If I was an atheist I would kill myself because there would be zero point in living since everything will come to an end. Humans can be so ignorant sometimes; they don't see the big picture. One thing theists and atheists can agree on is that life is only temporary and all will eventually be no more. Jesus is my Lord!!!
I searched for those comments on Edward Tarte's Youtube blog. Unfortunately, he erased every comment I left on there (I spent hours meticuluosly answering his questions).
Anyway, reagrading Abraham and Isaac, the short answer is that event forshadowed the death of Christ who was the Lamb of God given by His Father to take away the sins of the world. God tells Abraham not to slay his son because He (God) would provide the Lamb (His Son) for sacrifice.
« God tells Abraham not to slay his son because He (God) would provide the Lamb (His Son) for sacrifice »
Then you think even worse of your god than I do of your belief in it. You believe in a god that thinks in terms of sins and sacrifices. Next time somebody asks you about Abraham and Isaac, I'd go with the 'object lesson' and 'guiding morality' interpretation I provided earlier.
Regarding interpretations, I have to go with the interpretation that God has provided for me in the word of God, not some intepretation that might appear more satisfying at the time.
God must punish sin. If He didn't He would be unrighteouss. Are you married? A father? If a man raped your wife or daughter, would justice not demand that that man be punished? If you were the judge, would you let him walk away free?
« Regarding interpretations, I have to go with the interpretation that God has provided for me in the word of God, not some intepretation that might appear more satisfying at the time »
Except that you do interpret this "word of god" in the light of the times we live in. According to contemporary moral structures.
Yes and no. Correct biblical interpretation involves studying the context of the time it was given, who it was given to, how would those people hearing it understand it, what differences would there be in language meaning etc etc. Once that has been exhausted, only then do you consider how one should apply that to present life.
Sin is that which perverts God's way into man's own way. The bible is clear about what constitutes unrighteous behavior as well as what constitutes righteous behavior. If you want some texts, I'll provide them for you.
Then that would be a reason for me to be upset with his actions. Not because of some abstract notion of "sin", but simply because he hurt the persons I love. I protect me and mine. When something threatens me and mine, I react.
I agree with some of what you said. but this "we can't know" argument is getting "tiresome". It seems that in this post-modern world, ignorance is tauted as wisodm.
There is much we don't know. But when it comes to the atrocities of Atheism, this is not distant history and there is much we DO KNOW.
Although you seem fair-minded personally, most Atheists I've conversed with are quick to point out the blood of Theists (holy wars) without owning up to their own.
« but this "we can't know" argument is getting "tiresome" »
In this video, the point I am trying to make is not that we cannot know: it's that it doesn't matter. I'm saying that whether atheism or theism is "responsible" for more deaths, in the end we should always strive to have accurate beliefs.
I believe it does matter. Whether you accept this as true or not, both Christianity and Atheism are worldviews that have implications on things like morality, the value of human life, etc.
True Christianity (as taught in the New Test) values life as sacred. Atheism sees everything as nothing more than a product of unitelligent material. I'm not saying that you couldn't possibly be an Atheist and reject Materialism but I think it's fair to say that most are materialists.
« implications on things like morality, the value of human life »
(1/2)
But morality is what we make it, and the value of human life is what we want it to be. There is no absolute moral standard; history and even the contemporary world show us that. And not even the most fundamentalist christians live by biblical standards, which would have them killing homosexuals, people who work on saturday, et cetera. So while your belief...
Do you believe this statement is true? Is this statement you're own personal standard or is it perhaps an absolute standard that applies to everyone including me? Which it is?
History doesn't show that there isn't a moral standard (prescription). History shows us that nations and individuals alike don't always live up to that moral standard (description)
No nation has lived up to God's standard of morality, including Israel.
But not all nations voilate God's standard to the same degree. The same thing could be said for individuals. Just because society's sense of right and wrong may shift doesn't mean that the objective standard for right and wrong changes but only that nations and individuals fail to act in accordance to that standard by varying degrees.
God's standard is communicated in His word, the bible.
God is the standard. He is infinitely perfect and holy.
As a Christian, we are justified by Christ who, being God is perfect. We are not condemned by our own performance. Our desire to be like God is not to "measure up" and therefore earn heaven. Rather our "Christlikenes" is motivated by love through by power of God who resides in us.
That's the best def of justification/sanctification in 500 words or less.
« If morality is just personal choices than this becomes just a bunch of preferences »
Exactly. Morality is in many ways the intersection between the personal preferences of all members of a society. Groups of people, through interaction, establish morality.
Again, please answer my question. Your statement about absolute truth (morality)is:
"There Is No Absolute Standard For Morality."
O.K. Is that "truth (moral) claim just another of your own "personal preferences" or is it a truth that applies to me and everyone else? Is it an absolute standard or a preference?
It is an observation. Through all of time, across all of the world, different people have had different moralities. Changing through time, and varying geographically. People's opinions about what is considered bad and what good vary with their position in time and space. You may say that your standards are perfect, someone else is bound to claim the same of his, and disagree with yours.
But notice that you didn't couch it like: "I haven't observed absolute truth" or "In my opion..."
Yes said: "THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE..."
Sounded pretty "absolute" to me but I guess if that's just your "opinion" than I'll just say that that "opinion" does not apply to me cause I disagree.
By the way, I never said "MY" standards are perfect. I said "GOD's" were. I fail to meet them just like you.
You mean where you asked "Were the Germans right to exterminate the Jews?"
It seems to me that you're a deeply troubled individual if you really need to ask such questions. Perhaps you're too far gone to realise that it doesn't take an absolute moral standard for most people to deplore violence and killing.
There is nothing that tells Christians to kill homosexuals or to not work on Saturday. These were laws specific to the Theocracy of Israel in the Old Testament.
I agree that we are "moral beings" as you say. The question is "why". Why are humans "moral beings"?
Regarding living by the morals that are evolving in society. Actually, Christians are largly opposed to morals (or lack of) that are evolving in society and in many places are imprisoned and killed for not following them.
« These were laws specific to the Theocracy of Israel in the Old Testament »
And yet, according to the apostles, Jesus claimed not to come to abolish the old laws, but to reinforce them. So are you not merely interpreting the bible in the light of the standards of the society that you live in today?
"Jesus claimed not to come to abolish the old laws, but to reinforce them"
You better look over your Jesus quotes again. Jesus didn't say that He came to reinforce the Law of the Old Testament. He said that He was the FUFILLMENT of the law. The law points to Christ.
James 2:10 does incorporate the "moral" laws of the Old Testament. However, a Christian is not saved by keeping the law. He is saved by faith. The law was never meant to save anyone. The law only condemns because all have broken the law (except Christ).
Matt 5:18 Yes, and it was fufilled (as I said) in Christ.
Those who are now in Christ are not condemned by the law for they are justified "in Christ".
Justified meaning they are now by Christ justified before the Father
"However, a Christian is not saved by keeping the law. He is saved by faith"
This is a statement that is illustrating one of the more troubling things about the christian religion: the notion that salvation comes not from doing good, but from simply unquestioningly believing.
"the notion that salvation comes not from doing good, but from simply unquestioningly believing."
I don't have time to unpack this much for you now but the bible says that there are none that are righteous and even our best works are filthy rags before Him.
.But good works are a part of faith. Good works cannot gain us salvation (frankly God's not impressed) but good works do come out of salvation because upon "real" salvation,
« Faith is not by works but works come from (out of) faith »
Really? It seems to me that most of the atrocities in the history of civilisation come out of faith - be it the crusader's faith in their being on the side of the gods, or Hitler's faith in the superiority of the Arian "race".
« The faith I'm talking about is a super-natural act that God instills in a person »
I am not familiar with that use of the word, and your description is vague. Do you mean that faith is injected into certain religious people through supernatural means?
Upon believing in and excepting Jesus as a person's Lord and Savior, a spiritual baptism takes place where God as the Holy Spirit resides inside that person and takes up residence in them.
The faith that comes out of that act is super-charged (so to speak) with the help of the Holy Spirit (God). The person becomes "born again" spiritually. They are a new man (person) in Christ.
It's not my definition; I was trying to establish what your definition might be.
