Hittler absolutely was Christian. Warren Buffet is atheist. You know, Warren Buffet...the friendly philanthropist investing tycoon who still lives the simple life while spending his time spreading his knowledge. A very high percentange of very intelligent people are atheists. The know that science and the world around them is atleast actively seeking all the answers while religion was started in primitive times to control primitive people.
@assym2006: Incorrect. One of Hitler's first government actions was to make it illegal to place crosses upon new churches. He persecuted and murdered countless pastors including Bonhoeffer. A Christian is one who trusts in Christ and follows Him including His moral law that forbids murder (Hitler massively failed at this) as it commands Christians to love and seek peace.
80-120 mill. murdered by atheism, Anti-theism is the McDonald's of Mass-murder:
Consistent evol. atheism is the Gov. of Mao, Kim and Stalin.
1. Consistent Ev. Atheism has as one of its main tenets: survival of the fittest. If Mao rules by the strongest arm, that's the way it is. It's consistent with SOTF.
2. Atheism can't provide fixed moral law, so anything most people assent to, even mass killings is OK
I'm not saying that I don't believe in a God, but how about each one that speaks 'for' God, and claims 'what' God is be quiet for a week? You can only dupe yourself by thinking that You and only You know what God wants. What if God was telling you to be quiet but you couldn't hear because your mouth is never at an end from spilling words. I'm pretty sure you couldn't hear God if you're always talking. Unless you claim that God is you.
Immutable and universal ethics? Christian ethics have been anything but static. The bible was used to justify slavery, the crusades, forced conversions, religious and racial persecution, burning witches, torturing blasphemers or heretics, eye for an eye justice, bigamy, statutory rape, child abuse, the dark ages, and that is just the Christian baggage. Also Adolf Hitler was a devote Catholic who regularly met with the pope, and denounced atheism in several books and speeches.
@Goddoesexist Have you read the Bible how many people were killed by plagues, holy ordered attacks etc etc,
Then you have the crusades, holy wars that still exist today, terrorist attacks, IRA, Al qaeda, Hilter (supposed catholic) condoned by the catholic church as he murdered millions of Jews...
Playing the Stalin card doesn't work because that stems from communism ideals.
Whereas there are many secular societies based on democracy that strive for high morality.
Hmmm, I wounder why Hitler wrote in mein kampf "I am and always be Catholic", Mao? the Chinese crazy dude? hmm I think he believed in godS, a lot of gods.
all religions say "don't kill" while their god kill millions.
Others have pointed out why atheism producing evil is wrong, but lets just say your right, your argument still boils down to "theism must be true because I would not like reality if it wasn't".
The whole argument about how morality can only come from God is not, logically, an argument for God's existence. It's an argument for why you want God to exist. Morality can just as easily be based in societal norms or evolutionary psychology.
You talk about the gas chambers of the Nazis and yet you don't realize that Hitler was a confirmed catholic. Most of the greatest human tradigies were commited by christians and the religious. With atheirsm there would have been far fewer deaths in this world and scientific understanding would be 1000 years ahead of where we are now.
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
Seriosly. even saying that there is ANY direct connection bwetween atheism and killing proves you being ignorant. if a christian guy kills a man, i dont blame christianity. if a christians man kills another person and says that it is in the nae of god. THEN, christianity is behind it. how many atheist kill people in the name of NOT believing in a god?
Honestly, the very suggestion that "God provides the only ground for fixed ethics" is fucking stupid.
Every organised religion in the world is splintered into multiple denominations, all squabbling with each other over a common "holy text" and each arguing that all the other denominations have interpreted it incorrectly.
What do Mother Teresa and Adolph Hitler have in common? Both used Christian theology to justify their actions.
On the off-chance this video is serious, it's worth making the obvious point that so many theists fail to grasp:
The greatest threat to universal immutable ethics is RELIGION...not the absence of it. Why? Because every religious text is subject to infinite variations in interpretation, and every claim to divine mandate (ie. "God told me to") is subject to the human mind's infinite capacity for self-delusion. ANYTHING can be justified by religion...history has proven this many times over.
noone has murdered in the name of atheism or because they were atheists. we perform actions based on our beliefs and convictions, not our disbeliefs, that is why nobody kills because they are an atheist. i do not kill because i don't there is a god to punish me, if you do, you're what i would consider morally bankrupt. and if this is all about the 'four mass murderers' crap, this responds to that and hitler was incredibly religious.
@kezthepieman13 hitler was not only religious, but destroyed secular and openly atheist groups proudly throughout germany. he made a speech in which he proclaimed such acheivements.
This positition is indefensible. There are thousands of gods that are being believed in, and even more that were believed in before, that allmost all have immutable "fixed" moral codes - and they all claim to be correct. Furthermore when many of these socalled "fixed" morals also then conflict with eachother, we have absolutley no means of determining who is right and why we should believe your story rather than the other guy's. Also, you have not demonstrated that we can't be moral without god
You talk about ww2 and the holocaust, and the Jews in concentration camps. Hitler was a Christian. He banned books that were critical of Christianity and had them burned. Even people like Stalin kill for their political ideologies (belief in lenins idea that terrorizing a population makes them obedient) You have not demonstrated that atheism produces evil.
Atheism is not the only thing atheists look to for morality. In fact, they don't look to it at all for that. There are no moral guidelines given by atheism. It's just a term for people who don't believe in any gods. People have to find their own morals, be it from their culture, their religion, etc.
All schools of logic: mathematical, formal, predicate, deductive, etc, all schools, forms and types of modern logic necessarily utilize the Laws of Logic.
The immaterial, universal, immutable laws of Logic have always been, are, and always will be; not so with the material cosmos.
God alone who is immaterial, universal, immutable and hash always been, is, and always will be can ground them.
Atheism leads to evil? Nothing bad has ever happened because of atheism. No War has ever been started because atheism. If you think about it, half of all the wars that ever took place in the history of humankind wouldn't have happened if everyone became atheists. Religion begets evil, not atheism.
Reality check: irrationality produces evil! Whether it be religion (such as in the crusades) or megalomania, fanaticism, and irrational hatred (such as in the Holocaust). Atheism does not produce evil. Even if it did, how would that prove the existence of God/theism?
Atheism is not a belief that has tentants and laws. Being an atheist is just the same as saying "i have a hobby of not collecting stamps". Atheism indicates what you do not believe in, not what you do believe in. People like Mao, Stalin an so on, were not theists, but used the theist model to carry out thier mass slaughter. You have God (Mao, Stalin) and thier faithful belivers Soviets or Communists, they used the theist model of morality were anything can be justified.
theism need not be necessary for ethics ... the first set of laws that pre-dates even the old testament was from a Mesopotamian king called Hammurabi ... he was not given the laws from some god ... his code of law was deduced from common sense and logic ... just because you asset something does not make it a fact ... and also ...i see that you have disabled ratings ...
@Goddoesexist You must know atheism is not a belief system right? But if we had a competition, christianity wins the murder competition. I dont actually blame the church as an organization for what people did hundreds of years ago, but I do blame superstition, and thats what religion is all about. Belief without evidence, and mythical superstition
@Goddoesexist Survival of the fittest is not a tenet of atheism. "There is no god is the only tenet of atheism". Also, christianity hasnt provided fixed moral law. Slavery was once ok, mass murder has been commanded by god, and polygamy was common.
Why is it that people assume men will only do good in the hopes of gaining brownie points from God?Society has its own rewards for doing good and its own punishments for doing evil.Interpersonal relationships have a reward system too. Above that atheism is not a moral code nor is it a world view it is simply saying i do not believe in a diety .
@krissy4nik Very good point. I guess I am glad that the type of religious people who say " What reason do you have to do the right thing? Why not just go out and steal money, kill anyone who ticks you off, or looks at you cross-eyed?" believe in a God. Since they are only auditioning for a spot in heaven- I wonder what sinful behaviors they are repressing. It's Santa Clause for grownups. That was my sons reaction when he found out that Santa wasn't real:"Mom,God is like Santa for adults!"
Theism does not supply universal ethics. Theistic ethics are cherry picked and one set of theistic ethics differ from the next as much as they do from secular ethics. deny this and your a nut.
