Wishing something were true, does not make it real.
I cannot force myself to truely believe something that both lacks evidence, and contradicts reason and logic.
Pretending to believe, either to appease others, or for wish fulfillment, is dishonest.
And if the biblical god did somehow turn out to be literal and true, I would still have serious moral issues with supporting such an apparently immoral being.
@Godexists100 ...(cont) -Well, I personally do not need threat of punishment, nor promise of reward to do good things, or behave morally. Morality is a complex and sometimes subjective thing. But at its core the simple concept of treating other people as you would like to be treated holds true, and we do not need a god to come up with that logic on our own.
My observation of an immoral god, is based upon the writings of the christian bible. THAT god is written as to be quite immoral, yes.
@Godexists100 I don't claim, or need, to prove your god does not exist, any more than you would have to prove that I don't have an invisible leprechaun living in my shoe. I do not say that I KNOW god doesn't exist. I say that I have NO reason to believe it.
One could write a book on all the contradictions and logical fallacies dealing with the bible... in fact a few people already have. Too many to post them all here.
@amomentofclarity2011 u should do some research on archeology of bible truth. Here are some of what they found joshuas alter, proof of david, the rock where moses hit and water came out the rock of horeb, and soddom and gommorah and alot more. Soddom and gommorah is the only place with 95% sulfur found in the world. Theres alot more. Jus do some research with a open mind and look at diff point of views.
@superstankydanky808 If you want to provide me with links via a PM, by all means do so.
Since there is no proof that Moses even existed, finding the rock is rather amusing.
They found cities mentioned in the bible. So what?
I hear about very vague claims by christian groups. Just like the multiple claims about the ark being found any time they find a piece of wood on a hill.
Strangely these finds don't prove any miracle claim at all.
He assumes that only god can give moral laws. Then he assumes that the law giver is a morally good being. A god can say killing, stealing, and slavery is right. The same god he believes in has killed more people than the devil himself. He quotes someone at the end, and thinks that's the atheist view on morality. He makes a typical emotional appeal using his own relative moral view. There's no new news here, just the same old arguments for god.
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
That's a resourceful comment. This apologist is trying to reach out to the atheist, such as yourself, and you just plug your ears and cling to the foundations of your boundless world. And apparently we Christians are close minded....
@AmomentOfClarity2011... Your questions are interesting.. I suggest you read Lee Strobel's "The Case For Christ". The book answers almost every question you have. Also, when Jesus claimed to be "I AM", he was referring to Exodus 3:14 and making that reference to himself. Please check out Lee Strobel's book or his website.
but no, the "it" that he mentioned earlier does not have to be done. he would have been better sitting at home enjoying himself. for the office of apologist is not listed in St Paul's list of offices in the church.
it is a love that we do not have that persuades men, not our intellectual talk.
that atheists refuse their own logic shows the futility of hammering them with it.
I was not converted by apologist's clever words, but by meeting christ in person a la damascus road
@Strefanasha What? "Atheist prophet?" Atheists don't have prophets because atheism isn't even a religion or a worldview! So how can you claim to be an atheist when you have just demonstrated you don't even know what an atheist is? You may be fooling your Christian buddies but you don't fool me.
the philosophers i knew at my university philosophy department regarded Nietzsche as a crank. they never quoted him. IMO he was an atheist prophet, and a mad raving one, not a philosopher.
his superman is an atheist christ, that he preached a superman at all shows he was not a proper nihilist. he could not get away from chrstian styles and forms (hence writing like an OT prophet). i never took him seriously, even as an atheist
that he became a catatonic schizophrenic is telling
When I was an atheist I became a nihilist within six months of thinking the worldview through. I don't say this now as a christian, though I am, I said it as an atheist then. And total despair was the result.
If christ has not encountered me personally back in 1978 I would be dead by now.
most atheists refuse to follow their own logic to its own conclusion.
@Strefanasha "most atheists refuse to follow their own logic to its own conclusion." The conclusion you drew is not the automatic conclusion of all atheists. The fact that there are millions of atheists that go about their daily lives quite happy means that the world still has meaning without a fictional god. The fact you were miserable and failed to find your life worth anything without a fictional being is your problem.
@Strefanasha "If christ has not encountered me personally back in 1978 I would be dead by now." So you were depressed and sad that the universe did not love you personally, and so you chose to believe it did again. If it saved you from killing yourself then I suppose thats better than the alternative. Perhaps if you took time to absorb other philosophies (instead of nihilism) you might have found happiness.
Buddhism, Jainism or Secular humanism, or some mix of all?
@Strefanasha here is something else to consider about your depression.
Drug addicts suffer withdrawl after stopping an addictive drug. Does that mean taking drugs is justified or does it mean that the root cause of your pain is the drugs.
You were an atheist for a mere 6 months and chose nihilism. Then you reconverted to theism again when it got too much for you. Theism was the drug, you simply did not choose the right support mechanism to detox properly.
besides, the unjustified expectation of an afterlife and/or an ultimate sense only bothers people because they grew up with it.
besides, whether or not something fells good shouldn't influence ones decision-making. (i'm not saying it influenced yours, just sayin' that the argument isn't valid.)
to depressed nihilists: there are lots of ways to see life in a brighter light. e.g.: google "20110717170121AA84jUp".
@Strefanasha "most atheists refuse to follow their own logic to its own conclusion." do you have examples of this remark? so you were an atheist were you? why were you an atheist?
I notice people are fond of using the word "science" as if its a trump card- an entity that is mutually exclusive from faith. Yet all that is explored and studied and referred to as scientific data existed before the revered venue called "science". We cannot create anything that isn't derrived from that which precedes man- this is indisputable. I think people confuse the presence of evil with the absence of God, and the love of hubris with superior intellect.
@baumsy18 "We cannot create anything that isn't derrived from that which precedes man- this is indisputable." Do you even comprehend what science aims to do. Science does not make the universe, it explains how the universe seems to operate from observation and testing. So far there is no evidence that magic is required.
"confuse the presence of evil with the absence of God" that is completely a religious term and irrelevant to science.
"" atheist scientists show that the universe can function perfectly logically on its own"" Really? Explain to the logic of where matter/energy came from. Atheists claim to understand origins but never address THE origin of everything. Science explains much but not everything and if you think you know (or can even make a likely assumption of) the origin of everything, call up the Ivy League cosmologists because they'd love to know.
@themountains "Atheists claim to understand origins but never address THE origin of everything." Theists make these claims, not atheists. Atheists and scientists both will say that the ultimate origins of the universe, or even the multiverse is currently unknown, although there are hypotheses about how they might have occured.
The difference is that science admits its ignorance and trys to fix it while religion wallows in its ignorance by saying it has the answer, when its a guess
I do hit "reply" whenever contacting somebody. In fact, numerous times I haven't recieved replies from others out here! This has nothing to with the person sending a note, it has to do with the site having tech issues.
@mysticgatekeeper then I apologise, while I know that replies get lost on YT I never realised that the text on the video does not show the person you reply to all the time either.
@themountains "universe can function perfectly logically on its own" there is NO proof of a divine intervention, and science constantly finds mundane reasons for previously divine origin events. Man now can explain lightening, storms, meteors, earthquakes, diseases, birth defects, impotence, mental disorders, etc etc. All these areas were proclaimed by priests the work of the gods, or demons. They were WRONG every time.
@themountains "Science explains much but not everything" This is simply the old god of the gaps argument. Find something that science is currently fuzzy about, and stick a supernatural being there, then complain when atheists have an issue with it and ask for evidence.
Just because we don't know something does not automatically make it the realm of your god. You cannot explain it either outside of outright guessing based on faith.
@themountains "Explain to the logic of where matter/energy came from." We know where matter came from, the Big Bang Theory demonstrates that. Where energy came from is another matter entirely and currently unknown. However the multiuniverses or zero energy universe hypotheses do offer interesting ideas to consider.
Ravi's early claim that it is not only theists that must seek answers is bull. They make the claim a god exists, they must prove it. Atheists don't sit on their hands on the matter. You cannot disprove a vague claim as no evidence exists. atheist scientists show that the universe can function perfectly logically on its own. Claiming otherwise is the theists responsibility.
Wow, a fairly mindless and purposeless rant. He certainly packs the guilt in, but then christianity is based on guilt and ignorance.
Flew is merely an old man who doubts that science can provide the answers he is looking for in the time he has left. sad but irrelevant. Anymore than claiming if a christian becomes an deist that somehow shows atheism's merit. Deism is not theism OR atheism, but its closer to atheism as there are no claims outside that its possible some god exists.
@AMomentOfClarity2011 Um, I'm wondering just how you have come to the deduction that "christianity is based on guilt and ignorance"? That is a very BOLD and a very unsubstantiated claim. Enlighten me on how what you have observed that has led you to believe this.
@trealboihottie "very unsubstantiated claim" really? everyone is born automatically a 'sinner' and deserving of eternal torment unless they blindly obey a invisible unproven god.
Any 'entity' that created a place of eternal torment as part of its way of controlling people uses fear as its motivator and the use of thought crime (covet) as a guilt card.
The constant reminders in the bible about faith and the threats against non-believers supports my claim.
@trealboihottie The christian history is full of tales of guilt and fear and relying on ignorance. For over a thousand years only priests were allowed to even read the bible, and it was kept in the outmoded latin for that purpose. Only those vetted by the Church were allowed access, and anyone who caused any dispute were destroyed, either socially or physically. Even today the church try to push guilt on the mothers of the children their priests raped rather than themselves.
@AMomentOfClarity2011 Dude, excuse the disruption, I'm not evading your rebuttals at all, but why are all your comments either removed or flagged as spam? I'm jw how this happens? O.o
@trealboihottie Well I remove a comment if I made a spelling error and repost it with the correction. So one or two might be that. However I assume theists mark my comments as spam to hide them from people like you out of fear of learning anything or challenging their posts. I get that on other theist videos (remarked by people like you who ask why it happens). I never see them marked as spam, as I posted them and YT does not hide them from me.
you can't because for you to claim there is no God, you are also claiming that you have infinite knowledge of the universe and everything in it, no human has that knowledge, the only being that can have that knowledge is God, so, in effect, you are claiming to be God and telling us there is no God...do you see the contradiction?
Completely dishonest. Flew has never said that god should be the Christian god. Flew has stated many, many times that he believes in a deistic god and completely rejects the idea of an afterlife and the idea of the resurrection of Christ. He also said that his only evidence for a god was the lack of a naturalistic explanation of the origins of DNA. Honesty and facts are important. I've never seen an apologist who cares about either.