According to my definition, faith is belief in absence of evidence, or in spite of contrary evidence. It is uncritical, unreasoning, unquestioning trust.
« but the bible says that there are none that are righteous »
Yet the same bible claims of several men that they were righteous.
« even our best works are filthy rags before Him »
Even if I believed your gods - the gods of the bible - existed, I would not value their opinion on my morality, theirs being based on the most vicious and anti-human writings in Western society, outside Mein Kampf. I do not discount the OT as easily as you apparently do.
The bible calls certain people "righteous" but the word does not mean the same thing in all contexts. There were men that were "upstanding" but even those men (people) were not sinless, which is the way I was using it.
The vicious OT:
It's not a matter of discounting it, as you say. It's a matter of correctly applying it, which you and all Atheist fail to do.
Your god might have intended to guide human morality, in stead of dictating it. Abraham's sacrifice might have been an object lesson in fear, humiliation, the abuse of power, and your god's desire to change the status quo.
I believe God does intend to guide man morally. Go desires every man to know that God loves him yet God will not tolerate sin because God is holy. God does not desire that anyone the should perish. That is why He sent is only begotten Son. Sin can only bring death. Christ died in our place.
You can trade your sin for His righteousness. The choice is yours.
« implications on things like morality, the value of human life »
(2/2)
... may have consequences for your opinions about the nature of morality, it does not ultimately change the fact that you are a moral being, and that you live by the morals that have evolved with this society.
« True Christianity (as taught in the New Test) »
*You* say that is "true" christianity. Others call you a heretic, a coward and unchristian for not following the laws of your god that tell you to hate homosexuals. Other self-proclaimed "true" christians have other rules you don't live by. Everybody thinks their religious belief is true, and other religious beliefs aren't. There's no such thing as a "true" christian.
Who would call me a heretic for not killing homosexuals? This is absurd.
There are "true Christians". I know thousands of them. Most Christians are consistant with eachother on the fundamentals issues of what the bible teaches ie: Thou shal not muder (even homosexuals). It is only on secondary issues that Christians disagree ie: How to baptize.
There are some who call themselves Christians that I do not consider Christian because they distort the plain teaching of the bible.
« Who would call me a heretic for not killing homosexuals? This is absurd. »
Yes, it is absurd. It is absurd that you think that a collection of stories written millennia ago describes an absolute moral standard that you should live by today.
O.K. You said that some in my faith would say that I should kill homosexuals and I respond by saying that that is absurd. You then reply by saying, "Yes, it is absurd".
So then you agree with me that no Christian would say I should kill homosexuals, correct? That that is absurd?
Honestly, maybe I'm just tired, but you're making little sense.
« You then reply by saying, "Yes, it is absurd" »
It's absurd that there are people who think homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights everybody else has.
It's absurd that you seem to think that the moral standards dictated by the bible are in any way relevant to today's society. Well, at least the western ones. The Middle East may be another matter.
I tuned it down, because while I believe that there are people who would deny homosexuals the right to exist, I also know that few people today would express such opinions, and fewer still act on them.
Hmmm, you must have some pretty nutty Christians over there. I've never met any like that and I've known literally thousands.
I doubt even those crazy imposters who call themselves Christians at Westboro Baptist Church (they're the ones who go around with signs saying: "GOD HATES FAGES) would say that.
By the way, it's always the same church and most of the attenders of that church belong to the same family.
« I've never met any like that and I've known literally thousands »
Really? And did you speak about the subject to many of them? By the way, what is Prop 8 for instance, other than an attempt to deny homosexuals the equality under the law guaranteed to them by the constitution? Do you think the people proposing such things are happy to have homosexuals around?
Believe or not, Christians don't generally stand around talking about how nasty homosexuals are. I don't need to specifically bring up the subject of "killing homosexuals" to know that they don't support that any more than you don't need to bring up killing Christians to know your friends don't support that either.
If Christians were that bizarre than I would think they'd also be bizarre enough to vocalize that desire publically.
O.K., do you think that Christian tend to be more bigoted towards other ethnic groups? Or are you still refering to homosexuals when you use the word minorities?
« do you think that Christian tend to be more bigoted towards »
I think that in any group of people who believe that they are privileged, "chosen" in some way there is an increased probability for the development of the tendency to look down on those who are in any way different. I think that demographic statistics will agree with this assessment.
I think your point here is a good one. The bible emphasizes that God chooses us not based on our own "goodness" or "attractiveness". The bible says that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. The book of Romans unpacks this meticuluosly.
Christians need to be constantly reminded that it is by grace alone that they are saved. A gift based on God's sovereignty, not our own merit.
That many people will, for some reason, feel they are blessed with the blessing of their godhead. A mass murdered may feel blessed, for he is doing the work of christ. You see? There is no absolute standard to judge the standard of ones favorite god against, therefore those who hang their standards on ones god are the ultimate moral relativists.
Alas, there aren't usually good reasons. And one person thinks good is what another thinks bad.
Christianity just helps people have the will to go to war. The promise of heaven will entice them, whereas hell will strike fear into their hearts so they blindly obey until their likely death: And then, guess what happens?
When you're dead, you're brain is offline permanently.
Your word: "usually" leaves room for good reasons of course.
The promise of heaven used to go to war? I think you have Christianity confused with Islam. I suggest you try actually reading the bible to see what it says.
If you are going to attack Christianity, you need to attack it from the bible, not what so dictator has said in the past. To do the later is a genetic fallacy.
But what one person thinks is good is what another person thinks is bad, yes?
The Pope stated that joining the Crusades would grant any man, no matter how horrible his sin, a ticket to heaven if he joined the crusades. Islamic and Christian brutality are very alike, except Islam includes bombs.
There's "bad" and then there's "bad". Some people don't like certain flavors of ice cream. They think they taste bad while others think they taste good. If that's your def of "bad", then yes, I agree with you.
On the other hand, certain things are objectively (morally) bad like thoughtless rape and genocide. These are bad in and of themselves regardless of yours or my opinion.
Again, you bringing up the Pope is an attack on Roman Catholicism, not Christianity. They're not the same thing.
You need to study this subject. By the the word "pope", I assume you mean Pope Benedict who is one of many Popes. The only "Christians" who answer to him are Roman Catholics. I do not answer to any Pope but only to Christ who has spoken to us by His word; the bible. (Sola Christos, Sola Scriptura).
Again, if it's not directed in the bible, it's not Christianity. "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."
1.) Pope Urban. Well again, he is not Christianity.
2.) True. But they wrote down words they personally heard Him say so I think Christ is well represented.
3.) False. In fact, no one has done more for people's rights than Christianity. In fact, it was "true" dedicated Christians who led the cause to end slavery both in America and in Europe.
2.) This argument has been exhaustively refuted. Lying? These men left everything they had for this "good news" that they were preaching. Most all of them died slow painful deaths as martyres for what they believed in. Big price to pay for a lie, don't you think?
3.) 3.) What about homosexuals? The bible doesn't support their decision to practice sin any more than it supports me me practicing sin that I have had to restle with. Why should homosexuals have an exclusive "pass" on sin?
Marriage is not a rights issue. Neither you or myself have the "right" to marry anyone we choose. While I'm married, I cannot marry my neighbor's wife. I cannot marry my sister. I cannot marry a young girl. I cannot marry two people at once. Nor can I marry another man.
All societies and religions have been pretty much unanimous throughout history when it comes to marriage. This is not a rights issue. Neither is this is a "Christian" issue.
Yes it is. Displaying your love only to have it crushed by your own religion is probably is the most idiotic thing to do. Seriously, and on your morals talk, you are very incorrect. You have grown accustomed to think those are morally unacceptable. So have I, and I think the same as you. But there is no right or wrong. You can pick a side, but you will never be able to be correct. "Right" and "wrong" are simply human theories.
First off, marriage and "displaying one's love" are not synonymous. One has no direct correlation to the other. You can be married without displaying your love as well as not be married and display it.
Regarding your statement:
".. there is no right or wrong."
Question for you. Is that statement right or wrong?
I said marriage was not a "rights issue" and you responded by saying, "Yes it is".
This becomes even more obvious by your statement: "but you will never be able to be correct. 'Right' and 'wrong' are simply human theories."