ES: Incorrect. A material non-immutable particular cosmos lacks universality and immutability; God alone has such attributes; God alone grounds the Laws of Logic. The Laws of Logic must be utilized in all one asserts, in all one's actions, they are inescapable, hence God is inescapable. You know this truth but do not wish it to be true. So you are irrational.
Cliched argument. Those genocides weren't in the name of a godless world view. You must be a revisionist of history because you seem to have skimmed over the bloodshed and torture caused by religion all the way from the beginning of history to present minute.
Hell is your future residence unless you repent of your profligacy and unorthodox corporal pursuits and self-deception.
There are things that transcend the material, including laws of mathematics and laws of reason. A = A and A~~A universally; a universal cannot be grounded by a non-universal particular cosmos.
The people who impaled babies and roasted them over open fires before eating them were christians.
You are way off base. Never in history have human rights been regarded to the degree that they are now. If the wars of the 20th century had been as bloody as those previously fought in earlier centuries, then by comparison to increased population, billions would have died. Never before has medicine been so widespread. Your claim is utterly false.
If true moral law is: it's good for the strongest to survive, let the weak grovel and die. If there isn't a morality decreed by God, then logically the strongest should exploit and take advantage of the weak. To be a consistent atheist/evolutionist, one should close down the assistance programs and the schools for the blind, handicapped, and kill off all the weak.
God alone gives an immutable Moral Law. God lives.
The Law of Thought named the Law of Contradiction is not an axiom that is prior to or independent of God, The Law is an aspect of God's nature, being and thinking.
The Laws of Thought are necessary but not sufficient for intelligibility. God is necessary and sufficient for intelligibility. You can posit the Laws of Th. as that which doesn't necessitate grounding, and atheism lacks the ethical absolutes to mandate that one Must be logical and affirm the Laws of Thought.
The laws of logic can be fully derived by observing the material world. Basically what you are saying is: "an apple is not a banana, so there must be a god."
However: modern science shows us that matter does not always behave as predictable as we are used to, not even in our own universe. The laws of logic are a manmade construct, founded on a basic observation of the world. The more we learn about that world, the clearer it becomes that these rules are not immutable.
Stalin wasnt motivated by atheism, and more importantly: Stalin couldnt use atheism to control people ("Atheism told me to murder people").
The Crusades were motivated by religion - at the very least religion was used as a ploy (some people claiming that they had absolute truth and were directed by god *winkwink*).
Todays Islamic terrorism? - motivated by religion.
The entire child-abuse scandal that we see in Europe? - a direct result of religion.
I am deliberately mentioning mentioning stuff here that is not directly connected to your belief system, because you havent really outlined why your religion is "right" so far.
Given how easy it is for religious leaders to manipulate their sheeple, we are rightfully suspicious - we damand solid proof if we are to be converted.
And again: Atheism is the lack of believe in a supernatural beeing, thus an I can not make a god responsible for my actions. I myself am accountable.
So: What are you trying to convince us of? So far your main point was: there are immutables (logic, morals), and they can only exist because of an immutable beeing (God). No mention/proof of why that has to be the Christian god. No mention of what "brand" of Christianity is actually right. (No response to my challenges of your core argument either!!).
Even if we were to agree that there is a god, where do we go from there? Why your religion? What IS your religion in detail?
What about all of the Christian crusaders and jesuits, who murdered, manipulated and burned civilizations to the ground? Resulting in endless generations of insignificant and close-minded people, who have denied science and can not except reality for what it truly is. They spend their lives submissive, weak, fearful and on their knees. You build your expensive churches and false ideations. I guess I'm fine with going to hell if it results in the advancement of the hominid species.
@daniob0161 Those who claim to be Christians and perform horrendous acts have a fixed standard of moral law to judge them and to apply penal sanctions on such; deny God and one has no fixed moral law to discern anything as evil.
The rest of your stipulations were just pernicious nonsense.
Repent and find truth and forgiveness.
Stalin murdered more in one day for atheism than the entire Inquisition.
@Goddoesexist, I could spend days picking apart the bible. It was written by fearful men. But how could I ever penetrate an unwilling mind out of the throws of religious dogma? Lets just stay in the "Brass Age" and keep it at that.
Anti-theists have individual or collective human arbitrary opinion.
Killing a little baby for an anti-theist is no more of a moral issue than removing a wart or chopping down a tree that's in the way; if I have the power and the might, it makes it right by anti-theist standards.
If you kill and murder like atheist Joe Stalin maybe you too will kill a 30 million for atheism; I urge u to repent instead.
Again: basic moral behavior can be explained as a result of an evolutionary process (it helps the group) - this means that we are born with a capacity to act and _feel_ accordingly.
At that point it is only a matter of rationalizing these inherited impulses in order to set ourselves moral and ethical standards (How would I like to be treated?).
Example: we have a good idea of what pain is, scientifically - does that make pain less real? Same goes for compassion (compassion >> morals)
But let me ask you this: where do you get your morals from?
* The bible? ...been discussed ad nauseam.
* Does god give us absolute moral standards? Then why are there evil people? Or are you saying that non-christians simply choose to ignore those standards? Then why is it that the vast majority of non-christians doesnt run around murdering people?
More important: what of the many crimes motivated by/committed in the name of Christianity? If you knew the truth - shouldnt you set an example?
CT affirms that the class and character of the Laws of reason imply that none of that class and character can be accounted for without the grounding and sustaining of the class and character of God.
As I see it the laws of logic can be entirely derived by observing the material world as we know it.
However, it is very much possible that matter does not adhere to any immutable rules, which would make the construct of universal logic rather shaky.
Neither logic nor ethics are universal, both are man-made concepts. And if a god gave us an absolute understanding of good and evil as well as logic, I have to come to the conclusion that this god is evil and deceitful (given man's history).
Moral and ethics are neither immutable nor universal.
They are in the nature of mankind, yes, but that doesnt make them universal.
So how did they get there in the first place? Man is a group-living animal > it is in mankinds own best interest to show compassion, to help other members of the group.
Then why help strangers? Call it a misfiring of an ancient instinct, if you must. One could also argue (a questionable argument imo), that showing compassion publicly might give you an advantage (others will be more likely to trust you for example).
Maybe we realize that it is ultimately necessary for our survival (or rather - survival in the way that we are used to, that we have come to like) to act in a moral way?
However: the main reason has to be that our conscious mind is capable of recognizing moral behavior as something worth striving for - if by no other standard than "Thats how I want to be treated" (the ultimate moral statement).
In other words: our mind is capable of conceiving ideals for our behavior and existence. We are able to leave our instincts behind and create something "bigger", based on said, man-made ideals (...we strive for a world where everybody is happy).
By all means a noble and worthwhile cause, but ultimately not something absolute - everything else is fishful thinking imo. I dont see how acknowledging this (however uncomfortable that might be for some) diminishes the ideals themselves.
I don't need an ancient book to tell me killing millions of people is wrong; I know it for myself; as for those who say "if it wasn't for god's word, I'd be out on the streets slaughtering people", I think they are pathetic human beings and they should stay away from me.
If true moral law is it's good for the strongest to survive, let the weak grovel and die; if there isn't a morality decreed by God, then logically the strongest should exploit and take advantage of the weak. To be a consistent atheist/evolutionist, one should close down the assistance programs & the schools for the blind, handicapped, and kill off all the weak.
God alone gives an immutable Moral Law. God surely exists.
Fallacy of Equivocation. Additionally Moral Law is what is asserted, not mere morality or moral behavior. That's one reason you and I need Savior.
If you deny Moral Law, you are required to use and presuppose it in your self-stultifying denial. That's another argument that proves atheism is impossible.
Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I know you'd baulk at the idea but he thoroughly decimates the "morals from religion" hyperbole at length. You're going nowhere but the fucking ground, you deranged moron. Can you name someone who killed in the name of atheism?
Let´s see....The International Bill of Human rights....is something I would call a universal set of moral/ethical standards thats accepted all over the world. And it´s not the work of priests and holy men but a product of logic and reason. None of the great religions of this world has ever produced something similar. But they all have a long history of violations of the principles proclaimed in the "Bill of Human Rights". Religion isn´t a prerequisite for morals.
