7 months ago
PART 1---You make it sound like there is this universal sense of good and evil. That stealing is inherently "wrong" when right, wrong, good, evil, etc. are all things that people invent. They are just simply abstract ideas. What constitutes something being yours? The fact you bought it? Or maybe it was a gift to you? The only connection between you and this object are things you invent called meanings and words. They are just possessions that you call yours but nothing is truly owned by anyone.
Slaytounge 7 months ago
@Slaytounge "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in good or evil. Right or wrong." - I like your consistent atheist logic.
NadNareek 7 months ago
History has proven that Atheism drives people into killing others because there are now laws and no consequences. Atheists are dangerous because they just don't care.
MaIcoImZieI 7 months ago
If you need god to stop you from doing bad things then you are pathetic, an if you are religious you can just twist your own bullshit dogma to say it's ok
blakdust3 7 months ago
@blakdust3 "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in good or evil. Right or wrong." - The Consistent Atheist
NadNareek 7 months ago
@NadNareek actually that's specifically definable to humanism right there. atheism encompasses humanism mainly as a defiance against religion i'll admit, but nevertheless, humanism is a much broader ideal on situations and their handlings.
lloydgar01 7 months ago
@blakdust3 God did not stop you from making a strawman.
"He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."
I hope this does not apply to you.
Seekmosttoprophesy 6 months ago
I am sorry but this is not an argument. This is just a moral problem a very significant one true. As an atheist trust me I am disturbed by this lack of "extraterrestrial" justice. This is why I am very keen on the judicial justice even if it is not perfect. It is important to me. This is why I was very upset when "Mother" Teresa asked the good people of Bhopal to forgive Union Carbide India Limited. I think that believe in gods justice sometimes prevents the only justice which IMHO counts.
Morclaw 7 months ago
Get at least a basic education in science - and its close relative philosophy - before having the effrontery to start lecturing to the rest of us.
vjwebster 7 months ago
i thought all canadians were atheist.
Rachulie 8 months ago
Whether or not we want someone to be accountable doesn't change whether or not he will be. Even if it were nice if everyone had to answer for everything they did, that doesn't make it true.
Weltinventar 8 months ago
--[continued]--
And what was so amazing about this "prediction" anyway? The Romans were engaged in an empire building in the region. That is bound to involve rebellions and sieges of power bases.
So then an easily predictable event that anyway was only "predicted" after it happened.
date sources: wikipedia: "Siege of Jerusalem" & "New Testament"
sysyphus0jones 8 months ago
--[continued]--
And what was so amazing about this "prediction" anyway? The Romans were engaged in an empire building in the region. That is bound to involve rebellions and sieges of power bases.
So then an easily predictable event that anyway was only "predicted" after it happened.
Sources: wikipedia: "Siege of Jerusalem" & "New Testament"
sysyphus0jones 8 months ago
@sysyphus0jones What is amazing is that the early Christians fled Jerusalem before the seige because Jesus told them to flee. If the text was written post-70 CE, what motive did the writer have in not describing the fulfillment that would have actually vindicated Jesus who had been crucified earlier? Also, why do we see Christians and Jews still living in Jerusalem throughout the gospel records?
The conclusion is obvious: the scripture is pre-70 AD and Jesus was a prophet of God.
NadNareek 8 months ago
@NadNareek But the only "evidence" of a jesus inspired exodus from Jerusalem *must* be a posteriorii!
the prophet sysyphus: "JFK will be assassinated in Dallas!"
believer: "Look! Sysyphus predicted JFK's assassination! It's written right there!"
skeptic: "But the internet wasn't invented in 1963."
believer: "But the conclusion is obvious: it must have been, because sysyphus predicted JFK's assassination!"
sysyphus0jones 8 months ago
@sysyphus0jones Where is this prophetic text of sysyphus?
NadNareek 7 months ago
@NadNareek I don't have a prophetic text Dan because such things are impossible. But I can make an educated guess about about the future, like this one: "NadNareek will this day spike this message!"
That's given you a dilemma my friend: Spike it (go on you know you want to), or prove my prediction wrong ...
sysyphus0jones 6 months ago
@sysyphus0jones If the seige of Jerusalem was predicted after it happened, why did the author not include a description of its fulfillment to vindicate Jesus as a true prophet?? Why could not the Romans have enslaved the population (as they customarily did) rather than destroy it?