If I can not ever be "correct" than it's opposite must be true that I can never be incorrect (because there's no right or wrong). Yet in your very same par. you say: "you are very incorrect". Well, that's interseting. If no one can be correct than how is it you say that I'm incorrect?
Hear that? That's your logic collapsing in on itself.
No, you just fail to see the point correctly. but you are getting there. We can never be correct, nor can we be incorrect. It's a paradox, yes. But that basically means everything is pointless. Even the meaning of life, which is reproduction, is pointless. Because eventually, life will cease, and it's pointless. We just have a human error or blessing, hope. We,, like drones, just stride towards whatever we want to accomplish. While I fully support this, in the end it's pointless.
Of course, under your world view, everything is pointless. My point is that your own view is full of contradictions (not paradoxes).
For example, once again you contradict yourself. You say everything is pointless. There is no meaning to life. But then you proceed to say that "we just have error or blessing, hope".
Really? How so? You just said that there is "no right or wrong" and then you say we have "error". You said life was "meaningless" and then you say we have "hope". Which is it?
So do we have hope or is all meaningless? Is there no right or wrong or do you actually disagree with me because you think I'm wrong about certain things?
If you say all is meaningless then that's a "truth claim". You are saying that it is "true" that all is "meaningless" (pointless).
But intrinsically, you know that all is NOT meaningless: that there IS meaning in life; that things like senseless torture, rape and genocide ARE wrong. Deep down you KNOW this to be TRUE.
Jesus says that there IS a truth to be known. He has communicated that truth to us. He said, "I am the truth." He will shed light on your darkness (meanglessness). You will see that you WERE created with a wonderfull purpose; a purpose centered around the love.
Don't you deep down desire this? God loves you and will forgive you for your sins? He wants to call you His son and to treat you like a son?
Read the Gospel of John. It will turn your meaninglessness into joy.
Correction: Last two questions in (pt 3) should be statements, not questions. I thought I should "correct" this because not correcting that would leave it "incorrect".
See how that works? Now are YOU starting to "get it"?
« I doubt even those crazy imposters who call themselves Christians at Westboro Baptist Church (they're the ones who go around with signs saying: "GOD HATES FAGES) would say that. »
But certainly, if their god hated fags, it would want to make them go away, would it not? Or perhaps not. According to scripture, this god has a bit of a habit tempting people with the things it hates, such as knowledge of good and evil.
« The book of James makes it clear that God tempts no one »
If you put a cookie jar in a room with a child and tell it not to touch the cookies, are you not tempting it? Your god is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent. There are plenty of places where it could have put the tree of knowledge. Yet not only did it choose to put it right in the middle of the garden of Eden, it conspicuously drew the attention of the children in that garden to it.
Mom's DO put cookies jars in rooms. They're called kitchens, a place where children go every day to eat. And no, I do not think they put the cookie jars there just to tempt their children.
Children are tempted by their own desire to have a sweet, not Mom (or Dad).
I was giving you a specific example of a parent putting a cookie jar in a room in which a child resides. Here is the room, there is the child in it, there comes the parent to place the jar promiscuously in the middle of it, and to draw the attention of the child to it. Somewhat like the trick your god played on its creation, according to Genesis.
I don't see that way. There nothing in the text that says God put the tree there to tempt them. In fact, if the tree was created in the order of creation, then the tree was there before Adam and Eve had arrived.
Did your mom have a cookie jar? Mine was in plain view on the cupboard.
What I wouldn't do to be able to convince you otherwise. But as I said in my private email to you, there's something different about you. I sense that God will reveal Himself to you (That is my prayer).
When other Atheists ask me questions, I sense that they're just rhetorical. They're not intended to be really answered. I don't get that from you. You seem sincere.
And you're respectful as well which is quite refreshing.
Regarding choice. I don't have any problem with admitting that a person could have certain proclivities towards that of the same sex, even when very young. But again, all people have proclivities towards wrong doing and must "deny themselves" and try to act righteously regardless.
I admit this is difficult. I believe a person could have this towards the same sex, struggle with it, even fail occassionally yet still be a genuine Christian and thus escape God's judgement.
« because they distort the plain teaching of the bible »
And yet many of these people claim the exact same thing of you. Many of them think you are raping christianity by taking the bible more literally than it was intended. Others will say that you are taking it less literally than intended. Each interprets scripture in the light of his or her personal beliefs.
Regarding bible interpretation. There is a method of bible interpretation called the historical-gramatical method of interpretation. That's what I follow.
« historical-gramatical method of interpretation »
From wikipedia: "After the meaning is derived through interpretation, then the third step of application involves determining both the theoretical and practical significance of the text, and appropriately applying this significance to today's modern context.
So, basically two, perhaps even three degrees of freedom. Observation, interpretation, and application. I think the literalists have a better case than you.
I do interpret the bible literally but I'm am not a literalist. There is a difference.
I literalist takes everything in a super literal fashion. For example, if I should use the phrase: "That really blew my mind.", a literalists would interpret that as my mind being blown up.
Jesus (and the bible) uses figures of speech, coloquilisms, hyperbole, symbolism and other literary devices that need to be considered.
Some books historical, poetry, song, didactic, prophetic, etc
The words "interpret" and "literally" contradict one another. What you do is try and figure out what Jesus would have said if he had lived today, in a completely different culture.
« By the way, some of my very best friends have been gay (and Atheist, for that matter). »
And do you think they'll go to hell for being what they are? Do you think they deserve to go to hell for being what they are? Do you think one chooses to be an atheist? Do you think one chooses to be a homosexual? Do you think your god is right in condemning people to eternal torture for something they did not choose?
People will go to hell because they have sinned against a perfect righteous and holy God.
A Christian is called to live righteously and turn from sexual immorality.
All Christians are to turn from sexual immorality that their carnal nature is draw to. Why should homosexuals be any different? I was a single Christian for 40 years. I had no more sexual freedom in that period than a homosexual that becomes a Christian.
« Atheism sees everything as nothing more than a product of unitelligent material »
"Nothing more"? With the universe being the incredibly beautiful and majestic thing it is, I'd hardly use the words "nothing more". Really, no gods are required to be able to wonder at the magnificence of it all.
I don't necessarily agree those are key questions. I for one don't think there is a 'why'. Much more important questions, in my opinion, are: how can we all just get along? how can we fix the damage we wrought on our planet before we all suffocate?
« Some of us need proof in order to accept a theory »
Evidence. Theories are confirmed by evidence, not proof. Proof is for mathematics and formal logic.
very accurate answer, but i would like to say regardless of wat is happeing in the world, that religions r about peace, respect, humanity and ought to be god fearing people, i myself couldnt speak on behalf of atheist but the video has been straight up with claiming there is no argument in it and i believe so
Evil people will surely do evil things, but evil geniuses will try their best to control gullible scriptureless people, or turn people of the book to scriptureless folk.
« evil geniuses will try their best to control gullible scriptureless people, or turn people of the book to scriptureless folk »
Why? If anything, an evil genius would turn people TO scripture. What better way to control people than through religion, religious scripture and religious dogma? Many politicians in the history of civilization have realized this and gladly adopted a popular religion of their time as personal or national religion in order to better realize their ambitions.
I say scriptureless folk, as it's a challenge of authority to the "war lord" autocrat.
People are either controlled by themselves under a law (scripture, hidden rules or mob rule), or by a group of elites, or by one influencial individual.
People with scripture normaly stick together by refering to that scripture. They at least have yard stick which they'd use to measure others and their rulers. So when you compare such people, they refered to scripture, or did they refer to elites, or kings
What I'm saying, is that no evil genius refered people to scripture, but refered scripture to himself or his own commentary.
So the question comes down to, whether people followed scripture with their own understanding or so called "bloody people" (I'm thinking priests and blood sacrifices or temples of prostitution).
« So the question comes down to, whether people followed scripture with their own understanding or so called "bloody people" (I'm thinking priests and blood sacrifices or temples of prostitution). »
I'm not quite sure I follow you anymore. Could you rephrase the question and elaborate on its relevance given the subject of the discussion?
Well, the first response to that question - and the response for which I made this video - is of course: how is it relevant?
