People evolved their morals you say? That's a nice thought and all, but unfortunately, not everyone practices the same morals. So if that's true, and we did evolve our morals, that would mean certain people are more evolved than others. There goes equality. Way to shoot MLK's speech right down the toilet. Instead of focusing so much on trying to reason around God's existence, please think about what exactly it is you're affirming.
@ecclesiastes118 Humans did evolve morals, and it doesn't mean some people are "more evolved" than others. That doesn't even make sense. Evolution states that all human beings came from a common ancestor, so of course we are all equal
@C00lblkatheist Friend, that's exactly what evolution teaches. I can't fully cover this on a youtube forum, so I'll go ahead and send you a personal message.
@ecclesiastes118 That's NOT what evolution teaches, I know, I study it. Some humans are more fit, or less fit to the environment, but we are all equally evolved. People who don't practice the same morals are on the end of the bell curve, while most humans are in the middle, and extremely moral people are located in the front. We are all equally evolved and all share 99.9% of our DNA. If we weren't equally evolved, it would show in our DNA, NOT how moral some people are
@ecclesiastes118 Hell, there's no such thing such as "more evolved". No species is "more evolved" than another species. You are thinking of evolution as a ladder, when it's not. Evolution is more like a tree, and no species is "better" than the next. Each species is perfectly adapted to their environment. Humans aren't "more evolved" than chimpanzees or flowers. If different species aren't more evolved, how can members within the same species be "more evolved?"
@C00lblkatheist If each species were perfectly adapted to their environment, then why did so many species go extinct? Why can't the polar bears adapt to this so-called "global warming?" Why are we so concerned about it? Well, I'm not concerned...
Anyways, I'll get a pm to you tomorrow maybe. I'd be curious to see your response.
@ecclesiastes118 Comets usually wipe out the majority of life, and some animals have gone extinct by men killing them off. As for the polar bears, global warming is a fairly recent event, and evolution is a fairly slow process. It's clear you don't know what evolution is, so you cannot speak on behalf of it
@C00lblkatheist You're forgetting deforestation. Loss or change of habitat has also been responsible for the extinction of many species. So climate change can happen quickly, like global warming, but evolution happens slowly? You just said, "each species is perfectly adapted to their environment." That's obviously not the case. It's your job to speak on behalf of evolution. I speak against it. What's "clear" is that you don't understand the mechanism by which things "evolve"; natural selection.
Yes it is. When environmental pressures change, the species eventually dies off, or adopts to that environment and survives. But neither of these events happen in one or two generations. It takes TIME. Also "their" is referred to the environment in which they were first adopted to, so they are perfectly adopted to "that" (first) environment, and if the environment changes and the species doesn't, they will die, just like the polar bears.
@C00lblkatheist Okay, I see your point now. It wasn't very clear originally. But I still don't see how you can reconcile that to evolution. For example: If species are perfectly adapted to their environment, how can fish, through a process of natural selection, develop characteristics for living/breathing in the air and walking on land? None of that would be beneficial mutations in the transitional phase. Seems a bit counter-productive to the environment they inhabited.
The moral argument is not saying atheists do not have objective moral. The argument is asking where the deep objective moral (that everyone has) came from.
It even says in the bible that some who do not believe in God, that they will know right and wrong in their heart and some will do the right thing and will be judged by God based on their conscience. we are trained from childhood. to do right, it's deeply ingrained in our psyche and we are slaves to it as the social animals that we are.
but what if this girl was brought up in Nazi Germany as a member of HItlers Youth? Then her morals would be completely different and she would support the killing of millions!
This is a good thing you brought up but I think it was rather rude to say it regardless of your assumption. Thinking and knowing are two different things. Anyway, your comment indicated an important fact on our morals which is... the environment in which we grow up in.
Also, this idea that America is the most violent society is in no way true. America is a very safe society to live in in comparison to most. You may be referring to America's military might, but that is used against aggressors, not against the innocent. Big difference.
@ORagnar You're half right. Inside the US is safer than any nation in south america, or in the middle east, but there are far far safer nations, like most of europe, canada, japan, Australia, and so on. But as for your idea that we only use military might on aggressors, that's simply untrue. Hawaii never attacked america, but we used military might to take it from the natives. Afghanistan never attacked america, yet we invaded them. Cuba, the other pacific islands, etc etc. We are aggressors.
We have Morals because we need to survice in society to live. Before God there was Zeus. Man invented God. It's the evolutionn of things. We don't need God to live or be moral.
Just because something is detrimental doesn't mean it is wrong though. I may want to save up $1000. Giving money to a homeless guy is detrimental to that.
Personally I believe God is loved, designed us to love, therefore when we go against that design, it feels wrong because we were not designed to do that.
Without a designer, how can you ultimately say if something is working right or wrong if it never had a designed purpose in the first place?
liquidsmooth- You believe in god, and go about your life spreading love is absolutely fantastic. I too, spread love whenever I can. But one difference, I can't believe in a creator, that knowingly created a being of hate (satan) and then rewarded him with powers over his creations just to see what happens.
liquidsmooth-- if something has "intended" purpose. Your asking from a creationists point of view. When it's by "accident" when it's working right, it continues. When it works wrong, it becomes extinct.
There was nothing 'Created" in the sense your thinking. :)
maybe you havent desired to kill, how about sexual immorality, lusting or desiring another persons stuff? these are under the commands you spoke of. Ya sure you think your a good person, you never hurt an animal or maimed anyone but i'm sure you've slandered your friends or disrespected your parents. You may have the appearance of a good person but God knows your closets, and your secrets. He says its like a cup that is clean on the outside but inside is filthy and dirty.
Samoa (the country) use to eat each other before Christ... that was their standard norm without absolute authority morality is not contingent. its like the blind leading the blind
how do u get morals from physicality? I can't split an atoms and find what is good or bad... you said that morals come from natural selection care to give evidence of this? you just proved the mans point that your morals are based off of society, through your "colony" argument.
This debate is MUCH more in depth than this video, or any video, could possibly portray. Both sides (Athiest v.s. Theist) have more viewpoints than can be introduced and discussed in a YouTube video, so for anyone here who feels as though they "proved" someone else's point wrong or right, this isn't a one time deal.
As for me: NOBODY knows who/what created man. Big Bang? Can't happen; something had to create that too.
***Try to find answers, not refute theories. That's my point.***
We do have various workable theories on what initially created life & I.D. is way, way down the list.
As for something creating the Big Bang, it's circular reasoning since something had to create the thing that created the Big Bang. Therefore you can't say something HAD to create the Big Bang, because you have no real idea if a cause is a necessity.
PS.I used "create" because you did, but I prefer "cause" as more accurate.
Right on. Primitive cultures had rules and ethics without Christians. The Christian commandments don't forbid rape. There is no commandment prohibiting slavery. There is no commandment against letting your children starve to death. Child abuse isn't a sin. But it is a Christian sin to covet your neighbor's lawnmower?? It isn't a sin to pollute a neighbor's well. White Christians often kill animals for the "fun" of it. Respect for the earth and trees and rivers isn't Christian.
So did the universe exist outta nothing ? how did NOTHING become SOMETHING ? ... I believe in Science but something has to exist for Science to be possible ...if you believe in the big bang theory then how did the big bang happen in the first place when NOTHING EXISTS .. so a big ball of rock formed outta nothing ?? if you think deeply about it there is no other answer than a higher power .. it makes no sense otherwise... Morals are withing yourself anyway whether you have faith or not
"So did the universe exist outta nothing ? how did NOTHING become SOMETHING ? ..." The only honest answer to questions like these, at this time, is WE DON'T KNOW. You should try it...be honest...admit that you don't know.
If you claim that your god created the universe you must explain where the deity came from. Did your god "pop into existence out of nothing?" You have all your work ahead of you.
Right so you cant deny either or be close minded to either ... The universe got here somehow and either you believe it's all and accident or it's all a creation ... I choose to believe creation ... it's just all to balanced and too perfect to be and accident ...
There is no evidence for any "creation" and therefore there is no reason to belief in any such thing.............
You cant explain how the Universe got here ... so there is no evidence to claim it WASN"T a creation ... so the argument can go both ways.... it's important to be open minded.... and this isn't about the Universe being perfect as you claim .... we all know there is nothing perfect about life.... or the Universe ...
What you've asked him to answer for you (where God came from) is completely unreasonable, as nobody on the planet can provide an answer to that. Don't try and suck me into one side or another, I have more of an open mind to ALL the facts in general than most. All I'm suggesting is that instead of saying "Well I cant see him therefore he never existed", try and explore theories, piece together facts, and be optimistic about finding the "answer" we all seek. In other words, find an answer :).
"What you've asked him to answer for you (where God came from) is completely unreasonable." The question very reasonable in response to theists who insist that the universe cannot be eternal.
"instead of saying "Well I cant see him therefore he never existed", try and explore theories" Well, since you've never "seen" Allah, Horus, Apollo, Zeus, the Great Spirit, pink unicorns or cosmic chipmunks, I guess we should believe that they might have existed, according to your "logic."
My only "argument" with Atheists is that I generally see them refuting Christianity. What's so wrong with that? Since there are several other major theories/beliefs out there (and many other theories that haven't been organized into religions), why not invest your time into exploring what the answer IS, not what the answer ISN'T. If you don't believe in Christianity, fine! Neither do I! But I don't sit on my ass and make youtube videos bashing what others propose; I propose my own ideas.
I refute ALL religions. It just happens that Christianity is the dominate religion where I live and it's the one I have to deal with the most.
"why not invest your time into exploring what the answer IS" We do know the answers to many questions.
"But I don't sit on my ass and make youtube videos bashing what others propose; I propose my own ideas. " If you don't support your "proposition" with EVIDENCE yet you claim that it's true, nay, absolutely true, you deserve ridicule.
Your entire first post, starting with "So did the universe exist outta nothing ?... You should try it...be honest...admit that you don't know...work ahead of you..."
It's the perfect example of what I've been saying NOT to do! What, honestly, do you gain by ridiculing the idea that others have proposed? All you've done is bashed Christianity simply because, as you said, it happens to be the dominate religion. If Judaism was dominate, would you bash that too?