Ok... One more that claims : "Atheism produces evil, i've got proof: WW II".
1/ Hitler was a roman christian.
2/ Have you ever read a real book about the crusades?
3/ You deny those 2 first thing by saying "There are bad christians, but christianity is not evil at all".
4/ Think a bit harder : you've not given a atheist bad guy, but by the same logical thought, you can say "there are bad atheists, but Atheism is not necesseraly evil"
Morality is not universal. This is obvious. Just look at all the different value systems that exist and have existed. Morality instead hails from three different sources. 1. From primitive instincts derived from biological evolution.2. From customs that develop in a process of cultural evolution through group selection.3. From rationalistic attempts to create universal moral codes. The three constantly conflict with each other. Causing friction and conflict.
Fallacy of Equivocation. Additionally Moral Law is what is asserted, not mere morality or moral behavior. That's one reason you and I need Savior.
If you deny Moral Law, you are required to use and presuppose it in your self-stultifying denial. That's another argument that proves atheism is impossible.
Just because I have different understanding of what moral law might be does not mean I am equivocating.
''Moral Law is what is asserted'' You are asserting moral law? I assume you mean that there is a universal moral code that applies to everyone. As I made clear that is not the case. Morality is a product of social evolution. There may well be Moral Laws in a society that are treated as universal, but they are simply a product of its history.
That which has the ontic capacity to ground the Laws of Logic would be incapable of error or change while it has an eternal and infinite equality of diversity and unity. Only triune theism reveals these attributes.
W/o such one cannot account for them. --The Laws of Logic are unified yet diverse; one in application, yet distinct.
The Law of Non-contradiction is not the Law of Identity, yet they are unified and one requires and presupposes the other.
The funniest thing about all of this is that your conjectures are founded on the highly falsifiable conclusion of your religious views and convictions being 100% accurate.
Your logic stands to be rectified, your premises revised, your conclusions less perverse, and your universal attitude toward the dynamic system that is reality significantly changed for the better.
One can only hope these criteria will be met for you to really harbor merit within the scientific community to which you aspire.
And you are confused in discerning my aspirations.
But your confusion and your vacuous assertions require and presuppose theism forasmuch as theism alone provides the universal and immutable priori essentials for the laws of logic which you must employ in your preachments.
The definition of a scientific law, which logic does adhere to, is a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met.
The conditions for logic's validity is rationality.
Your connections of the origins of the Laws of Logic to the presumption of a deity is an entirely irrational assertion, and thus do not lay the framework for application of the Laws of Logic.
"Brutal communism is always atheistic. Atheists seek to murder theists and those they disagree with."
religious bigots in the past have tried to kill people who disagree with them you numptee.also how can you say brutal communism is always atheistic that doesn't mean all atheists are communists. i myself am quite the opposite
This pairing is a false dichotomy, much like the conclusion reached by the author of this video: "Atheism Produces Evil: Theism Must Be True".
Posit that atheism does, in fact, produce evil. This statement says nothing about its production of good or non-evil/non-good. Concluding that Theism=True from Atheism Producing Evil is not good reasoning as Atheism does not produce evil and the question of which Theism is true is begged to be answered.
The title is not the argument. Atheism produces wickedness and it is fallacious because it denies a fixed moral law which prohibits atheistic mass murder.
Firstly, if the title is not the argument, why is the video so titled?
Secondly, and more importantly: Atheism does not produce wickedness. Atheism is a simple ideology, a way of life sans theistic belief. It does not posit an all-powerful and benevolent force, nor does it posit a fully-evil and malevolent force.
Your logic is flawed in regard to your "fallacious" branding of atheism. Murder doesn't make any "-ism" fallacious.
Also, morality is the conjecture of society and its values.
I sure am happy I chose to read some comments before commenting myself. You are hopeless. No matter how many times you say it, it's not going to be true. There are evil atheists, evil theists, evil dogs and evil cats. But I believe there are many more good of each group of people. Even so, I choose to be a Secular Humanist- which means I am here to enjoy life, make it more enjoyable for as many people as i can along the way by being an activist for minorities, the poor, and the sick..
Sorry, just saw a comment from the video about non-theism not being able to provide a priori essentials for Law of Logic and stopped listening/reading.
The maker of this video is clearly delusional because he fails to understand what a Law is.
Laws do not come about from a priori knowledge, but from a posteriori knowledge. We do not know what gravity is until we experience it. We can conjecture its relevance a priori, however, we cannot do such in reality as the Law of Gravity exists anyway.
Laws cannot be justified a posteriori. A Law cannot be observed for it is immaterial. The effects of Laws can be empirically observed, but not the Law itself.
Law justified by a posteriori knowledge: Falling bowling ball and falling feather in a vacuum.
Another Law justified by a posteriori knowledge: A thermometer reading 10 degrees Fahrenheit increasing its reading rapidly when placed near a stove of a steady temperature of 450 degrees Fahrenheit.
Laws are explanations of events given certain criteria. When those criteria aren't met (gravity in space considering relativity) then the Laws hold no ground and Theories must take their place.
HAHA. wow. I thought this was a joke judging by the title.
Just the TITLE is a blatant fallacy. even if the nazis were "atheists" HAHA! (which they weren't, most were catholic, they swore an oath under god) It would have no effect on the "truth" of theism or atheism.
and way to plagiarize from Dole and Chignel
are all of your arguments cookie cutter fallacies like this one?
Since non-theism fails to provide the a priroi essentials for the Laws of Logic it cannot be true and is self-nullifying. Theism provides the pre-essentials of universality, immutability, perfection, immateriality, and certainty; non-theism cannot.
Non-theism is illogical, non-rational, anti-reasonable, irrational, alogical and nonsensical.
i am an atheist. And a humanist. I find it rather insulting and short sighted of you to suggest that I might not comprehend morality as a result.
Also, to suggest that, as you put it 'Atheism produces evil' this therefore means that a belief in a god introduces a new element of truth to your belief system, this is not really the way that truth works is it.
So all M (Laws of Logic) with the class and character of immutability, transcendence, necessity, universality,
aspatial, atemporal, aphysical, presuppose and require N (God) who has the class and character of aseity, omniscience, omnipotence, immutability, universality, aspatial, atemporal,aphysical.
Theism claims that the class & character of the Laws of Logic implies that none of that class & character can be accounted for the grounding and sustaining of the class and character of God.
1. Theism claims that the class & character of the Laws of Logic implies that none of that class & character can be accounted for the grounding & sustaining of the class & character of God.
So all M (Laws o L)requires & presupposes N (God). This avoids the P.P. of mere Rationalism for its conclusion is not implicitly stated in its major premise.
b V c. b = Laws of Logic must be grounded c = Laws of Logic do not require grounding Theists affirm b. Atheists (here)affirm c. c is not sufficient to q (explain human experience) g (God) is sufficient to q. q V -q q is necessary. So q g is necessary. God is necessary.
If true moral law is it's good for the strongest to survive, let the weak grovel & die.- If there isn't a morality decreed by God, then logically the strongest should exploit and take advantage of the weak. To be a consistent atheist/evolutionist, one should close down the assistance programs & the schools for the blind, handicapped, and kill off all the weak.
God alone gives an immutable Moral Law. God surely exists.
The same argument can be made for any god, and it is just as weak. Atheism doesn't require that you believe that strong should conquer the weak. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a supernatural deity. Evolution doesn't say that the strong should kill the weak either. It makes the statement that the organisms best suited to their environment tend to live long enough to pass their genes on to the next generation (AKA natural selection).
I would say that theists and atheists agree on B, but we say that the Laws of Logic are grounded in human minds, and you say they are grounded in an external, invisible force.
poor poor atheists all they offer is more self-refuting self-hating anti-theist who fail to offer any argument - they only spew out self-loathing and self-nullifying assertions
they are irrational
they hate truth
anti-theists hate the laws of logic, universals and absolutes
they are miserable and desire to make others miserable or dead
As an atheist, I am good because I CHOOSE to be good. Not from fear of what my invisible friend may do... Most of the evil committed in the world to date has been done in the name of religion!