My second response would be to re-iterate that matters, in my opinion, are not as simple as that. I don't think it's a fair or accurate portrait of reality to simply divide the world into theists and non-theists and then try to determine which caused more deaths.
Yes, as an example of something that is irrelevant to any discussion about the factual accuracy of a scientific theory.
But again, I think the propensity for violence is ideology-related, and not specific to religion. I see religion as simply another sort of ideology, a set of ideas and aims, centered around the notion that its believers occupy a special place in the world, usually based on some supernatural revelation.
That's not true. As so called religion is being replaced by what the religious would call distractions. This was evident in nepal, where old grannies forgot about worship and ended up being hooked on hindi soaps.
Believers themself occupy in numbers. The minority irreligious profit organizations are on a global scale of converting the religious out of religion and into their control.
« The theory in that book, is that there is one group notorious group of people that has affected history and current events. »
I'm not able to right now. Perhaps I'll look through it later in the week. Still, it sounds as if it's something that fits right in with "Loose change" and other such works.
« So the question is, who let themslves die more often »
Actually, my point is that the whole issue is irrelevant to the factual accuracy of a scientific theory. But, that aside, I don't quite agree with your analysis. I don't think it's as simple as theists or atheists being more or less pacifist than the other. People on either side of the divide are all too willing to die for an ideal or ideology, whether it is centered around religious dogma or around some political motif.
Based on my personal studies, I do see a disturbing trend that allows people to use religion to "Justify" actions they normally would not have committed.
For every action you take, you require a justification. Most are tiny, you turn the TV on because you want to watch it, so the movement is justified by desire, etc.
But bombing, murder, kidnapping, etc. take much stronger justifications, and religion often bridges this gap. Makes the justification easier.
« I've often wondered if there is an essentially different or unique thing happening in a theist's brain as compared to an atheist's brain. »
The question you're asking, I think, is similar to the one asking whether two different (preferably non-colorblind) people perceive the color red in the same way.
Lol, wise words. Honestly a person belief or disbelief has no effect on their actions, Atheism bases off philosophy from the past this includes holy scripture, theism does the same. Just because someone is a theist or an Atheist and does good or bad thinsg it does not matter.
« Atheism bases off philosophy from the past this includes holy scripture »
Not really. Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in gods. I was an atheist long before I had knowledge of any written text, let alone holy scripture.
« mainstream Atheism bases its morality off holy scripture and other philosophical texts »
No, I don't agree. Morality among atheists has various sources, as atheists themselves are various people, of various origins, cultures and layers of society.
The common factor isn't "theism" or "atheism". When you hold an ideological position, and you feel reality should be subordinate to it, and if not, you will use force, then you will end up killing people.
I am of the opinion that being an atheist DOES make you less susceptible to such ideologies, but NOT immune. Communism is a sad example of this.
« The common factor isn't "theism" or "atheism". When you hold an ideological position, and you feel reality should be subordinate to it, and if not, you will use force, then you will end up killing people. »
There are several more ways I could've addressed this type of argument. Next time I make a video I'll write the entire thing out, and I'll have some other poor sap read it ;)
If I was an atheist I would kill myself because there would be zero point in living since everything will come to an end. Humans can be so ignorant sometimes; they don't see the big picture. One thing theists and atheists can agree on is that life is only temporary and all will eventually be no more. Jesus is my Lord!!!
BetroS83 6 months ago
« If I was an atheist I would kill myself because there would be zero point in living »
And other people are less nihilistic than you are, and are perfectly capable of giving meaning to their own lives.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
I searched for those comments on Edward Tarte's Youtube blog. Unfortunately, he erased every comment I left on there (I spent hours meticuluosly answering his questions).
Anyway, reagrading Abraham and Isaac, the short answer is that event forshadowed the death of Christ who was the Lamb of God given by His Father to take away the sins of the world. God tells Abraham not to slay his son because He (God) would provide the Lamb (His Son) for sacrifice.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« God tells Abraham not to slay his son because He (God) would provide the Lamb (His Son) for sacrifice »
Then you think even worse of your god than I do of your belief in it. You believe in a god that thinks in terms of sins and sacrifices. Next time somebody asks you about Abraham and Isaac, I'd go with the 'object lesson' and 'guiding morality' interpretation I provided earlier.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor
Regarding interpretations, I have to go with the interpretation that God has provided for me in the word of God, not some intepretation that might appear more satisfying at the time.
God must punish sin. If He didn't He would be unrighteouss. Are you married? A father? If a man raped your wife or daughter, would justice not demand that that man be punished? If you were the judge, would you let him walk away free?
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« Regarding interpretations, I have to go with the interpretation that God has provided for me in the word of God, not some intepretation that might appear more satisfying at the time »
Except that you do interpret this "word of god" in the light of the times we live in. According to contemporary moral structures.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor
Yes and no. Correct biblical interpretation involves studying the context of the time it was given, who it was given to, how would those people hearing it understand it, what differences would there be in language meaning etc etc. Once that has been exhausted, only then do you consider how one should apply that to present life.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« God must punish sin. »
The point is: what constitutes sin?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor
Sin is that which perverts God's way into man's own way. The bible is clear about what constitutes unrighteous behavior as well as what constitutes righteous behavior. If you want some texts, I'll provide them for you.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« If a man raped your wife or daughter »
Then that would be a reason for me to be upset with his actions. Not because of some abstract notion of "sin", but simply because he hurt the persons I love. I protect me and mine. When something threatens me and mine, I react.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor
rape:
But you would want justice to be served, no?
You wouldn't say to him, "Oh, that's cool man. Don't worry about it. I understand."
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
I agree with some of what you said. but this "we can't know" argument is getting "tiresome". It seems that in this post-modern world, ignorance is tauted as wisodm.
There is much we don't know. But when it comes to the atrocities of Atheism, this is not distant history and there is much we DO KNOW.
Although you seem fair-minded personally, most Atheists I've conversed with are quick to point out the blood of Theists (holy wars) without owning up to their own.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« but this "we can't know" argument is getting "tiresome" »
In this video, the point I am trying to make is not that we cannot know: it's that it doesn't matter. I'm saying that whether atheism or theism is "responsible" for more deaths, in the end we should always strive to have accurate beliefs.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
XGralgrathor
I believe it does matter. Whether you accept this as true or not, both Christianity and Atheism are worldviews that have implications on things like morality, the value of human life, etc.
True Christianity (as taught in the New Test) values life as sacred. Atheism sees everything as nothing more than a product of unitelligent material. I'm not saying that you couldn't possibly be an Atheist and reject Materialism but I think it's fair to say that most are materialists.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« implications on things like morality, the value of human life »
(1/2)
But morality is what we make it, and the value of human life is what we want it to be. There is no absolute moral standard; history and even the contemporary world show us that. And not even the most fundamentalist christians live by biblical standards, which would have them killing homosexuals, people who work on saturday, et cetera. So while your belief...
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Morality is what "we" make it. Who? You? Everybody? Individuals? If morality is just personal choices than this becomes just a bunch of preferences.
Example: Jim thinks rape is wrong but Henry enjoys raping. Who is Jim to impose his morality on Henry? Who determines who is right and who was wrong?
Were the Germans right to exterminate the Jews? Yes or No? Who determines this, society?
You have no objective base for your moral claims; you have only preferences of individuals or groups.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
part 2
"There is no absolute moral standard"
Do you believe this statement is true? Is this statement you're own personal standard or is it perhaps an absolute standard that applies to everyone including me? Which it is?
History doesn't show that there isn't a moral standard (prescription). History shows us that nations and individuals alike don't always live up to that moral standard (description)
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« don't always live up to that »
So which nations, through history, *have* lived up to this moral standard that you're presuming exists?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
XGralgrathor
No nation has lived up to God's standard of morality, including Israel.
But not all nations voilate God's standard to the same degree. The same thing could be said for individuals. Just because society's sense of right and wrong may shift doesn't mean that the objective standard for right and wrong changes but only that nations and individuals fail to act in accordance to that standard by varying degrees.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« No nation has lived up to God's standard of morality, including Israel »
So what is this standard you keep speaking of? And where did you learn of it?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
XGralgrathor
God's standard is communicated in His word, the bible.
God is the standard. He is infinitely perfect and holy.