"What, honestly, do you gain by ridiculing the idea that others have proposed?" Many of the claims of the bible have been proven WRONG. What do we gain by criticizing nonsense? We get closer to the truth, or at least we clear the way by weeding out the nonsense.
"If Judaism was dominate, would you bash that too?" YES! All religion is bullshit.
What amazes me is that Atheists do exactly the same to Christians as they accuse them of themselves. One minute you think everyone should be free to do as they like, the next your criticising faith and telling people to believe what you believe (nothing). You are a HYPOCRITE.
It's every concerned citizens' duty to humanity to criticize "faith." Do you think it's wrong the criticize the faith of suicide bombers? Is it wrong to ridicule the "faithful" who refuse medical treatment for their children?
That obviously depends on your point of view. By your logic then as a christian I should be trying to convert you and all your atheist friends to save you going to hell.
No, I actually HAVE some logic. I don't believe in virgin births, resurrections, flying Jews, talking snakes and donkeys, burning bushes, water-walking, fish-multiplying, man-eating whales, etc. The list goes on and on.
Hell isn't real. WTF would I want you running around spreading lies?
It's up to you what you believe. It's not up to you what other people believe. You don't believe in burning bushes? Man eating whales? Watch the discovery channel. I bet you wouldn't jump into a tank with an orca. Anyhow, their biological understanding was far less than ours, a "whale" to them could have referred to any large man eating sea creature, of which there are plenty.
By the way, I really couldn't care less what some jumped Atheist thinks about anything.
"It's up to you what you believe." No, it's not okay to believe anything you want....not okay for any rational person who cares about truth. Beliefs must be supported with EVIDENCE.
The bible states that Jonah was swallowed by a whale. You're saying that it wasn't a whale? Talk about desperation. You'll willing to resort to intellectual dishonesty...anything to save your stupid beliefs.
Do you believe in burning bushes? How about talking donkeys?
I don't believe many of the things in the bible, stories change over time and the bible was written years after the events actually happened.
Evidence? The bible is evidence, whether you like it or not, whether you trust it's accuracy or providence, it's still evidence. Look up the definition of evidence in the dictionary, then get back to me.
I don't know anything about it for sure, no one does.
Making straw men out of my quotes isn't going to win you any arguments.
Some of the stories in the bible are true - a lot of it makes perfect sense - it references many things that we know are true. Are you seriously saying that someone just sat down one day and created the whole thing, with no truth in it whatsoever?
Strawman? You said that you don't believe everything in the bible, but you think the bible is evidence...but you didn't say what it was evidence for. That was a perfectly valid question.
Some of the stories of the bible are true? Some of the mundane stories, perhaps. I'm talking about the supernatural, superstitious, magical hocus pocus...and there's a lot of it.
Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't evidence, have you looked up the definition yet? Even if it wasn't true, it would still be evidence, but you can't prove that it isn't.
I'm starting to feel like I'm arguing with an idiot.
So you're only picking the parts that support your answer and ignoring the rest? Sounds about right. You have to look at the book as a whole - just because you don't like what it says doesn't mean you can decide that those bits are lies.
"Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't evidence." Just because you don't believe the Quran, that doesn't mean it's not evidence of Allah.
You're saying that even if the bible is NOT true, it's still evidence of your god?
"you're only picking the parts that support your answer" You must believe, then, that homosexuals, sabbath workers, stubborn sons and non-virgin women should be put to death. Most Xians I've spoken with don't accept those parts.
Exactly. I'm not a muslim, but the qur'an is evidence that supports the faith, you can't argue with it - doesn't mean I agree, but you can't deny that it's evidence
Yes, even is it wasn't true (which it is) then it is still evidence. could write a totally fictional story, it would still be evidence that the events happened - just bad evidence.
Yes, you are only picking the parts that support your answer, and what does that have to do with putting people to death? bad attempt at a straw man.
"but the qur'an is evidence that supports the faith, you can't argue with it...but you can't deny that it's evidence" WTF does that mean. Do you think that the Quran is evidence of Allah? Do you know how many "holy" books there are? Do you believe that all gods are real?
"could write a totally fictional story, it would still be evidence that the events happened - just bad evidence." Okay, this conversation is over. That has to be one of the most stupid statements I've ever heard.
You're confusing evidence with proof. Yes, there is evidence for all faiths, you can put forward a logical argument for most faiths by using the existing evidence. However there is no concrete proof for any faith.
By the way, "allah" would be the same god as Jawe/God in judaism and christianity because it all stems from one man (Abraham). Allah is just the Islamic word for God, you probably meant "evidence that mohammed was a profit". Yes it's evidence, no, I don't believe it.
Religion gives people hope and a reason for going through life. Some people are only able to get through life by looking to the promises made by their religion. And, as with anything, some people take things way too far. So, if religion helps people, why is it so bad?
"I don't care as long as they don't bother me." Unfortunately, many religions are designed to be unsatisfied unless everyone complies.
They don't bother you? Lol, maybe not yet. I guess you don't live in New York. I guess you haven't had a creationist try to teach your child in school that evolution is "just a theory."
Again, if you want to see this proof in real time....look up Extropy which is, per Christian doctrine, the desacrilation of the human body per Christianity...but it is the future..wait and see how slowly it will become morally accepted through rhetoric on how it saves lives and so on....society will eventually give in to our base egoistic nature. Don't believe me? Just watch it creep in slowly.
well....as far as social darwinism, I strongly believe it is in total agreement with reality. Allow me to explain: lets start with understanding what is Social Darwinism....Social Darwinism is basically when you weed out the weak for the benefit of the strong/fit through social processes. Now we established a definition...where does it apply? All you have to do is go to a hospital and ask about children who are aborted because of an illness discovered. That's the easiest to find..more?
I hope I have demonstrated that my thinking does not come from nonsense but instead from logical systematic thinking....we simply just disagree on what is truth.
I don't think your thinking comes from nonsense, I'm certain you have thought your position over. But yes, we disagree on what is truth. I don't think there are absolute truths, because I see no evidence of it.
"suppose" is a key word there. I probably should have said "I suppose it could be". But now I feel like we are arguing for the sake of argument... I was just trying to see your point of view... i.e, your point of view that just about anything can be a philosophy. In my understanding, atheism is a non-view, not a view... but I suppose it's possible to stretch the definition if one tries hard enough.
I promise you that if you look up what the word "philosophy" defines, and compare it to ANY logical system of thought....it will become clear that all logic based thinking requires philosophy....no exceptions.
The original topic was about morality, and again, I see no evidence of absolute morality (i.e., a perfectly drawn line between all things good and all things bad). But I don't need to, because our natural Empathy, combined with social networks, dictates what we consider good and what we consider bad. Not just in nature, but also in religion (although religion only evolves/changes kicking and screaming).
"Empathy, combined with social networks, dictates what we consider good and what we consider bad. Not just in nature, but also in religion (although religion only evolves/changes kicking and screaming)."
The above statement is a Fallacy.
True Christian does not change over time. The rules are written.
I have some views and opinions which may be based on the foundation of my atheism (my starting point), but the atheism itself is no more than a lack of belief. My views and opinions are my own, and many are shared with theistic beliefs, and have nothing to do with my atheism. My atheism, again, is simply my lack of belief, because I have not observed any evidence to cause me to have a belief. IMHO you are taking natural processes and null positions and turning them too easily into ideas.
It seems we have something in common of which (I know at least for me) is a large part of core for my faith in GOD for once absolutes are accepted...then all things begin beyond me. Religion is philosophical....but then again every logical system of thought is philosophical at its core. Here is a thought....considering the reality of absolute truth....when all is said and done....the only possibilities are either there is GOD or there is not. One of us is right and one of us is wrong.
"the only possibilities are either there is GOD or there is not."
I can think of many other possibilities... however ulikely they may be (and I personally consider the god hypothesis equally unlikely). For example... We were planted here by aliens... we are part of a matrix like computer program... etc.
If I at all have come across as rude. That is not my intention......I believe that all people are equal and all deserve respect for their ideas....however not all ideas are equal.
I want to introduce you to the truth about how you use the word "Fact". Better yet..I will have a fellow Atheist explain it to you.
Ever heard of Friedrich Nietzsche? He is considered by many a founder of modern Atheism. Here is a little quote of his that is accepted as truth by all rational people, "There are no facts, only interpretations." Now if you think this is a lie....then I think we are done talking LOL. verify on Wikipedia, unfortunately I am not allowed to link on this apparently
Alright... we are veering off topic and now quibbling about philosophical concepts... but I'll entertain this path for a moment in hopes to get back on track again.
Technically, in science, there are not facts, unless we are speaking of mathematics. But in common language, a fact is something that cannot be logically disputed. I don't like to go down this road, because now we can say that nothing is a fact... our existence isn't a fact, and it gets us nowhere.
Regarding Nietzsche, he was a philosopher. Atheism is not a philosophy, it's a lack of belief. Nietzsche was (and is still today) a very famous atheist. No real point here, just a clarification. Personally, Im not a Nietzsche fan, and I dont know many current Atheists that are... but thats just a side note.
I suspected you are not a Nietzsche fan. I agree most Atheist are not happy to hear the thoughts of Nietzsche today. You are more of a David Hume or Immanuel Kant Fan if you like the classics or if you prefer the contemporary builders of atheistic thought like Bertrand Russell.
All rational thought is based on philosophy, no exceptions
well then let me bring this up to you. It might offend you even more but I would feel bad not showing it to you. Go to Wikipedia and search Darwinism then compare what is there to your challenges on my comments.
Ok... I'm going over the wiki now, and I just want to jot this down before I forget. Darwinism so far seems to be exactly what I thought it was... i.e., "social darwinism" as coined by Thomas Henry Huxley. Keep in mind that Darwin was dead and gone when Thomas developed the movement in the late 19th century. I'm not aware that it exists anymore, but I'll continue reading now...
"Darwinism is increasingly regarded as an inappropriate description of modern evolutionary theory. For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of Gregor Mendel, having as a result only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity (see Pangenesis), and knew nothing of genetic drift. In modern usage, particularly in the United States, Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term."
You seem to seek absolutes, which is a philosophical way of looking at the world. I can see that you would come to the conclusion that atheistic thought is philosophical. In absolute terms, I suppose it is. But thats atheistic thought, not atheism. Atheism itself is simply lack of belief. How one comes to the conclusion could be considered a personal philosophy I suppose. But then theres default atheism, an atheist only because they have never thought of supernatural concepts.