Regardless of your opinion with what Flew said, the message here is far deeper. When you take your last breath on this earth you will take your first breath in eternity. Having said that, where will YOU spend eternity? Are you standing on the opinion of an atheist or are you willing to reach out to God and discover that he IS real? Death comes to all of us and once we step over to the other side there is no second chance if you made the wrong choice while alive on this earth.
@mysticgatekeeper Ahh, Pascal's Wager. This argument is nothing more than an attempt at scaring the opposition into submission. I have no more fear of your particular version of hell than you do of the Muslim, Hindu, or Mormon versions of hell. I would hope that an omniscient, loving god would look at my intellectual honesty rather than my ability to gullibly believe something just because it's written in an old book.
You have overlooked a major flaw with your friend Pascal. The problem with Pascal's wager is that the assumption that belief in God is sufficient to get one into heaven is false. Demons believe and are condemned. Hitler believed and he's condemned based on his actions. An intellectual belief simply in God's existence is not sufficient for entry into heaven. One must agree with God and accept His terms for salvation.
After all, heaven is a place where we voluntarily give up our "right" to sin, to spend eternity with the Holy One, who will turn us into perfect creatures because of our commitments made on earth. However, if you are living your life based upon pretending to believe in God to escape from hell, this is not a good wager, since God will not accept pretense as a substitute for true faith.
Your friend Pascal was dead wrong in his philosophy and you're still holding on to it.
@mysticgatekeeper "Accept his terms for salvation". Ahh, so a god created me unworthy and filled with a sin-nature, and the only way I can overcome this flaw that he gave me is to sign an eternal contract so that he doesn't have to send me into eternal torture and torment? I couldn't worship that kind of a god even if I thought he did exist.
You were created with a free will to choose how you want to live. You are free to do anything you want in life but that doesn't mean everything you do is right! If you refuse to believe in God then that too is your free choice. However, after death comes eternity. What happens then is based completely on what you did in life and what choices you made regarding God. What you think or believe has no bearing on reality. You believe or you reject. In any case, eternity is in your hands.
@mysticgatekeeper You said one thing I completely agree with. "What you think or believe has no bearing on reality." This means that just because you believe in a god doesn't make him real. If you don't have evidence, you have no reason to believe it.
Clearly you not only reject God but you are also hostile to him and those who believe in him. If you want to twist what I'm saying then knock yourself out. If you want to debate if God is real then do it with somebody else. The evidence is overwhelming except to people such as yourself. God is real regardless of what you think or believe. Fire burns whether you believe it or not. Poison kills whether you believe it or not. God is real and you will stand before him regardless of your beliefs.
There is not one verse in scripture where it says "let's make a deal". The bible says "this IS the deal". You accept it or you reject it regardless of what you want to believe. Your opinion about who or what God is means nothing in the grand scheme of things. He is the creator and you are the created. If you have the intelligence to walk and wave bye-bye at the same time then you can understand what that means to somebody like you in the long run.
@mysticgatekeeper If you want to give me "evidence" that your god exists other than "I had an experience", I'm all ears. Keep in mind that you have to provide evidence that it is your particular god that exists and not one of the other millions of gods. I am not hostile to god. I don't believe he exists. You have threatened me several times with hell and torment and you call me hostile? I won't tolerate threats. If you want to debate, send me a message.
Skeptics always demand proof but they reject it before they even consider looking at it. If you refuse to believe what scripture says and what believers have to say, what will you consider evidence then? The onus is on you. God gave us all the evidence we need but until YOU take the first step to find it for yourself, don't expect anything to fall into your lap. This is what faith is about. Believing in something you can't see, hear, touch or smell. God WILL reveal himself to you providing
@mysticgatekeeper "Skeptics always demand proof but they reject it before they even consider looking at it." Proof that skeptics would consider valid must match the level of claims being made. Hearsay is the worst kind of evidence, even in a modern court of law.
The gospels are pure hearsay. The bible is not proof as its the source of those claims, otherwise all holy books are true because they say so.
Sorry to say but you're wrong. If hearsay is what the bible is all about then Jesus was dead wrong about all he said. He was nothing more than a raving lunatic who created the greated con in history and continues to mislead to this day. Then again, if Jesus is who he claimed to be he is God and as God we are ALL accountable to him and his law stands regardless of your opinion. If you want proof then it's not my reponsibility to provide it, it's God's who is waiting to reveal himself to you...
@mysticgatekeeper "If you want proof then it's not my reponsibility to provide it" Actually it is, according to your own bible. It seems I know more about your religion that you do.
Peter 3:15 "...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect"
@mysticgatekeeper "If hearsay is what the bible is all about then Jesus was dead wrong about all he said." Actually NO. To be fair to christianity there are good points that Jesus brought up, especially some points (only some however) from the Sermon on the Mount.
Every holy book has some wisdom, heck even star wars has some wisdom (Jedi religion). However it does not make the claim of divinity real.
@mysticgatekeeper "Jesus is who he claimed to be" Actually if you read the bible, it does not directly state he is the son of God or part of a trinity. That was a deliberate interpretation by the surviving cult of christianity. Other cults thought he was divinely chosen as a human prophet only, which allowed him to fulful some additional prophecies. Once Constantine backed one cult over the others, they killed the competition.
@mysticgatekeeper Most of christianity's dogma comes from Paul, who never met Jesus.
Since Paul was a raving murdering lunatic who was also a pharisee he had every reason to polute the new Jewish cult by opening it up to gentiles (which was not originally intended), and brought the whole 'son of god' idea to a head.
Without Paul in the mix, I think Christianity would be FAR differrent than the cult we have today.
@AMomentOfClarity2011 Jesus clearly claimed to be God. He referred to Himself as "I am", and said that before Abraham, He existed. He claimed to be the only way to the kingdom of heaven, the light of the world, the bread of life, the only way to the Father, the way, the truth, and the light. Jesus was either God, or He was insane. He referred to himself as the Son of God. He was not just any other prophet. He was God, or He was insane, there is no other option. Paul also did meet Jesus ;)
@izunderoath "Paul also did meet Jesus" He had visions of Jesus, but never met him when jesus was supposted to be alive. Saying Jesus appeared to him is not proof of anything. Paul realised he could not kill off the cult, but he might be able to redirect it. 1. Jesus never wrote anything down in the bible, its all hearsay so there are more options than you propose. He could be a legend/myth icon too, where stories were made up around an actual person.
@izunderoath "only way to the kingdom of heaven" He may have meant by following his teachings, not directly making him a god.
We are all children of god, so any reference to a son of god could have been taken out of context.
He prayed to God and asked to be released from his burden, he claims that god knows more than him, god refers to him as his son, he divides himself from god as his mediator only.
@BlackANDRedMaster which means nothing. References in the bible supporting other references in the bible are meaningless to an atheist. If I said "I AM" does it make me a god? The term is so vague and unspecific it does not prove anything at all.
providing that YOU want proof which brings us to this question. What are YOU prepared to do to find the answers you want about God?
How far are YOU willing to go to find if God is real?
You are one of those who relies on ignorance to attack something you don't understand or don't want to understand. Ignorance is not an excuse for anything. For those who believe no proof is required. For those who don't believe no proof is possible. You answered your own question.
@mysticgatekeeper "who relies on ignorance to attack something you don't understand" I was raised a christian and remained so for decades. So I have a good grasp of christianity, probably better than most. You are once again playing the faith card. This is an admission that you have no real evidence, outside of blind unquestioning belief.
@smithcm14 Your god is supposed to be all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere? So why is it always claims that faith is needed to prove he exists to people. Why all the excuses. Why all the apologetic arguments that fail to prove anything at all, except if you have faith as the original premise.
Why is it SO difficult to find any tangible evidence for a supreme being, for ANY religion.
I am sure your god has the knowledge of what it would take to convince me.
@AMomentOfClarity2011 Hmm...I suppose all the scientific mechanisms working harmoniously through natural law, formulating the world around you and sustaining your existence and everything and everyone around you, as well as the human experience and moral intuition you contain is obviously terrible evidence of any supreme causation or cohesion.Clearly, existence existing because it exists is the best explanation for the natural world and human experience.
@smithcm14 "Clearly, existence existing because it exists is the best explanation for the natural world and human experience." Bingo. Just supports Occams Razor perfectly. Adding a supernatural being on top of natural explanations is redundant.
Morality has nothing to do with a god. Every culture has morality, regardless of which god they worship (or none at all). Even other animals have degrees of morality. Its required to get along with each other.
@smithcm14 Looking at the chaos and terrible 'design' of nature, the obvious application of evolution in the diversity of life, the massive size of the cosmos, and the history of mankind shows no evidence that a god exists, or to be more accurate, no personal god(s) that many religions proclaim exists. Deism, vague by default, is still somewhat valid, although I think their arguments are from ignorance and incredulity (not insults but classes of arguments).
@AMomentOfClarity2011 Clearly you making assertions that you assume I take, and going through the motions of most stereotypical atheists. Your stance is one is that can't help but be right because it is a completely negative and skeptical stance and is therefore inevitably must be correct. Here is an example, convince me that the natural world actually exists. Oh, or why this interaction between us is meaningful outside of us just calling it meaningful?
@smithcm14 Ah, shifting the burden of proof again. The claim is made that a god exists by theists. In particular a god their texts or beliefs support.
I see no reason to believe that such a being exists. The natural world existing? There are basic axioms I accept. One is that reality exists and we are not brains in a jar somewhere (matrix type). All evidence leads to this conclusion. all senses show that reality exists. While I do not rule out other realms, no proof exists yet.
@AMomentOfClarity2011 Ah, shifting to the fallacy of changing the subject completely. First, by "burden of proof" you of course refer to justifying your stance as inevitably valid due to the fact that you don't find alternative explanations personally compelling. Well, in that case and with that logic, I really have no reason to believe holocaust or 9/11 ever happend. I certainly wasn't there, they teach it in my university or on the news, but why believe those things in the first place?
@smithcm14 "justifying your stance as inevitably valid" the default stance is disbelief until proven otherwise. Everyone uses this method. theists and atheists.
Otherwise you believe ALL claims regardless of evidence as true. The first thing a theist does when confronted with another religion is point out the flaws in its evidence.
If you are going to build a strawman case saying that you cannot see any reason to accept recent historical events unless you are present. Poor examples.