I try not to harm others or the planet. I do not try to force my beliefs on other people. In no way is atheism "evil". This view is outdated and utterly rediculous.
First of all, humans can be moral without religion! 90% of the people i know are atheists ( including me) and i haven't stoned any witches, homosexuals or gone on any crusades to kill thousands of innocent Muslims and Jews. Secondly, even if it WERE true ( and i stress that it's not) How the hell does that prove god exists?
What the heck are you talking about. I think its the argument disproven thousands of times that atheists can't have morals and i'll disprove it right now giving a list of places you can get good morals from that not a bible. Family, Freinds, Certin Adults, Community, Life Experiences, Rational Thought, Not listening to the bible when it tells you to kill people that sorta stuff, and I said i wouldn't use the bible in there and i noticed i did sorry.
The wardens in abu ghraib where atheist, right? The crusaders where atheist, right? The 9/11 ppl where atheists, right? Deity sending bears to kill children where atheist, right?
And just as a pointer, Hitler stated to belive in god. Even thou I suspect he did not.
Actually...A majority of them werent. Hitler used Christianity to gain power/popularity at first but he had plans to destroy it later on in his career, not to mention he converted to atheism at the end of his life. Please, check you facts before you get excited about something. You dont deserve the thrill.
Thanks to all the atheist fundamentalists who expose their hatred and hearts full of turpitude - turn to the truth and put off your miserable emotional condition and discover peace.
And you can finally have epistemic rights and warrant.
That is the best you can do after someone thoroughly debunks your argument? Surely, you have more than that.
I'm surprised that you haven't deleted the comments, frankly.
There is nothing of atheism that requires theism. By definition, atheism is without theism. You'll need alot more than bad logic and religious rhetoric to show otherwise.
Atheists add authority and power results mass atrocities. The atheist Joe Stalin killed more in one day than the entire inquisition - atheists love blood baths. Atheist Mao killed about 50 million for atheism. Pol Pot killed a million for atheism
There is a difference between killing somebody in the name of a viewpoint, and killing somebody and just happening to hold a certain viewpoint.
Gameguy602 1 month ago
Hittler absolutely was Christian. Warren Buffet is atheist. You know, Warren Buffet...the friendly philanthropist investing tycoon who still lives the simple life while spending his time spreading his knowledge. A very high percentange of very intelligent people are atheists. The know that science and the world around them is atleast actively seeking all the answers while religion was started in primitive times to control primitive people.
Pilot9r 4 months ago
@assym2006: Incorrect. One of Hitler's first government actions was to make it illegal to place crosses upon new churches. He persecuted and murdered countless pastors including Bonhoeffer. A Christian is one who trusts in Christ and follows Him including His moral law that forbids murder (Hitler massively failed at this) as it commands Christians to love and seek peace.
Goddoesexist 4 months ago
Wrong.
80-120 mill. murdered by atheism, Anti-theism is the McDonald's of Mass-murder:
Consistent evol. atheism is the Gov. of Mao, Kim and Stalin.
1. Consistent Ev. Atheism has as one of its main tenets: survival of the fittest. If Mao rules by the strongest arm, that's the way it is. It's consistent with SOTF.
2. Atheism can't provide fixed moral law, so anything most people assent to, even mass killings is OK
Goddoesexist 4 months ago
I'm not saying that I don't believe in a God, but how about each one that speaks 'for' God, and claims 'what' God is be quiet for a week? You can only dupe yourself by thinking that You and only You know what God wants. What if God was telling you to be quiet but you couldn't hear because your mouth is never at an end from spilling words. I'm pretty sure you couldn't hear God if you're always talking. Unless you claim that God is you.
ahauntedhistory 7 months ago
Immutable and universal ethics? Christian ethics have been anything but static. The bible was used to justify slavery, the crusades, forced conversions, religious and racial persecution, burning witches, torturing blasphemers or heretics, eye for an eye justice, bigamy, statutory rape, child abuse, the dark ages, and that is just the Christian baggage. Also Adolf Hitler was a devote Catholic who regularly met with the pope, and denounced atheism in several books and speeches.
dingusmungus 9 months ago
@Goddoesexist Have you read the Bible how many people were killed by plagues, holy ordered attacks etc etc,
Then you have the crusades, holy wars that still exist today, terrorist attacks, IRA, Al qaeda, Hilter (supposed catholic) condoned by the catholic church as he murdered millions of Jews...
Playing the Stalin card doesn't work because that stems from communism ideals.
Whereas there are many secular societies based on democracy that strive for high morality.
MegaJay79 9 months ago
@Goddoesexist mass killing is OK according to your god.
4FunPlayin 10 months ago
Hmmm, I wounder why Hitler wrote in mein kampf "I am and always be Catholic", Mao? the Chinese crazy dude? hmm I think he believed in godS, a lot of gods.
all religions say "don't kill" while their god kill millions.
4FunPlayin 10 months ago
Others have pointed out why atheism producing evil is wrong, but lets just say your right, your argument still boils down to "theism must be true because I would not like reality if it wasn't".
In other words it proves nothing.
xhaze8 10 months ago
The whole argument about how morality can only come from God is not, logically, an argument for God's existence. It's an argument for why you want God to exist. Morality can just as easily be based in societal norms or evolutionary psychology.
nachtfee957 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HA HA HA.
alianchild 1 year ago
You truly are a clown
Seanjkbs 1 year ago
You talk about the gas chambers of the Nazis and yet you don't realize that Hitler was a confirmed catholic. Most of the greatest human tradigies were commited by christians and the religious. With atheirsm there would have been far fewer deaths in this world and scientific understanding would be 1000 years ahead of where we are now.
lautz73 1 year ago
I honestly believe in God, but you, sir, are a bigoted fucktard for being so ignorant.
FullmetalLakers824 1 year ago
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
- An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
gamesbok 1 year ago
btw. you do now that the german army was roman catholic. and they had full suport from the catholic church?
gulbirk 1 year ago
Seriosly. even saying that there is ANY direct connection bwetween atheism and killing proves you being ignorant. if a christian guy kills a man, i dont blame christianity. if a christians man kills another person and says that it is in the nae of god. THEN, christianity is behind it. how many atheist kill people in the name of NOT believing in a god?
gulbirk 1 year ago
But what if there is no God?
iversonmatthew 1 year ago
Honestly, the very suggestion that "God provides the only ground for fixed ethics" is fucking stupid.
Every organised religion in the world is splintered into multiple denominations, all squabbling with each other over a common "holy text" and each arguing that all the other denominations have interpreted it incorrectly.
What do Mother Teresa and Adolph Hitler have in common? Both used Christian theology to justify their actions.
"Fixed ground for ethics"? What a fucking joke.
garethac81 1 year ago
On the off-chance this video is serious, it's worth making the obvious point that so many theists fail to grasp:
The greatest threat to universal immutable ethics is RELIGION...not the absence of it. Why? Because every religious text is subject to infinite variations in interpretation, and every claim to divine mandate (ie. "God told me to") is subject to the human mind's infinite capacity for self-delusion. ANYTHING can be justified by religion...history has proven this many times over.
garethac81 1 year ago
Absolute, 100% bullshit.
bencamp18 1 year ago
@goddoesexist I still deny all gods . See you in hell!
jjason23296 1 year ago
noone has murdered in the name of atheism or because they were atheists. we perform actions based on our beliefs and convictions, not our disbeliefs, that is why nobody kills because they are an atheist. i do not kill because i don't there is a god to punish me, if you do, you're what i would consider morally bankrupt. and if this is all about the 'four mass murderers' crap, this responds to that and hitler was incredibly religious.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner well said many theists don't get that no matter how much it is explained to them.
slickwick45 1 year ago
Hitler proclaimed himself to be a christian. in mein kamphn he said that god wanted him to kill the jews.
just a little history for you.
kezthepieman13 1 year ago
@kezthepieman13 hitler was not only religious, but destroyed secular and openly atheist groups proudly throughout germany. he made a speech in which he proclaimed such acheivements.
daemonowner 1 year ago
This positition is indefensible. There are thousands of gods that are being believed in, and even more that were believed in before, that allmost all have immutable "fixed" moral codes - and they all claim to be correct. Furthermore when many of these socalled "fixed" morals also then conflict with eachother, we have absolutley no means of determining who is right and why we should believe your story rather than the other guy's. Also, you have not demonstrated that we can't be moral without god
TheStigma 1 year ago
You'd have a point if people had never killed in the name of God.