No juanveles75. Evolution is a fact. How do we know this? Because it's OBVERVED DIRECTLY. It's not an idea, it's a fact. The Theory of Evolution tries to explain WHY evolution happens (the fact of evolution). The current theory observes that evolution works via Natural Selection. If the theory was proven false, evolution would still exist (it cannot disapear, because it's a fact of nature)... we would then replace it with another theory of WHY evolution does happen.
"If this is true, then prove your posit to me, why I should be compassionate?"
If for no other reason than that it creates a stronger bond with others, a stronger family, a stronger group, a stronger tribe, a stronger society. To protect yourself you must protect others, as they will then help protect you.
Why does a family matter, a stronger group matter, etc...?? Why can I not be like the shark? or like the spider? .....You just assume it matters. If I can get what I want without these means you propose....why share? I don't want to share. I don't need to share.
Social groups matter because it allows us to take care of each other, and protect each other. Without social groups we would be doomed. Not all species need social groups... we do, it's part of our evolutionary success.
Here....I will give you an example of how Morality is actually objective and we can prove it historically....not through Darwinistic or some other scientific/atheistic/agnostic proposal...Extropy is the future of humankind. We will be there because our base instincts as I said are egoistic and this fits perfectly with that idea. You don't believe me? Watch it unfold because within your lifetime you will get to see its beginnings and live through some of it. (continuing at top post)
Some societies allow rape...just not publicly...there are plenty examples of this in History too. Some societies allowed killing each other as an acceptable means to resolve conflicts (we actually still do in current times...we just give it relativistic reasoning). Some cultures found stealing as acceptable....the rule was if you cannot protect yourself....then you deserve it. Look it up and then ask.....why did/do they not know about the rules of empathy?
No society as a whole wishes to live in a place where rape and murder are rampant. Would you? I sure wouldn't, and I don't know anyone that would. The societies you are looking at are (and were) mostly dictatorships, where one person (or a small group) controls (or controlled) everything. That's called corruption, and nobody wants it.
"No society as a whole wishes to live in a place where rape and murder are rampant. Would you? .... That's called corruption, and nobody wants it."
Mostly dictatorships.....first of all you need to look at history...very very few societies existed without some supreme ruler. and...can you give any examples of societies without a small group in charge of everything?
Corruption isn't corruption until someone calls it corruption. per relativism.
"can you give any examples of societies without a small group in charge of everything?"
We are veering off topic now. The point is about morals, right?
Remember the Golden Rule so many Christians like to attribute to Jesus? Well, that's it! but, it's been around long before Jesus. It's common sense. Do unto others as you who have done unto you. This is a natural rule of survival.
I would not suggest that nobody understood the Golden rule before Christ....I would only suggest that it is a Sacred Rule and like everything sacred....it doesn't have to be introduced with Words to come from GOD. It comes from GOD as an absolute truth that comforms to reality, per my worldview. Jesus Christ never claimed to introduce this, he simply clarified it as being sacred truth.
Fair enough. You think the Golden Rule comes from a god, I don't... but we both agree with the rule (as do all humans, with the small exception of psychopaths and people with other severe mental disorders). I'm glad we can all agree on the golden rule, even if we don't agree where it came from.
You have not yet logically proven why I need the "Golden Rule?" Why can I not break it at will? However I want? If everyone does it then I will still have a community of people who accept it. So where is the detriment? And I do not necessarily need a community (egoism requires only self)
I have very clearly laid out why you need the golden rule. It's for your own quality of life, safety, and survival. It comes naturally from Empathy, which we develop naturally as early as one year old.
I never said you cannot break it at will, of course you can, but why would you want to?
It doesn't matter if the rest of society follows the empathetic golden rule of human nature, because if you do not, you will pay the social consequences.
Maybe we are confusing ourselves with the words being used.....You keep using the word "Need" and I am stressing "Why do I NEED....if I can get safety, survival, etc....without the golden rule? That is the question I am posing to have answered.
Ok, maybe the word "need" is causing confusion. I'm not speaking in absolutes, and I think that's also part of the confusion. Remove absolutes from need and fact, then we can use normal conversational language... I'm not one for philosophical language... I think it causes pointless confusion in topics, unless you are really asking deep questions... I think these questions (and answers) are not deep, they are relative (like everything), and they are observable. IMHO, absolutes get you nowhere.
BTW... what exactly is the point you are "trying" to get at? Your arguments seem not to work with either natural social networks, nor religious doctrine. I'm really failing to see what you are "attempting" to say. i.e., what is the final break down of your hypothesis?
The point is that Objective Moral Law exist and that it is not relative to the individual or group but instead exist within itself. What exist within individuals is the perspective of morality. In short, morality is not a human concoction and that the rules are beyond us.
I agree that morality is not a human concoction. A level of morality exists within almost all living creatures. You believe this morality comes from a god, I think it comes from nature (as it is scientifically observable in almost all of nature).
The argument of empathy fails as you read over psychology studies on human intent.....we are above all....Egotistical beings at our base instincts. Darwinism actually supports this argument. Humans are smart enough to understand that there are no rules unlike animals thus instinct is no longer in our way. All of us can remove instinct at will all we have to do....is change the view. And we do this all the time...just take a look at how you define a lie and how you apply it in reality.
If there is no God.....then Right or Wrong becomes relative.....and in relativism everything is allowed because then Right or Wrong doesn't exist within itself.
Right and Wrong is relative, even in the church. Society and individuals dictate what is right and wrong... you make a choice, and society makes a choice. If the church's morality didn't evolve, christians would still support slavery (as promoted in the bible).
Here's how we decide (for the most part) what is right and what is wrong... If you don't want something done to you, you don't do it to others (or you will expect it can happen to you as well).
Darwinism doesn't exist! It's a word made up by fundemetalists. Evolution is not a life-style, it's not a philosophy, it's not a religion, it's not a political stanse, and it's not an idea. Evolution is simply what happens. To say Darwinism supports something is to make two false statements... #1 that Darwinism exists... #2: that evolution is some kind of philosophy. You are so far off the mark, you have entered into conspiracy land!
You said Darwinism doesnt exist and that it was made up by fundementalist. I believe you would be at odds showing how Huxley is a fundementalist. In terms of existence...you never specified what idea you were negating existence of and even if you did choose one, I am sorry but ideas do not begin with other peoples approval...thats just how existence works. And as far as evolution being a philosophy...I addressed that I think already.
Did you only care to read what supports your overall position? Why not recognize that your initial refute was unjustified? Oh by the way, I am familiar with the contemporary understandings of the term....remember, I brought it to your attention.
"You said Darwinism doesnt exist and that it was made up by fundamentalist."
To be more exact... The acceptance of the process of evolution does not equal Darwinism. Darwinism is not a current social philosophy. The idea that acceptance of evolution is Darwinism is a paranoid concept brought forth by fundamentalists.
I wasn't asking a question at all.....I was addressing the question of existence....the question is "What is existence?" then applied it to your refute Darwinism does not exist. To demonstrate its Fallacy.
What is existence? I suppose, from our point of view (living creatures, taking in the world around us through our natural senses), it's what we observe... that is, "what exists". I don't like to go down this road, because then we could say there is a possibility that life is nothing but a dream, and we go nowhere.
Regarding Darwinism again... as far as I'm concerned (using non-absolutes) Darwinism doesn't exist. At best, it was an idea at one time which no longer holds ground & had nothing to do with natural evolution. Im curious do you know of anyone who is a Darwinist today?
Why should I care about anything you say? If morals begin with me....why should I care if the name of the game is "Survival of the Fittest"? Why does it make sense then to be as Altruistic as we are? LOL it wasn't always this way.....check your human history...there are plenty examples of societies where killing was accepted as how you get ahead.
Because you do not recognize God....does not mean he is not present (addressing Indian argument)
"Survival Of The Fittest" wasn't even a phrase used for evolution. Darwin never said this phrase, it came later. But even so, you are reading the phrase to mean the same as the slang definition of the word "fit"... as in "strong". Fit simply means best suited... for example, it may be best suited to be compasionite for others. But regardless of this, it's what happens in nature, it's observed. It's not a philosophy or a life-style, it's just fact. There is no Darwinism... it's paranoia.
this young lady is obviosly very lonley and uneducated . what i cant understand is why athiest are always so angry? if what you are saying is true ,you realy shouldnt be so viscious in your commentary. another thing is that she has veiws that are derived from biblical morals. if some one was to rob, rape,steal,or harm her in any way ;she would expect the law to be exacted on that person. whould she be wrong? no! but the law comes from the bible. morals are of god,not darwin. it was a theory!
Tesiacole not only did your rambling post make little sense but its quite easily proven wrong.
Not only do Christians fill jail cells across the world for committing crimes that anyone else could commit but many countries that do not accept any of the abrahamic faiths have a far lower crime rate then the USA that is some 75% Christian.
those who have very limited logic probably needs an invisible imaginary god to tell them what is and what is not detrimental to the species. but for the rest of the thinking world, carry on.
Imagine this, YOU are an arrow and if you not reaching in the direction of God and life, you are reaching in the direction of Devil and death. You can figure out what right or wrong? Hah! Try to think, what's best, life or death? Hmm, very hard question, aye? Why to live and even helping people to survive if they all going to die anyways, what's in it for you? Confused? I know I am. Try to help yourself first, like reaching, searching for life!
This is truly pathetic, to be honest with all of you. It's like a question is raised and you try to answer it even though many of you can't and really, there is no need for an answer since this girl doesn't need one as you can tell, she clearly said she is NEVER to become a believer, *in her own existence!:) So if you are trying to answer her question even though she can't answer on why she need an answer in the first place... Well that makes you all pathetic, and her even more pathetic...
Religion doesnt provide morals....it gives orders....obey or burn.
Is it moral to tell your children that every thought they have will be judged by an unsubstiated god, and if this thought or feeling is against the desires of unsubstantiated scripture, they will burn in unsubstantiated hell,....for unsubstantiated eternity.
I think not.
Religion is IMMORAL!!!!!!!! It judges, without right.
I'm pretty annoyed at that concept of obey or burn. That's offensive and it just pisses me off. Of course it's all probably bullshit anyway but still, how fucking sick is that idea.