@AMomentOfClarity2011 The problem with most believers, of which I am one, is that they seek to try and explain everything inexplicable and that is our biggest mistake. Christianity is predicated upon faith, therefore we believers need to understand that we are merely messengers and not the message itself. It is quite difficult, if not impossible, to argue evidence where tangibility doesn't exist, especially when the very God we assert exists is the greatest of intangibles.
"Christianity is predicated upon faith" Name a religion that is not based on faith.
If faith is the cornerstone for all religions, how can you be surprised that people like myself find it unconvincing. faith is accepting something without evidence. What stops that belief being in error? (methodologically)
@smithcm14 You can gather data from a vast amount of independant sources about 9/11 for example to prove it happened. I have stood where the towers stood.
However if I said a wizard helped destroy the towers, would you believe me? No. IF I said there were 500 witnesses to the wizard causing explosions in the tower with his wand, would you believe me? after all 9/11 happened? Or would you need more EVIDENCE for extraordinary claims.
@smithcm14 "shifting to the fallacy of changing the subject completely." I pointed out your fallacy but addressed all your post. I answered your questions. So once again FAIL.
@AMomentOfClarity2011 The point is, is that the basic axioms you accept, as an atheist/ theist, whatever, are ultimately subjective. You say there isn't enough proof for this or that, and the next person can make the same skeptical rationalization against this and the other. Whether it be scientific, historical, theological, political, or whatever. The standards and methodologies you take in obtaining knowledge varies depending on your philosophical stance which you have likely taken as granted.
@smithcm14 "that the basic axioms you accept, as an atheist/ theist, whatever, are ultimately subjective." Everything is subjective. But that does not mean all points of view are equal in validity. evidence is still required.
I consider reality real. I don't believe we are brains in a jar. Furthermore there is no value in considering that alternative matrix concept anyway as it removes all possible point to existance as its all a false illusion.
@AMomentOfClarity2011 "Everything is subjective." and then "I consider reality real." Those two beliefs contradict each other, if you can't see that then you're as narrow minded as the evangelical Christians you bash. There are so many flaws in your argument. It's exhausting dealing with people like you because when you point out the contradictions in their argument they just gloss over it and change the subject.
@NodeRanvier "Those two beliefs contradict each other" Not really. The human viewpoint of reality is subjective as our senses are limited, as is my own personal viewpoint which is emotional. Science is objective in theory but basic axioms are required to work off. Reality is real as far as anyone can assertain.
I have not ruled out other dimensions, or realms, or gods. I simply rule out CLAIMS about gods or other realms until I have been convinced with evidence.
@NodeRanvier "There are so many flaws in your argument." really? I never claimed that I was perfect, or that I could not be wrong on any topic. I simply state that as far as I am aware, reality exists. If someone makes a claim that goes OUTSIDE our current knowledge of reality, they must back it up.
If you can show reality does not exist, by all means do so.
@NodeRanvier "It's exhausting dealing with people like you because when you point out the contradictions in their argument they just gloss over it and change the subject." OR, you might just not be very good at debating people like me.
@NodeRanvier How did I get beat here? You have not put forward any arguement that proves a god exists and I find it amusing you think that by talking to me you somehow beat me.
@NodeRanvier I think people seem to think the word 'subjective' is somehow derogatory.
We are a limited species mentally and physically, that have evolved mechanisms to subjectively decide what is real or imagined. The standards used to distinguish between these two areas depend on the claim and the risk. More evidence is required for claims that are more outlandish and present a greater risk to the individual.
@smithcm14 "The standards and methodologies you take in obtaining knowledge varies depending on your philosophical stance which you have likely taken as granted." to some degree I would accept that the stance does affect your standards and methodologies.
But does that mean ANY stance is valid? No. The gathering of evidence is used by all parties to distinguish between fact and fiction. the amount and type of evidence required to accept something is subjective. I have high standards.
@smithcm14 "this interaction between us is meaningful outside of us just calling it meaningful?" That depends on how you define meaningful, doesn't it?
I apologise for making assertions you personally might not hold. In the format of YT, generalisations are common and unfortunately difficult to avoid as you did yourself by linking me to 'stereotypical atheists', whatever that means.
Do you find it impossible to view the natural world as enough by itself? Why require more?
@smithcm14 Your argument would result in adding a god to every natural explanation.
"why does it rain?" -watervapor rises then cools, condensation occurs and when heavy enough gravity does the rest = rain.
You then add "god did it" on top of that. No reason for doing it outside of your upbringing in a particular faith. You have zero evidence for god being responsible. Do you laugh at native americans doing rain dances? That is how atheists see theists when they stick a god everywhere.
@smithcm14 what evidence would you need to believe in ANOTHER religion's claim about their god? If they used the same excuses as your apologetics do (modified to match their texts) would you believe them?
you take that step of faith. WIthout faith, nothing I can say to you will convince you. God challenges you to test him for proof. The conclusion here is what are you prepared to do to find God? How far are you willing to go to find the evidence you want? Answer that question to yourself first and then you'll have a starting point. Until then, don't expect anything to happen to you. God doesn't crash the party. He waits for you to open the door.
@mysticgatekeeper "God challenges you to test him for proof." where in your scriptures does god state this. Jesus said you should not put God to the test (when satan was tempting him on the mountain) and he praises belief without evidence openly (doubting Thomas). The history of your religion is based on damning those who doubt and forging false evidence (shroud of Turin) to trick people.
@mysticgatekeeper I think you are confused on who Pascal is, or else you are calling him "my friend" sarcastically. You say his argument is flawed, and I agree. But that's exactly the argument you used in your first response when you said "When you take your last breath on this earth you will take your first breath in eternity. Having said that, where will YOU spend eternity?"
I believe in God and what Christ did so I know that I am spending eternity with God. I choose to follow him and if that means insulting or offending the world then so be it. Of all the the people to be concerned about with where they will spend eternity, you should be concerned with yourself. After all, you alone will have to stand before him and give an account. You won't have a lawyer defending you. You'll be defending yourself.
@DaLaw66 I've done it. Maybe you should do the same. The existence of Jesus is very, very sketchy. He probably did live, but his existence was blown waaaay out of proportion. There are no eyewitness accounts of his existence. Period. If you can find me some clear, verifiable evidence that he was the son of a god, I'm all ears. And please, don't use Josephus.
@JaytheOstrich I encourage you to listen to his argument again from an unbiased perspective; i do not believe you clearly understood what he was presenting.
I find it hilarious how people think they know more than Ravi...no respect is given but again you can't expect much from atheists they are just following their DNA as Dawkins puts it so I guess in their mind it is okay to think they are right. Not only move past what he says but also accuse him of being phony and hollow...Ravi would man-handle all of these ignoramuses
@HaShim383 i agree with that statement. On the internet people seem to think their opinion is law or something. This guy is an expert who has lived his whole life analyzing philosophy and thought. One thing i love about Ravi is that he doesn't disrespect those who think or believe differently. This is one thing many christians struggle with...We forget that we are to love and respect others, "gently instructing them in the Word": not refuting them as ignorant fools.
@maxpolaris99 Well, he's answering atheists to freethinkers, not narrow-minded people who have made up their mind that there is ultimately no moral standard.
@supermandan85 He had said that the dialogue was a hypothetical one. I encourage you to review the series a second time so that you can really grasp what he is saying; it's not something that can be comprehended so easily from a single listening. I also would like to ask you to find some fault in his logic, rather than a fault in an ill-perceived caricature of Ravi himself. His character is not the issue. Side note, what is arrogance, then? Why do you believe it to be a negative characteristic?
Ravi is confusing nihilism with secularism. There is a very distinct difference here and Zacharias should know better than to include such a fallacy in his opening. Don't think Im going to watch the rest...
@zbboston I believe that is a poor excuse for not watching the rest of his videos. It's seemingly apparent that you watched the video without an open mindset. Instead of trying to understand the concepts, you simply searched for a way to discredit him. I strongly recommend that you watch the series in its entirety. Even if you don't believe any of what he's saying, it's still an intellectually stimulating argument.
@HeReformedMe "What is the, "most immoral act possible?" And what mechanism do you use to define morals?"
All one must do is imagine a worst case scenario (ex. world full of suffering). Clearly such a world is not a moral one, since any other case would be better. That is the basis by which I would define immorality. God could command that such a worst case world exist (hell?). God's commanding it does not make it moral. God cannot be the source of morality, only the source of ultimate tyranny
"God could command that such a worst case world exist (hell?). God's commanding it does not make it moral."
You see, it seems here you'd have to demonstrate why it is that God would not or could not have morally sufficient reasons for allowing hell to exist. When we consider the HItlers, Stalins and Neros of the world, clearly we can understand God's reasons for judgement. Is it your position that the evil and wickedness in the world should go unpunished?
@HeReformedMe You appear to miss my point. The idea that God could order a worst case world is evidence that God is not moral. You do not need to consider hell. One does not need to consider the Torquemada's Idi Amins, and Cortezes (all killing in the name of religion and for the good of the murdered).
If we do consider hell, Who goes to hell? Only bad people? Anyone who doesn't believe in the correct God? Anyone not accepting Jesus (incl babies)? The mentally deficient? Only atheists?
@gianboy2001 Yes I have read it. Not part of either the standard Christian or Jewish canon. Do you think the description of heaven, hell, angels, and all the rest is correct? How do you know it is correct, particularly since no living being has seen any of it.
It does not matter to the central point. Any conception of God cannot include God being a source for morality. We cannot know God and the Bible is certainly incorrect in its assumptions about God.
@drfoxcourt That is true that it was not canon but that doesn't mean it's not true. This scripture was discovered in 1773 but scriptures that cross reference to this was dated before the Christ. Most people doesn't accept it because it is outside the bible even there are hundreds of scriptures being discovered all the time.
If God is not the source of Morality then what is? is it our society?
@gianboy2001 "This scripture was discovered in 1773 but scriptures that cross reference to this was dated before the Christ."
This suggests to me that Jesus of Nazereth might have adopted part of the Book of Enoch and based his notions of Hell on it, rather than notions of Hell based in fact. After all, no one (not even Jesus) has ever experienced Hell and returned to report their findings.
I certainly don't subscribe to the idea that God is the source of morality, if indeed there is a source.
@gianboy2001 Putting this as carefully as I can and after considering the evidence. Christ is not real, Jesus of Nazereth was real. Demonstrating the Jesus existed does not in any way show that he was divine (or a redemptive agent).