As a Christian, we are justified by Christ who, being God is perfect. We are not condemned by our own performance. Our desire to be like God is not to "measure up" and therefore earn heaven. Rather our "Christlikenes" is motivated by love through by power of God who resides in us.
That's the best def of justification/sanctification in 500 words or less.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« Who? You? Everybody? Individuals? »
Yes.
« If morality is just personal choices than this becomes just a bunch of preferences »
Exactly. Morality is in many ways the intersection between the personal preferences of all members of a society. Groups of people, through interaction, establish morality.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« Who is Jim to impose his morality on Henry? »
A member of a presumably stable society in which most if not virtually every person also deplores acts of violence.
« You have no objective base for your moral claims »
Of course I have. You can *see* how morality varies, not just through time, but across nations as well.
« you have only preferences of individuals or groups »
O, that's what you mean. Yes, that's exactly it. There Is No Absolute Standard For Morality.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
XGralgrathor
Again, please answer my question. Your statement about absolute truth (morality)is:
"There Is No Absolute Standard For Morality."
O.K. Is that "truth (moral) claim just another of your own "personal preferences" or is it a truth that applies to me and everyone else? Is it an absolute standard or a preference?
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« Is it an absolute standard or a preference? »
It is an observation. Through all of time, across all of the world, different people have had different moralities. Changing through time, and varying geographically. People's opinions about what is considered bad and what good vary with their position in time and space. You may say that your standards are perfect, someone else is bound to claim the same of his, and disagree with yours.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
XGralgrathor
But notice that you didn't couch it like: "I haven't observed absolute truth" or "In my opion..."
Yes said: "THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE..."
Sounded pretty "absolute" to me but I guess if that's just your "opinion" than I'll just say that that "opinion" does not apply to me cause I disagree.
By the way, I never said "MY" standards are perfect. I said "GOD's" were. I fail to meet them just like you.
I'll take the Hitler question as a pass.
Tough one for an Atheist.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
Corection: You said: "THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE..."
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« Sounded pretty "absolute" to me »
So? I never said there were no objectively verifiable facts. I simply said there is no absolute morality.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
You seemed to skip my question regarding Jews and Germany. Could you answer that for me?
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« Could you answer that for me? »
You mean where you asked "Were the Germans right to exterminate the Jews?"
It seems to me that you're a deeply troubled individual if you really need to ask such questions. Perhaps you're too far gone to realise that it doesn't take an absolute moral standard for most people to deplore violence and killing.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Comment removed
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
Comment removed
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
part 3
There is nothing that tells Christians to kill homosexuals or to not work on Saturday. These were laws specific to the Theocracy of Israel in the Old Testament.
I agree that we are "moral beings" as you say. The question is "why". Why are humans "moral beings"?
Regarding living by the morals that are evolving in society. Actually, Christians are largly opposed to morals (or lack of) that are evolving in society and in many places are imprisoned and killed for not following them.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« These were laws specific to the Theocracy of Israel in the Old Testament »
And yet, according to the apostles, Jesus claimed not to come to abolish the old laws, but to reinforce them. So are you not merely interpreting the bible in the light of the standards of the society that you live in today?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"Jesus claimed not to come to abolish the old laws, but to reinforce them"
You better look over your Jesus quotes again. Jesus didn't say that He came to reinforce the Law of the Old Testament. He said that He was the FUFILLMENT of the law. The law points to Christ.
What did the Jews sacrifice on passover?
The lamb.
What did John the Baptist call Jesus?
The lamb of God.
When was Jesus sacrificed?
On passover.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« You better look over your Jesus quotes again »
So the laws meant in the following verses are not Moses' laws?
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
XGralgrathor
James 2:10 does incorporate the "moral" laws of the Old Testament. However, a Christian is not saved by keeping the law. He is saved by faith. The law was never meant to save anyone. The law only condemns because all have broken the law (except Christ).
Matt 5:18 Yes, and it was fufilled (as I said) in Christ.
Those who are now in Christ are not condemned by the law for they are justified "in Christ".
Justified meaning they are now by Christ justified before the Father
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
"However, a Christian is not saved by keeping the law. He is saved by faith"
This is a statement that is illustrating one of the more troubling things about the christian religion: the notion that salvation comes not from doing good, but from simply unquestioningly believing.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"the notion that salvation comes not from doing good, but from simply unquestioningly believing."
I don't have time to unpack this much for you now but the bible says that there are none that are righteous and even our best works are filthy rags before Him.
.But good works are a part of faith. Good works cannot gain us salvation (frankly God's not impressed) but good works do come out of salvation because upon "real" salvation,
con't
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
pt 2
God enters and resides in a person, sactifying him, which is the process in which a true Christian becomes more and more like Christ.
Salvation's a gift my friend.
Faith is not by works but works come from (out of) faith.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« Faith is not by works but works come from (out of) faith »
Really? It seems to me that most of the atrocities in the history of civilisation come out of faith - be it the crusader's faith in their being on the side of the gods, or Hitler's faith in the superiority of the Arian "race".
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
XGralgrathor
FAITH:
When I mention "faith" I'm using that in a particular sense, not a general sense.
The faith I'm talking about is a super-natural act that God instills in a person. It's not like having "faith" that your football team will win.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« The faith I'm talking about is a super-natural act that God instills in a person »
I am not familiar with that use of the word, and your description is vague. Do you mean that faith is injected into certain religious people through supernatural means?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor
FAITH:
I don't think your definition is far off.
Upon believing in and excepting Jesus as a person's Lord and Savior, a spiritual baptism takes place where God as the Holy Spirit resides inside that person and takes up residence in them.
The faith that comes out of that act is super-charged (so to speak) with the help of the Holy Spirit (God). The person becomes "born again" spiritually. They are a new man (person) in Christ.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« I don't think your definition is far off »
It's not my definition; I was trying to establish what your definition might be.
According to my definition, faith is belief in absence of evidence, or in spite of contrary evidence. It is uncritical, unreasoning, unquestioning trust.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor
yes, understood
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« but the bible says that there are none that are righteous »
Yet the same bible claims of several men that they were righteous.
« even our best works are filthy rags before Him »
Even if I believed your gods - the gods of the bible - existed, I would not value their opinion on my morality, theirs being based on the most vicious and anti-human writings in Western society, outside Mein Kampf. I do not discount the OT as easily as you apparently do.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
XGralgrathor
The bible calls certain people "righteous" but the word does not mean the same thing in all contexts. There were men that were "upstanding" but even those men (people) were not sinless, which is the way I was using it.
The vicious OT:
It's not a matter of discounting it, as you say. It's a matter of correctly applying it, which you and all Atheist fail to do.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« It's a matter of correctly applying it »
How then are the lessons of the OT correctly applied in modern society? Let's take, for instance, Abraham's sacrifice of his son, Isaac.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor
I describe the meaning of Abraham and son on another Atheist blog. He's erased much of my comments but let me see if I can still find it.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« let me see if I can still find it »
Let me see if I can play 'devil's advocate'.
Your god might have intended to guide human morality, in stead of dictating it. Abraham's sacrifice might have been an object lesson in fear, humiliation, the abuse of power, and your god's desire to change the status quo.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor
I believe God does intend to guide man morally. Go desires every man to know that God loves him yet God will not tolerate sin because God is holy. God does not desire that anyone the should perish. That is why He sent is only begotten Son. Sin can only bring death. Christ died in our place.
You can trade your sin for His righteousness. The choice is yours.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« implications on things like morality, the value of human life »
(2/2)
... may have consequences for your opinions about the nature of morality, it does not ultimately change the fact that you are a moral being, and that you live by the morals that have evolved with this society.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« True Christianity (as taught in the New Test) »
*You* say that is "true" christianity. Others call you a heretic, a coward and unchristian for not following the laws of your god that tell you to hate homosexuals. Other self-proclaimed "true" christians have other rules you don't live by. Everybody thinks their religious belief is true, and other religious beliefs aren't. There's no such thing as a "true" christian.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
part 4
Who would call me a heretic for not killing homosexuals? This is absurd.
There are "true Christians". I know thousands of them. Most Christians are consistant with eachother on the fundamentals issues of what the bible teaches ie: Thou shal not muder (even homosexuals). It is only on secondary issues that Christians disagree ie: How to baptize.
There are some who call themselves Christians that I do not consider Christian because they distort the plain teaching of the bible.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« Who would call me a heretic for not killing homosexuals? This is absurd. »
Yes, it is absurd. It is absurd that you think that a collection of stories written millennia ago describes an absolute moral standard that you should live by today.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
XGralgrathor
O.K. You said that some in my faith would say that I should kill homosexuals and I respond by saying that that is absurd. You then reply by saying, "Yes, it is absurd".
So then you agree with me that no Christian would say I should kill homosexuals, correct? That that is absurd?
Honestly, maybe I'm just tired, but you're making little sense.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« You then reply by saying, "Yes, it is absurd" »
It's absurd that there are people who think homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights everybody else has.
It's absurd that you seem to think that the moral standards dictated by the bible are in any way relevant to today's society. Well, at least the western ones. The Middle East may be another matter.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
XGralgrathor
You skip from "murdering homosexuals" to homosexual rights"
This will be easier and faster if you say what you mean.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
I tuned it down, because while I believe that there are people who would deny homosexuals the right to exist, I also know that few people today would express such opinions, and fewer still act on them.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
XGralgrathor
Homosexuals don't have a right to live?
Hmmm, you must have some pretty nutty Christians over there. I've never met any like that and I've known literally thousands.
I doubt even those crazy imposters who call themselves Christians at Westboro Baptist Church (they're the ones who go around with signs saying: "GOD HATES FAGES) would say that.
By the way, it's always the same church and most of the attenders of that church belong to the same family.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« I've never met any like that and I've known literally thousands »
Really? And did you speak about the subject to many of them? By the way, what is Prop 8 for instance, other than an attempt to deny homosexuals the equality under the law guaranteed to them by the constitution? Do you think the people proposing such things are happy to have homosexuals around?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
XGralgrathor
Believe or not, Christians don't generally stand around talking about how nasty homosexuals are. I don't need to specifically bring up the subject of "killing homosexuals" to know that they don't support that any more than you don't need to bring up killing Christians to know your friends don't support that either.
If Christians were that bizarre than I would think they'd also be bizarre enough to vocalize that desire publically.
You got some wierd beliefs, my friend.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« Christians don't generally stand around talking about how nasty homosexuals are »
Not generally, no. But you'll agree that there are plenty of christians who propose religious justifications for their hatered of minorities.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor
Now Christians are bigoted towards monorities? You're gonna have to support this because I just don't see it.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« Now Christians are bigoted towards monorities? »
You're reading generalities where none are posed. When I say 'plenty', I most certainly do not mean 'all' or even 'most'.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor
O.K., do you think that Christian tend to be more bigoted towards other ethnic groups? Or are you still refering to homosexuals when you use the word minorities?
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« do you think that Christian tend to be more bigoted towards »
I think that in any group of people who believe that they are privileged, "chosen" in some way there is an increased probability for the development of the tendency to look down on those who are in any way different. I think that demographic statistics will agree with this assessment.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor
I think your point here is a good one. The bible emphasizes that God chooses us not based on our own "goodness" or "attractiveness". The bible says that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. The book of Romans unpacks this meticuluosly.
Christians need to be constantly reminded that it is by grace alone that they are saved. A gift based on God's sovereignty, not our own merit.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« Christians need to be constantly reminded »
That many people will, for some reason, feel they are blessed with the blessing of their godhead. A mass murdered may feel blessed, for he is doing the work of christ. You see? There is no absolute standard to judge the standard of ones favorite god against, therefore those who hang their standards on ones god are the ultimate moral relativists.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor
There is a standard in the bible. The Koran calls for violence. It commands the believer to "kill the infidels"
But in the bible, God says, "Vengence is Mine (God's). Thou shall not murder."
If one kills like what happened this week, this is not contrary to Islam. But if a Christian did that, he would be acting in disobedience to Christ.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
The hypocrisy has been proven throughout the invention of Christianity either way.
czar9109 2 years ago
What hypocrisy? What are you talking about??
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
You know, the Spanish inquisiton, the phony Crusades (counting the children's crusade), and others.
czar9109 2 years ago
Man, I guess I'm slow or something. What is your point? Who are hypocrites and why? And what does that have to do with this conversation?
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
Christianity. It preaches peace yet segregates and provides reason for war.
czar9109 2 years ago
Your statements are so general and non-descript that it becomes pure rhetoric and frankly meaningless.
"Christianity" doesn't start wars. People do.
There may in fact be good reasons to go to war.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
Alas, there aren't usually good reasons. And one person thinks good is what another thinks bad.
Christianity just helps people have the will to go to war. The promise of heaven will entice them, whereas hell will strike fear into their hearts so they blindly obey until their likely death: And then, guess what happens?
When you're dead, you're brain is offline permanently.
czar9109 2 years ago
Your word: "usually" leaves room for good reasons of course.
The promise of heaven used to go to war? I think you have Christianity confused with Islam. I suggest you try actually reading the bible to see what it says.
If you are going to attack Christianity, you need to attack it from the bible, not what so dictator has said in the past. To do the later is a genetic fallacy.
Sorry.........
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
But what one person thinks is good is what another person thinks is bad, yes?
The Pope stated that joining the Crusades would grant any man, no matter how horrible his sin, a ticket to heaven if he joined the crusades. Islamic and Christian brutality are very alike, except Islam includes bombs.
czar9109 2 years ago
There's "bad" and then there's "bad". Some people don't like certain flavors of ice cream. They think they taste bad while others think they taste good. If that's your def of "bad", then yes, I agree with you.
On the other hand, certain things are objectively (morally) bad like thoughtless rape and genocide. These are bad in and of themselves regardless of yours or my opinion.
Again, you bringing up the Pope is an attack on Roman Catholicism, not Christianity. They're not the same thing.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
Yes, but the number of Christians who answer to the pope is the most of all christian branches.
czar9109 2 years ago
@czar9109
You need to study this subject. By the the word "pope", I assume you mean Pope Benedict who is one of many Popes. The only "Christians" who answer to him are Roman Catholics. I do not answer to any Pope but only to Christ who has spoken to us by His word; the bible. (Sola Christos, Sola Scriptura).
Again, if it's not directed in the bible, it's not Christianity. "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."
Matt 26:52
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
1. Pope Urban is who I meant. And than I assume you are protestant?
2.Jesus did not write the bible. It was written by a band of his followers.
3. Really? If you endorse slavery and disregard women's rights, that makes you a true christian, right?
czar9109 2 years ago
1.) Pope Urban. Well again, he is not Christianity.
2.) True. But they wrote down words they personally heard Him say so I think Christ is well represented.
3.) False. In fact, no one has done more for people's rights than Christianity. In fact, it was "true" dedicated Christians who led the cause to end slavery both in America and in Europe.
Again, study your history.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
1) Back then, Christianity itself revolved around him. He controlled Europe.
2) Ho do we know they were lying and they just needed a fact to support them?
3) Really? What about homosexuals? And I guess your bible wasn't the original one.
czar9109 2 years ago
2.) This argument has been exhaustively refuted. Lying? These men left everything they had for this "good news" that they were preaching. Most all of them died slow painful deaths as martyres for what they believed in. Big price to pay for a lie, don't you think?
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
3.) 3.) What about homosexuals? The bible doesn't support their decision to practice sin any more than it supports me me practicing sin that I have had to restle with. Why should homosexuals have an exclusive "pass" on sin?
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
3.) continued...
Marriage is not a rights issue. Neither you or myself have the "right" to marry anyone we choose. While I'm married, I cannot marry my neighbor's wife. I cannot marry my sister. I cannot marry a young girl. I cannot marry two people at once. Nor can I marry another man.
All societies and religions have been pretty much unanimous throughout history when it comes to marriage. This is not a rights issue. Neither is this is a "Christian" issue.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
Yes it is. Displaying your love only to have it crushed by your own religion is probably is the most idiotic thing to do. Seriously, and on your morals talk, you are very incorrect. You have grown accustomed to think those are morally unacceptable. So have I, and I think the same as you. But there is no right or wrong. You can pick a side, but you will never be able to be correct. "Right" and "wrong" are simply human theories.
czar9109 2 years ago
First off, marriage and "displaying one's love" are not synonymous. One has no direct correlation to the other. You can be married without displaying your love as well as not be married and display it.
Regarding your statement:
".. there is no right or wrong."
Question for you. Is that statement right or wrong?
I said marriage was not a "rights issue" and you responded by saying, "Yes it is".
Really? Is your response right or wrong?
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
(pt 2)
This becomes even more obvious by your statement: "but you will never be able to be correct. 'Right' and 'wrong' are simply human theories."
If I can not ever be "correct" than it's opposite must be true that I can never be incorrect (because there's no right or wrong). Yet in your very same par. you say: "you are very incorrect". Well, that's interseting. If no one can be correct than how is it you say that I'm incorrect?
Hear that? That's your logic collapsing in on itself.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
No, you just fail to see the point correctly. but you are getting there. We can never be correct, nor can we be incorrect. It's a paradox, yes. But that basically means everything is pointless. Even the meaning of life, which is reproduction, is pointless. Because eventually, life will cease, and it's pointless. We just have a human error or blessing, hope. We,, like drones, just stride towards whatever we want to accomplish. While I fully support this, in the end it's pointless.
czar9109 2 years ago
Of course, under your world view, everything is pointless. My point is that your own view is full of contradictions (not paradoxes).
For example, once again you contradict yourself. You say everything is pointless. There is no meaning to life. But then you proceed to say that "we just have error or blessing, hope".
Really? How so? You just said that there is "no right or wrong" and then you say we have "error". You said life was "meaningless" and then you say we have "hope". Which is it?
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
Part 2.
So everything is pointless. We will die, Earth will eventually get blown up. And the universe will fade away.
czar9109 2 years ago
Part 2
So do we have hope or is all meaningless? Is there no right or wrong or do you actually disagree with me because you think I'm wrong about certain things?
If you say all is meaningless then that's a "truth claim". You are saying that it is "true" that all is "meaningless" (pointless).
But intrinsically, you know that all is NOT meaningless: that there IS meaning in life; that things like senseless torture, rape and genocide ARE wrong. Deep down you KNOW this to be TRUE.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
Pt 3
Jesus says that there IS a truth to be known. He has communicated that truth to us. He said, "I am the truth." He will shed light on your darkness (meanglessness). You will see that you WERE created with a wonderfull purpose; a purpose centered around the love.
Don't you deep down desire this? God loves you and will forgive you for your sins? He wants to call you His son and to treat you like a son?
Read the Gospel of John. It will turn your meaninglessness into joy.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
Correction: Last two questions in (pt 3) should be statements, not questions. I thought I should "correct" this because not correcting that would leave it "incorrect".
See how that works? Now are YOU starting to "get it"?
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« I doubt even those crazy imposters who call themselves Christians at Westboro Baptist Church (they're the ones who go around with signs saying: "GOD HATES FAGES) would say that. »
But certainly, if their god hated fags, it would want to make them go away, would it not? Or perhaps not. According to scripture, this god has a bit of a habit tempting people with the things it hates, such as knowledge of good and evil.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
temptation
The book of James makes it clear that God tempts no one but people are tempted by their own wicked desires.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« The book of James makes it clear that God tempts no one »
If you put a cookie jar in a room with a child and tell it not to touch the cookies, are you not tempting it? Your god is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent. There are plenty of places where it could have put the tree of knowledge. Yet not only did it choose to put it right in the middle of the garden of Eden, it conspicuously drew the attention of the children in that garden to it.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor
Mom's DO put cookies jars in rooms. They're called kitchens, a place where children go every day to eat. And no, I do not think they put the cookie jars there just to tempt their children.
Children are tempted by their own desire to have a sweet, not Mom (or Dad).
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« They're called kitchens »
I was giving you a specific example of a parent putting a cookie jar in a room in which a child resides. Here is the room, there is the child in it, there comes the parent to place the jar promiscuously in the middle of it, and to draw the attention of the child to it. Somewhat like the trick your god played on its creation, according to Genesis.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor
I don't see that way. There nothing in the text that says God put the tree there to tempt them. In fact, if the tree was created in the order of creation, then the tree was there before Adam and Eve had arrived.
Did your mom have a cookie jar? Mine was in plain view on the cupboard.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« then the tree was there before Adam and Eve had arrived »
There's a problem with that:
Your god is omniscient. Time is not limiting to it. It planned the garden, Adam and Eve.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« Did your mom have a cookie jar? »
Actually, no. My parents did not want to tempt or spoil us. I remember me and my brother going to the neighbors to beg for any kind of candy.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor
Never had a cookie jar!!???
No wonder you're pissed at God!! (LOL)
I'm sure there's plenty in heaven. You have an eternity to catch up. (sugarless of course).
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« You have an eternity to catch up »
No, not really. One day I will die. It will be the end of me. "Me" after that will be "me" before my birth: non-existent.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor
@XGralgrathor
death/eternity
What I wouldn't do to be able to convince you otherwise. But as I said in my private email to you, there's something different about you. I sense that God will reveal Himself to you (That is my prayer).
When other Atheists ask me questions, I sense that they're just rhetorical. They're not intended to be really answered. I don't get that from you. You seem sincere.
And you're respectful as well which is quite refreshing.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
Regarding choice. I don't have any problem with admitting that a person could have certain proclivities towards that of the same sex, even when very young. But again, all people have proclivities towards wrong doing and must "deny themselves" and try to act righteously regardless.
I admit this is difficult. I believe a person could have this towards the same sex, struggle with it, even fail occassionally yet still be a genuine Christian and thus escape God's judgement.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« because they distort the plain teaching of the bible »
And yet many of these people claim the exact same thing of you. Many of them think you are raping christianity by taking the bible more literally than it was intended. Others will say that you are taking it less literally than intended. Each interprets scripture in the light of his or her personal beliefs.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
XGralgrathor
Regarding bible interpretation. There is a method of bible interpretation called the historical-gramatical method of interpretation. That's what I follow.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« historical-gramatical method of interpretation »
From wikipedia: "After the meaning is derived through interpretation, then the third step of application involves determining both the theoretical and practical significance of the text, and appropriately applying this significance to today's modern context.
So, basically two, perhaps even three degrees of freedom. Observation, interpretation, and application. I think the literalists have a better case than you.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
XGralgrathor
I do interpret the bible literally but I'm am not a literalist. There is a difference.
I literalist takes everything in a super literal fashion. For example, if I should use the phrase: "That really blew my mind.", a literalists would interpret that as my mind being blown up.
Jesus (and the bible) uses figures of speech, coloquilisms, hyperbole, symbolism and other literary devices that need to be considered.
Some books historical, poetry, song, didactic, prophetic, etc
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« I do interpret the bible literally »
The words "interpret" and "literally" contradict one another. What you do is try and figure out what Jesus would have said if he had lived today, in a completely different culture.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
XGralgrathor
You misunderstand the gramatical-historical method of bible interpretation.
I'll try to find a good link and send it to you.
By the way, some of my very best friends have been gay (and Atheist, for that matter).
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« By the way, some of my very best friends have been gay (and Atheist, for that matter). »
And do you think they'll go to hell for being what they are? Do you think they deserve to go to hell for being what they are? Do you think one chooses to be an atheist? Do you think one chooses to be a homosexual? Do you think your god is right in condemning people to eternal torture for something they did not choose?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
XGralgrathor
People will go to hell because they have sinned against a perfect righteous and holy God.
A Christian is called to live righteously and turn from sexual immorality.
All Christians are to turn from sexual immorality that their carnal nature is draw to. Why should homosexuals be any different? I was a single Christian for 40 years. I had no more sexual freedom in that period than a homosexual that becomes a Christian.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
literal interpretation
Let me make it easier for you.
I read the bible like I would read a newspaper article.
HaveUconsidered 2 years ago
« Atheism sees everything as nothing more than a product of unitelligent material »
"Nothing more"? With the universe being the incredibly beautiful and majestic thing it is, I'd hardly use the words "nothing more". Really, no gods are required to be able to wonder at the magnificence of it all.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 2 years ago
Key words here are:
We don't know
What is wrong with not knowing something
World is ready to destroy it self because it CAN NOT answer few key questions like
Why are we here?
Where are we coming from?
Some of us need proof in order to accept a theory
Some of us don't need a proof and can believe just about anything
This is what made us and made them so we can exterminate each other create more wars and more pain
alexsdjtube 2 years ago
« few key questions »
I don't necessarily agree those are key questions. I for one don't think there is a 'why'. Much more important questions, in my opinion, are: how can we all just get along? how can we fix the damage we wrought on our planet before we all suffocate?
« Some of us need proof in order to accept a theory »
Evidence. Theories are confirmed by evidence, not proof. Proof is for mathematics and formal logic.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
very accurate answer, but i would like to say regardless of wat is happeing in the world, that religions r about peace, respect, humanity and ought to be god fearing people, i myself couldnt speak on behalf of atheist but the video has been straight up with claiming there is no argument in it and i believe so
ah05075 2 years ago
Evil people will surely do evil things, but evil geniuses will try their best to control gullible scriptureless people, or turn people of the book to scriptureless folk.
faro0485 3 years ago
« evil geniuses will try their best to control gullible scriptureless people, or turn people of the book to scriptureless folk »
Why? If anything, an evil genius would turn people TO scripture. What better way to control people than through religion, religious scripture and religious dogma? Many politicians in the history of civilization have realized this and gladly adopted a popular religion of their time as personal or national religion in order to better realize their ambitions.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
I say scriptureless folk, as it's a challenge of authority to the "war lord" autocrat.
People are either controlled by themselves under a law (scripture, hidden rules or mob rule), or by a group of elites, or by one influencial individual.
People with scripture normaly stick together by refering to that scripture. They at least have yard stick which they'd use to measure others and their rulers. So when you compare such people, they refered to scripture, or did they refer to elites, or kings
faro0485 3 years ago
What I'm saying, is that no evil genius refered people to scripture, but refered scripture to himself or his own commentary.
So the question comes down to, whether people followed scripture with their own understanding or so called "bloody people" (I'm thinking priests and blood sacrifices or temples of prostitution).
faro0485 3 years ago
« So the question comes down to, whether people followed scripture with their own understanding or so called "bloody people" (I'm thinking priests and blood sacrifices or temples of prostitution). »
I'm not quite sure I follow you anymore. Could you rephrase the question and elaborate on its relevance given the subject of the discussion?
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Consider the other hidden side of the question. Who let more people die?
faro0485 3 years ago
« Who let more people die? »
Well, the first response to that question - and the response for which I made this video - is of course: how is it relevant?
My second response would be to re-iterate that matters, in my opinion, are not as simple as that. I don't think it's a fair or accurate portrait of reality to simply divide the world into theists and non-theists and then try to determine which caused more deaths.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Ordinary people don't kill.
People in unordinary circumstatnces do kill, but even so.
Theists were able to defend themselves against their corruptors, atheists as a majority are passifists and don't defend themselves.
So the question is, who let themslves die more often.
Look at hitler, stalin and mao. All three of them have similar signs as criminals geniuses.
And if you talk about Christians, you'll have to note that there were more % muslims in the past.
faro0485 3 years ago
« Theists were able to defend themselves against their corruptors »
Can you give an example?
« atheists as a majority are passifists and don't defend themselves »
Ehr, I don't know about that...
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
You did mention the crusades.
faro0485 3 years ago
« You did mention the crusades »
Yes, as an example of something that is irrelevant to any discussion about the factual accuracy of a scientific theory.
But again, I think the propensity for violence is ideology-related, and not specific to religion. I see religion as simply another sort of ideology, a set of ideas and aims, centered around the notion that its believers occupy a special place in the world, usually based on some supernatural revelation.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
You see religion as another sort of ideology?
That's not true. As so called religion is being replaced by what the religious would call distractions. This was evident in nepal, where old grannies forgot about worship and ended up being hooked on hindi soaps.
Believers themself occupy in numbers. The minority irreligious profit organizations are on a global scale of converting the religious out of religion and into their control.
faro0485 3 years ago
« That's not true »
Yes it is: that is how I see religions.
« was evident in nepal, where old grannies forgot about worship and ended up being hooked on hindi soaps »
You're talking about secularisation, which is the turning away from religious abeisances. Irrelevant to the subject.
« The minority irreligious profit organizations are on a global scale of converting the religious out of religion and into their control »
Hm? Could you name an example? And what is the relevance again?
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Would you like to just refer to where I'm getting this? I'll just send you this link.
faro0485 3 years ago
« w w w(.)terrorism-illuminati(.)com/book/toc(.)html »
Right. Intriguing. We're not talking about the factual accuracy of a scientific theory anymore, are we?
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Have you read the book already?
The theory in that book, is that there is one group notorious group of people that has affected history and current events.
You'll have to review it for your own self.
faro0485 3 years ago
« The theory in that book, is that there is one group notorious group of people that has affected history and current events. »
I'm not able to right now. Perhaps I'll look through it later in the week. Still, it sounds as if it's something that fits right in with "Loose change" and other such works.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Well... that piece has about 10 years of research behind it. But... it would probably might be in the same area of Loose Change.
You might not be able to stomach the first paragraph of the introduction.
faro0485 3 years ago
« So the question is, who let themslves die more often »
Actually, my point is that the whole issue is irrelevant to the factual accuracy of a scientific theory. But, that aside, I don't quite agree with your analysis. I don't think it's as simple as theists or atheists being more or less pacifist than the other. People on either side of the divide are all too willing to die for an ideal or ideology, whether it is centered around religious dogma or around some political motif.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
« you'll have to note that there were more % muslims in the past »
Just out of curiosity: where did you get this data, and how is it relevant?
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
vs Christians.
And I got it from removing christian populations from the Americas and below North Africa.
Then we add the muslim genocides in China.
faro0485 3 years ago
Based on my personal studies, I do see a disturbing trend that allows people to use religion to "Justify" actions they normally would not have committed.
For every action you take, you require a justification. Most are tiny, you turn the TV on because you want to watch it, so the movement is justified by desire, etc.
But bombing, murder, kidnapping, etc. take much stronger justifications, and religion often bridges this gap. Makes the justification easier.
Just an observation.
LeoWolfComedy 3 years ago
« Just an observation. »
A good one, I'd say.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
5-star.
Never stop, my friend.
sonykroket 3 years ago
Cool vid.
Also, I've often wondered if there is an essentially different or unique thing happening in a theist's brain as compared to an atheist's brain.
Barklord 3 years ago
« I've often wondered if there is an essentially different or unique thing happening in a theist's brain as compared to an atheist's brain. »
The question you're asking, I think, is similar to the one asking whether two different (preferably non-colorblind) people perceive the color red in the same way.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Lol, wise words. Honestly a person belief or disbelief has no effect on their actions, Atheism bases off philosophy from the past this includes holy scripture, theism does the same. Just because someone is a theist or an Atheist and does good or bad thinsg it does not matter.
ogirv101 3 years ago
« Atheism bases off philosophy from the past this includes holy scripture »
Not really. Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in gods. I was an atheist long before I had knowledge of any written text, let alone holy scripture.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Well, mainstream Atheism bases its morality off holy scripture and other philosophical texts? do you agree?
ogirv101 3 years ago
« mainstream Atheism bases its morality off holy scripture and other philosophical texts »
No, I don't agree. Morality among atheists has various sources, as atheists themselves are various people, of various origins, cultures and layers of society.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
The common factor isn't "theism" or "atheism". When you hold an ideological position, and you feel reality should be subordinate to it, and if not, you will use force, then you will end up killing people.
I am of the opinion that being an atheist DOES make you less susceptible to such ideologies, but NOT immune. Communism is a sad example of this.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
« The common factor isn't "theism" or "atheism". When you hold an ideological position, and you feel reality should be subordinate to it, and if not, you will use force, then you will end up killing people. »
There are several more ways I could've addressed this type of argument. Next time I make a video I'll write the entire thing out, and I'll have some other poor sap read it ;)
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Oh, there is absolutely nothing wrong with how you addressed the argument. I just wanted to add to it ;-)
rozeboosje 3 years ago
« just like not all catholics have the potential to rape kids or muslims to blow themselves up »
Well, actually, I know a *lot* of catholics...
XGralgrathor 3 years ago