Great video, good to see you have a good thinking brain and head on your shoulders... Thanks for the RATIONAL views and commentary... you're truely a value to the human race.
According to statistics, over 90% of the people in the USA are theists. Till date, I haven't seen a single, fucking, theist video get rated 4 stars. All atheist videos get rated 4 plus stars.
The phenomenon conflicts with the statistics, don't you think?
OK then prove morality with the scientific method? If you do not have to have God to have morality then who is final authority of what is right and wrong? On what basis could you tell Hitler he was wrong? Are you asserting that you are the measure of right and wrong?
what about personal responsability for the creating of suffering amongst others? That's also possible for atheists.
I'm sure one can have a sense of right or wrong no matter beleiving in god or not.. And that counts also for those who don't care about that choice (like me)
Again your naturalistic world view does not account for things like morality yet you have a sense of right and wrong which you point out yourself. Why do you want to borrow from the Christian world view which accounts for non materialistic things like morality. You cannot have it both ways. Stay consistent with your paradigm. If there is no absolute measure of right and wrong then morality is based on opinion. Again on what basis can you tell the Hitlers of the world that they are wrong?
you can't! There is no absolute right or wrong, But you can say: these people create suffering.. and most people don't want suffering, and want happiness. Whatever that helps for the lessening of suffering for beings (which can be as well a mental as physical) must be used. and this is as well a spiritual contamplative quest as a social structural quest.
even in christianity it is not god, as a being, who decides what is right or wrong, but the christian who through deep understanding and expeirience of god and the acts of jesus, who i respect very much, finds the strength to grow compassion towards beings and acts upon that compassion.
'judge not or you shall be judged', 'the splinter in the eye of the other and...' right? Waging war against the 'evil people' is quite useless.. it's compassionate war for those who are suffering, and towards the deminishing of hate and destructive intentions..
this compassion, while it is the central and most basic emotion on which moral acts are based, is not of the sole owner right of Christians, or believers in god.. it is a human capacity. it exists as a potential in every human! So you don't have to belong to any doctrine or anti-doctrine or group or anything in order to act and think moral.
which doesn't mean that choosing a path, like the christian, atheist, art, buddhist, agnostic, science based (yes there is even science on the workings of compassion and the effects of meditation-daniel goleman for instance) etc.. is useless. on the contrary. Every person needs some beacon to move to when being lost in this world. For me this is the buddhist path.
i'm a human with emotions, and the possibility to suffer, but this suffering is related to my conscioussness, i only suffer because i have not found a way yet to overcome it.. it's relative truth.. although i don't like to suffer i can't say: it's wrong or right. it's just an emotional respons to fysical or mental pain..
and since i believe every being doesn't like suffering i like to lessen it, like i do for myself.. But whether this would be right or wrong, is my opinion... I can learn to laugh at the face of suffering, like Nietzche did, or take its conditiona away like the boeddha..
If turth is relative, then what would you say about the bank robber who had to steal from a bank bcz he/she had to get money to feed his/her children? should he/she get punished eventhough he/she tought it was good relative to his/her situation?
the laws are made for the benefit of the safety of a community, they exist on an agreement within that community.. there were times in europe, that it was ok to take blood revenge, as to revenge the death of a friend or family, or to revenge someone who steals from you, eye for an eye.. But these days, at least in europe, it is normal to have the law, and the human rights. The law may decide on this, or at least here in belgium, she may get help from a social worker after explaining herself
this is off course hypothetically speaking, cause i doubt anyone would rob a bank for helping her child.. maybe in other countries, but not here. we have a pretty good social security system. where even the most poor can get food like in poverello. Which is a system of organisations built on safekeeping of the country and caring, compassion.. which are all elements relative to the human consioussness. the law is superficial, it's about conscioussness, human connection and interrelation.
my own opinion would be relative to my consioussness and can oppose the law. I can say: you must understand her situation, while another may say: she's a thief she's gotta pay for her crime.
my idea is that she should be helped. But robbing a bank causes people to feel unsafe, and if she wouldn't be punished there may be people getting the same idea, or people who want to take right in own hands. it's very difficult to solve that.
i couldn't be as hard as the law system. maybe i would send her to a closed center, where she would get food, and be able to take care of her children. although i don't know if that exists here
i have no idea.. but as far as i can perceive i can't find any. my research is two ways: the scientific, as for nature laws, which may are may not be absolute, one cannot see before the big bang, and thus it cannot be discovered it existed before. absolute means also: infinite. but these laws may be impermanent, and purely existing on the basis of the interrelation between planets on the large scale, and on the smallest scale the interrelation between elements like electrons and neutrons.
the second way i search is through mind research, wether i am existing absolute. but I am allways changing, emotionally, and intellectually, so i'm sure i'm impermanent. As fare as i can conceive it is dependent on my perception and on my brain and body. That concerns logical investigation of the mind. but there is also internal investigation through letting go attachment of the logical mind.
this way is very hard to explain as it concerns non-logical expeirience, like explaining the beauty of a rising sun. But i can say it effects both internal and external perception, and the limit between both becomes less. Also this way i haven't found absolute truth yet. But there is progress:) i figure that if perception is relative, than one can find ways to overcome that by looking for the basis of perception.
this internal searching may bring sceptic people to shout: such a bullshit, but then they erase two-thousand five hunderd years of expeirience and investigation by buddhist masters in meditation. It is very strange to the most scientists also, but investigation about this way of research has been done, on smaller scale, like in psychotherapy and on the mind&life conferences, where the great scientists, buddhists and philosophers have gotten into dialogue regulary now for twenty years.
Oh yeah bible = perfect source of morality.
Kill others for working on sunday, enslave your neighboor countries
In other words no one actually takes bible serieus these days, even if they say so!
SilveradoNL 6 months ago
oh my god your beautiful
canderson2750 8 months ago
People evolved their morals you say? That's a nice thought and all, but unfortunately, not everyone practices the same morals. So if that's true, and we did evolve our morals, that would mean certain people are more evolved than others. There goes equality. Way to shoot MLK's speech right down the toilet. Instead of focusing so much on trying to reason around God's existence, please think about what exactly it is you're affirming.
ecclesiastes118 11 months ago
@ecclesiastes118 Humans did evolve morals, and it doesn't mean some people are "more evolved" than others. That doesn't even make sense. Evolution states that all human beings came from a common ancestor, so of course we are all equal
C00lblkatheist 9 months ago
@C00lblkatheist Friend, that's exactly what evolution teaches. I can't fully cover this on a youtube forum, so I'll go ahead and send you a personal message.
ecclesiastes118 9 months ago
@ecclesiastes118 That's NOT what evolution teaches, I know, I study it. Some humans are more fit, or less fit to the environment, but we are all equally evolved. People who don't practice the same morals are on the end of the bell curve, while most humans are in the middle, and extremely moral people are located in the front. We are all equally evolved and all share 99.9% of our DNA. If we weren't equally evolved, it would show in our DNA, NOT how moral some people are
C00lblkatheist 9 months ago
@ecclesiastes118 Hell, there's no such thing such as "more evolved". No species is "more evolved" than another species. You are thinking of evolution as a ladder, when it's not. Evolution is more like a tree, and no species is "better" than the next. Each species is perfectly adapted to their environment. Humans aren't "more evolved" than chimpanzees or flowers. If different species aren't more evolved, how can members within the same species be "more evolved?"
C00lblkatheist 9 months ago
@C00lblkatheist If each species were perfectly adapted to their environment, then why did so many species go extinct? Why can't the polar bears adapt to this so-called "global warming?" Why are we so concerned about it? Well, I'm not concerned...
Anyways, I'll get a pm to you tomorrow maybe. I'd be curious to see your response.
ecclesiastes118 9 months ago
@ecclesiastes118 Comets usually wipe out the majority of life, and some animals have gone extinct by men killing them off. As for the polar bears, global warming is a fairly recent event, and evolution is a fairly slow process. It's clear you don't know what evolution is, so you cannot speak on behalf of it
C00lblkatheist 9 months ago
@C00lblkatheist You're forgetting deforestation. Loss or change of habitat has also been responsible for the extinction of many species. So climate change can happen quickly, like global warming, but evolution happens slowly? You just said, "each species is perfectly adapted to their environment." That's obviously not the case. It's your job to speak on behalf of evolution. I speak against it. What's "clear" is that you don't understand the mechanism by which things "evolve"; natural selection.
ecclesiastes118 9 months ago
Comment removed
C00lblkatheist 9 months ago
@ecclesiastes118 "That's obviously not the case"
Yes it is. When environmental pressures change, the species eventually dies off, or adopts to that environment and survives. But neither of these events happen in one or two generations. It takes TIME. Also "their" is referred to the environment in which they were first adopted to, so they are perfectly adopted to "that" (first) environment, and if the environment changes and the species doesn't, they will die, just like the polar bears.
C00lblkatheist 9 months ago
@C00lblkatheist Okay, I see your point now. It wasn't very clear originally. But I still don't see how you can reconcile that to evolution. For example: If species are perfectly adapted to their environment, how can fish, through a process of natural selection, develop characteristics for living/breathing in the air and walking on land? None of that would be beneficial mutations in the transitional phase. Seems a bit counter-productive to the environment they inhabited.
ecclesiastes118 9 months ago
The moral argument is not saying atheists do not have objective moral. The argument is asking where the deep objective moral (that everyone has) came from.
grasuh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution supplies all that is needed for the development
of codes of conduct that preserve and facilitate
survival and co-operation,
which is precisely what these "laws" do.
Such sensitivities in no way support any particular god.
In fact, as Christians believe that their most heinous acts
will be magically vanished and forgotten via human sacrifice,
they actually have very little incentive to act in a moral manner.
Hmmm..
That just might explain a hell of a lot.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
good video. you're an intelligent and nice person
Beldinc 2 years ago
You're yummy. Call me.
damaxman 2 years ago
It even says in the bible that some who do not believe in God, that they will know right and wrong in their heart and some will do the right thing and will be judged by God based on their conscience. we are trained from childhood. to do right, it's deeply ingrained in our psyche and we are slaves to it as the social animals that we are.
Peacefulrules2 2 years ago
but what if this girl was brought up in Nazi Germany as a member of HItlers Youth? Then her morals would be completely different and she would support the killing of millions!
wafflefaceiron3 2 years ago
This is a good thing you brought up but I think it was rather rude to say it regardless of your assumption. Thinking and knowing are two different things. Anyway, your comment indicated an important fact on our morals which is... the environment in which we grow up in.
Monocromagnum 2 years ago
Also, this idea that America is the most violent society is in no way true. America is a very safe society to live in in comparison to most. You may be referring to America's military might, but that is used against aggressors, not against the innocent. Big difference.
ORagnar 2 years ago
@ORagnar You're half right. Inside the US is safer than any nation in south america, or in the middle east, but there are far far safer nations, like most of europe, canada, japan, Australia, and so on. But as for your idea that we only use military might on aggressors, that's simply untrue. Hawaii never attacked america, but we used military might to take it from the natives. Afghanistan never attacked america, yet we invaded them. Cuba, the other pacific islands, etc etc. We are aggressors.
humanistheart 1 year ago
I have a mixed assessment of this video. On some things terrific, on other things no so good. I am an atheist too.
Man like ants, not a good analogy. We're too different. Our reasoning capacity is the major difference between us and other animals.
Primitive societies did not live well. Not in comparison to us today. Men lived in fear in such societies.
It is good that you are looking to nature to understand morality. Man's requirement for life is the source of morality.
ORagnar 2 years ago
Socarates, Plato ,aristatol all had a moral codes
sheppaul 2 years ago
We have Morals because we need to survice in society to live. Before God there was Zeus. Man invented God. It's the evolutionn of things. We don't need God to live or be moral.
cpuchala7 2 years ago
You AND your brain are sexy
megamanium 2 years ago 2
Just because something is detrimental doesn't mean it is wrong though. I may want to save up $1000. Giving money to a homeless guy is detrimental to that.
Personally I believe God is loved, designed us to love, therefore when we go against that design, it feels wrong because we were not designed to do that.
Without a designer, how can you ultimately say if something is working right or wrong if it never had a designed purpose in the first place?
LiquidSmooth 2 years ago
liquidsmooth- You believe in god, and go about your life spreading love is absolutely fantastic. I too, spread love whenever I can. But one difference, I can't believe in a creator, that knowingly created a being of hate (satan) and then rewarded him with powers over his creations just to see what happens.
12monkeys5 2 years ago
If something is not designed with an intended purpose, if it is a mere accident, how can you say if it is working right or wrong?
Whereas a created thing was created with a purpose, therefore if it doesn't do what it was created to do, you can say it is working wrong.
If it is working the way it is suppose to, you can say it is working right.
Therefore true right and wrong isn't found in mere a accident.
LiquidSmooth 2 years ago
liquidsmooth-- if something has "intended" purpose. Your asking from a creationists point of view. When it's by "accident" when it's working right, it continues. When it works wrong, it becomes extinct.
There was nothing 'Created" in the sense your thinking. :)
12monkeys5 2 years ago
Highest crime rate, not the most violent.
Ganthripor 2 years ago
maybe you havent desired to kill, how about sexual immorality, lusting or desiring another persons stuff? these are under the commands you spoke of. Ya sure you think your a good person, you never hurt an animal or maimed anyone but i'm sure you've slandered your friends or disrespected your parents. You may have the appearance of a good person but God knows your closets, and your secrets. He says its like a cup that is clean on the outside but inside is filthy and dirty.
jbenjamin06 2 years ago
Samoa (the country) use to eat each other before Christ... that was their standard norm without absolute authority morality is not contingent. its like the blind leading the blind
jbenjamin06 2 years ago
how do u get morals from physicality? I can't split an atoms and find what is good or bad... you said that morals come from natural selection care to give evidence of this? you just proved the mans point that your morals are based off of society, through your "colony" argument.
jbenjamin06 2 years ago
This debate is MUCH more in depth than this video, or any video, could possibly portray. Both sides (Athiest v.s. Theist) have more viewpoints than can be introduced and discussed in a YouTube video, so for anyone here who feels as though they "proved" someone else's point wrong or right, this isn't a one time deal.
As for me: NOBODY knows who/what created man. Big Bang? Can't happen; something had to create that too.
***Try to find answers, not refute theories. That's my point.***
Mewstor151 3 years ago
Big Bang is what created the universe, not man!
We do have various workable theories on what initially created life & I.D. is way, way down the list.
As for something creating the Big Bang, it's circular reasoning since something had to create the thing that created the Big Bang. Therefore you can't say something HAD to create the Big Bang, because you have no real idea if a cause is a necessity.
PS.I used "create" because you did, but I prefer "cause" as more accurate.
OlympicRudi 3 years ago
Your arguement does make a lot of sense in many ways. I hope you'll make more videos soon.
mobstersreport 3 years ago
your fucking awesome!!
sethorlando 3 years ago
there is no Atheism there is only infidelity of religion.
ToSimpanPouAgapisa 3 years ago
Right on. Primitive cultures had rules and ethics without Christians. The Christian commandments don't forbid rape. There is no commandment prohibiting slavery. There is no commandment against letting your children starve to death. Child abuse isn't a sin. But it is a Christian sin to covet your neighbor's lawnmower?? It isn't a sin to pollute a neighbor's well. White Christians often kill animals for the "fun" of it. Respect for the earth and trees and rivers isn't Christian.
Beinquisitive 3 years ago
Excellent. This kid is a critical thinker.
EdgerHumphrey 3 years ago
So did the universe exist outta nothing ? how did NOTHING become SOMETHING ? ... I believe in Science but something has to exist for Science to be possible ...if you believe in the big bang theory then how did the big bang happen in the first place when NOTHING EXISTS .. so a big ball of rock formed outta nothing ?? if you think deeply about it there is no other answer than a higher power .. it makes no sense otherwise... Morals are withing yourself anyway whether you have faith or not
funkyflights 3 years ago
"So did the universe exist outta nothing ? how did NOTHING become SOMETHING ? ..." The only honest answer to questions like these, at this time, is WE DON'T KNOW. You should try it...be honest...admit that you don't know.
If you claim that your god created the universe you must explain where the deity came from. Did your god "pop into existence out of nothing?" You have all your work ahead of you.
Atheistjeremy 3 years ago
Right so you cant deny either or be close minded to either ... The universe got here somehow and either you believe it's all and accident or it's all a creation ... I choose to believe creation ... it's just all to balanced and too perfect to be and accident ...
funkyflights 3 years ago
"The universe got here somehow and either you believe it's all and accident or it's all a creation"
I've never heard a scientist claim that the universe happened by "accident."
There is no evidence for any "creation" and therefore there is no reason to belief in any such thing.
"it's just all to balanced and too perfect" Perfect? LOL. If "creation" is perfect, why are babies born with birth defects?
Atheistjeremy 3 years ago
There is no evidence for any "creation" and therefore there is no reason to belief in any such thing.............
You cant explain how the Universe got here ... so there is no evidence to claim it WASN"T a creation ... so the argument can go both ways.... it's important to be open minded.... and this isn't about the Universe being perfect as you claim .... we all know there is nothing perfect about life.... or the Universe ...
funkyflights 3 years ago
Comment removed
UnitedMartialArtsKY 3 years ago
What you've asked him to answer for you (where God came from) is completely unreasonable, as nobody on the planet can provide an answer to that. Don't try and suck me into one side or another, I have more of an open mind to ALL the facts in general than most. All I'm suggesting is that instead of saying "Well I cant see him therefore he never existed", try and explore theories, piece together facts, and be optimistic about finding the "answer" we all seek. In other words, find an answer :).
Mewstor151 3 years ago
"What you've asked him to answer for you (where God came from) is completely unreasonable." The question very reasonable in response to theists who insist that the universe cannot be eternal.
"instead of saying "Well I cant see him therefore he never existed", try and explore theories" Well, since you've never "seen" Allah, Horus, Apollo, Zeus, the Great Spirit, pink unicorns or cosmic chipmunks, I guess we should believe that they might have existed, according to your "logic."
Atheistjeremy 3 years ago
My only "argument" with Atheists is that I generally see them refuting Christianity. What's so wrong with that? Since there are several other major theories/beliefs out there (and many other theories that haven't been organized into religions), why not invest your time into exploring what the answer IS, not what the answer ISN'T. If you don't believe in Christianity, fine! Neither do I! But I don't sit on my ass and make youtube videos bashing what others propose; I propose my own ideas.
Mewstor151 3 years ago
I refute ALL religions. It just happens that Christianity is the dominate religion where I live and it's the one I have to deal with the most.
"why not invest your time into exploring what the answer IS" We do know the answers to many questions.
"But I don't sit on my ass and make youtube videos bashing what others propose; I propose my own ideas. " If you don't support your "proposition" with EVIDENCE yet you claim that it's true, nay, absolutely true, you deserve ridicule.
Atheistjeremy 3 years ago
Your entire first post, starting with "So did the universe exist outta nothing ?... You should try it...be honest...admit that you don't know...work ahead of you..."
It's the perfect example of what I've been saying NOT to do! What, honestly, do you gain by ridiculing the idea that others have proposed? All you've done is bashed Christianity simply because, as you said, it happens to be the dominate religion. If Judaism was dominate, would you bash that too?
Mewstor151 3 years ago
"What, honestly, do you gain by ridiculing the idea that others have proposed?" Many of the claims of the bible have been proven WRONG. What do we gain by criticizing nonsense? We get closer to the truth, or at least we clear the way by weeding out the nonsense.
"If Judaism was dominate, would you bash that too?" YES! All religion is bullshit.
Atheistjeremy 3 years ago
What amazes me is that Atheists do exactly the same to Christians as they accuse them of themselves. One minute you think everyone should be free to do as they like, the next your criticising faith and telling people to believe what you believe (nothing). You are a HYPOCRITE.
LucienHMusic 3 years ago
Comment removed
UnitedMartialArtsKY 3 years ago
It's every concerned citizens' duty to humanity to criticize "faith." Do you think it's wrong the criticize the faith of suicide bombers? Is it wrong to ridicule the "faithful" who refuse medical treatment for their children?
Atheistjeremy 3 years ago
That obviously depends on your point of view. By your logic then as a christian I should be trying to convert you and all your atheist friends to save you going to hell.
LucienHMusic 3 years ago
No, I actually HAVE some logic. I don't believe in virgin births, resurrections, flying Jews, talking snakes and donkeys, burning bushes, water-walking, fish-multiplying, man-eating whales, etc. The list goes on and on.
Hell isn't real. WTF would I want you running around spreading lies?
Atheistjeremy 3 years ago
It's up to you what you believe. It's not up to you what other people believe. You don't believe in burning bushes? Man eating whales? Watch the discovery channel. I bet you wouldn't jump into a tank with an orca. Anyhow, their biological understanding was far less than ours, a "whale" to them could have referred to any large man eating sea creature, of which there are plenty.
By the way, I really couldn't care less what some jumped Atheist thinks about anything.
LucienHMusic 3 years ago
"It's up to you what you believe." No, it's not okay to believe anything you want....not okay for any rational person who cares about truth. Beliefs must be supported with EVIDENCE.
The bible states that Jonah was swallowed by a whale. You're saying that it wasn't a whale? Talk about desperation. You'll willing to resort to intellectual dishonesty...anything to save your stupid beliefs.
Do you believe in burning bushes? How about talking donkeys?
Atheistjeremy 3 years ago
I don't believe many of the things in the bible, stories change over time and the bible was written years after the events actually happened.
Evidence? The bible is evidence, whether you like it or not, whether you trust it's accuracy or providence, it's still evidence. Look up the definition of evidence in the dictionary, then get back to me.
LucienHMusic 3 years ago
"I don't believe many of the things in the bible." Wow, there's a little honesty, now we're getting somewhere.
So you're presenting the primitive book that contains old stories you don't believe as evidence? Evidence for what, LOL?
You'll probably say next that some of the stories of the bible are true. How do you know which ones are true and which ones are false?
You must be just cherry-picking.
Atheistjeremy 3 years ago
I don't know anything about it for sure, no one does.
Making straw men out of my quotes isn't going to win you any arguments.
Some of the stories in the bible are true - a lot of it makes perfect sense - it references many things that we know are true. Are you seriously saying that someone just sat down one day and created the whole thing, with no truth in it whatsoever?
LucienHMusic 3 years ago
Strawman? You said that you don't believe everything in the bible, but you think the bible is evidence...but you didn't say what it was evidence for. That was a perfectly valid question.
Some of the stories of the bible are true? Some of the mundane stories, perhaps. I'm talking about the supernatural, superstitious, magical hocus pocus...and there's a lot of it.
Atheistjeremy 3 years ago
Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't evidence, have you looked up the definition yet? Even if it wasn't true, it would still be evidence, but you can't prove that it isn't.
I'm starting to feel like I'm arguing with an idiot.
So you're only picking the parts that support your answer and ignoring the rest? Sounds about right. You have to look at the book as a whole - just because you don't like what it says doesn't mean you can decide that those bits are lies.
LucienHMusic 3 years ago
"Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't evidence." Just because you don't believe the Quran, that doesn't mean it's not evidence of Allah.
You're saying that even if the bible is NOT true, it's still evidence of your god?
"you're only picking the parts that support your answer" You must believe, then, that homosexuals, sabbath workers, stubborn sons and non-virgin women should be put to death. Most Xians I've spoken with don't accept those parts.
Atheistjeremy 3 years ago
Exactly. I'm not a muslim, but the qur'an is evidence that supports the faith, you can't argue with it - doesn't mean I agree, but you can't deny that it's evidence
Yes, even is it wasn't true (which it is) then it is still evidence. could write a totally fictional story, it would still be evidence that the events happened - just bad evidence.
Yes, you are only picking the parts that support your answer, and what does that have to do with putting people to death? bad attempt at a straw man.
LucienHMusic 3 years ago
"but the qur'an is evidence that supports the faith, you can't argue with it...but you can't deny that it's evidence" WTF does that mean. Do you think that the Quran is evidence of Allah? Do you know how many "holy" books there are? Do you believe that all gods are real?
"could write a totally fictional story, it would still be evidence that the events happened - just bad evidence." Okay, this conversation is over. That has to be one of the most stupid statements I've ever heard.
Atheistjeremy 3 years ago
You're confusing evidence with proof. Yes, there is evidence for all faiths, you can put forward a logical argument for most faiths by using the existing evidence. However there is no concrete proof for any faith.
By the way, "allah" would be the same god as Jawe/God in judaism and christianity because it all stems from one man (Abraham). Allah is just the Islamic word for God, you probably meant "evidence that mohammed was a profit". Yes it's evidence, no, I don't believe it.
LucienHMusic 3 years ago
Religion gives people hope and a reason for going through life. Some people are only able to get through life by looking to the promises made by their religion. And, as with anything, some people take things way too far. So, if religion helps people, why is it so bad?
waster125 2 years ago
"So, if religion helps people, why is it so bad?"
I happen to believe that the TRUTH is most important.
If comfort is the only good thing religion does, it's not worth untold human misery that it causes.
Atheistjeremy 2 years ago
Meh, religion is like drugs, it helps people cope with reality. I don't care as long as they don't bother me.
waster125 2 years ago
People are capable of coping with reality.
"I don't care as long as they don't bother me." Unfortunately, many religions are designed to be unsatisfied unless everyone complies.
They don't bother you? Lol, maybe not yet. I guess you don't live in New York. I guess you haven't had a creationist try to teach your child in school that evolution is "just a theory."
Atheistjeremy 2 years ago
Again, if you want to see this proof in real time....look up Extropy which is, per Christian doctrine, the desacrilation of the human body per Christianity...but it is the future..wait and see how slowly it will become morally accepted through rhetoric on how it saves lives and so on....society will eventually give in to our base egoistic nature. Don't believe me? Just watch it creep in slowly.
juanvelez75 3 years ago
well....as far as social darwinism, I strongly believe it is in total agreement with reality. Allow me to explain: lets start with understanding what is Social Darwinism....Social Darwinism is basically when you weed out the weak for the benefit of the strong/fit through social processes. Now we established a definition...where does it apply? All you have to do is go to a hospital and ask about children who are aborted because of an illness discovered. That's the easiest to find..more?
juanvelez75 3 years ago
I hope I have demonstrated that my thinking does not come from nonsense but instead from logical systematic thinking....we simply just disagree on what is truth.
juanvelez75 3 years ago
I don't think your thinking comes from nonsense, I'm certain you have thought your position over. But yes, we disagree on what is truth. I don't think there are absolute truths, because I see no evidence of it.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
freedom0f5peech says
"I can see that you would come to the conclusion that atheistic thought is philosophical. In absolute terms, I suppose it is."
You contradict your own thinking. Based on the above, how can you think in absolute terms and at the same time believe there are no absolutes?
juanvelez75 3 years ago
"suppose" is a key word there. I probably should have said "I suppose it could be". But now I feel like we are arguing for the sake of argument... I was just trying to see your point of view... i.e, your point of view that just about anything can be a philosophy. In my understanding, atheism is a non-view, not a view... but I suppose it's possible to stretch the definition if one tries hard enough.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
I promise you that if you look up what the word "philosophy" defines, and compare it to ANY logical system of thought....it will become clear that all logic based thinking requires philosophy....no exceptions.
Try it.
juanvelez75 3 years ago
That could well be true... I don't know. I'll look it up later. I'm almost out of time here.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
The original topic was about morality, and again, I see no evidence of absolute morality (i.e., a perfectly drawn line between all things good and all things bad). But I don't need to, because our natural Empathy, combined with social networks, dictates what we consider good and what we consider bad. Not just in nature, but also in religion (although religion only evolves/changes kicking and screaming).
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
freedom0f5peech says,
"Empathy, combined with social networks, dictates what we consider good and what we consider bad. Not just in nature, but also in religion (although religion only evolves/changes kicking and screaming)."
The above statement is a Fallacy.
True Christian does not change over time. The rules are written.
juanvelez75 3 years ago
And that will be the end of my part of the conversation for today, because I'm almost late now. But it's been interesting.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
Thanks for the conversation.....I agree and enjoyed the talk.
Good day at work!
juanvelez75 3 years ago
I have some views and opinions which may be based on the foundation of my atheism (my starting point), but the atheism itself is no more than a lack of belief. My views and opinions are my own, and many are shared with theistic beliefs, and have nothing to do with my atheism. My atheism, again, is simply my lack of belief, because I have not observed any evidence to cause me to have a belief. IMHO you are taking natural processes and null positions and turning them too easily into ideas.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
It seems we have something in common of which (I know at least for me) is a large part of core for my faith in GOD for once absolutes are accepted...then all things begin beyond me. Religion is philosophical....but then again every logical system of thought is philosophical at its core. Here is a thought....considering the reality of absolute truth....when all is said and done....the only possibilities are either there is GOD or there is not. One of us is right and one of us is wrong.
juanvelez75 3 years ago
"considering the reality of absolute truth"
I personally see no evidence of absolute truth.
"the only possibilities are either there is GOD or there is not."
I can think of many other possibilities... however ulikely they may be (and I personally consider the god hypothesis equally unlikely). For example... We were planted here by aliens... we are part of a matrix like computer program... etc.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
If I at all have come across as rude. That is not my intention......I believe that all people are equal and all deserve respect for their ideas....however not all ideas are equal.
juanvelez75 3 years ago
No, nothing came off as rude.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
"No, nothing came off as rude."
Well... with exception to the "Darwinism" thing... but that was a while ago.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
I want to introduce you to the truth about how you use the word "Fact". Better yet..I will have a fellow Atheist explain it to you.
Ever heard of Friedrich Nietzsche? He is considered by many a founder of modern Atheism. Here is a little quote of his that is accepted as truth by all rational people, "There are no facts, only interpretations." Now if you think this is a lie....then I think we are done talking LOL. verify on Wikipedia, unfortunately I am not allowed to link on this apparently
juanvelez75 3 years ago
Alright... we are veering off topic and now quibbling about philosophical concepts... but I'll entertain this path for a moment in hopes to get back on track again.
Technically, in science, there are not facts, unless we are speaking of mathematics. But in common language, a fact is something that cannot be logically disputed. I don't like to go down this road, because now we can say that nothing is a fact... our existence isn't a fact, and it gets us nowhere.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
Regarding Nietzsche, he was a philosopher. Atheism is not a philosophy, it's a lack of belief. Nietzsche was (and is still today) a very famous atheist. No real point here, just a clarification. Personally, Im not a Nietzsche fan, and I dont know many current Atheists that are... but thats just a side note.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
I suspected you are not a Nietzsche fan. I agree most Atheist are not happy to hear the thoughts of Nietzsche today. You are more of a David Hume or Immanuel Kant Fan if you like the classics or if you prefer the contemporary builders of atheistic thought like Bertrand Russell.
All rational thought is based on philosophy, no exceptions
juanvelez75 3 years ago
well then let me bring this up to you. It might offend you even more but I would feel bad not showing it to you. Go to Wikipedia and search Darwinism then compare what is there to your challenges on my comments.
juanvelez75 3 years ago
"Go to Wikipedia and search Darwinism then compare what is there to your challenges on my comments."
Will do... in just a few minutes. I'll be back.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
Ok... I'm going over the wiki now, and I just want to jot this down before I forget. Darwinism so far seems to be exactly what I thought it was... i.e., "social darwinism" as coined by Thomas Henry Huxley. Keep in mind that Darwin was dead and gone when Thomas developed the movement in the late 19th century. I'm not aware that it exists anymore, but I'll continue reading now...
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
I want to throw this wiki quote in here...
"Darwinism is increasingly regarded as an inappropriate description of modern evolutionary theory. For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of Gregor Mendel, having as a result only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity (see Pangenesis), and knew nothing of genetic drift. In modern usage, particularly in the United States, Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term."
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
You seem to seek absolutes, which is a philosophical way of looking at the world. I can see that you would come to the conclusion that atheistic thought is philosophical. In absolute terms, I suppose it is. But thats atheistic thought, not atheism. Atheism itself is simply lack of belief. How one comes to the conclusion could be considered a personal philosophy I suppose. But then theres default atheism, an atheist only because they have never thought of supernatural concepts.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
freedom0f5peech says
it's what happens in nature, it's observed. It's not a philosophy or a life-style, it's just fact.
All ideas are philosophy; Evolution is an idea; Evolution is a Philosophy (Look up rules of logic)
freedom0f5peech says
"it may be best suited to be compasionite for others"
If this is true, then prove your posit to me, why I should be compassionate?
juanvelez75 3 years ago
"All ideas are philosophy; Evolution is an idea; Evolution is a Philosophy (Look up rules of logic)"
Evolution isn't an idea, it's a natural process. It was around billions of years before anyone figured out it was happening.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
Evolution is an idea that represents your interpretation of what you understand to be true.
juanvelez75 3 years ago
No juanveles75. Evolution is a fact. How do we know this? Because it's OBVERVED DIRECTLY. It's not an idea, it's a fact. The Theory of Evolution tries to explain WHY evolution happens (the fact of evolution). The current theory observes that evolution works via Natural Selection. If the theory was proven false, evolution would still exist (it cannot disapear, because it's a fact of nature)... we would then replace it with another theory of WHY evolution does happen.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
"If this is true, then prove your posit to me, why I should be compassionate?"
If for no other reason than that it creates a stronger bond with others, a stronger family, a stronger group, a stronger tribe, a stronger society. To protect yourself you must protect others, as they will then help protect you.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
Why does a family matter, a stronger group matter, etc...?? Why can I not be like the shark? or like the spider? .....You just assume it matters. If I can get what I want without these means you propose....why share? I don't want to share. I don't need to share.
juanvelez75 3 years ago
Social groups matter because it allows us to take care of each other, and protect each other. Without social groups we would be doomed. Not all species need social groups... we do, it's part of our evolutionary success.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
Here....I will give you an example of how Morality is actually objective and we can prove it historically....not through Darwinistic or some other scientific/atheistic/agnostic proposal...Extropy is the future of humankind. We will be there because our base instincts as I said are egoistic and this fits perfectly with that idea. You don't believe me? Watch it unfold because within your lifetime you will get to see its beginnings and live through some of it. (continuing at top post)
juanvelez75 3 years ago
Some societies allow rape...just not publicly...there are plenty examples of this in History too. Some societies allowed killing each other as an acceptable means to resolve conflicts (we actually still do in current times...we just give it relativistic reasoning). Some cultures found stealing as acceptable....the rule was if you cannot protect yourself....then you deserve it. Look it up and then ask.....why did/do they not know about the rules of empathy?
juanvelez75 3 years ago
No society as a whole wishes to live in a place where rape and murder are rampant. Would you? I sure wouldn't, and I don't know anyone that would. The societies you are looking at are (and were) mostly dictatorships, where one person (or a small group) controls (or controlled) everything. That's called corruption, and nobody wants it.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
freedom0f5peech says
"No society as a whole wishes to live in a place where rape and murder are rampant. Would you? .... That's called corruption, and nobody wants it."
Mostly dictatorships.....first of all you need to look at history...very very few societies existed without some supreme ruler. and...can you give any examples of societies without a small group in charge of everything?
Corruption isn't corruption until someone calls it corruption. per relativism.
juanvelez75 3 years ago
"can you give any examples of societies without a small group in charge of everything?"
We are veering off topic now. The point is about morals, right?
Remember the Golden Rule so many Christians like to attribute to Jesus? Well, that's it! but, it's been around long before Jesus. It's common sense. Do unto others as you who have done unto you. This is a natural rule of survival.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
I would not suggest that nobody understood the Golden rule before Christ....I would only suggest that it is a Sacred Rule and like everything sacred....it doesn't have to be introduced with Words to come from GOD. It comes from GOD as an absolute truth that comforms to reality, per my worldview. Jesus Christ never claimed to introduce this, he simply clarified it as being sacred truth.
juanvelez75 3 years ago
Fair enough. You think the Golden Rule comes from a god, I don't... but we both agree with the rule (as do all humans, with the small exception of psychopaths and people with other severe mental disorders). I'm glad we can all agree on the golden rule, even if we don't agree where it came from.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
You have not yet logically proven why I need the "Golden Rule?" Why can I not break it at will? However I want? If everyone does it then I will still have a community of people who accept it. So where is the detriment? And I do not necessarily need a community (egoism requires only self)
juanvelez75 3 years ago
I have very clearly laid out why you need the golden rule. It's for your own quality of life, safety, and survival. It comes naturally from Empathy, which we develop naturally as early as one year old.
I never said you cannot break it at will, of course you can, but why would you want to?
It doesn't matter if the rest of society follows the empathetic golden rule of human nature, because if you do not, you will pay the social consequences.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
Maybe we are confusing ourselves with the words being used.....You keep using the word "Need" and I am stressing "Why do I NEED....if I can get safety, survival, etc....without the golden rule? That is the question I am posing to have answered.
juanvelez75 3 years ago
Ok, maybe the word "need" is causing confusion. I'm not speaking in absolutes, and I think that's also part of the confusion. Remove absolutes from need and fact, then we can use normal conversational language... I'm not one for philosophical language... I think it causes pointless confusion in topics, unless you are really asking deep questions... I think these questions (and answers) are not deep, they are relative (like everything), and they are observable. IMHO, absolutes get you nowhere.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
BTW... what exactly is the point you are "trying" to get at? Your arguments seem not to work with either natural social networks, nor religious doctrine. I'm really failing to see what you are "attempting" to say. i.e., what is the final break down of your hypothesis?
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
The point is that Objective Moral Law exist and that it is not relative to the individual or group but instead exist within itself. What exist within individuals is the perspective of morality. In short, morality is not a human concoction and that the rules are beyond us.
juanvelez75 3 years ago
I agree that morality is not a human concoction. A level of morality exists within almost all living creatures. You believe this morality comes from a god, I think it comes from nature (as it is scientifically observable in almost all of nature).
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
will you marry me?
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
Me too.
carbonmite 3 years ago
The argument of empathy fails as you read over psychology studies on human intent.....we are above all....Egotistical beings at our base instincts. Darwinism actually supports this argument. Humans are smart enough to understand that there are no rules unlike animals thus instinct is no longer in our way. All of us can remove instinct at will all we have to do....is change the view. And we do this all the time...just take a look at how you define a lie and how you apply it in reality.
juanvelez75 3 years ago
If there is no God.....then Right or Wrong becomes relative.....and in relativism everything is allowed because then Right or Wrong doesn't exist within itself.
juanvelez75 3 years ago
Right and Wrong is relative, even in the church. Society and individuals dictate what is right and wrong... you make a choice, and society makes a choice. If the church's morality didn't evolve, christians would still support slavery (as promoted in the bible).
Here's how we decide (for the most part) what is right and what is wrong... If you don't want something done to you, you don't do it to others (or you will expect it can happen to you as well).
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
Darwinism doesn't exist! It's a word made up by fundemetalists. Evolution is not a life-style, it's not a philosophy, it's not a religion, it's not a political stanse, and it's not an idea. Evolution is simply what happens. To say Darwinism supports something is to make two false statements... #1 that Darwinism exists... #2: that evolution is some kind of philosophy. You are so far off the mark, you have entered into conspiracy land!
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
You said Darwinism doesnt exist and that it was made up by fundementalist. I believe you would be at odds showing how Huxley is a fundementalist. In terms of existence...you never specified what idea you were negating existence of and even if you did choose one, I am sorry but ideas do not begin with other peoples approval...thats just how existence works. And as far as evolution being a philosophy...I addressed that I think already.
juanvelez75 3 years ago
Did you only care to read what supports your overall position? Why not recognize that your initial refute was unjustified? Oh by the way, I am familiar with the contemporary understandings of the term....remember, I brought it to your attention.
juanvelez75 3 years ago
"You said Darwinism doesnt exist and that it was made up by fundamentalist."
To be more exact... The acceptance of the process of evolution does not equal Darwinism. Darwinism is not a current social philosophy. The idea that acceptance of evolution is Darwinism is a paranoid concept brought forth by fundamentalists.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
I'm not understanding your existance question. But, it sounds like you are asking, why is there something instead of nothing? Is that correct?
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
I wasn't asking a question at all.....I was addressing the question of existence....the question is "What is existence?" then applied it to your refute Darwinism does not exist. To demonstrate its Fallacy.
juanvelez75 3 years ago
What is existence? I suppose, from our point of view (living creatures, taking in the world around us through our natural senses), it's what we observe... that is, "what exists". I don't like to go down this road, because then we could say there is a possibility that life is nothing but a dream, and we go nowhere.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
Regarding Darwinism again... as far as I'm concerned (using non-absolutes) Darwinism doesn't exist. At best, it was an idea at one time which no longer holds ground & had nothing to do with natural evolution. Im curious do you know of anyone who is a Darwinist today?
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
Why should I care about anything you say? If morals begin with me....why should I care if the name of the game is "Survival of the Fittest"? Why does it make sense then to be as Altruistic as we are? LOL it wasn't always this way.....check your human history...there are plenty examples of societies where killing was accepted as how you get ahead.
Because you do not recognize God....does not mean he is not present (addressing Indian argument)
juanvelez75 3 years ago
"Survival Of The Fittest" wasn't even a phrase used for evolution. Darwin never said this phrase, it came later. But even so, you are reading the phrase to mean the same as the slang definition of the word "fit"... as in "strong". Fit simply means best suited... for example, it may be best suited to be compasionite for others. But regardless of this, it's what happens in nature, it's observed. It's not a philosophy or a life-style, it's just fact. There is no Darwinism... it's paranoia.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
this young lady is obviosly very lonley and uneducated . what i cant understand is why athiest are always so angry? if what you are saying is true ,you realy shouldnt be so viscious in your commentary. another thing is that she has veiws that are derived from biblical morals. if some one was to rob, rape,steal,or harm her in any way ;she would expect the law to be exacted on that person. whould she be wrong? no! but the law comes from the bible. morals are of god,not darwin. it was a theory!
tesiacole 3 years ago
Tesiacole not only did your rambling post make little sense but its quite easily proven wrong.
Not only do Christians fill jail cells across the world for committing crimes that anyone else could commit but many countries that do not accept any of the abrahamic faiths have a far lower crime rate then the USA that is some 75% Christian.
Please do not post such moronic comments.
Atheistprimate 3 years ago
those who have very limited logic probably needs an invisible imaginary god to tell them what is and what is not detrimental to the species. but for the rest of the thinking world, carry on.
metagenecirca 3 years ago
Any social groups HAVE TO? Slaves? nevermind...
Imagine this, YOU are an arrow and if you not reaching in the direction of God and life, you are reaching in the direction of Devil and death. You can figure out what right or wrong? Hah! Try to think, what's best, life or death? Hmm, very hard question, aye? Why to live and even helping people to survive if they all going to die anyways, what's in it for you? Confused? I know I am. Try to help yourself first, like reaching, searching for life!
VadimCool 3 years ago
This is truly pathetic, to be honest with all of you. It's like a question is raised and you try to answer it even though many of you can't and really, there is no need for an answer since this girl doesn't need one as you can tell, she clearly said she is NEVER to become a believer, *in her own existence!:) So if you are trying to answer her question even though she can't answer on why she need an answer in the first place... Well that makes you all pathetic, and her even more pathetic...
VadimCool 3 years ago
Well said. Turn up your volume. 5/5
claytonjenkins 3 years ago
Religion doesnt provide morals....it gives orders....obey or burn.
Is it moral to tell your children that every thought they have will be judged by an unsubstiated god, and if this thought or feeling is against the desires of unsubstantiated scripture, they will burn in unsubstantiated hell,....for unsubstantiated eternity.
I think not.
Religion is IMMORAL!!!!!!!! It judges, without right.
fantasy0coach 3 years ago
I'm pretty annoyed at that concept of obey or burn. That's offensive and it just pisses me off. Of course it's all probably bullshit anyway but still, how fucking sick is that idea.
silvercade 3 years ago
Great video, good to see you have a good thinking brain and head on your shoulders... Thanks for the RATIONAL views and commentary... you're truely a value to the human race.
dave251430 3 years ago
Can someone clear my doubt?
According to statistics, over 90% of the people in the USA are theists. Till date, I haven't seen a single, fucking, theist video get rated 4 stars. All atheist videos get rated 4 plus stars.
The phenomenon conflicts with the statistics, don't you think?
Anyway, keep up the good work, people!
5 STARS!
CeReAlKiLlErIsBaCk 3 years ago
maybe theists rather like to come in contact with god then with the computer sreen;)
michael1liz 3 years ago
OK then prove morality with the scientific method? If you do not have to have God to have morality then who is final authority of what is right and wrong? On what basis could you tell Hitler he was wrong? Are you asserting that you are the measure of right and wrong?
openairevangelism 3 years ago
what about personal responsability for the creating of suffering amongst others? That's also possible for atheists.
I'm sure one can have a sense of right or wrong no matter beleiving in god or not.. And that counts also for those who don't care about that choice (like me)
michael1liz 3 years ago
Again your naturalistic world view does not account for things like morality yet you have a sense of right and wrong which you point out yourself. Why do you want to borrow from the Christian world view which accounts for non materialistic things like morality. You cannot have it both ways. Stay consistent with your paradigm. If there is no absolute measure of right and wrong then morality is based on opinion. Again on what basis can you tell the Hitlers of the world that they are wrong?
openairevangelism 3 years ago
you can't! There is no absolute right or wrong, But you can say: these people create suffering.. and most people don't want suffering, and want happiness. Whatever that helps for the lessening of suffering for beings (which can be as well a mental as physical) must be used. and this is as well a spiritual contamplative quest as a social structural quest.
michael1liz 3 years ago
for this quest one can as well believe in god or not, openairevangelism..
michael1liz 3 years ago
even in christianity it is not god, as a being, who decides what is right or wrong, but the christian who through deep understanding and expeirience of god and the acts of jesus, who i respect very much, finds the strength to grow compassion towards beings and acts upon that compassion.
michael1liz 3 years ago
'judge not or you shall be judged', 'the splinter in the eye of the other and...' right? Waging war against the 'evil people' is quite useless.. it's compassionate war for those who are suffering, and towards the deminishing of hate and destructive intentions..
michael1liz 3 years ago
this compassion, while it is the central and most basic emotion on which moral acts are based, is not of the sole owner right of Christians, or believers in god.. it is a human capacity. it exists as a potential in every human! So you don't have to belong to any doctrine or anti-doctrine or group or anything in order to act and think moral.
michael1liz 3 years ago
which doesn't mean that choosing a path, like the christian, atheist, art, buddhist, agnostic, science based (yes there is even science on the workings of compassion and the effects of meditation-daniel goleman for instance) etc.. is useless. on the contrary. Every person needs some beacon to move to when being lost in this world. For me this is the buddhist path.
michael1liz 3 years ago
michael
"you can't! There is no absolute right or wrong"
Based on what you said, is your argument right or wrong?
rodriguezfig 3 years ago
i'm a human with emotions, and the possibility to suffer, but this suffering is related to my conscioussness, i only suffer because i have not found a way yet to overcome it.. it's relative truth.. although i don't like to suffer i can't say: it's wrong or right. it's just an emotional respons to fysical or mental pain..
michael1liz 3 years ago
and since i believe every being doesn't like suffering i like to lessen it, like i do for myself.. But whether this would be right or wrong, is my opinion... I can learn to laugh at the face of suffering, like Nietzche did, or take its conditiona away like the boeddha..
michael1liz 3 years ago
If turth is relative, then what would you say about the bank robber who had to steal from a bank bcz he/she had to get money to feed his/her children? should he/she get punished eventhough he/she tought it was good relative to his/her situation?
rodriguezfig 3 years ago
the laws are made for the benefit of the safety of a community, they exist on an agreement within that community.. there were times in europe, that it was ok to take blood revenge, as to revenge the death of a friend or family, or to revenge someone who steals from you, eye for an eye.. But these days, at least in europe, it is normal to have the law, and the human rights. The law may decide on this, or at least here in belgium, she may get help from a social worker after explaining herself
michael1liz 3 years ago
this is off course hypothetically speaking, cause i doubt anyone would rob a bank for helping her child.. maybe in other countries, but not here. we have a pretty good social security system. where even the most poor can get food like in poverello. Which is a system of organisations built on safekeeping of the country and caring, compassion.. which are all elements relative to the human consioussness. the law is superficial, it's about conscioussness, human connection and interrelation.
michael1liz 3 years ago
my own opinion would be relative to my consioussness and can oppose the law. I can say: you must understand her situation, while another may say: she's a thief she's gotta pay for her crime.
my idea is that she should be helped. But robbing a bank causes people to feel unsafe, and if she wouldn't be punished there may be people getting the same idea, or people who want to take right in own hands. it's very difficult to solve that.
michael1liz 3 years ago
i couldn't be as hard as the law system. maybe i would send her to a closed center, where she would get food, and be able to take care of her children. although i don't know if that exists here
michael1liz 3 years ago
Michael
Interesting point. I just want to find out from you: Are there absolutes?
rodriguezfig 3 years ago
i have no idea.. but as far as i can perceive i can't find any. my research is two ways: the scientific, as for nature laws, which may are may not be absolute, one cannot see before the big bang, and thus it cannot be discovered it existed before. absolute means also: infinite. but these laws may be impermanent, and purely existing on the basis of the interrelation between planets on the large scale, and on the smallest scale the interrelation between elements like electrons and neutrons.
michael1liz 3 years ago
the second way i search is through mind research, wether i am existing absolute. but I am allways changing, emotionally, and intellectually, so i'm sure i'm impermanent. As fare as i can conceive it is dependent on my perception and on my brain and body. That concerns logical investigation of the mind. but there is also internal investigation through letting go attachment of the logical mind.
michael1liz 3 years ago
this way is very hard to explain as it concerns non-logical expeirience, like explaining the beauty of a rising sun. But i can say it effects both internal and external perception, and the limit between both becomes less. Also this way i haven't found absolute truth yet. But there is progress:) i figure that if perception is relative, than one can find ways to overcome that by looking for the basis of perception.
michael1liz 3 years ago
this internal searching may bring sceptic people to shout: such a bullshit, but then they erase two-thousand five hunderd years of expeirience and investigation by buddhist masters in meditation. It is very strange to the most scientists also, but investigation about this way of research has been done, on smaller scale, like in psychotherapy and on the mind&life conferences, where the great scientists, buddhists and philosophers have gotten into dialogue regulary now for twenty years.
michael1liz 3 years ago
Spot on girl. Pretty face, pretty brain. Well done.
Domzdream 3 years ago