Steve7508 1 year ago
You talk about ww2 and the holocaust, and the Jews in concentration camps. Hitler was a Christian. He banned books that were critical of Christianity and had them burned. Even people like Stalin kill for their political ideologies (belief in lenins idea that terrorizing a population makes them obedient) You have not demonstrated that atheism produces evil.
redsaint182 1 year ago
Atheism is not the only thing atheists look to for morality. In fact, they don't look to it at all for that. There are no moral guidelines given by atheism. It's just a term for people who don't believe in any gods. People have to find their own morals, be it from their culture, their religion, etc.
jeffsandychelsea 1 year ago
All schools of logic: mathematical, formal, predicate, deductive, etc, all schools, forms and types of modern logic necessarily utilize the Laws of Logic.
The immaterial, universal, immutable laws of Logic have always been, are, and always will be; not so with the material cosmos.
God alone who is immaterial, universal, immutable and hash always been, is, and always will be can ground them.
Goddoesexist 1 year ago
Nice Argument: Hitler was a Catholic. Most of the German people that carried out the atrocities were Catholics. Therefore Atheism produces evil.
You may want to read something about the subject and reconsider your opinion the matter.
omgiwaswrong 1 year ago
God do sexiest? oooooh I see. . .
This argument has been proven wrong thousands of times. To use a somewhat famous phrase that is appeopeiate for the internet. LOL!
OatSharpener 1 year ago
@OatSharpener
"God do sexiest?"
What are you trying to say? Because that makes no sense...
...
And if the bible is 'the word of god', the god is sexist.
The bible says that women are to have no authority over men.
In fact, the bible says that women aren't allowed to speak in church.
priceboy3 1 year ago
@priceboy3 nevermind, joke for my own gratifitcation, ha
for the record though: I agree with you.
OatSharpener 1 year ago
OK, how many wars were started due to religious beliefs? Almost all of them...
Biblical 'morals' 'teach' you to hate anyone who is not 'normal'...
The church silenced scientists for years, with death threats, eg: Galileo Galilee...
Hitler, and all fascists/nationalists, were/are theists...
Now, which ones are evil?
priceboy3 1 year ago
Atheism leads to evil? Nothing bad has ever happened because of atheism. No War has ever been started because atheism. If you think about it, half of all the wars that ever took place in the history of humankind wouldn't have happened if everyone became atheists. Religion begets evil, not atheism.
AgentRiot13 1 year ago
@AgentRiot13
Yeah... That's what I was saying...
priceboy3 1 year ago
if god supplies the only ground for fixed ethics, they why have so many been killed in gods name?
Peopleareblind 1 year ago
Reality check: irrationality produces evil! Whether it be religion (such as in the crusades) or megalomania, fanaticism, and irrational hatred (such as in the Holocaust). Atheism does not produce evil. Even if it did, how would that prove the existence of God/theism?
prophetofpeace2010 1 year ago
Atheism is not a belief that has tentants and laws. Being an atheist is just the same as saying "i have a hobby of not collecting stamps". Atheism indicates what you do not believe in, not what you do believe in. People like Mao, Stalin an so on, were not theists, but used the theist model to carry out thier mass slaughter. You have God (Mao, Stalin) and thier faithful belivers Soviets or Communists, they used the theist model of morality were anything can be justified.
nonbe1iever 1 year ago
theism need not be necessary for ethics ... the first set of laws that pre-dates even the old testament was from a Mesopotamian king called Hammurabi ... he was not given the laws from some god ... his code of law was deduced from common sense and logic ... just because you asset something does not make it a fact ... and also ...i see that you have disabled ratings ...
mintoo2cool 1 year ago
@Goddoesexist You must know atheism is not a belief system right? But if we had a competition, christianity wins the murder competition. I dont actually blame the church as an organization for what people did hundreds of years ago, but I do blame superstition, and thats what religion is all about. Belief without evidence, and mythical superstition
markgg1 1 year ago
@Goddoesexist Survival of the fittest is not a tenet of atheism. "There is no god is the only tenet of atheism". Also, christianity hasnt provided fixed moral law. Slavery was once ok, mass murder has been commanded by god, and polygamy was common.
krissy4nik 1 year ago
Why is it that people assume men will only do good in the hopes of gaining brownie points from God?Society has its own rewards for doing good and its own punishments for doing evil.Interpersonal relationships have a reward system too. Above that atheism is not a moral code nor is it a world view it is simply saying i do not believe in a diety .
krissy4nik 1 year ago
@krissy4nik Very good point. I guess I am glad that the type of religious people who say " What reason do you have to do the right thing? Why not just go out and steal money, kill anyone who ticks you off, or looks at you cross-eyed?" believe in a God. Since they are only auditioning for a spot in heaven- I wonder what sinful behaviors they are repressing. It's Santa Clause for grownups. That was my sons reaction when he found out that Santa wasn't real:"Mom,God is like Santa for adults!"
MsHumanist1 1 year ago
Theism does not supply universal ethics. Theistic ethics are cherry picked and one set of theistic ethics differ from the next as much as they do from secular ethics. deny this and your a nut.
ooglebydoogleby 1 year ago
ES: Incorrect. A material non-immutable particular cosmos lacks universality and immutability; God alone has such attributes; God alone grounds the Laws of Logic. The Laws of Logic must be utilized in all one asserts, in all one's actions, they are inescapable, hence God is inescapable. You know this truth but do not wish it to be true. So you are irrational.
Goddoesexist 1 year ago
@Goddoesexist
Cliched argument. Those genocides weren't in the name of a godless world view. You must be a revisionist of history because you seem to have skimmed over the bloodshed and torture caused by religion all the way from the beginning of history to present minute.
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
"Ratings have been disabled for this video" - Seems like your brain was too.
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
@Goddoesexist all those 3 are religious you idiot
hokagealex 1 year ago
Hell is your future residence unless you repent of your profligacy and unorthodox corporal pursuits and self-deception.
There are things that transcend the material, including laws of mathematics and laws of reason. A = A and A~~A universally; a universal cannot be grounded by a non-universal particular cosmos.
Goddoesexist 1 year ago
@Goddoesexist wow you are crazy
you should get yourself some help
xkingcutx 1 year ago
The people who impaled babies and roasted them over open fires before eating them were christians.
You are way off base. Never in history have human rights been regarded to the degree that they are now. If the wars of the 20th century had been as bloody as those previously fought in earlier centuries, then by comparison to increased population, billions would have died. Never before has medicine been so widespread. Your claim is utterly false.
msizer 2 years ago
Comment removed
borbl 2 years ago
If true moral law is: it's good for the strongest to survive, let the weak grovel and die. If there isn't a morality decreed by God, then logically the strongest should exploit and take advantage of the weak. To be a consistent atheist/evolutionist, one should close down the assistance programs and the schools for the blind, handicapped, and kill off all the weak.
God alone gives an immutable Moral Law. God lives.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
The Law of Thought named the Law of Contradiction is not an axiom that is prior to or independent of God, The Law is an aspect of God's nature, being and thinking.
The Laws of Thought are necessary but not sufficient for intelligibility. God is necessary and sufficient for intelligibility. You can posit the Laws of Th. as that which doesn't necessitate grounding, and atheism lacks the ethical absolutes to mandate that one Must be logical and affirm the Laws of Thought.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
The laws of logic can be fully derived by observing the material world. Basically what you are saying is: "an apple is not a banana, so there must be a god."
However: modern science shows us that matter does not always behave as predictable as we are used to, not even in our own universe. The laws of logic are a manmade construct, founded on a basic observation of the world. The more we learn about that world, the clearer it becomes that these rules are not immutable.
borbl 2 years ago
Sorry for spamming the post. My message didnt show up :O
borbl 2 years ago
Comment removed
borbl 2 years ago
Stalin wasnt motivated by atheism, and more importantly: Stalin couldnt use atheism to control people ("Atheism told me to murder people").