As to the source of morality, I think you put the question poorly. Not "Who is the source of morality" but what should we be using as our guide for morality. I think honesty, facts, and our evolving nature are far superior sources.
@drfoxcourt So you believe in Jesus but not in his miracle? okay.
The things that we see around us can be use as a fact for both ways. We just need to see who is in better position for it. The facts points to a direction where our moral values keeps getting worse and thinking that our morality came from nothing and started out us nothing and evolve to a better moral values is to flawed. Where do you see our moral values in the next 100 years?
@gianboy2001The Biblical source, the divine source, or the Christian source for morality is clearly wrong. When theocracy rules, we were never in a worse state. History shows that when we rule based on "what God wants, totalitarian brutality is justified and reigns supreme because God approves.
We need only imagine a worst case scenario of human suffering to understand that morality lies in the opposite direction.
@drfoxcourt "Second part" Now what kind of moral value we had back in 1700s. Can you imagine younger people swearing at older people? Now does that support your arguement where our moral values started out us NONE then coming back to NONE again?
@gianboy2001Please clarify. I want to answer the question but don't understand it.
Anyway... I in no way wish to convey that morality comes from nothing or goes for nothing. Morality is an emergent phenomenon of our social nature. I hope you accept that we are highly socialized primates. If you understand what it takes for humanity to survive (predators, disease, competition) you might see the reason we have morals. This is why we had slavery and why we no longer tolerate it
@drfoxcourt These are all hypothesis. You can't back up what you just said. For you to say that you have to be 100% sure that there is no intelligence behind it. Slavery comes and goes. You never know if it will come back. All we need is a NWO and we are back to slavery. I am talking about how are life is slowly losing morality because people don't look at the moral foundation base on the bible. What is your moral foundation? Is it the request of your so called socialized primates?
@gianboy2001 You don't need to look at the Bible as a starting point. You can refer to the sayings of the Buddha or Confucius. Heck you can read Dr Suess. The Bible is full of immoral as well as moral examples.
Society is not deteriorating because it has stopped looking at the Bible. If anything, we are undermining a sound moral framework by insisting that such a repugnant ideology is the one we must base our lives on.
I back up my hypothesis with evidence, Christianity has less foundation.
@drfoxcourt Show me immoral teaching from God in the Bible. You say you've studied Bible but yet you failed to interpret it correctly. You chose to Interpret it how the haters do. You must be Blind if you think that Society is not deteriorating, Have you seen the news lately? There is a reason why gay sex is not allowed in the Bible, It can get you sick and your new partner. If your sexually active and you get sick and if you think that's OK then you should check on your moral values.
@drfoxcourt Wat evidence have u given me other than telling me that the moral values has evolve with no evidence just words. Just a question, Do you agree that there is no God or you are agnostic?
The basis of your moral has no foundation, It can change anytime the people of this world request it and You have to be blind not to know that Moral Values is slowly deteriorating. Just an honest question and not trying to offend you, how old are you? Just want to know if you where here long enough
@drfoxcourt "If we do consider hell, Who goes to hell?"
In short, I think it's clear, that according to Christian theology, those who go to hell ultimately go there because they wanted to. Either they would not or could not recognize their sin, nor the Holiness of God. As a result, the idea of God's grace and mercy is nothing but noise in their ears.
And just so you know, while it's true "bad people" will be in hell, they will also be in heaven. Some get "grace," some get "justice."
@HeReformedMe "I think it's clear, that according to Christian theology..."
And on what is that theology based? The wishes of some1st or 2nd century writer? It certainly wasn't based on evidence. We don't know if hell exists. If we assume, we don't know why people go there. We take in on faith (a poor substitute for actual knowledge) that what some early christian writer(s) got it right and that their assessment was faithfully translated over the centuries. That is not a reasonable assumption.
@drfoxcourt The reliability of the NT is an important question one should investigate. However the questions raised are not questions that can be adequately addressed on this format. If you'd like, I would be willing to exchange P.M.'s. If not, I understand.
But there really are good answers to your questions. Good day Doc
@HeReformedMe Reliability of NT: How many pieces of Silver was Judas paid for betraying Jesus? (Matthew 26:15)
Truth is silver coins were not used in Judea for 300 years before Jesus's betrayal, so the chance of being paid in silver was in essence zero. The entry in the NT was made to agree with Zechariah 11:12-13. How many other stories regarding Jesus were made to fit the prophesies?
If one part of the Bible is true, that certainly doesn't make any other part of the bible true.
It's okay to be spiritual people. It enriches us as a person and as a community to constantly try to better ourselves. But part of improving yourself includes keeping your mind open to new ideas and being humble enough to accept certain truths even if they conflict with something you have vehemently believed in your whole life. This is how we progress as a species. It's a beautiful thing and if there is a God, then he most certainly values an objective mind than a blindly subservient one.
@steelrain2012 You are a fan of science, that's great because God is the ultimate scientist, the father of science. Please lower your blonding pride and see that God is the Creator of all things and he lovingly created you and with the same love sacrificed himself for you. He's waiting for you to come ton
@kmfiz I am not just a "fan" of science, I am dependent on it. So are you. Do you think without science we would be having this conversation? God didn't discover the electron, or the means to control it. He didn't invent the TV or tell us how intricate the spectrum of light is or that we can use it to send radio messages to each other. If you want to call science and god the same thing, fine. Like I said, science doesn't have all the answers, there is no "pride" in saying that. Consider your own
atheists don't just expect answers... we offer answers through science. Which just so happens to be the only place you can get a genuine answer about anything. Keep forcing yourselves to believe in ancient fairy tales and see where it gets you. You'll stay under the thumb of people who whisper whatever they want into your ears and you will believe them because you love to live in your ignorance. god... people like this make me sick to my stomach....
@steelrain2012 Ancient fairy tales? you're basically saying I as a christian am dumb? That's what everybody said to Christopher Columbus. But he was right now wasn't he? All odds against him. Their science was different back then. now we realize he was right. This process will repeat itself. Please ask God to forgive you of your sins and accept him into your heart. I don't want anybody to go to hell.
@mrNoFoe Yes, ancient fairy tales. Or fables, or parables or whatever you want to call them. Thousands of years ago before mankind had the modern tools to discern what defines the reality of our universe, we simply guessed. ALL GODS and ALL CREATION MYTHS every told were to explain how we got here and why we are here. Your religion isn't special. But it's yours. I am simply implying that scientific answers as to why we are here and what things are made of can come only through science.
See, here's the thing;
Wishing something were true, does not make it real.
I cannot force myself to truely believe something that both lacks evidence, and contradicts reason and logic.
Pretending to believe, either to appease others, or for wish fulfillment, is dishonest.
And if the biblical god did somehow turn out to be literal and true, I would still have serious moral issues with supporting such an apparently immoral being.
blfry 4 days ago
@blfry Can you tell me what evidence that you have that God doesn't exsist. Can you please tell me just how it contradicts reason and logic.
Can you please tell me what alternative you have for morals,and just how you make the judgment that God is an immoral being??
Godexists100 3 days ago
Comment removed
blfry 3 days ago
@Godexists100 ...(cont) -Well, I personally do not need threat of punishment, nor promise of reward to do good things, or behave morally. Morality is a complex and sometimes subjective thing. But at its core the simple concept of treating other people as you would like to be treated holds true, and we do not need a god to come up with that logic on our own.
My observation of an immoral god, is based upon the writings of the christian bible. THAT god is written as to be quite immoral, yes.
blfry 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Godexists100 I don't claim, or need, to prove your god does not exist, any more than you would have to prove that I don't have an invisible leprechaun living in my shoe. I do not say that I KNOW god doesn't exist. I say that I have NO reason to believe it.
One could write a book on all the contradictions and logical fallacies dealing with the bible... in fact a few people already have. Too many to post them all here.
(cont)...
blfry 3 days ago
3:45-4:15 immensely powerful. Wow!
AMERICASMANRONPAUL 4 days ago
Atheists aren't trying to put forth an answer. We don't ask you to worship atheism. We don't say we have the answer, because we don't.
Jake88889 6 days ago
This Man Is BEYOND Intelligent. Amazing The Way He Is Able To Put Everything In A Simple Perspective.
TheWarDog11 1 week ago
@amomentofclarity2011 u should do some research on archeology of bible truth. Here are some of what they found joshuas alter, proof of david, the rock where moses hit and water came out the rock of horeb, and soddom and gommorah and alot more. Soddom and gommorah is the only place with 95% sulfur found in the world. Theres alot more. Jus do some research with a open mind and look at diff point of views.
superstankydanky808 2 weeks ago
@superstankydanky808 If you want to provide me with links via a PM, by all means do so.
Since there is no proof that Moses even existed, finding the rock is rather amusing.
They found cities mentioned in the bible. So what?
I hear about very vague claims by christian groups. Just like the multiple claims about the ark being found any time they find a piece of wood on a hill.
Strangely these finds don't prove any miracle claim at all.
AMomentOfClarity2011 2 weeks ago
He assumes that only god can give moral laws. Then he assumes that the law giver is a morally good being. A god can say killing, stealing, and slavery is right. The same god he believes in has killed more people than the devil himself. He quotes someone at the end, and thinks that's the atheist view on morality. He makes a typical emotional appeal using his own relative moral view. There's no new news here, just the same old arguments for god.
soulreaper41 2 weeks ago
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
mamainmancj 2 weeks ago
lame
xamot27 3 weeks ago
@xamot27
That's a resourceful comment. This apologist is trying to reach out to the atheist, such as yourself, and you just plug your ears and cling to the foundations of your boundless world. And apparently we Christians are close minded....
Cypherus21 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from 98nafets
@Cypherus21 reach out with what? for what? just typical woo. plug my ears? boundless world? lol. why do you think there are apologists?
xamot27 3 weeks ago
@AmomentOfClarity2011... Your questions are interesting.. I suggest you read Lee Strobel's "The Case For Christ". The book answers almost every question you have. Also, when Jesus claimed to be "I AM", he was referring to Exodus 3:14 and making that reference to himself. Please check out Lee Strobel's book or his website.
rybizz24 4 weeks ago
@rybizz24 I have read up on Lee, his case is see through as is his story about his past as an atheist.
AMomentOfClarity2011 3 weeks ago
@rybizz24 I have a link to an interesting rebuttal of Lee's book on my channel. Scroll down my list of links in my profile.