NadNareek 7 months ago
@NadNareek What? So you're admitting the biblical "predictions" are open to doubt!
sysyphus0jones 6 months ago
The siege and conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans: 70 CE.
Mark, the earliest book of the NT had been dated about the same time (Coincidence? Hardly) The rest of the NT was written still later, indeed continuing well into into the 2nd Century CE
Even the dullest of minds ought to be able to grasp that a book written during and after some event, that contains a "prediction" of that event, is more simply explained as forgery.
--[continued]--
sysyphus0jones 8 months ago
"without religion no moral value" HAHAHAHA. You mean the moral value of the KKK, Islamic states killing homosexuals, Usama Bin Laden, Crusaders, Israel - Palestine war, Christian fundementalists killing abortionist doctors, Imagine all these "moral things" humanity would have never seen without Religion. Unlike Theists evolutionists does not tell you to kill people for not having a certain belief, and plus that they have proof.
Momokabomo 8 months ago
@Momokabomo What about Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung who between them killed off 100 million people???
NadNareek 8 months ago
@NadNareek Religious or not they're always going to be humans in this world who will do what you would consider evil things. Your argument is that religion would minimize that type of behavior, yet you had only came up with two examples of atheists who have committed bad deeds versus the six Mokokabomo provided. Not to mention other examples like how less than 1% of American jail population are atheist, while all the rest are religious. Please Google it if you do not believe me. We are good!
Brandonlm2010 8 months ago
@Brandonlm2010 Atheism is something people pass in and out of due to periods or moments of unbelief. On this basis, most of the guilty in prison are there because of their unbelief.
NadNareek 8 months ago
@NadNareek Not true. Not all people pass "in and out of" Atheism like it is a mood or feeling. It is a logic based point of view gained through thinking. Saying that all Atheists are in jail because of their unbelief is a bias generalization, and you ignore the fact that the prisoners who are religious were not stopped by their beliefs. The fact is that a lower percentage of Atheists are in jail from the total Atheist population that religious.
Brandonlm2010 8 months ago
@Brandonlm2010 as a prison chaplain volunteer, my experience is that the majority in my prison are atheists
NadNareek 8 months ago
@NadNareek Individual crimes committed by Atheists are not the only thing to focus on. What about the MILLIONS of people who had died from all the wars caused by and for religion. Any wars/genocide caused by Atheist leadership were not started for the purpose of spreading Atheism, while religious wars and genocide were started to spread religion. Not to mention that overall deaths from the attempts to spread religion is in the millions. While spreading Atheism has little to none as a result.
Brandonlm2010 8 months ago
@Brandonlm2010 Stalin, Mao, Menghistu, Ceauscescu, Pol Pot, etc. just happened to be atheists but atheism had nothing to do with it. Right??
NadNareek 8 months ago
@NadNareek I was not implying that it Atheism had nothing to do with what those people had done. I was only saying that it was not for the purpose of spreading Atheism. History has proved that religion has not stopped others from killing millions. You also still do not have a counter argument for the point I made about wars started by religious leaders were meant to spread religion. Or the argument that more had died over all from religion related events.
Brandonlm2010 8 months ago
@NadNareek Yes. Not believing in a god had nothing to do with it. They had other reasons for doing what they did. A lack of believing in your god out of the myriad of others didn't have a single thing at all to do with what they did.
Clubbingshawn 7 months ago
@NadNareek Right.
willbond 7 months ago
@NadNareek Bolshevism/Communism was a system with strong 'religion' characteristics, it's opposition to real religions is like opposition to a rival religion, Atheism is just not believing in supernatural, that's all, nothing 'evil' about it
jfeuiebf 7 months ago
@NadNareek You are an outright liar for saying that. But when has truth ever got in the way of proselytizing?
The facts are that in the US, 10% are non-believers overall. If you go to the top of the intellectual scale - the American Academy of Science - 90% are non-believers. In the prison population, 2% are non-believers.
These widely published and accepted data are available online should you be incredulous.
vjwebster 7 months ago
@NadNareek Have you done a study to see if you're right? Your experience and actual evidence are not the same. The majority of the population of people in U.S. prisons as of this moment are Christian. Does that mean that all christians are violent criminals? NO! The same can be said for atheists.