The Crusades were motivated by religion - at the very least religion was used as a ploy (some people claiming that they had absolute truth and were directed by god *winkwink*).
Todays Islamic terrorism? - motivated by religion.
The entire child-abuse scandal that we see in Europe? - a direct result of religion.
borbl 2 years ago
I am deliberately mentioning mentioning stuff here that is not directly connected to your belief system, because you havent really outlined why your religion is "right" so far.
Given how easy it is for religious leaders to manipulate their sheeple, we are rightfully suspicious - we damand solid proof if we are to be converted.
And again: Atheism is the lack of believe in a supernatural beeing, thus an I can not make a god responsible for my actions. I myself am accountable.
borbl 2 years ago
So: What are you trying to convince us of? So far your main point was: there are immutables (logic, morals), and they can only exist because of an immutable beeing (God). No mention/proof of why that has to be the Christian god. No mention of what "brand" of Christianity is actually right. (No response to my challenges of your core argument either!!).
Even if we were to agree that there is a god, where do we go from there? Why your religion? What IS your religion in detail?
borbl 2 years ago
Atheism is the cause of evil? German dictator, mass-murderer, and devout Christian Adolf Hitler would like to have a word with you.
eunicron 2 years ago
What about all of the Christian crusaders and jesuits, who murdered, manipulated and burned civilizations to the ground? Resulting in endless generations of insignificant and close-minded people, who have denied science and can not except reality for what it truly is. They spend their lives submissive, weak, fearful and on their knees. You build your expensive churches and false ideations. I guess I'm fine with going to hell if it results in the advancement of the hominid species.
daniob0161 2 years ago
@daniob0161 Those who claim to be Christians and perform horrendous acts have a fixed standard of moral law to judge them and to apply penal sanctions on such; deny God and one has no fixed moral law to discern anything as evil.
The rest of your stipulations were just pernicious nonsense.
Repent and find truth and forgiveness.
Stalin murdered more in one day for atheism than the entire Inquisition.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
@Goddoesexist, I could spend days picking apart the bible. It was written by fearful men. But how could I ever penetrate an unwilling mind out of the throws of religious dogma? Lets just stay in the "Brass Age" and keep it at that.
daniob0161 2 years ago
Theists have an immutable absolute moral law.
Anti-theists have individual or collective human arbitrary opinion.
Killing a little baby for an anti-theist is no more of a moral issue than removing a wart or chopping down a tree that's in the way; if I have the power and the might, it makes it right by anti-theist standards.
If you kill and murder like atheist Joe Stalin maybe you too will kill a 30 million for atheism; I urge u to repent instead.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Oh dear
Again: basic moral behavior can be explained as a result of an evolutionary process (it helps the group) - this means that we are born with a capacity to act and _feel_ accordingly.
At that point it is only a matter of rationalizing these inherited impulses in order to set ourselves moral and ethical standards (How would I like to be treated?).
Example: we have a good idea of what pain is, scientifically - does that make pain less real? Same goes for compassion (compassion >> morals)
borbl 2 years ago
But let me ask you this: where do you get your morals from?
* The bible? ...been discussed ad nauseam.
* Does god give us absolute moral standards? Then why are there evil people? Or are you saying that non-christians simply choose to ignore those standards? Then why is it that the vast majority of non-christians doesnt run around murdering people?
More important: what of the many crimes motivated by/committed in the name of Christianity? If you knew the truth - shouldnt you set an example?
borbl 2 years ago
CT affirms that the class and character of the Laws of reason imply that none of that class and character can be accounted for without the grounding and sustaining of the class and character of God.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
CT?
As I see it the laws of logic can be entirely derived by observing the material world as we know it.
However, it is very much possible that matter does not adhere to any immutable rules, which would make the construct of universal logic rather shaky.
Neither logic nor ethics are universal, both are man-made concepts. And if a god gave us an absolute understanding of good and evil as well as logic, I have to come to the conclusion that this god is evil and deceitful (given man's history).
borbl 2 years ago
Moral and ethics are neither immutable nor universal.
They are in the nature of mankind, yes, but that doesnt make them universal.
So how did they get there in the first place? Man is a group-living animal > it is in mankinds own best interest to show compassion, to help other members of the group.
borbl 2 years ago
(cont.)
Then why help strangers? Call it a misfiring of an ancient instinct, if you must. One could also argue (a questionable argument imo), that showing compassion publicly might give you an advantage (others will be more likely to trust you for example).
Maybe we realize that it is ultimately necessary for our survival (or rather - survival in the way that we are used to, that we have come to like) to act in a moral way?
borbl 2 years ago
(cont.)
However: the main reason has to be that our conscious mind is capable of recognizing moral behavior as something worth striving for - if by no other standard than "Thats how I want to be treated" (the ultimate moral statement).
In other words: our mind is capable of conceiving ideals for our behavior and existence. We are able to leave our instincts behind and create something "bigger", based on said, man-made ideals (...we strive for a world where everybody is happy).
borbl 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(cont.)
By all means a noble and worthwhile cause, but ultimately not something absolute - everything else is fishful thinking imo. I dont see how acknowledging this (however uncomfortable that might be for some) diminishes the ideals themselves.
borbl 2 years ago
Comment removed
borbl 2 years ago
Comment removed
borbl 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't need an ancient book to tell me killing millions of people is wrong; I know it for myself; as for those who say "if it wasn't for god's word, I'd be out on the streets slaughtering people", I think they are pathetic human beings and they should stay away from me.
auriciangelescu 2 years ago
Comment removed
borbl 2 years ago
If true moral law is it's good for the strongest to survive, let the weak grovel and die; if there isn't a morality decreed by God, then logically the strongest should exploit and take advantage of the weak. To be a consistent atheist/evolutionist, one should close down the assistance programs & the schools for the blind, handicapped, and kill off all the weak.
God alone gives an immutable Moral Law. God surely exists.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Fallacy of Equivocation. Additionally Moral Law is what is asserted, not mere morality or moral behavior. That's one reason you and I need Savior.
If you deny Moral Law, you are required to use and presuppose it in your self-stultifying denial. That's another argument that proves atheism is impossible.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I know you'd baulk at the idea but he thoroughly decimates the "morals from religion" hyperbole at length. You're going nowhere but the fucking ground, you deranged moron. Can you name someone who killed in the name of atheism?
themardybum08 2 years ago
Theism produces evil: Atheism must be true.
dbes02 2 years ago
Let´s see....The International Bill of Human rights....is something I would call a universal set of moral/ethical standards thats accepted all over the world. And it´s not the work of priests and holy men but a product of logic and reason. None of the great religions of this world has ever produced something similar. But they all have a long history of violations of the principles proclaimed in the "Bill of Human Rights". Religion isn´t a prerequisite for morals.
Transmogrificator 2 years ago
Ok... One more that claims : "Atheism produces evil, i've got proof: WW II".
1/ Hitler was a roman christian.
2/ Have you ever read a real book about the crusades?
3/ You deny those 2 first thing by saying "There are bad christians, but christianity is not evil at all".
4/ Think a bit harder : you've not given a atheist bad guy, but by the same logical thought, you can say "there are bad atheists, but Atheism is not necesseraly evil"
MrOsmose 2 years ago
Hitler was a roman Catholic, theism is retardation of the human spirit.
666nonbeliever 2 years ago
Morality is not universal. This is obvious. Just look at all the different value systems that exist and have existed. Morality instead hails from three different sources. 1. From primitive instincts derived from biological evolution.2. From customs that develop in a process of cultural evolution through group selection.3. From rationalistic attempts to create universal moral codes. The three constantly conflict with each other. Causing friction and conflict.
Malthus0 2 years ago
Malthus:
Fallacy of Equivocation. Additionally Moral Law is what is asserted, not mere morality or moral behavior. That's one reason you and I need Savior.
If you deny Moral Law, you are required to use and presuppose it in your self-stultifying denial. That's another argument that proves atheism is impossible.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Just because I have different understanding of what moral law might be does not mean I am equivocating.