AMomentOfClarity2011 3 weeks ago
but no, the "it" that he mentioned earlier does not have to be done. he would have been better sitting at home enjoying himself. for the office of apologist is not listed in St Paul's list of offices in the church.
it is a love that we do not have that persuades men, not our intellectual talk.
that atheists refuse their own logic shows the futility of hammering them with it.
I was not converted by apologist's clever words, but by meeting christ in person a la damascus road
Strefanasha 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Strefanasha What? "Atheist prophet?" Atheists don't have prophets because atheism isn't even a religion or a worldview! So how can you claim to be an atheist when you have just demonstrated you don't even know what an atheist is? You may be fooling your Christian buddies but you don't fool me.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
the philosophers i knew at my university philosophy department regarded Nietzsche as a crank. they never quoted him. IMO he was an atheist prophet, and a mad raving one, not a philosopher.
his superman is an atheist christ, that he preached a superman at all shows he was not a proper nihilist. he could not get away from chrstian styles and forms (hence writing like an OT prophet). i never took him seriously, even as an atheist
that he became a catatonic schizophrenic is telling
Strefanasha 1 month ago
When I was an atheist I became a nihilist within six months of thinking the worldview through. I don't say this now as a christian, though I am, I said it as an atheist then. And total despair was the result.
If christ has not encountered me personally back in 1978 I would be dead by now.
most atheists refuse to follow their own logic to its own conclusion.
Strefanasha 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Strefanasha "most atheists refuse to follow their own logic to its own conclusion." The conclusion you drew is not the automatic conclusion of all atheists. The fact that there are millions of atheists that go about their daily lives quite happy means that the world still has meaning without a fictional god. The fact you were miserable and failed to find your life worth anything without a fictional being is your problem.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
@Strefanasha "If christ has not encountered me personally back in 1978 I would be dead by now." So you were depressed and sad that the universe did not love you personally, and so you chose to believe it did again. If it saved you from killing yourself then I suppose thats better than the alternative. Perhaps if you took time to absorb other philosophies (instead of nihilism) you might have found happiness.
Buddhism, Jainism or Secular humanism, or some mix of all?
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
@Strefanasha here is something else to consider about your depression.
Drug addicts suffer withdrawl after stopping an addictive drug. Does that mean taking drugs is justified or does it mean that the root cause of your pain is the drugs.
You were an atheist for a mere 6 months and chose nihilism. Then you reconverted to theism again when it got too much for you. Theism was the drug, you simply did not choose the right support mechanism to detox properly.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
@Strefanasha most atheists learn to deal with it.
besides, the unjustified expectation of an afterlife and/or an ultimate sense only bothers people because they grew up with it.
besides, whether or not something fells good shouldn't influence ones decision-making. (i'm not saying it influenced yours, just sayin' that the argument isn't valid.)
to depressed nihilists: there are lots of ways to see life in a brighter light. e.g.: google "20110717170121AA84jUp".
Here0s0Johnny 2 weeks ago
@Strefanasha "most atheists refuse to follow their own logic to its own conclusion." do you have examples of this remark? so you were an atheist were you? why were you an atheist?
xamot27 2 weeks ago
I notice people are fond of using the word "science" as if its a trump card- an entity that is mutually exclusive from faith. Yet all that is explored and studied and referred to as scientific data existed before the revered venue called "science". We cannot create anything that isn't derrived from that which precedes man- this is indisputable. I think people confuse the presence of evil with the absence of God, and the love of hubris with superior intellect.
baumsy18 1 month ago
@baumsy18 "We cannot create anything that isn't derrived from that which precedes man- this is indisputable." Do you even comprehend what science aims to do. Science does not make the universe, it explains how the universe seems to operate from observation and testing. So far there is no evidence that magic is required.
"confuse the presence of evil with the absence of God" that is completely a religious term and irrelevant to science.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
"" atheist scientists show that the universe can function perfectly logically on its own"" Really? Explain to the logic of where matter/energy came from. Atheists claim to understand origins but never address THE origin of everything. Science explains much but not everything and if you think you know (or can even make a likely assumption of) the origin of everything, call up the Ivy League cosmologists because they'd love to know.
themountains 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@themountains "Atheists claim to understand origins but never address THE origin of everything." Theists make these claims, not atheists. Atheists and scientists both will say that the ultimate origins of the universe, or even the multiverse is currently unknown, although there are hypotheses about how they might have occured.
The difference is that science admits its ignorance and trys to fix it while religion wallows in its ignorance by saying it has the answer, when its a guess
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
I do hit "reply" whenever contacting somebody. In fact, numerous times I haven't recieved replies from others out here! This has nothing to with the person sending a note, it has to do with the site having tech issues.
mysticgatekeeper 1 month ago
@mysticgatekeeper then I apologise, while I know that replies get lost on YT I never realised that the text on the video does not show the person you reply to all the time either.
AMomentOfClarity2011 4 weeks ago
No harm done. All is well.
mysticgatekeeper 4 weeks ago
@themountains "universe can function perfectly logically on its own" there is NO proof of a divine intervention, and science constantly finds mundane reasons for previously divine origin events. Man now can explain lightening, storms, meteors, earthquakes, diseases, birth defects, impotence, mental disorders, etc etc. All these areas were proclaimed by priests the work of the gods, or demons. They were WRONG every time.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
@themountains "Science explains much but not everything" This is simply the old god of the gaps argument. Find something that science is currently fuzzy about, and stick a supernatural being there, then complain when atheists have an issue with it and ask for evidence.
Just because we don't know something does not automatically make it the realm of your god. You cannot explain it either outside of outright guessing based on faith.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
@themountains "Explain to the logic of where matter/energy came from." We know where matter came from, the Big Bang Theory demonstrates that. Where energy came from is another matter entirely and currently unknown. However the multiuniverses or zero energy universe hypotheses do offer interesting ideas to consider.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
Ravi's early claim that it is not only theists that must seek answers is bull. They make the claim a god exists, they must prove it. Atheists don't sit on their hands on the matter. You cannot disprove a vague claim as no evidence exists. atheist scientists show that the universe can function perfectly logically on its own. Claiming otherwise is the theists responsibility.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
Wow, a fairly mindless and purposeless rant. He certainly packs the guilt in, but then christianity is based on guilt and ignorance.
Flew is merely an old man who doubts that science can provide the answers he is looking for in the time he has left. sad but irrelevant. Anymore than claiming if a christian becomes an deist that somehow shows atheism's merit. Deism is not theism OR atheism, but its closer to atheism as there are no claims outside that its possible some god exists.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011 Um, I'm wondering just how you have come to the deduction that "christianity is based on guilt and ignorance"? That is a very BOLD and a very unsubstantiated claim. Enlighten me on how what you have observed that has led you to believe this.
trealboihottie 1 month ago
Comment removed
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trealboihottie "very unsubstantiated claim" really? everyone is born automatically a 'sinner' and deserving of eternal torment unless they blindly obey a invisible unproven god.
Any 'entity' that created a place of eternal torment as part of its way of controlling people uses fear as its motivator and the use of thought crime (covet) as a guilt card.
The constant reminders in the bible about faith and the threats against non-believers supports my claim.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
@trealboihottie The christian history is full of tales of guilt and fear and relying on ignorance. For over a thousand years only priests were allowed to even read the bible, and it was kept in the outmoded latin for that purpose. Only those vetted by the Church were allowed access, and anyone who caused any dispute were destroyed, either socially or physically. Even today the church try to push guilt on the mothers of the children their priests raped rather than themselves.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011 Dude, excuse the disruption, I'm not evading your rebuttals at all, but why are all your comments either removed or flagged as spam? I'm jw how this happens? O.o
trealboihottie 1 month ago
@trealboihottie Well I remove a comment if I made a spelling error and repost it with the correction. So one or two might be that. However I assume theists mark my comments as spam to hide them from people like you out of fear of learning anything or challenging their posts. I get that on other theist videos (remarked by people like you who ask why it happens). I never see them marked as spam, as I posted them and YT does not hide them from me.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
Comment removed
HinduismIsHeretical 1 month ago
My video actively DISPROVES God.
Religous folk say you can't........but you can.
HinduismIsHeretical 1 month ago
@HinduismIsHeretical
you can't because for you to claim there is no God, you are also claiming that you have infinite knowledge of the universe and everything in it, no human has that knowledge, the only being that can have that knowledge is God, so, in effect, you are claiming to be God and telling us there is no God...do you see the contradiction?
steelersforlife777 1 month ago
Comment removed
HinduismIsHeretical 1 month ago
Comment removed
HinduismIsHeretical 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steelersforlife777 If "God" is able to interact with our dependently originated universe, this proves that "God" is dependently originated.
Therefore "God" is a dependently originated sentient being like Brahma, a false Creator.
HinduismIsHeretical 1 month ago
Completely dishonest. Flew has never said that god should be the Christian god. Flew has stated many, many times that he believes in a deistic god and completely rejects the idea of an afterlife and the idea of the resurrection of Christ. He also said that his only evidence for a god was the lack of a naturalistic explanation of the origins of DNA. Honesty and facts are important. I've never seen an apologist who cares about either.
jordaniac89 2 months ago
Regardless of your opinion with what Flew said, the message here is far deeper. When you take your last breath on this earth you will take your first breath in eternity. Having said that, where will YOU spend eternity? Are you standing on the opinion of an atheist or are you willing to reach out to God and discover that he IS real? Death comes to all of us and once we step over to the other side there is no second chance if you made the wrong choice while alive on this earth.
mysticgatekeeper 2 months ago
@mysticgatekeeper Ahh, Pascal's Wager. This argument is nothing more than an attempt at scaring the opposition into submission. I have no more fear of your particular version of hell than you do of the Muslim, Hindu, or Mormon versions of hell. I would hope that an omniscient, loving god would look at my intellectual honesty rather than my ability to gullibly believe something just because it's written in an old book.
jordaniac89 2 months ago
You have overlooked a major flaw with your friend Pascal. The problem with Pascal's wager is that the assumption that belief in God is sufficient to get one into heaven is false. Demons believe and are condemned. Hitler believed and he's condemned based on his actions. An intellectual belief simply in God's existence is not sufficient for entry into heaven. One must agree with God and accept His terms for salvation.
mysticgatekeeper 2 months ago
After all, heaven is a place where we voluntarily give up our "right" to sin, to spend eternity with the Holy One, who will turn us into perfect creatures because of our commitments made on earth. However, if you are living your life based upon pretending to believe in God to escape from hell, this is not a good wager, since God will not accept pretense as a substitute for true faith.
Your friend Pascal was dead wrong in his philosophy and you're still holding on to it.
mysticgatekeeper 2 months ago
@mysticgatekeeper "Accept his terms for salvation". Ahh, so a god created me unworthy and filled with a sin-nature, and the only way I can overcome this flaw that he gave me is to sign an eternal contract so that he doesn't have to send me into eternal torture and torment? I couldn't worship that kind of a god even if I thought he did exist.
jordaniac89 2 months ago
You were created with a free will to choose how you want to live. You are free to do anything you want in life but that doesn't mean everything you do is right! If you refuse to believe in God then that too is your free choice. However, after death comes eternity. What happens then is based completely on what you did in life and what choices you made regarding God. What you think or believe has no bearing on reality. You believe or you reject. In any case, eternity is in your hands.
mysticgatekeeper 2 months ago
@mysticgatekeeper You said one thing I completely agree with. "What you think or believe has no bearing on reality." This means that just because you believe in a god doesn't make him real. If you don't have evidence, you have no reason to believe it.
jordaniac89 2 months ago
Clearly you not only reject God but you are also hostile to him and those who believe in him. If you want to twist what I'm saying then knock yourself out. If you want to debate if God is real then do it with somebody else. The evidence is overwhelming except to people such as yourself. God is real regardless of what you think or believe. Fire burns whether you believe it or not. Poison kills whether you believe it or not. God is real and you will stand before him regardless of your beliefs.
mysticgatekeeper 2 months ago
There is not one verse in scripture where it says "let's make a deal". The bible says "this IS the deal". You accept it or you reject it regardless of what you want to believe. Your opinion about who or what God is means nothing in the grand scheme of things. He is the creator and you are the created. If you have the intelligence to walk and wave bye-bye at the same time then you can understand what that means to somebody like you in the long run.
mysticgatekeeper 2 months ago
@mysticgatekeeper If you want to give me "evidence" that your god exists other than "I had an experience", I'm all ears. Keep in mind that you have to provide evidence that it is your particular god that exists and not one of the other millions of gods. I am not hostile to god. I don't believe he exists. You have threatened me several times with hell and torment and you call me hostile? I won't tolerate threats. If you want to debate, send me a message.
jordaniac89 2 months ago
Skeptics always demand proof but they reject it before they even consider looking at it. If you refuse to believe what scripture says and what believers have to say, what will you consider evidence then? The onus is on you. God gave us all the evidence we need but until YOU take the first step to find it for yourself, don't expect anything to fall into your lap. This is what faith is about. Believing in something you can't see, hear, touch or smell. God WILL reveal himself to you providing
mysticgatekeeper 2 months ago
@mysticgatekeeper "Skeptics always demand proof but they reject it before they even consider looking at it." Proof that skeptics would consider valid must match the level of claims being made. Hearsay is the worst kind of evidence, even in a modern court of law.
The gospels are pure hearsay. The bible is not proof as its the source of those claims, otherwise all holy books are true because they say so.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
Sorry to say but you're wrong. If hearsay is what the bible is all about then Jesus was dead wrong about all he said. He was nothing more than a raving lunatic who created the greated con in history and continues to mislead to this day. Then again, if Jesus is who he claimed to be he is God and as God we are ALL accountable to him and his law stands regardless of your opinion. If you want proof then it's not my reponsibility to provide it, it's God's who is waiting to reveal himself to you...
mysticgatekeeper 1 month ago
@mysticgatekeeper "If you want proof then it's not my reponsibility to provide it" Actually it is, according to your own bible. It seems I know more about your religion that you do.
Peter 3:15 "...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect"
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
@mysticgatekeeper "If hearsay is what the bible is all about then Jesus was dead wrong about all he said." Actually NO. To be fair to christianity there are good points that Jesus brought up, especially some points (only some however) from the Sermon on the Mount.
Every holy book has some wisdom, heck even star wars has some wisdom (Jedi religion). However it does not make the claim of divinity real.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
@mysticgatekeeper "Jesus is who he claimed to be" Actually if you read the bible, it does not directly state he is the son of God or part of a trinity. That was a deliberate interpretation by the surviving cult of christianity. Other cults thought he was divinely chosen as a human prophet only, which allowed him to fulful some additional prophecies. Once Constantine backed one cult over the others, they killed the competition.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
@mysticgatekeeper Most of christianity's dogma comes from Paul, who never met Jesus.
Since Paul was a raving murdering lunatic who was also a pharisee he had every reason to polute the new Jewish cult by opening it up to gentiles (which was not originally intended), and brought the whole 'son of god' idea to a head.
Without Paul in the mix, I think Christianity would be FAR differrent than the cult we have today.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011 Jesus clearly claimed to be God. He referred to Himself as "I am", and said that before Abraham, He existed. He claimed to be the only way to the kingdom of heaven, the light of the world, the bread of life, the only way to the Father, the way, the truth, and the light. Jesus was either God, or He was insane. He referred to himself as the Son of God. He was not just any other prophet. He was God, or He was insane, there is no other option. Paul also did meet Jesus ;)
izunderoath 4 weeks ago
@izunderoath "Paul also did meet Jesus" He had visions of Jesus, but never met him when jesus was supposted to be alive. Saying Jesus appeared to him is not proof of anything. Paul realised he could not kill off the cult, but he might be able to redirect it. 1. Jesus never wrote anything down in the bible, its all hearsay so there are more options than you propose. He could be a legend/myth icon too, where stories were made up around an actual person.
AMomentOfClarity2011 4 weeks ago
@izunderoath "only way to the kingdom of heaven" He may have meant by following his teachings, not directly making him a god.
We are all children of god, so any reference to a son of god could have been taken out of context.
He prayed to God and asked to be released from his burden, he claims that god knows more than him, god refers to him as his son, he divides himself from god as his mediator only.
the bible is FULL of contradictions.
AMomentOfClarity2011 4 weeks ago
@izunderoath John's gospel is written by an unknown author, so its hard to know what Jesus actually said. Only Paul signed his texts.
Also saying 'I am' does not mean he is god.
AMomentOfClarity2011 4 weeks ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011 do you know what I AM means? its the same name God declared himself as.
BlackANDRedMaster 3 weeks ago
@BlackANDRedMaster which means nothing. References in the bible supporting other references in the bible are meaningless to an atheist. If I said "I AM" does it make me a god? The term is so vague and unspecific it does not prove anything at all.
While I appreciate you think it matters, I don't.
AMomentOfClarity2011 3 weeks ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011 You are right. A murdering lunatic would rather "pollute" the "cult" rather than kill it off. Logical, I must say.
izunderoath 4 weeks ago
providing that YOU want proof which brings us to this question. What are YOU prepared to do to find the answers you want about God?
How far are YOU willing to go to find if God is real?
You are one of those who relies on ignorance to attack something you don't understand or don't want to understand. Ignorance is not an excuse for anything. For those who believe no proof is required. For those who don't believe no proof is possible. You answered your own question.
mysticgatekeeper 1 month ago
@mysticgatekeeper "who relies on ignorance to attack something you don't understand" I was raised a christian and remained so for decades. So I have a good grasp of christianity, probably better than most. You are once again playing the faith card. This is an admission that you have no real evidence, outside of blind unquestioning belief.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011 I suppose God has yet to ordain pigs to fly, therefore, the evidence you're seeking shall continue to remain insufficient.
smithcm14 2 weeks ago
@smithcm14 Your god is supposed to be all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere? So why is it always claims that faith is needed to prove he exists to people. Why all the excuses. Why all the apologetic arguments that fail to prove anything at all, except if you have faith as the original premise.
Why is it SO difficult to find any tangible evidence for a supreme being, for ANY religion.
I am sure your god has the knowledge of what it would take to convince me.
AMomentOfClarity2011 2 weeks ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011 Hmm...I suppose all the scientific mechanisms working harmoniously through natural law, formulating the world around you and sustaining your existence and everything and everyone around you, as well as the human experience and moral intuition you contain is obviously terrible evidence of any supreme causation or cohesion.Clearly, existence existing because it exists is the best explanation for the natural world and human experience.
smithcm14 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smithcm14 "Clearly, existence existing because it exists is the best explanation for the natural world and human experience." Bingo. Just supports Occams Razor perfectly. Adding a supernatural being on top of natural explanations is redundant.
Morality has nothing to do with a god. Every culture has morality, regardless of which god they worship (or none at all). Even other animals have degrees of morality. Its required to get along with each other.
AMomentOfClarity2011 2 weeks ago
@smithcm14 Looking at the chaos and terrible 'design' of nature, the obvious application of evolution in the diversity of life, the massive size of the cosmos, and the history of mankind shows no evidence that a god exists, or to be more accurate, no personal god(s) that many religions proclaim exists. Deism, vague by default, is still somewhat valid, although I think their arguments are from ignorance and incredulity (not insults but classes of arguments).
AMomentOfClarity2011 2 weeks ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011 Clearly you making assertions that you assume I take, and going through the motions of most stereotypical atheists. Your stance is one is that can't help but be right because it is a completely negative and skeptical stance and is therefore inevitably must be correct. Here is an example, convince me that the natural world actually exists. Oh, or why this interaction between us is meaningful outside of us just calling it meaningful?
smithcm14 2 weeks ago
@smithcm14 Ah, shifting the burden of proof again. The claim is made that a god exists by theists. In particular a god their texts or beliefs support.
I see no reason to believe that such a being exists. The natural world existing? There are basic axioms I accept. One is that reality exists and we are not brains in a jar somewhere (matrix type). All evidence leads to this conclusion. all senses show that reality exists. While I do not rule out other realms, no proof exists yet.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 week ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011 Ah, shifting to the fallacy of changing the subject completely. First, by "burden of proof" you of course refer to justifying your stance as inevitably valid due to the fact that you don't find alternative explanations personally compelling. Well, in that case and with that logic, I really have no reason to believe holocaust or 9/11 ever happend. I certainly wasn't there, they teach it in my university or on the news, but why believe those things in the first place?
smithcm14 1 week ago
@smithcm14 "justifying your stance as inevitably valid" the default stance is disbelief until proven otherwise. Everyone uses this method. theists and atheists.
Otherwise you believe ALL claims regardless of evidence as true. The first thing a theist does when confronted with another religion is point out the flaws in its evidence.
If you are going to build a strawman case saying that you cannot see any reason to accept recent historical events unless you are present. Poor examples.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 week ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011 The problem with most believers, of which I am one, is that they seek to try and explain everything inexplicable and that is our biggest mistake. Christianity is predicated upon faith, therefore we believers need to understand that we are merely messengers and not the message itself. It is quite difficult, if not impossible, to argue evidence where tangibility doesn't exist, especially when the very God we assert exists is the greatest of intangibles.
AMERICASMANRONPAUL 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AMERICASMANRONPAUL 1st. Thanks for being polite, its a rare thing on YT.
"Christianity is predicated upon faith" Name a religion that is not based on faith.
If faith is the cornerstone for all religions, how can you be surprised that people like myself find it unconvincing. faith is accepting something without evidence. What stops that belief being in error? (methodologically)
AMomentOfClarity2011 3 days ago
@smithcm14 You can gather data from a vast amount of independant sources about 9/11 for example to prove it happened. I have stood where the towers stood.
However if I said a wizard helped destroy the towers, would you believe me? No. IF I said there were 500 witnesses to the wizard causing explosions in the tower with his wand, would you believe me? after all 9/11 happened? Or would you need more EVIDENCE for extraordinary claims.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 week ago
@smithcm14 There are conspiracy theories about both your examples. Are they true?
The evidence that holocaust deniers use are flawed. The 9/11 truthers often misunderstand science when they claim the collapse needed explosives.
In all circumstances people look for evidence, and NOT from just the sources of the conspiracy people.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 week ago
@smithcm14 "shifting to the fallacy of changing the subject completely." I pointed out your fallacy but addressed all your post. I answered your questions. So once again FAIL.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 week ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011 The point is, is that the basic axioms you accept, as an atheist/ theist, whatever, are ultimately subjective. You say there isn't enough proof for this or that, and the next person can make the same skeptical rationalization against this and the other. Whether it be scientific, historical, theological, political, or whatever. The standards and methodologies you take in obtaining knowledge varies depending on your philosophical stance which you have likely taken as granted.
smithcm14 1 week ago
@smithcm14 "that the basic axioms you accept, as an atheist/ theist, whatever, are ultimately subjective." Everything is subjective. But that does not mean all points of view are equal in validity. evidence is still required.
I consider reality real. I don't believe we are brains in a jar. Furthermore there is no value in considering that alternative matrix concept anyway as it removes all possible point to existance as its all a false illusion.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 week ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011 "Everything is subjective." and then "I consider reality real." Those two beliefs contradict each other, if you can't see that then you're as narrow minded as the evangelical Christians you bash. There are so many flaws in your argument. It's exhausting dealing with people like you because when you point out the contradictions in their argument they just gloss over it and change the subject.
NodeRanvier 1 week ago
@NodeRanvier "Those two beliefs contradict each other" Not really. The human viewpoint of reality is subjective as our senses are limited, as is my own personal viewpoint which is emotional. Science is objective in theory but basic axioms are required to work off. Reality is real as far as anyone can assertain.
I have not ruled out other dimensions, or realms, or gods. I simply rule out CLAIMS about gods or other realms until I have been convinced with evidence.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NodeRanvier "There are so many flaws in your argument." really? I never claimed that I was perfect, or that I could not be wrong on any topic. I simply state that as far as I am aware, reality exists. If someone makes a claim that goes OUTSIDE our current knowledge of reality, they must back it up.
If you can show reality does not exist, by all means do so.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 week ago
@NodeRanvier "It's exhausting dealing with people like you because when you point out the contradictions in their argument they just gloss over it and change the subject." OR, you might just not be very good at debating people like me.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 week ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011 I debate people like you all the time and I beat them just like you keep getting beat here.
NodeRanvier 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NodeRanvier How did I get beat here? You have not put forward any arguement that proves a god exists and I find it amusing you think that by talking to me you somehow beat me.
AMomentOfClarity2011 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NodeRanvier I think people seem to think the word 'subjective' is somehow derogatory.
We are a limited species mentally and physically, that have evolved mechanisms to subjectively decide what is real or imagined. The standards used to distinguish between these two areas depend on the claim and the risk. More evidence is required for claims that are more outlandish and present a greater risk to the individual.
Risk being how we interpret the world.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 week ago
@smithcm14 "The standards and methodologies you take in obtaining knowledge varies depending on your philosophical stance which you have likely taken as granted." to some degree I would accept that the stance does affect your standards and methodologies.
But does that mean ANY stance is valid? No. The gathering of evidence is used by all parties to distinguish between fact and fiction. the amount and type of evidence required to accept something is subjective. I have high standards.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 week ago
Comment removed
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 week ago
@smithcm14 "this interaction between us is meaningful outside of us just calling it meaningful?" That depends on how you define meaningful, doesn't it?
I apologise for making assertions you personally might not hold. In the format of YT, generalisations are common and unfortunately difficult to avoid as you did yourself by linking me to 'stereotypical atheists', whatever that means.
Do you find it impossible to view the natural world as enough by itself? Why require more?
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 week ago
@smithcm14 Your argument would result in adding a god to every natural explanation.
"why does it rain?" -watervapor rises then cools, condensation occurs and when heavy enough gravity does the rest = rain.
You then add "god did it" on top of that. No reason for doing it outside of your upbringing in a particular faith. You have zero evidence for god being responsible. Do you laugh at native americans doing rain dances? That is how atheists see theists when they stick a god everywhere.
AMomentOfClarity2011 2 weeks ago
@smithcm14 what evidence would you need to believe in ANOTHER religion's claim about their god? If they used the same excuses as your apologetics do (modified to match their texts) would you believe them?
AMomentOfClarity2011 2 weeks ago
@smithcm14 And your evidence that he doesn't exists is???
Godexists100 2 weeks ago
@mysticgatekeeper You might also learn to actually REPLY to me. Go to one of my posts, and press REPLY then type your comment.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
you take that step of faith. WIthout faith, nothing I can say to you will convince you. God challenges you to test him for proof. The conclusion here is what are you prepared to do to find God? How far are you willing to go to find the evidence you want? Answer that question to yourself first and then you'll have a starting point. Until then, don't expect anything to happen to you. God doesn't crash the party. He waits for you to open the door.
The ball is in your court.
mysticgatekeeper 2 months ago
@mysticgatekeeper "God challenges you to test him for proof." where in your scriptures does god state this. Jesus said you should not put God to the test (when satan was tempting him on the mountain) and he praises belief without evidence openly (doubting Thomas). The history of your religion is based on damning those who doubt and forging false evidence (shroud of Turin) to trick people.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 month ago
@mysticgatekeeper I think you are confused on who Pascal is, or else you are calling him "my friend" sarcastically. You say his argument is flawed, and I agree. But that's exactly the argument you used in your first response when you said "When you take your last breath on this earth you will take your first breath in eternity. Having said that, where will YOU spend eternity?"
jordaniac89 2 months ago
I believe in God and what Christ did so I know that I am spending eternity with God. I choose to follow him and if that means insulting or offending the world then so be it. Of all the the people to be concerned about with where they will spend eternity, you should be concerned with yourself. After all, you alone will have to stand before him and give an account. You won't have a lawyer defending you. You'll be defending yourself.
mysticgatekeeper 2 months ago
@jordaniac89 I actually think he referred to his salvation being as a consuming fire, as opposed to a fear of burning eternally.
Find out a bit more of Jesus, without any preconceived ideas - you might be surprised.
DaLaw66 2 months ago
@DaLaw66 I've done it. Maybe you should do the same. The existence of Jesus is very, very sketchy. He probably did live, but his existence was blown waaaay out of proportion. There are no eyewitness accounts of his existence. Period. If you can find me some clear, verifiable evidence that he was the son of a god, I'm all ears. And please, don't use Josephus.
jordaniac89 2 months ago
Wow, one guy changed his mind, therefore God. Not quite how it works, friends.
JaytheOstrich 3 months ago
@JaytheOstrich That's not even his argument. Is your comprehension really that poor?
RighteousPaladin 2 months ago
@JaytheOstrich I encourage you to listen to his argument again from an unbiased perspective; i do not believe you clearly understood what he was presenting.
FluffyStrings 2 months ago
I find it hilarious how people think they know more than Ravi...no respect is given but again you can't expect much from atheists they are just following their DNA as Dawkins puts it so I guess in their mind it is okay to think they are right. Not only move past what he says but also accuse him of being phony and hollow...Ravi would man-handle all of these ignoramuses
HaShim383 3 months ago
@HaShim383 i agree with that statement. On the internet people seem to think their opinion is law or something. This guy is an expert who has lived his whole life analyzing philosophy and thought. One thing i love about Ravi is that he doesn't disrespect those who think or believe differently. This is one thing many christians struggle with...We forget that we are to love and respect others, "gently instructing them in the Word": not refuting them as ignorant fools.
FluffyStrings 2 months ago
Ravi is preaching to the choir here, not answering atheists!
Everything about this guy rings hollow and phony.
maxpolaris99 3 months ago in playlist Ravi Zacharias Answers Atheists
@maxpolaris99 Well, he's answering atheists to freethinkers, not narrow-minded people who have made up their mind that there is ultimately no moral standard.
RighteousPaladin 2 months ago
@RighteousPaladin morals from Skybeard McJudgy?
maxpolaris99 2 weeks ago
How arrogant to presume to know what Jesus and Wilde would say in response to one another.
supermandan85 3 months ago in playlist Ravi Zacharias Answers Atheists
@supermandan85 Thus the word "imaginary." How arrogant to presume to the word "know."
RighteousPaladin 2 months ago
@supermandan85 He had said that the dialogue was a hypothetical one. I encourage you to review the series a second time so that you can really grasp what he is saying; it's not something that can be comprehended so easily from a single listening. I also would like to ask you to find some fault in his logic, rather than a fault in an ill-perceived caricature of Ravi himself. His character is not the issue. Side note, what is arrogance, then? Why do you believe it to be a negative characteristic?
FluffyStrings 2 months ago
Ravi is confusing nihilism with secularism. There is a very distinct difference here and Zacharias should know better than to include such a fallacy in his opening. Don't think Im going to watch the rest...
zbboston 4 months ago in playlist Ravi Zacharias Answers Atheists
@zbboston I believe that is a poor excuse for not watching the rest of his videos. It's seemingly apparent that you watched the video without an open mindset. Instead of trying to understand the concepts, you simply searched for a way to discredit him. I strongly recommend that you watch the series in its entirety. Even if you don't believe any of what he's saying, it's still an intellectually stimulating argument.
FluffyStrings 2 months ago
With God, anything is allowable too. God can command anything, including the most immoral act possible.
drfoxcourt 4 months ago
@drfoxcourt "God can command anything, including the most immoral act possible."
What is the, "most immoral act possible?" And what mechanism do you use to define morals?
HeReformedMe 4 months ago
@HeReformedMe "What is the, "most immoral act possible?" And what mechanism do you use to define morals?"
All one must do is imagine a worst case scenario (ex. world full of suffering). Clearly such a world is not a moral one, since any other case would be better. That is the basis by which I would define immorality. God could command that such a worst case world exist (hell?). God's commanding it does not make it moral. God cannot be the source of morality, only the source of ultimate tyranny
drfoxcourt 4 months ago
"God could command that such a worst case world exist (hell?). God's commanding it does not make it moral."
You see, it seems here you'd have to demonstrate why it is that God would not or could not have morally sufficient reasons for allowing hell to exist. When we consider the HItlers, Stalins and Neros of the world, clearly we can understand God's reasons for judgement. Is it your position that the evil and wickedness in the world should go unpunished?
HeReformedMe 4 months ago 2
@HeReformedMe You appear to miss my point. The idea that God could order a worst case world is evidence that God is not moral. You do not need to consider hell. One does not need to consider the Torquemada's Idi Amins, and Cortezes (all killing in the name of religion and for the good of the murdered).
If we do consider hell, Who goes to hell? Only bad people? Anyone who doesn't believe in the correct God? Anyone not accepting Jesus (incl babies)? The mentally deficient? Only atheists?
drfoxcourt 4 months ago
@drfoxcourt Have you read the book of enoch?
gianboy2001 4 months ago
@gianboy2001 Yes I have read it. Not part of either the standard Christian or Jewish canon. Do you think the description of heaven, hell, angels, and all the rest is correct? How do you know it is correct, particularly since no living being has seen any of it.
It does not matter to the central point. Any conception of God cannot include God being a source for morality. We cannot know God and the Bible is certainly incorrect in its assumptions about God.
drfoxcourt 4 months ago
@drfoxcourt That is true that it was not canon but that doesn't mean it's not true. This scripture was discovered in 1773 but scriptures that cross reference to this was dated before the Christ. Most people doesn't accept it because it is outside the bible even there are hundreds of scriptures being discovered all the time.
If God is not the source of Morality then what is? is it our society?
gianboy2001 4 months ago
@gianboy2001 "This scripture was discovered in 1773 but scriptures that cross reference to this was dated before the Christ."
This suggests to me that Jesus of Nazereth might have adopted part of the Book of Enoch and based his notions of Hell on it, rather than notions of Hell based in fact. After all, no one (not even Jesus) has ever experienced Hell and returned to report their findings.
I certainly don't subscribe to the idea that God is the source of morality, if indeed there is a source.
drfoxcourt 4 months ago
@drfoxcourt Do you agree that the existence of Christ is real?
Who is the source of morality in your point of view? Or how did it started?
gianboy2001 4 months ago
@gianboy2001 Putting this as carefully as I can and after considering the evidence. Christ is not real, Jesus of Nazereth was real. Demonstrating the Jesus existed does not in any way show that he was divine (or a redemptive agent).
As to the source of morality, I think you put the question poorly. Not "Who is the source of morality" but what should we be using as our guide for morality. I think honesty, facts, and our evolving nature are far superior sources.
drfoxcourt 4 months ago
@drfoxcourt So you believe in Jesus but not in his miracle? okay.
The things that we see around us can be use as a fact for both ways. We just need to see who is in better position for it. The facts points to a direction where our moral values keeps getting worse and thinking that our morality came from nothing and started out us nothing and evolve to a better moral values is to flawed. Where do you see our moral values in the next 100 years?
gianboy2001 4 months ago
@gianboy2001The Biblical source, the divine source, or the Christian source for morality is clearly wrong. When theocracy rules, we were never in a worse state. History shows that when we rule based on "what God wants, totalitarian brutality is justified and reigns supreme because God approves.
We need only imagine a worst case scenario of human suffering to understand that morality lies in the opposite direction.
drfoxcourt 4 months ago
@drfoxcourt "Second part" Now what kind of moral value we had back in 1700s. Can you imagine younger people swearing at older people? Now does that support your arguement where our moral values started out us NONE then coming back to NONE again?
gianboy2001 4 months ago
@gianboy2001Please clarify. I want to answer the question but don't understand it.
Anyway... I in no way wish to convey that morality comes from nothing or goes for nothing. Morality is an emergent phenomenon of our social nature. I hope you accept that we are highly socialized primates. If you understand what it takes for humanity to survive (predators, disease, competition) you might see the reason we have morals. This is why we had slavery and why we no longer tolerate it
drfoxcourt 4 months ago
@drfoxcourt These are all hypothesis. You can't back up what you just said. For you to say that you have to be 100% sure that there is no intelligence behind it. Slavery comes and goes. You never know if it will come back. All we need is a NWO and we are back to slavery. I am talking about how are life is slowly losing morality because people don't look at the moral foundation base on the bible. What is your moral foundation? Is it the request of your so called socialized primates?
gianboy2001 4 months ago
@gianboy2001 You don't need to look at the Bible as a starting point. You can refer to the sayings of the Buddha or Confucius. Heck you can read Dr Suess. The Bible is full of immoral as well as moral examples.
Society is not deteriorating because it has stopped looking at the Bible. If anything, we are undermining a sound moral framework by insisting that such a repugnant ideology is the one we must base our lives on.
I back up my hypothesis with evidence, Christianity has less foundation.
drfoxcourt 4 months ago
@drfoxcourt Show me immoral teaching from God in the Bible. You say you've studied Bible but yet you failed to interpret it correctly. You chose to Interpret it how the haters do. You must be Blind if you think that Society is not deteriorating, Have you seen the news lately? There is a reason why gay sex is not allowed in the Bible, It can get you sick and your new partner. If your sexually active and you get sick and if you think that's OK then you should check on your moral values.
gianboy2001 4 months ago
@drfoxcourt Wat evidence have u given me other than telling me that the moral values has evolve with no evidence just words. Just a question, Do you agree that there is no God or you are agnostic?
The basis of your moral has no foundation, It can change anytime the people of this world request it and You have to be blind not to know that Moral Values is slowly deteriorating. Just an honest question and not trying to offend you, how old are you? Just want to know if you where here long enough
gianboy2001 4 months ago
@drfoxcourt "If we do consider hell, Who goes to hell?"
In short, I think it's clear, that according to Christian theology, those who go to hell ultimately go there because they wanted to. Either they would not or could not recognize their sin, nor the Holiness of God. As a result, the idea of God's grace and mercy is nothing but noise in their ears.
And just so you know, while it's true "bad people" will be in hell, they will also be in heaven. Some get "grace," some get "justice."
HeReformedMe 4 months ago
@HeReformedMe "I think it's clear, that according to Christian theology..."
And on what is that theology based? The wishes of some1st or 2nd century writer? It certainly wasn't based on evidence. We don't know if hell exists. If we assume, we don't know why people go there. We take in on faith (a poor substitute for actual knowledge) that what some early christian writer(s) got it right and that their assessment was faithfully translated over the centuries. That is not a reasonable assumption.
drfoxcourt 4 months ago
@drfoxcourt The reliability of the NT is an important question one should investigate. However the questions raised are not questions that can be adequately addressed on this format. If you'd like, I would be willing to exchange P.M.'s. If not, I understand.
But there really are good answers to your questions. Good day Doc
HeReformedMe 4 months ago
@HeReformedMe Reliability of NT: How many pieces of Silver was Judas paid for betraying Jesus? (Matthew 26:15)
Truth is silver coins were not used in Judea for 300 years before Jesus's betrayal, so the chance of being paid in silver was in essence zero. The entry in the NT was made to agree with Zechariah 11:12-13. How many other stories regarding Jesus were made to fit the prophesies?
If one part of the Bible is true, that certainly doesn't make any other part of the bible true.
drfoxcourt 4 months ago
Comment removed
nateking60mm 4 months ago
It's okay to be spiritual people. It enriches us as a person and as a community to constantly try to better ourselves. But part of improving yourself includes keeping your mind open to new ideas and being humble enough to accept certain truths even if they conflict with something you have vehemently believed in your whole life. This is how we progress as a species. It's a beautiful thing and if there is a God, then he most certainly values an objective mind than a blindly subservient one.
nateking60mm 4 months ago
...him. Please think about it.
kmfiz 4 months ago
@steelrain2012 You are a fan of science, that's great because God is the ultimate scientist, the father of science. Please lower your blonding pride and see that God is the Creator of all things and he lovingly created you and with the same love sacrificed himself for you. He's waiting for you to come ton
kmfiz 4 months ago
@kmfiz I am not just a "fan" of science, I am dependent on it. So are you. Do you think without science we would be having this conversation? God didn't discover the electron, or the means to control it. He didn't invent the TV or tell us how intricate the spectrum of light is or that we can use it to send radio messages to each other. If you want to call science and god the same thing, fine. Like I said, science doesn't have all the answers, there is no "pride" in saying that. Consider your own
nateking60mm 4 months ago
atheists don't just expect answers... we offer answers through science. Which just so happens to be the only place you can get a genuine answer about anything. Keep forcing yourselves to believe in ancient fairy tales and see where it gets you. You'll stay under the thumb of people who whisper whatever they want into your ears and you will believe them because you love to live in your ignorance. god... people like this make me sick to my stomach....
steelrain2012 5 months ago
@steelrain2012 Ancient fairy tales? you're basically saying I as a christian am dumb? That's what everybody said to Christopher Columbus. But he was right now wasn't he? All odds against him. Their science was different back then. now we realize he was right. This process will repeat itself. Please ask God to forgive you of your sins and accept him into your heart. I don't want anybody to go to hell.
mrNoFoe 5 months ago
@mrNoFoe Yes, ancient fairy tales. Or fables, or parables or whatever you want to call them. Thousands of years ago before mankind had the modern tools to discern what defines the reality of our universe, we simply guessed. ALL GODS and ALL CREATION MYTHS every told were to explain how we got here and why we are here. Your religion isn't special. But it's yours. I am simply implying that scientific answers as to why we are here and what things are made of can come only through science.
nateking60mm 4 months ago