Clubbingshawn 7 months ago
@NadNareek is your experience also that the majority in your prison had tattoos ?explain the link that you highlighted please... seems meaningless.
bearwoodcarpentry 7 months ago
@Brandonlm2010 If you want me to give you more examples of bad deeds commited by religious people just ask me, cause i can give you hundreds : ) Sad to see how this guy has based his whole life on an insane belief.
Momokabomo 8 months ago
@NadNareek Stalin's and Mao's states (and Hitler's, too) were both systems that encouraged people to shut their own brains down and follow the leader without question. THAT is evil, not atheism per se. Scientific atheism encourages independant thought, making people less susceptible to such movements.
PortCharmers 8 months ago
@NadNareek Nothing has ever killed more people then religion, if religious people like cared about the value of humans they should give religion up. And your question makes no point These two killed people because they were insane dictators. Think of all the innocent people who would have been alive today if it wouldnt have been for a ridiculous believe in god. Think of all the young boys who wouldnt have been molested by catholic pedophile priests and the list goes on forever.
Momokabomo 8 months ago
@NadNareek
basically, if there was no god, or if u didn't believe in god, you'd go on a raping spree, because then you'd only be relying on your mere self and society to prevent u from becoming a barbarian?
itzahazylife 8 months ago
@NadNareek A mere piss in the ocean compared to the crimes of Christendom.
Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches - therefore people with mustaches are evil. Is that your logic?
vjwebster 7 months ago
@NadNareek yes they had also both had black hair. does that mean everyone with black hair wants to kill millions of peaple? the difference of them and everyone i took up in my last comment is that, stalin and mao didnt kill in the name of atheism. the other ones did. and another differense is, mao and stalin only killed peaple in their life time. religion has killed peaple for thousands of years and unless everone in the world becomes atheists, it will keep killing
Momokabomo 7 months ago
God of the bible is not moral. He kills, he is jealous and he is insecure. As long as you love him and never deny him you will always be forgiven for any crime. If you do good but deny him and don't love him, he will torture you forever. He is also an incompetent. Adam & Eve were completely flawed. Satan & 1/3 of his followers rebelled. He still couldn't get things right and killed everything in the flood. He kills his own son. If there was a god I couldn't worship such an idiot.
jim6584 8 months ago
"If there is no god there is no way to assign value to anything." You could do what the ancients did. Make up a non-disprovable deity, assert that this deity finds this or that moral or immoral, then get followers to believe it. You have just created a seemingly unquestionable position that dictates morality without a deity actually having to exist. The only problem is that you can do this more than once and have two non-disprovable places to dictate morality from that can contradict.
iconoclast135 8 months ago
Atheists have been silenced. Jesus' prophecy of the utter destruction of Jerusalem is proof of who he is, proof of God, and proof of scripture as words from God.
NadNareek 8 months ago
@NadNareek so when did this "utter destruction" occur?
PortCharmers 8 months ago
@PortCharmers 70 AD by Titus
NadNareek 8 months ago
@NadNareek OK, that one. I thought that "utter" means something like "total" and "forever".
Is it really such a stroke of genius? It does not need a prophet to prophecy that messing with the Romans was not a good idea and would result in the destruction of the city.
And even if Jesus was a genius, why would that "proof" god?
PortCharmers 8 months ago
@PortCharmers The Romans did not HAVE to destroy Jerusalem and exterminate the occupants. They could have enslaved the Jews and made the city an outpost. Jesus told Christians to flee which they did before the destruction because they believed Jesus was telling the truth not only about that but also about who he claimed to be.
NadNareek 8 months ago
@NadNareek
I mean the fact that Jesus told the truth about the destruction of the city (assuming it is a fact) does not mean he was right about everything else, too.
PortCharmers 8 months ago
@PortCharmers From a historical method approach, Jesus' accuracy in predicting something that did transpire, lends credibility to him and to the document as historically reliable. The reverse would also be true: if the city had not been utterly destroyed and the inhabitants slaughtered, Jesus' credibility and that of the document would be undermined.
NadNareek 8 months ago
@PortCharmers From a historical method approach, Jesus' accuracy in predicting something that did transpire, lends credibility to him and to the document as historically reliable. The reverse would also be true: if the city had not been utterly destroyed and the inhabitants slaughtered, Jesus' credibility and that of the document would be undermined.
NadNareek 8 months ago
1) We know that morality does not come from the Bible(Or any other texts), but from thousands of years of social behavior.
2) About accountability: You fail to make a point, just because something is comfortable and nice to believe doesn't make it true.
Dawkins has already addressed both of these subjects. Next time, do a little research being Dawkin before you try to argue against him.
jjj5541 8 months ago
The only reason most human beings in western society don't continuously commit crimes is the knowledge that there are authorities, preserving the their laws, which were created by men (not by God). I think it's safe to say that the only thing more powerfull than mankind, is the law, which is created by men. Quite an accomplishment, quite something to live for.
kaasman88 8 months ago
This is not science vs religion as the brain-dead media portrays it. This is Information science vs Neo-Darwinian mythology. Good science vs bad science. Darwinism has to assume itself true to survive, intelligent design relies on empirical investigation in real-time.
fashklash 8 months ago
This man is so naive to the way reality really works. It's an almost childish way of thinking he presents us with. I thought he might say something really challenging where I do not have a ready answer to, but this was really weak. You may look like Darwin and you get extra credit for being a Canadian, but you Sir are dramatically misinformed.
artreyoo 9 months ago
@ NadNareek - I don't follow your comment. Are you claiming that just because people can imagine there being a god, that god must exist? If that's what you mean, that's ridiculous; the same reasoning can be used to "prove" the existence of gnomes. Or Santa Claus.
Oh - what messianic prophecies have "come true"? Give me an example.
erracht 9 months ago
Why do theists HAVE to claim emotions and morality?Are you saying that you are not a child molestor just because God says so?
If you do then there is something seriously wrong with you..
Stevoukos 9 months ago
@Stevoukos You use the word 'wrong' on what grounds? To be consistent you should be saying pedophilia is just different perhaps by virtue of being gentically different. The universe is amoral and so are humans...... if no god.
NadNareek 9 months ago
@NadNareek If people are immoral without god then you are impying that you are not a child molestor only because there is a god.Am I right?
Stevoukos 9 months ago
@Stevoukos There is a God who has spoken to humanity. Believe and obey the good news of Jesus Christ.
NadNareek 9 months ago
@NadNareek how do you know that your god is anymore real than the other billions of deities? where is your proof. And regarding to your video, we do not get our morals from religion, we get them from our society, you don't see people stoning their defiant teenagers anymore do you? well in some cases.....but I hope that you think it's wrong to own slaves and stone kids..
kpgpwi64 9 months ago
@kpgpwi64 If we get our morals from society as you say, then it is morally right to stone kids if society says so, right? They bury twins alive in Brazilian tribes....morally OK too? How do I know my god is true? By hundreds of detailed messianic prophecies corroborated as fulfilled.
NadNareek 9 months ago
@NadNareek you do not need a god to tell you it is immoral to kill your own species, it hinders survival and progression, that's just common sense. And there never was any proof of the prophecies ever being fulfilled, there is no scientific proof. Just like there is no proof of any other deities every existing, they're are just fairy tales. alchemy was replaced by chemistry, astronomy replaced astrology. It's time for religion to be replaced by science and positively progress the human race.
kpgpwi64 9 months ago
@NadNareek Society would never say to stone children because in order to have an actual stable society, there must be a sense of peace and comfort - Low crime rate. To have a flourishing and stable society there must be set morals. Such as...Killing, stealing/robbing, respect. etc. If a society said it was okay to kill and steal, then it wouldn't really be a society now would it? On that note, it's not just societies that form morals, it's the sole human capability of being empathetic.
KittyzKatterz 8 months ago
@KittyzKatterz Empathy occurs in varying degrees and is situational and sometimes absnet in some individuals. Is it bad, wrong, or genetically defective to lack empathy? If you say yes, you do not believe only in science.
NadNareek 8 months ago
@NadNareek If you're going to have a debate, stay on topic. We're talking about Morality, not the level of empathy in certain individuals. Because there are people that break the law and cause disturbance in society does not = higher power/s. If you want to discuss that, you first have to come to an understanding of the human mind and the reasons as to why a particular person would act/do certain things.
KittyzKatterz 8 months ago
@KittyzKatterz Without god, morality is only a human construct and has no depth or significance beyond a peculiarity of the human species
NadNareek 8 months ago
@NadNareek A statement of ignorance.
KittyzKatterz 8 months ago
@NadNareek "Peculiarity of the human species?" Moralitiy is present in every communal species. The piranha is a classic example; did God give them Ten Commandments so that they wouldn't eat each other? Morality is a construct of both education and instinct. Admittedly, some Western morals have clear biblical roots. However, the God of the bible is arguably the most immoral ficticious character in history. For instance, the story of Job, in which God callously allows Satan to tortue Job.
Andy32268 8 months ago
@NadNareek Science explains empathy - when we watch people do things, we feel (partly) what they feel. This helps us in many ways such as learning things, learning *not* to do things (I saw someone get burned and they were obviously in pain, so my brain made me feel a bit of pain as a lesson).
This is partly why people get a kick out of watching sport where they support a team or athlete, effectively winning/losing by proxy.
The higher being you are accountable to is human history.
GeoffonTour 8 months ago
@NadNareek The christian god is amoral. He condones and details how to own slaves. He also gives instances when to kill your own children, and yet you judge Brazilian tribes? Heinous! If the christian god is true, he is an evildoer. Read your Bible. Read Deuteronomy and Leviticus in particular. And which messianic prophesies are you referring to here? I also recommend learning Hebrew. It will shed a lot of light on messianic prophesies for you.
OldBattlehorse 8 months ago
@NadNareek
A belief in god isn't necessary to lead your life righteously. If it helps, go for it, but holding onto something such as a personal god, to encourage your actions tricks your mind. How can one truly refine their mind so that its in harmony with nature, if an obstacle lies in between. It is like forcing women to cover up to prevent lustful thoughts,when ultimately its man who is at fault. Morality arises from appreciating everything is beautiful in its own way.
SempiternalPanacea 9 months ago
@SempiternalPanacea Nature says have sex all the time with as many women as possible. One must deny natural desire.
NadNareek 9 months ago
@NadNareek
You do not deny natural desire, if you have risen above it. To deny natural desire is to force unhappiness on yourself through denial. Detachment is to feel and realise what is, isn't really the be all and end all of living. To Live with true freedom, doesn't involve for example the craving and later enjoyment of eating whatever you want, but simply eating to nourish the body. Organised religion enforces rules of life through god, spirituality makes us look within.
SempiternalPanacea 9 months ago
@NadNareek So you feel this way about women? And you feel you need a god to stop you from committing those acts. Maybe if you saw all women younger then yourself as daughters, older then yourself as mothers and grandmothers, and those around the same age as sisters you would think differently. Is your mind really pure, if you are lusting after women but denying yourself of those urges for both moral and legal reasons.
SempiternalPanacea 9 months ago
@0:18 Hmm. Maybe someday we will all answer for our crimes against rocks.
We looked down on rocks, thought they had no consciousness. We stepped on them, piled them into walls and confined them with cement, prevented them from reaching spiritual fulfillment, from realizing their full potential. But they were better than any of us.
We will be held accountable.
Gonna censor this one too?
OptimisticCynic715 9 months ago
@OptimisticCynic715 The more atheist absurdities, the better.
NadNareek 9 months ago
@NadNareek "The more atheist absurdities, the better."
Quite the dodger, aren't you? I was making a reference to the shoddy conclusions in your video(@0:18). Have you been talking to Nephilimfree?
watch?v=M2vYwCsJEjc
I'm wondering if folks like Saddam H. fully enjoyed what they were doing. Seems he lived on the run, in constant worry. Hitler Didn't seem happy.
Should we punish psychopaths or kleptos, if they have a mental condition they're unable to change?
OptimisticCynic715 9 months ago
If God doesn't exist, aren't their copious amounts of Christians that have failed moral accountability and committed sins that cannot be rectified?
The whole premise revolves around God existing, but in which case unless you renounce God - and he exists - he should forgive you anyway?
encomiastic 9 months ago
@encomiastic Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
NadNareek 9 months ago
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
shieldsff 9 months ago
That's right, human life doesn't have value in the greater scheme of things. It has value to other humans though. Value, morals, etc, those can alle exist without god.
"Don't be an asshole". Not because god will punish your ass, but because other people suffer because of you.
Advancedgod 9 months ago
@Advancedgod why do you focus only on humans suffering? you eat other animals don't you?
NadNareek 9 months ago
You expect me to believe your atheist assertion that the immense complexity of the universe came from nothing and without any contribution of information or intelligent direction? I do not believe your assertion. See Einstein, Flew, and others.
NadNareek 9 months ago