''Moral Law is what is asserted'' You are asserting moral law? I assume you mean that there is a universal moral code that applies to everyone. As I made clear that is not the case. Morality is a product of social evolution. There may well be Moral Laws in a society that are treated as universal, but they are simply a product of its history.
Malthus0 2 years ago
Incorrect.
What is your moral law grounded on which makes it a law?
Repent and discover free pardon, epistemic certainty, and hope.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
i do not agree, and the bible is another proof that morality DOES evolve...
--> Those who work on sabbath day should be stoned to death.
Does it still applies? If yes, then go and stone every 24/7 shopkeeper in your city.
If not, THEN morality does evolve.
MrOsmose 2 years ago
doesn't you book of moral laws and behaviors include that bit about slaves and we should beat them?
Theimmortalwhitewolf 2 years ago
That which has the ontic capacity to ground the Laws of Logic would be incapable of error or change while it has an eternal and infinite equality of diversity and unity. Only triune theism reveals these attributes.
W/o such one cannot account for them. --The Laws of Logic are unified yet diverse; one in application, yet distinct.
The Law of Non-contradiction is not the Law of Identity, yet they are unified and one requires and presupposes the other.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Incorrect.
Incorrect.
and Incorrect.
Your empty assertions cannot refute the certain proof I have posited.
God has qualities to ground and account for the Laws of Logic, moral law and love; atheism lacks such; atheism is impossible. God must be.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
I keep seeing this same concept come up in your videos time after time: "Man cannot account for universals and immutables without god"
WHY!?
You dont give any proof for this statement, you just keep saying it in video after video, Please prove it
onerichie 2 years ago
Haha. I came to the this video thinking, due to the title, it would be making fun of that kind of illogical statement. Well done for making me smile.
Upryse 2 years ago
Here are your Laws of Logic proofs:
1. God is God, God is not not God.
---Irrelevant statement.
2. God exists and God doesn't exist.
---Violation of the second law, therefore one of the propositions must be true.
---Positing God exists, which representation to endorse? Positing God doesn't exist, there is no further dilemma.
3. God exists or God doesn't exist.
---True statement. It's one or the other, as I explained above.
See how that went nowhere?
Atheism is the rational outcome.
SenariXarn 2 years ago
The funniest thing about all of this is that your conjectures are founded on the highly falsifiable conclusion of your religious views and convictions being 100% accurate.
Your logic stands to be rectified, your premises revised, your conclusions less perverse, and your universal attitude toward the dynamic system that is reality significantly changed for the better.
One can only hope these criteria will be met for you to really harbor merit within the scientific community to which you aspire.
SenariXarn 2 years ago
Nope.
And you are confused in discerning my aspirations.
But your confusion and your vacuous assertions require and presuppose theism forasmuch as theism alone provides the universal and immutable priori essentials for the laws of logic which you must employ in your preachments.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
I see the big problem here:
The definition of a scientific law, which logic does adhere to, is a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met.
The conditions for logic's validity is rationality.
Your connections of the origins of the Laws of Logic to the presumption of a deity is an entirely irrational assertion, and thus do not lay the framework for application of the Laws of Logic.
Simply, your Cartesian circle is now broken.
SenariXarn 2 years ago
SX
You commingled logic with the Laws of Logic.
Mathematical, Formal, Predicate, Deductive, Inductive logic are not the Laws of Logic. Correct/logical reasoning is not the Laws of Logic.
My proof is from the Laws of Logic, not logic.
A = A
A ~ Non-A
Both immaterial Laws are universal and immutable and only an immu./univ. immat. God accounts for them.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
One cannot develop a proof from any of the Laws of Logic, however. So you're still not making sense.
There is no way you can use Logic to prove something's existence if you tack on existence as a qualifying property.
Here is an all-powerful pin-apple, a cross between pineapple and apple.
Here is another one, and it exists.
They are both irrelevant statements, as the the term "all-powerful" is debatable in scope until one incorporates the thought of infinity.
It's akin to dividing by zero.
SenariXarn 2 years ago
funny how there is a correlation between religiousity and low iq and that also ties in with crime rate as well :/
Jtking3000 2 years ago
Jtking
Try these statistics: atheist Stalin and atheist Mao who murdered 100 million for atheism. Both were irrational nefarious cosmic criminals.
On an atheist worldview, they were not immutably immoral for atheism cannot supply an immutable moral standard.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
they were both communists maybe thats why they killed people. thats beside the point what about all the offer suffering 'in the name of god'
Jtking3000 2 years ago
Brutal communism is always atheistic. Atheists seek to murder theists and those they disagree with.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
"Theists seek to murder those who don't believe like them, which are other theists & atheists".
This last sentence is as true as yours !
There have always been bad religious, and in fact a lot of religion (chrisianity included) does make people intolerant.
MrOsmose 2 years ago
"Brutal communism is always atheistic. Atheists seek to murder theists and those they disagree with."
religious bigots in the past have tried to kill people who disagree with them you numptee.also how can you say brutal communism is always atheistic that doesn't mean all atheists are communists. i myself am quite the opposite
Jtking3000 2 years ago
Jt
Points taken.
Yet, the only immutable moral standard against murder has a theistic ground.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Also, on the matter of evil/good.
This pairing is a false dichotomy, much like the conclusion reached by the author of this video: "Atheism Produces Evil: Theism Must Be True".
Posit that atheism does, in fact, produce evil. This statement says nothing about its production of good or non-evil/non-good. Concluding that Theism=True from Atheism Producing Evil is not good reasoning as Atheism does not produce evil and the question of which Theism is true is begged to be answered.
Bad logic.
SenariXarn 2 years ago
SXarn
The title is not the argument. Atheism produces wickedness and it is fallacious because it denies a fixed moral law which prohibits atheistic mass murder.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Firstly, if the title is not the argument, why is the video so titled?
Secondly, and more importantly: Atheism does not produce wickedness. Atheism is a simple ideology, a way of life sans theistic belief. It does not posit an all-powerful and benevolent force, nor does it posit a fully-evil and malevolent force.
Your logic is flawed in regard to your "fallacious" branding of atheism. Murder doesn't make any "-ism" fallacious.
Also, morality is the conjecture of society and its values.
SenariXarn 2 years ago
Incorrect on almost every count.
Atheism is wicked and it produces wickedness.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
"Atheism is wicked ... "
Such blanket statements are always proven bankrupt under close investigation.
JustineK45 2 years ago
I sure am happy I chose to read some comments before commenting myself. You are hopeless. No matter how many times you say it, it's not going to be true. There are evil atheists, evil theists, evil dogs and evil cats. But I believe there are many more good of each group of people. Even so, I choose to be a Secular Humanist- which means I am here to enjoy life, make it more enjoyable for as many people as i can along the way by being an activist for minorities, the poor, and the sick..
MsHumanist1 1 year ago
@MsHumanist1 well said good to have someone like you in these dark times.
slickwick45 1 year ago
Sorry, just saw a comment from the video about non-theism not being able to provide a priori essentials for Law of Logic and stopped listening/reading.
The maker of this video is clearly delusional because he fails to understand what a Law is.
Laws do not come about from a priori knowledge, but from a posteriori knowledge. We do not know what gravity is until we experience it. We can conjecture its relevance a priori, however, we cannot do such in reality as the Law of Gravity exists anyway.
SenariXarn 2 years ago
SXarn
Incorrect.
Laws cannot be justified a posteriori. A Law cannot be observed for it is immaterial. The effects of Laws can be empirically observed, but not the Law itself.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Law justified by a posteriori knowledge: Falling bowling ball and falling feather in a vacuum.
Another Law justified by a posteriori knowledge: A thermometer reading 10 degrees Fahrenheit increasing its reading rapidly when placed near a stove of a steady temperature of 450 degrees Fahrenheit.
Laws are explanations of events given certain criteria. When those criteria aren't met (gravity in space considering relativity) then the Laws hold no ground and Theories must take their place.
SenariXarn 2 years ago
HAHA. wow. I thought this was a joke judging by the title.
Just the TITLE is a blatant fallacy. even if the nazis were "atheists" HAHA! (which they weren't, most were catholic, they swore an oath under god) It would have no effect on the "truth" of theism or atheism.
and way to plagiarize from Dole and Chignel
are all of your arguments cookie cutter fallacies like this one?
AHughman08 2 years ago
AH08
Nope.
Empty Stipulation.
This atheist provides no refutation or contending logical argument; just the typical atheistic emotional nonsense.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
I pointed out that your argument is a fallacy.
That is an immediate refutation, buddy. Or don't you know what a fallacy is?
AHughman08 2 years ago
Nope.
Just one more empty atheistic mere vacuous assertion built on a self-stultifying worldview.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Comment removed
AHughman08 2 years ago
AH08
Since non-theism fails to provide the a priroi essentials for the Laws of Logic it cannot be true and is self-nullifying. Theism provides the pre-essentials of universality, immutability, perfection, immateriality, and certainty; non-theism cannot.
Non-theism is illogical, non-rational, anti-reasonable, irrational, alogical and nonsensical.
Flee from such incoherency.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
haha. TAG that has nothing to do with your argument in this video. You know what thats called? Inconsistency! and It's yet another fallacy.
I'm starting to think you have no idea what you are talking about and your just copying other arguments you've heard from CARM.
this is what you did:
"atheism is evil. theism is correct"
-thats a fallacy
"no it's not"
-yes it is
"no, because the transcendental argument also exists"
-um....
you are the only thing incoherent here, buddy.
AHughman08 2 years ago
i am an atheist. And a humanist. I find it rather insulting and short sighted of you to suggest that I might not comprehend morality as a result.
Also, to suggest that, as you put it 'Atheism produces evil' this therefore means that a belief in a god introduces a new element of truth to your belief system, this is not really the way that truth works is it.
Finally, what a silly voice you have.
charlessorley 2 years ago
MJM
For our reading pleasure an atheist offers one more powerful and compelling argument for his self-refuting atheism.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
What a lot of shite.
MichaelJamesMaidment 2 years ago
2.
So all M (Laws of Logic) with the class and character of immutability, transcendence, necessity, universality,
aspatial, atemporal, aphysical, presuppose and require N (God) who has the class and character of aseity, omniscience, omnipotence, immutability, universality, aspatial, atemporal,aphysical.
Theism claims that the class & character of the Laws of Logic implies that none of that class & character can be accounted for the grounding and sustaining of the class and character of God.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
1. Theism claims that the class & character of the Laws of Logic implies that none of that class & character can be accounted for the grounding & sustaining of the class & character of God.
So all M (Laws o L)requires & presupposes N (God). This avoids the P.P. of mere Rationalism for its conclusion is not implicitly stated in its major premise.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
lulz
churchesablaze666 2 years ago
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
If true moral law is it's good for the strongest to survive, let the weak grovel & die.- If there isn't a morality decreed by God, then logically the strongest should exploit and take advantage of the weak. To be a consistent atheist/evolutionist, one should close down the assistance programs & the schools for the blind, handicapped, and kill off all the weak.
God alone gives an immutable Moral Law. God surely exists.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
The same argument can be made for any god, and it is just as weak. Atheism doesn't require that you believe that strong should conquer the weak. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a supernatural deity. Evolution doesn't say that the strong should kill the weak either. It makes the statement that the organisms best suited to their environment tend to live long enough to pass their genes on to the next generation (AKA natural selection).
SHSH1212 2 years ago
I would say that theists and atheists agree on B, but we say that the Laws of Logic are grounded in human minds, and you say they are grounded in an external, invisible force.
freethinker1990 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
poor poor atheists all they offer is more self-refuting self-hating anti-theist who fail to offer any argument - they only spew out self-loathing and self-nullifying assertions
they are irrational
they hate truth
anti-theists hate the laws of logic, universals and absolutes
they are miserable and desire to make others miserable or dead
anthonymilessee 2 years ago
As an atheist, I am good because I CHOOSE to be good. Not from fear of what my invisible friend may do... Most of the evil committed in the world to date has been done in the name of religion!
erehwon80 3 years ago
Define "good."
chert95 2 years ago
I try not to harm others or the planet. I do not try to force my beliefs on other people. In no way is atheism "evil". This view is outdated and utterly rediculous.
erehwon80 2 years ago
Makes sense.
chert95 2 years ago
And as I was raised agnostic, and had developed my morals long before I read the bible, to say that theism is neccessary for morality is idiotic.
erehwon80 2 years ago
If anything, theism would have an effect on society, not directly.
chert95 2 years ago
retard,
First of all, humans can be moral without religion! 90% of the people i know are atheists ( including me) and i haven't stoned any witches, homosexuals or gone on any crusades to kill thousands of innocent Muslims and Jews. Secondly, even if it WERE true ( and i stress that it's not) How the hell does that prove god exists?
vandbg 3 years ago
What the heck are you talking about. I think its the argument disproven thousands of times that atheists can't have morals and i'll disprove it right now giving a list of places you can get good morals from that not a bible. Family, Freinds, Certin Adults, Community, Life Experiences, Rational Thought, Not listening to the bible when it tells you to kill people that sorta stuff, and I said i wouldn't use the bible in there and i noticed i did sorry.
Shom42 3 years ago
this is pretty fucking hilarious
Knukleheada 3 years ago
The wardens in abu ghraib where atheist, right? The crusaders where atheist, right? The 9/11 ppl where atheists, right? Deity sending bears to kill children where atheist, right?
And just as a pointer, Hitler stated to belive in god. Even thou I suspect he did not.
ReveronBlackPercy 3 years ago
whoever made this video is a DELUSIONAL PERSON!!!
underclassdamnriot 3 years ago
wow, there was an assumption every 5 seconds on average.
can you actually carry on an intelligent conversation with someone? or does the padding of your cell prevent that?
thespurginator 3 years ago
As an "intellectual," why is it you can discern fact from fiction?
An analogy for you:
Yesterday I had lunch with Harry Potter.
Prove that I didn't.
He's in a book, thousands of people love him, and he's magic. By your logic, he does in fact exist, based on this criteria.
Of course it's preposterous, but that's the point I'm trying to make.
gamblorn 3 years ago
The sharp, transcendent and impregnable truth of God.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
lmao
phocjame 3 years ago
What a train wreck of a human being this guy is.
sniper6081 3 years ago
It is funny how you stumble over big words. :)
satanversusjesus 3 years ago
oh.....skulls.....now i'm scared of atheists.....dude, you are pathetic.
lianghaochen 3 years ago
your an idiot and i hope this is a joke.
evb4mvp 3 years ago
that's funny your hilarious
THE NAZIS THAT CAUSED THE HOLOCAUST WERE CHRISTIAN!!!!!!!!!!!
jonxjquee 3 years ago
Actually...A majority of them werent. Hitler used Christianity to gain power/popularity at first but he had plans to destroy it later on in his career, not to mention he converted to atheism at the end of his life. Please, check you facts before you get excited about something. You dont deserve the thrill.
braino2000 3 years ago
35% is not a majority braino. in fact over half of nazi germany was Christian according to an article written in 1938
jonxjquee 3 years ago
Thanks to all the atheist fundamentalists who expose their hatred and hearts full of turpitude - turn to the truth and put off your miserable emotional condition and discover peace.
And you can finally have epistemic rights and warrant.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
Do you even know what those words mean? It sounds like you were impressed by a pseudo-intellectual and decided to parrot their argument.
Your argument is based upon fallacies, and it isn't as if you do not know this. You are being dishonest.
Only question is, will I get a real response, or a canned cop-out from someone who doesn't seem capable of defending their rhetoric?
Mathenaut 3 years ago
Alkirin
You fail to discern perspicacious assertions.
And atheism requires the truth of theism.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
That is the best you can do after someone thoroughly debunks your argument? Surely, you have more than that.
I'm surprised that you haven't deleted the comments, frankly.
There is nothing of atheism that requires theism. By definition, atheism is without theism. You'll need alot more than bad logic and religious rhetoric to show otherwise.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
Atheists add authority and power results mass atrocities. The atheist Joe Stalin killed more in one day than the entire inquisition - atheists love blood baths. Atheist Mao killed about 50 million for atheism. Pol Pot killed a million for atheism
Lenin/Stalin about 30 million for the atheism.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago