god can not account for objective morality. either he makes it up arbitrarily, and can decide to make anything good or evil, or the source is not god, but something outside of god where he gets it from, and god is not necessary for morality. so christians can not account for their morality any better than atheists.
@brownbigb On the contrary, atheists can account for their own morality, there just isn't an objective morality... that would imply everyone had the same morality
With a couple grams of grey matter it is not at all difficult to create a model where altruism (aka morals) can positively influence survival and thus be a factor in natural selection. As you have mentioned in this vid. This is all that's necessary to explain the basis of morals. As you also point out the god of the bible is about as imoral as you can get according to anyone's civilized standards. Ditto for allah and just about any other diety you can quote.
@55chh The God of the bible is immmoral, meaning bad? What is your basis of good and bad, right and wrong? And if morals is just a result of grey matter, 1) How do you know this? Did you observe this and know this to be true for all people? 2) I guess everyone has different morals or murderers have deficient grey matter than the rest of us elite grey-matter moralistic amoebas.
@peetuhpanda Yes the god depicted in the bible is a vindictive, jealous, deceptive, pompous, cruel, murderous beast. According to my moral code (which is not based on any religion) that makes "him" bad. Antisocial in people behavior continues as an aberration however natural selection tends toward weeding it out.
The attempt to be moral therefore, only takes place when I assess whether I can gain more from this person without harming them, than if I do harm them. Seems very selfish to me. The moment someone's life is not able to give you "benefit" (which is subjective, for a psychopath, murder may benefit him or even a wife who catches her husband cheating, etc), you are released from your interdependency to do whatever you want AND as long as no one finds out (which happens), your reputation is clean.
@peetuhpanda People tend not to commit murder because they have; evolved a degree of sympathy, because they fear being caught and the consequences and because they have been conditioned to believe it wrong
@alsdaftab1e How do you know this? And you are still begging the question: who were they conditioned by to believe murder is wrong? You still end up with murder being wrong only because 1) consequences 2) reputation 3) survival. All three can be avoided anyways and hence, murder is not wrong by that definition. I can murder, avoid consequences, keep my reputation, and promote my survival at the same time.
Morality as a man-created thing leaves no objective basis for right or wrong
She says morality boils down to things that we do for our own survival, but we will NOT harm others because we may need things from them at a time and because we are interdependent beings.
So if I can murder someone and get away with it, I seem to benefit my survival AND because no one knows or can catch me, I can continue receiving benefits from others.
Your system depends on whether the consequences will outweigh the benefits to any given person, which is highly subjective.
@joshanator1 I think it's a learned behaviour to an extent, due to the evolution of society. I also think there are genes for it too..there is evidently a hormone/s that induces sympathy and empathy and the moral code is deduced from that, that's why morals vary from one person to the next
I would like to go through any documents or studies that were conducted by "you" to allow you to come to this conclusion. I am not saying that you are wrong, I would just like to see the material you used that caused you to come to this decision.
@joshanator1 to be honest it's a number of years since my biology degree, an I can't remember the specifics, but most of it is common sense, if the basics are there. How Dmitry Belyaev's foxes became dogs gives an example of genetic manipulation of natural selection. You can see how the brain reacts to hormones in ever day life... for instance why as a male you'll change so drastically between the ages of 18 and 28 for instance due to the levels of testosterone. etc etc
@alsdaftab1e What a dangerous statement. Morals can "vary"? So you have no objective basis to tell a murderer that what he is doing is wrong? It's your moral code vs his. Sorry, I just ended up with a different moral code that told me to not kill, but you ended up with one that did. Right... You don't live like that. You may believe it, but inconsistently. I'm glad you're inconsistent.
@peetuhpanda Yes, all three can be avoided, that's why you get murderers...those murderers tend to feel remorse because they have evolved to feel sympathy and they've been conditioned to believe it wrong. There is no black and white, you're conditioned by the standards of your parents, your peers and the society you inhabit. the objective basis you have to say that someone is right or wrong is from the general consensus of society, enforced by a government and a police force
@joshanator1 So then what we do with it is subjective. A murderer can say that well he evolved differently I guess. Or he was brought up differently, like terrorists in the middle east. Also begs the question, is there a universal absolute standard of morality? Your definition makes it subject to individual interpretation. Where do morals come from if it is "learned"?
@peetuhpanda Of course morality is subjective... you for instance may despise people who take drugs or carry out abortions, where as I do not... but who is to say that I am right or that you are right? depends on your point of view ie subjective... sympathy is innate in humans... because over generations people who feel sympathy are less inclined to be aggressive and more likely to survive to reproduce... morality stems from that
well i look at death as a combination of evoulotion and reincarnation where as soon as u die u can be reborn because every second 3 people die 5 are born which leaves two empty vessels which either generate two new people or we all started out as single celled organisms and had to work are way up the latter untill we became monkeys after you die from your monkey form then u get to the final stage which is human and once again once ur human you always remain human goerge carlin has been reborn
1st Corinthians 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1st Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1st Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom KNEW NOT GOD, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
@joshanator1 Wow, you see somethings never change. Thats exactly what the serpent (Satan) said to Eve you shall be as Gods same old lie of the devil! Just as you believe the lie of the Serpnet you think your God lol For it is written:
4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Geeisis 3:4-5 kjv
Look at this Video here on youtube an atheist turned believer do to his death experience!
Cut n Paste link: Heaven & Hell. Atheist professor in Hell! Meets Jesus (Near Death Experience. NDE)
LoL you don't have to rationalize a thought to watch a simple video LOL this is not a debate just a simple old fashion testimony of a former fellow atheist.
The new atheists need a serious reality check. Morality is not tied to either society, or some mystical godly commandment. So long as you subscribe to the subjective view of morality the very mystics of religion do, you're doomed to their same failure-- misery qua misery.
"When the looters' state collapses, deprived of the best of its slaves, when it falls to a level of impotent chaos, like the mystic-ridden nations of the Orient, and dissolves into starving robber gangs fighting to rob one another - when the advocates of the morality of sacrifice perish with their final ideal-then and on that day we will return."-John Galt "I swear - by my life and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
@superbad1972 "Look at this Video here on youtube an Atheist turned believer do to his death experience"
On what basis should we watch this video?
It's an atheist and not an Atheist.
Being a former atheist gives no credibility to any claim, incredulity is more than enough, no special education, rationality or intelligence is necessary.
3 04 slavery - I am going to share this with MaxMcc who claims to be a Christian and thinks slavery is "moral", because some people "choose" it. He agrees that rape and murder are wrong.
As for any Christians that may have watched this video and still do not understand how atheists can account for morality, let me put it in simpler terms.
What you speak of is something called "absolute morality", the bible and other "holy" books teach these absolute moralities such as thou shall not kill.
Of course something like this sounds completely logical, however "thou shall keep the sabbath holy" makes totally no sense in society.
I would rather have a good thought out and debated morality.
Slavery was 200 years ago alright because people used the bible to justify this, I'm glad we now knoq better than that, better than 2000 year old books
I'm a good person. I work with kids, I volunteer my time for the needy, and I spend time with my family. I also contribute to the occasional charity. I try not to lie and I'm trustworthy.
BUT
Because I don't accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior I am dammed to hell where my skin will forever melt from my bones and my screams of agony will echo throughout eternity.
That's my problem with Christianity. The punishment doesn't fit the crime.
I think one of the most important things to take note of in what was said here is that we don't know everything. I chose to be agnostic because I learned that there is more to life and the world around me than what the bible had to teach me. There are philosophies and ideas that I have learnt which have gone unnoticed, even disregarded, by some religions. Morality, like religion, revolves around life, not vice versa.
Everyone has with in themselves to do good things or bad. No matter what your beleifs are (or are'nt) We all know right from wrong and we all have a choice.
@porterhouseful Renee also made a video here in which she shows her pussy. I myself have a fat pussy like that too. Mine is black, but it's also a Main coon kat. Wth a furry tail and a fat ass. Conrad Anderson, CNN, The Netherlands.
As always! Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I think it's moments like these really help people sit down with themselves or others and think things through. No matter the cause or reasoning, people are still people. Were all on equal grounds on something :)
it's so funny that "atheists" use so many different names for God when it suits there purpose. They pride themselves on "calling out" the many different names that God has been called. They leave out the differences in all of these different ways of perceiving God. I guess it's easier to deny God than to sift through the many different human perceptions of God. Am I glad I'm not an "atheist".
Thank you so much for accurately representing the Christian claim. You are right that Christians are NOT arguing that atheists cannot be moral; only that they are unable to ground morality in atheism. You apparently disagree with the Christian claim but yet you accurately represent it in this video. That is very rare in my experience so, again, I thank you.
@suvarenee Several mistakes: (A) Beliefs about moral principles may change, but the truth of moral principles do not. Take,“Slavery is wrong.” There was a change of belief about slavery before and after the Civil War, not a change in principle. It is not as if Slavery was “good” one day, and “bad” the next. Slavery was always “bad.” To suppose otherwise is moral relativism, and entails the absence of an objective foundation of morality, they very thing you pretend to argue for.
@suvarenee (B) You seem to offer some quasi-evolution account of the orign of moral belief. But explaining the origin of a moral belief does not explain why they are true, much less objective. If that were the case, then had we evolved to believe “murder is ok,” then, according to you, we would be right. But this is false.
@suvarenee ......Apparently, chimpanzees believe ripping the genitals off male sexual competitors is ok. Does that mean such an action is ok for everyone because this belief is a product of evolutionary development? I seriously doubt it. Hitler's beliefs were also a product of evolutionary development. Because he thought genocide was ok, therefore genocide was ok? I doubt it. Therefore, the truth of moral principles are not contingent on evolutionary histories.
@suvarenee (C) Finallly, in your attempt to ground objective moral principles, you try to identify the Moral Good with something like "human well-being" or "human flourishing," and evil with something like "individual harm." But this won't work. Of course individual harm is a bad thing, and human flourishing a good thing. But these are predicative statements, not identity statements. So it doesn't follow that the Moral Good just IS human flourishing. Proof they are not identical:
@suvarenee ....Suppose there are two worlds, A and B. And suppose both A and B tie for the maximum amount of human flourishing, but in world A, everyone is a psychopath, and in world B, everyone is virtuous. Which world is more Morally Good? Clearly, world B in which people are virtuous and not psychopaths. Therefore, Moral Good =/= human flourishing.
Human flourishing is defined as “to live within an optimal range of human functioning, one that connotes goodness, generativity, growth, and resilience.”
If you are suggesting that the psychopaths A world ties with virtuous world B, than I would like to know what NEGATIVE aspect of world B balanced the tendency of World A’s psychopathic behavior?
You need to rephrase your question, you’ve only shown that not all morals are equally valuated in different worlds.
--Any vice will do. How about failing to be humble, for instance? Humility is a virtue. And any world in which a everyone flourished but one person was not humble would be a world showing human floursihing =/= the moral good.
You cannot judge the quality of a world by the failure of one or more elements, we need to consider that not everyone is going to abide, otherwise we would likely be in a robotic life without free will and the goodness and morality would simply be a biological aspect of each person or it’s well applied due to threats and severe control, and this alone is not an ideal world.
We need to consider that the people are able to understand and choose.
@saintpine "You cannot judge the quality of a world by the failure of one or more elements"
--Sure you can. If we suppose A and B are IDENTICAL in every respect except one feature, then it's rather easy. Talking about "possible worlds" is just a semantic device philosophers use to draw out these distinctions. All I am saying is that of two worlds identical in every respect, the world in which one more person is humble is the better the world. Is it not? Why would it not be?
Let's ignore for a while that I don't agree that “humble” is a virtue, your argument would be correct if being humble is intrinsically in the nature of the people in one world, in reality we have people that need to understand concepts of being humble, accept them and follow them as best as possible.
The success in one world cannot be an indication of its advantage because it could depend on other aspects, like the efficiency of education, control and punishment.
@saintpine Where does my argument say that humility is "intrinsic to people in the world"? I'm not following. You're going off track from my point. If you don't think humility is a virtue, that's fine. My argument works with the virtue of prudence too, one of 4 Cardinal Virtues of the ancient Greeks. The point is that I gave several arguments for the conclusion that the Moral Good is not identical to interdependence, flourishing, or social functioning. Do you disagree. If so, why?
@saintpine You/Renee have trouble understanding what is going on. When ethical philosophers talk about "the moral good," they mean something like "good in itself" or "good without qualification," which is why something like social functioning (group efficiency/resilience) is not good without qualification. It only requires one instance in which an action is both socially functional and evil, like the functional genocide of the Nazi Party, to make social functioning =/= the moral good
@saintpine Another counterexample: Worlds A and B are identical in every respect tying for maximal human flourishing, such that every person is kind and fair to the other person, with one only exception. In world A there is one person whose only motive for treating others kind is selfish, not because it is the right thing to do. So he is kind to everyone, but only because it benefits himself. World B is clearly the better world, even when both worlds tie for human flourishing.
@suvarenee Why would you think some vague notion of "interdependence" is identical to the Good? Interdependence seems to be a useful strategy to promote the Good, but it is flat out false to say it just IS the Good. Even violent gangs are interdependent, but I wouldn't say their interdependence grounded the principle that murder is wrong when they happen to engage in, and endorse, murder. I see no logical connection there.
@grunderlyme Concerning your statement 2 paragraphs above, based on our accumulated knowledge of psychopaths, I don't think that an entirely psychopathic world could ever be a socially functional world.
In Violent gangs, perhaps there is some cohesion and interdependence among their internal structure, but if the gang is harming outsiders, they are still causing harm to society at large.
@suvarenee Social functioning? But people in groups can function together quite well with amazing speed and efficiency to promote evil. Nazi Germany? So social functioning =/= the Moral Good. The point is that, of two worlds, A and B, that are tied for maximal human flourishing, if there is at least one less virtuous person in A over B, then B is the morally better world independent of human flourishing.
@suvarenee "perhaps there is some cohesion and interdependence among their internal structure, but if the gang is harming outsiders, they are still causing harm to society at large."
@suvarenee Renee, if what is Good were identical to what is Interdependent, then everything that was not Interdependent would not be Good (but Evil). --This is wrong. Interdependence may be useful for promoting what is good (and evil), but it's not the cause that interdpendence just IS the Good. Take an illustration..
@suvarenee ..Two companies, one of which manufactures ketchup, the other mustard, are "interdependent" in the sense that the profits of one company depend on the sales of the condiment of the other company, since ketchup & mustard are what economists call "complimentary goods" often bought at the same time. But is a company that sells BOTH ketchup & mustard independently of other companies therefore "evil" on account of not being interdependent? No. So Interdependence=/=the Moral Good
@evangelical1 Unable to ground morality in atheism? Uh, gee, what was your first hint? Atheism isnt an ideology, it isnt a doctrine, it isnt even dogmatic - it is simply a rejection of theistic claims. Thats it, nothing more. You say "Jesus did such and such" - we say "no evidence? Don't believe ya". That simple act is what makes one an atheist. Anything else is something else. Full stop. Try remembering that.
n virtuesAre morals not continuly improving...largly due to secular thought and disscusion.Societies treatment of say women,homosexuals even animals is constanly improving...abolishment of slavery.If we were only getting morals from religion would they not be set at pre history values...i dont beleive in god as set out in the bible..and certainly not religion...but im the nicest gut i know.tho that could speak more for the company i keep..than my ow
@rhov233 DON'T BLAME HER.........red-heads subconsciously use sex as a means of domination and assertion.
They are ALL super horny ALL of the time.
I say this in half jest, but there are sometimes I think to myself "damn, this redhead girl is really sexy, but shes really crazy and horny? I'm scared."
Creationism is bullshit. The last three popes have recognized evolution, majority of Orthodox/Catholics have in Canada, and an Orthodox Christian scientist helped promote Darwinism. Creationists need to give up.
morality is subjective by any account. In the bible is you break a commandment you are to be killed. However Jesus said if you think it you are a sinner, such as in adultery. So in effect thanks to human nature your are automatically condemmed to death, cause we all think of ourselfs as gods, as Jesus spoke of in John, we all want the neighbors wife (hint hint), so we cant escape the thoughts, no one can, not even christians.
The dirty little secret is discovered in pre KJV Bibles. It states instead of Mary ministering to Jesus, he slept "knew" her and spilled his "seed" sperm on the ground so the scriptures would be fulfilled.
It hints Jesus sodomized Mary.It says Jesus did her from the "back" doggie style, like he would do to the disciple whom he loved. It was often suspicioned Jesus and John were lovers just like David and Jonathan were lovers. John lay upon Jesus breast....?
well here is how that goes: how does a THEIST get morality?
it seems as though not from the bible... do you have any idea the crazy stuff that you would NEVER do that jesus commands? like killing nonbelievers and whatnot... i can provide some easy examples for you.
this is just another example of a christian that claims to be a "good christian" without reading the manual first (the bible; especially the new testament).
I'm sorry but you are an idiot. All these arguments have already been discussed and dismissed. I strongly suggest you do a YouTube search for Christopher Hitchens, and watch every video that is longer than one hour. You have very limited knowlege of the world, whereas Mr. Hitchens has an immense knowlege and faultless logic. Alternatively, you can simply stick your boobs out and float through life on a dreamy cloud as evidently you have up to now.
Next, it is OK to kill the chicken because you eat it. It is forbidden to kill the dog. It is all subjective. We haven't had objective morality and I doubt we ever will.
@TheEKastrioti I understand your idea, but I don't buy that argument. You're talking about the food chain, which unarguably humans are among the top. But the moral premise that you only kill what you eat still remains the objective morality.
And I also have to say that the use of dogs in your argument is probably the worst example you could use there, because since the beginning of man no animal has had a closer bond with humans then dogs have.
@shizzleman8 "We can't have people who believe in nothing with their thumb on the button. They're apt to push it."
Why would someone with only one life to live do that?
Now somebody who believes this world is just an illusion, a testing ground for the hereafter, destined to be sterilised to make way for the (long overdue) second coming... now THAT is a person to fear. Just itching to do Jehovah's work. These people exist and they have the ear of the US government at the highest levels.
@shizzleman8 "So basically what this dunce is saying is that the survival of the fittest = morality."
No she is saying that cooperative behaviours for social animals are adaptive and we call them morals. No Jehovah needed. But you have had that explained to you numerous times on other threads and yet you persist with your strawman bullshit.
Don't you have a judge to bore or a client to screw. Is business that slow?
So basically what this dunce is saying is that the survival of the fittest = morality. In Darwins' On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life the doctrines of Christian nor moral society are ever invoked. The reason why atheists have a hard time being moral is because the reject everything good. Atheism/naturalsim are systems of believe that dictate action not investigation, introspection, or morality. Get it?
@shizzleman8 Where do you get that atheists have a hard time being moral?It isn't difficult.Where do you see all the atheists running around committing all the crime? The crime rate among atheists or those that don't subscribe to the belief in a god/religion is rather low compared that of the faithful.Religious morals are co-opted from society not the other way around.The morals in the bible reflect that. There are many things in it that were acceptable 2000+ yrs ago that aren't now
Just lookin' across at the thumbnails on the right.Which has a photo of a ugly guy with glassess under the heading of Atheist's Nightmare= a simple question.Just a word of advice to that guy get a better lookin' thumbnail cos Renee just blows you away when it comes to looks.And once again Renee what you say makes sense to me.Respect.
@themanfromutopia1 She's not smart enough to read these comments. Her visual appearance is what's kept her from being educated. Atheistis are NOT the intelligencia in society. We can't have people who believe in nothing with their thumb on the button. They're apt to push it. Atheism they way it's practiced in conversation on YouTube is = nihilism. She advertises because of her tits. You have no respect to give because you're just her 'john'.
@shizzleman8 Yea you definitely don't have a clue about atheism. It is simply the rejection of the assertion that there is any god based on the total lack of credible evidence of a god. That is it nothing else.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? YOU ARE A SLAVE. IF YOU WORK IN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY, YOU ARE A SLAVE. ITS JUST MASKED VERY WELL. YOU THINK YOUR FREE?UNLESS YOUR A PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNER WHO DOSENT PAY TAXES LIKE THE ROTHCHILDS AND THE ROCKAFELLAS,THEN YOUR A SLAVE. A CORPORATE SLAVE IS A MATTER OF FACT.YOU WERE BORN INTO SLAVERY WITH OUT EVEN KNOWING IT. WE DONT EVEN OWN OUR BIRTH CERTIFICS.THOSE ARE BOUGHT AND SOLD ON THE WORLD MARKET DAILY."LOOK IT UP"UNLESS YOUR A SOVIERN..
Human beings establishing a code of morals and ethics not derived from some book written by some guy from some agrarian culture in a primarily mountainous desert environment over two thousand years old?!? How do they find anything relevant to establish thier moral and ethical beliefs upon?!? O.o?? Yeah, think the question just got answered...current existing religious texts are not relevant in our technological, post-modern state of being. Morals and ethics exist...but they need redefined...
@cheagan “Because some a-hole keeps maligning my integrity."
Previously on Planet Cheagan:
“Morality is INHERENT to intelligence. So it is no wonder we find BIMBOS parading around half-dressed arguing against it.” – “Tell your girlfriend she must COVER HERSELF before she expects anyone to take her opinions seriously... or go apply for a job at Hooters.”
AND: “...you never even noticed the irony.”
How could anyone but an arrogant twit miss the irony here?
@cheagan "Because some a-hole keeps maligning my integrity."
The same A-hole who keeps claiming moral superiority because he's bought into a bullshit book of myths and can't get tits out of his stunted little mind long enough to make a substantive reply that doesn't involve baseless assertions or false data or strawmen or repeated personal attacks against a woman who is ignoring him because he's a shrill, sexist pig?
Your issue is NOT relevant, except to you and you have little integrity.
@Pablogenio7 "I wrote here some examples of materialistic atheists governments..and their actions...."
I have seen your examples and I have replied with cogent arguments you have clearly ignored, preferring to repeat your baseless accusations instead. It's tiresome.
"if people would be naturally good the code would be unnecessary.."
I never said they were perfect. I said that on balance they were more good more often than bad. That's good enough for life. The Xtian heaven is fantasy.
What you're explaining is not morality, or at least, it's not a set of objective moral codes or laws. You're explaining analysis of situations and conclusions that certain altruistic actions (Ironic, because they actually aren't altruistic as you describe the hypothetical. The human you describe is a purely selfish analyst) will in turn benefit that person. In reality, a person can, in calculation, destroy other human beings for self benefit (will no backlash, might I add).
@gaphary And, indeed, in 40+ years of studying comparative religion, I've only encountered one truly objective set of moral codes, and that's in the atheistic tradition of Theravada Buddhism. In that tradition, *all* beings, both deity and human, are subject to the objective laws of karma for immoral behavior. In practice, a truly non-relativistic "moral code" is not to be found, neither in human affairs nor in religion -- with a very, very few notable exceptions down through history.
@BlatzBeer Interesting, although unrelated. I understand that many moral structures are not truly objective; I was simply being general in my use of the word objective, in that, comparatively to this woman's theory of individual moral creation, objectiveness or 'structure', perhaps, doesn't exist in this type of thinking, nor are our innate human sentiments enough to push us towards a single guided path of 'morality' (it's more-so our current society in time which does this).
@gaphary In practical terms, as we look at the real-world history of religion, philosophy, psychology and man's treatment of his fellow man, "individual moral creation" is the only kind of moral system that has ever worked for human-kind, despite claims to the contrary. And I find the her dialectic much more structured and objective (with even an appeal to the empiricism of biological science) than any theistic-based framework for morality, which in final analysis is always subjective.
@Pablogenio7 "BUT..if your morality is : "there is no morality" and you are also materialistic...the result is a disaster."
That's a big IF. Fortunately for Atheists and Agnostics, the general "don't be a dick" morals that comes along with being intelligent social beings.
It is sad that some less mindful people require an invisible parent to keep them from misbehaving, and a formal code to remind them that stealing, lying and killing are not cool. But if that's what you need, please avail.
@Terncote I wrote here some examples of materialistic atheists governments..and their actions....if people would be naturally good the code would be unnecessary..
@cheagan "Data? Oh, you must mean the observable fact that the many species came from one primordial one.."
Yup, fossils and DNA. Common descent works. What have you got? A BOOK! Whoooopeee! And it mentions light during creation, like every other creation myth. Rock solid proof that of all possible deities, Jehovah's myth reigns supreme.
" No, Turncoat - God has made Himself evident to you."
That's Terncote, chuckles. Try and get something right.
@Terncote Because some a-hole keeps maligning my integrity. Here's the funny thing: while you've been haranguing me, I've yet to hear from the lady. My thoughts? She's realized that I was right. So, chalk one up for the good guys. Hooray for the FORWARD progress of western civilization! However, since no one here seems to want to discuss the RELEVANT issue, you've got your wish.
I am not a complete atheist, I think consciousness is like any other form of energy that I know of. I like the creationist video that you put up. You should try to really cut evangelist opinion up in your videos next time I am not American, they are the largest religious group in the US, no?
@cheagan "Hide. FLEE HIS COMING WRATH. Call on the rocks to fall on you, anything instead of the wrath of the Lamb of God. THAT'S the story of the Bible."
Yup. When reason fails, when you have no evidence, when you've been repeatedly caught in your own deceits, when lying for Jesus wears thin and when even hubris won't serve you... ISSUE DIRE THREATS IN ALL CAPS!!!!!
@cheagan "Now, back to the ISSUE AT HAND, if you please. "
Put your pants back on, chuckles! Nobody gave you the keys to the internet. Just because you roll around with a portable pulpit doesn't give you any authority, let alone to tell someone what they may and may not wear in their own video.
You assume there's a god, that this god is Jehovah, that of all the 3,800 denominations you joined the right club and that you get to speak on behalf of Jehova & Son. Talk about "bullshit presumptions".
@cheagan " I am interested in exposing the "bullshit" presuppositions upon which atheism and moral relativism are based."
By massacring cosmology, referring to discredited theories about c-decay?
What's happening is you are bouncing from one thing to another and pretending that whenever you get caught in a lie or some ignorant presumption, you can dodge the bullet by changing the subject again.
Evolution is accepted year after year because the data fits. You creationist have no data.
@Terncote Data? Oh, you must mean the observable fact that the many species came from one primordial one... or the fact that given time, systems become MORE complex, not less... no - wait. I guess those wouldn't qualify, now would they? What we have is a record that each KIND replicates after its own KIND... and that the most fundamental building block of matter is LIGHT... oh YEAH - JUST LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS! No, Turncoat - God has made Himself evident to you. It is YOU who have
@Mangina9000 I would agree; those Christians who say otherwise are barking up the wrong tree and trying to win arguments they don't need to. Romans 1 says all this. EVERYONE knows right from wrong. And NO ONE does what is right. NO, NOT ONE. (Rom 3:12). I will say it again: morality is inherent to intelligence. You are WITHOUT EXCUSE (Rom. 1:20).
@Pablogenio7 "those numbers are public, communism made massive killings everywhere..such a coincidence...they were all atheists...and materialistic...that means something...they made the new rules,"
Exactly like the tyrannical religious regimes before them.
Listen to schr4nz - there is no correlation between ones religion or lack thereof, and the willingness to defraud, abuse and kill other people. More modern tyrants simply had larger populations and more efficient ways to hurt them.
@Pablogenio7 I'm not correlating athiesm with doing 'good' or 'bad'. I'm saying atheism/religiousness is probably largely irrelevant, hence there is NO 'correlation'. The reason these countries do well is because they are well fed, largely rational societies with governments that look after their people. "the USSR 100% of atheism" - that's what's called a totalitarian government, which is already what I said in my last comment was the cause of their ills.
@Pablogenio7 "Lenin, Stalin alone: 20 million (the lowest estimate) it didn´t stop after Stalin,it continued till 85, my source was Gorbachov.....and Mao about 60 millions(ww2 not included)...I can also mention Pol Pot: about 2 million(1979)..Ceauscescu: about 400.000(till89)..North Corea almost 2millions(still exists).."
And Jehovah, the omnipotent, and his son, Jesus, the Prince of Peace, watched and ignored the prayers of their believers.
@Pablogenio7 "human nature is inherently evil, that's why it is natural to reject a moral law.."
Sorry dude but that's just an Abrahamic guilt trip intended to create the conditions of self loathing necessary to take emotional control of vulnerable people.
We are social beings. If humans were inherently evil (immoral) we would not have achieved any level of civilisation. Our success comes because, on balance, we are good more than we are bad.
@cheagan "No, we don't need the Bible to give us morality; in fact, as much is actually STATED in the Bible (Rom. 1:19,20)!"
*It is also well known that a given body of data can be inadvertently manipulated due to subjective bias in such a way as to yield unwarranted conclusions.* A quote from a creationist website. LOLZ
Jehovah obviously disagrees with you about inherent morality or he wouldn't have written the 10 commandments. Moses trashed the first draft! What was that rebellion about?
@Terncote Who are you quoting? I never quoted any creationist site. Fyi, the "Law of Moses" is there to show us the perfect standard of a holy God. It isn't something you can live up to. Your heart is where sin occurs... not your action. You are simply MADE of the stuff.
@cheagan "The "steady state" comment was in reference to the philosophical footprint that the theory has left on the discussion vis a vis sociological implications."
You said - "Every system in the universe is expanding from the others; how can this be if the speed of light is constant? Answer: it cannot be. The steady-state theory FALLS."
You want us to believe that the cosmological term "steady state", in this context, was referring to "sociological implications"?
@Terncote I am interested in exposing the "bullshit" presuppositions upon which atheism and moral relativism are based. According to the theory of inflation, the universe expanded by a factor of ten to the sixtieth in less than ten to the negative thirtieth seconds. And just like the BULLSHIT that Darwinian evolution is based upon, it flies in the face of the most fundamental tenets of science itself. Yet year after year, these are accepted by scientists as "the way it is". And...
@Terncote ...year after year, these and other BULLSHIT theories give place to atheism and moral relativism as natural consequences of what you must arrive at when BULLSHIT bedrock presuppositions are accepted as "scholarly".
Now, back to the ISSUE AT HAND, if you please. Tell your girlfriend she must COVER HERSELF before she expects anyone to take her opinions seriously... or go apply for a job at Hooters. Meanwhile, I will teach MY children RIGHT AND WRONG,using her as an example of
@Mangina9000 Well... RELIGION isn't any more "moral" than atheism, or witchcraft, or pedophilia, for that matter. RELIGION is what you get when humanity acts as if they're seeking God. NO ONE does that; rather, it is God who seeks, and finds, His own. So, if you haven't been tapped, well then, I would be re-HEALY worried if I were you. Run. Hide. FLEE HIS COMING WRATH. Call on the rocks to fall on you, anything instead of the wrath of the Lamb of God. THAT'S the story of the Bible.
@cheagan Santa Claus is coming on Dec 25th. BE PREPARED!!!!
(No seriously get mental help if you actually believe all that nonsense schizo. Read your post off to a psychiatrist and see how fast you end up in a padded cell.)
god can not account for objective morality. either he makes it up arbitrarily, and can decide to make anything good or evil, or the source is not god, but something outside of god where he gets it from, and god is not necessary for morality. so christians can not account for their morality any better than atheists.
brownbigb 9 hours ago
@brownbigb On the contrary, atheists can account for their own morality, there just isn't an objective morality... that would imply everyone had the same morality
alsdaftab1e 5 hours ago
If your anti morals do your next vid in the nude I guarantee I will check it out everyday as long as I live.
MrCoolone05 11 hours ago
In every video, all this woman ever talks about is how big her breasts are, oral and anal sex.
MustNotRead 1 day ago
With a couple grams of grey matter it is not at all difficult to create a model where altruism (aka morals) can positively influence survival and thus be a factor in natural selection. As you have mentioned in this vid. This is all that's necessary to explain the basis of morals. As you also point out the god of the bible is about as imoral as you can get according to anyone's civilized standards. Ditto for allah and just about any other diety you can quote.
55chh 2 days ago
@55chh The God of the bible is immmoral, meaning bad? What is your basis of good and bad, right and wrong? And if morals is just a result of grey matter, 1) How do you know this? Did you observe this and know this to be true for all people? 2) I guess everyone has different morals or murderers have deficient grey matter than the rest of us elite grey-matter moralistic amoebas.
peetuhpanda 19 hours ago
@peetuhpanda Yes the god depicted in the bible is a vindictive, jealous, deceptive, pompous, cruel, murderous beast. According to my moral code (which is not based on any religion) that makes "him" bad. Antisocial in people behavior continues as an aberration however natural selection tends toward weeding it out.
55chh 12 hours ago
Wow! You're so pretty and smart. It's a shame that you have no knowledge whatsoever when it comes to God and the Bible.
jgallete 2 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
The attempt to be moral therefore, only takes place when I assess whether I can gain more from this person without harming them, than if I do harm them. Seems very selfish to me. The moment someone's life is not able to give you "benefit" (which is subjective, for a psychopath, murder may benefit him or even a wife who catches her husband cheating, etc), you are released from your interdependency to do whatever you want AND as long as no one finds out (which happens), your reputation is clean.
peetuhpanda 2 days ago
@peetuhpanda People tend not to commit murder because they have; evolved a degree of sympathy, because they fear being caught and the consequences and because they have been conditioned to believe it wrong
alsdaftab1e 1 day ago
@alsdaftab1e How do you know this? And you are still begging the question: who were they conditioned by to believe murder is wrong? You still end up with murder being wrong only because 1) consequences 2) reputation 3) survival. All three can be avoided anyways and hence, murder is not wrong by that definition. I can murder, avoid consequences, keep my reputation, and promote my survival at the same time.
Morality as a man-created thing leaves no objective basis for right or wrong
peetuhpanda 19 hours ago
@1:00
She says morality boils down to things that we do for our own survival, but we will NOT harm others because we may need things from them at a time and because we are interdependent beings.
So if I can murder someone and get away with it, I seem to benefit my survival AND because no one knows or can catch me, I can continue receiving benefits from others.
Your system depends on whether the consequences will outweigh the benefits to any given person, which is highly subjective.
peetuhpanda 2 days ago
Morality is a learned behavior just like any other!
joshanator1 3 days ago
@joshanator1 I think it's a learned behaviour to an extent, due to the evolution of society. I also think there are genes for it too..there is evidently a hormone/s that induces sympathy and empathy and the moral code is deduced from that, that's why morals vary from one person to the next
alsdaftab1e 3 days ago
@alsdaftab1e
I would like to go through any documents or studies that were conducted by "you" to allow you to come to this conclusion. I am not saying that you are wrong, I would just like to see the material you used that caused you to come to this decision.
joshanator1 1 day ago
@joshanator1 to be honest it's a number of years since my biology degree, an I can't remember the specifics, but most of it is common sense, if the basics are there. How Dmitry Belyaev's foxes became dogs gives an example of genetic manipulation of natural selection. You can see how the brain reacts to hormones in ever day life... for instance why as a male you'll change so drastically between the ages of 18 and 28 for instance due to the levels of testosterone. etc etc
alsdaftab1e 1 day ago
@alsdaftab1e What a dangerous statement. Morals can "vary"? So you have no objective basis to tell a murderer that what he is doing is wrong? It's your moral code vs his. Sorry, I just ended up with a different moral code that told me to not kill, but you ended up with one that did. Right... You don't live like that. You may believe it, but inconsistently. I'm glad you're inconsistent.
peetuhpanda 19 hours ago
@peetuhpanda Yes, all three can be avoided, that's why you get murderers...those murderers tend to feel remorse because they have evolved to feel sympathy and they've been conditioned to believe it wrong. There is no black and white, you're conditioned by the standards of your parents, your peers and the society you inhabit. the objective basis you have to say that someone is right or wrong is from the general consensus of society, enforced by a government and a police force
alsdaftab1e 17 hours ago
@joshanator1 So then what we do with it is subjective. A murderer can say that well he evolved differently I guess. Or he was brought up differently, like terrorists in the middle east. Also begs the question, is there a universal absolute standard of morality? Your definition makes it subject to individual interpretation. Where do morals come from if it is "learned"?
peetuhpanda 19 hours ago
@peetuhpanda Of course morality is subjective... you for instance may despise people who take drugs or carry out abortions, where as I do not... but who is to say that I am right or that you are right? depends on your point of view ie subjective... sympathy is innate in humans... because over generations people who feel sympathy are less inclined to be aggressive and more likely to survive to reproduce... morality stems from that
alsdaftab1e 17 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
well i look at death as a combination of evoulotion and reincarnation where as soon as u die u can be reborn because every second 3 people die 5 are born which leaves two empty vessels which either generate two new people or we all started out as single celled organisms and had to work are way up the latter untill we became monkeys after you die from your monkey form then u get to the final stage which is human and once again once ur human you always remain human goerge carlin has been reborn
1mcashinrs 3 days ago
You guys came to wise in your own eyes!
1st Corinthians 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1st Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1st Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom KNEW NOT GOD, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
superbad1972 5 days ago 2
@superbad1972
For it is ALSO written by ME, I AM GOD! So says Jesus!
joshanator1 1 day ago
@joshanator1 Wow, you see somethings never change. Thats exactly what the serpent (Satan) said to Eve you shall be as Gods same old lie of the devil! Just as you believe the lie of the Serpnet you think your God lol For it is written:
4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Geeisis 3:4-5 kjv
superbad1972 14 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Look at this Video here on youtube an atheist turned believer do to his death experience!
Cut n Paste link: Heaven & Hell. Atheist professor in Hell! Meets Jesus (Near Death Experience. NDE)
LoL you don't have to rationalize a thought to watch a simple video LOL this is not a debate just a simple old fashion testimony of a former fellow atheist.
superbad1972 5 days ago
The new atheists need a serious reality check. Morality is not tied to either society, or some mystical godly commandment. So long as you subscribe to the subjective view of morality the very mystics of religion do, you're doomed to their same failure-- misery qua misery.
CJMAC78 6 days ago
"When the looters' state collapses, deprived of the best of its slaves, when it falls to a level of impotent chaos, like the mystic-ridden nations of the Orient, and dissolves into starving robber gangs fighting to rob one another - when the advocates of the morality of sacrifice perish with their final ideal-then and on that day we will return."-John Galt "I swear - by my life and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
CJMAC78 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Mogley52 6 days ago
I want to pull on the white ribbon and free you from the system of morality
MrMichalTychy 6 days ago
Look at this Video here on youtube an Atheist turned believer do to his death experience!
Cut n Paste link: Heaven & Hell. Atheist professor in Hell! Meets Jesus (Near Death Experience. NDE)
superbad1972 6 days ago
@superbad1972 "Look at this Video here on youtube an Atheist turned believer do to his death experience"
On what basis should we watch this video?
It's an atheist and not an Atheist.
Being a former atheist gives no credibility to any claim, incredulity is more than enough, no special education, rationality or intelligence is necessary.
saintpine 6 days ago
slavery is never chosen. indentured servitude is different.
thekaxmax 6 days ago
3 04 slavery - I am going to share this with MaxMcc who claims to be a Christian and thinks slavery is "moral", because some people "choose" it. He agrees that rape and murder are wrong.
csnowutube 6 days ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 days ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 days ago
As for any Christians that may have watched this video and still do not understand how atheists can account for morality, let me put it in simpler terms.
Doing good things gives me warm fuzzies.
I like warm fuzzies.
Viper4382 1 week ago
It doesn't happen often that I completely agree with someone's video, but I have to say I completely agree.
SicSeb 1 week ago
Thanks, Renee- I really enjoy your research and ideas. Most Atheists rant with anger- you produce ideas. Thanks for that.
dobroplayer2011 1 week ago
What you speak of is something called "absolute morality", the bible and other "holy" books teach these absolute moralities such as thou shall not kill.
Of course something like this sounds completely logical, however "thou shall keep the sabbath holy" makes totally no sense in society.
I would rather have a good thought out and debated morality.
Slavery was 200 years ago alright because people used the bible to justify this, I'm glad we now knoq better than that, better than 2000 year old books
fereaks 1 week ago
This is why I don't believe in Christianity,
I'm a good person. I work with kids, I volunteer my time for the needy, and I spend time with my family. I also contribute to the occasional charity. I try not to lie and I'm trustworthy.
BUT
Because I don't accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior I am dammed to hell where my skin will forever melt from my bones and my screams of agony will echo throughout eternity.
That's my problem with Christianity. The punishment doesn't fit the crime.
FoxifiedNutjob 1 week ago
your a terrible atheist. ur as pretty as an angel, making a good case for these bible thumpers!
2010paultron 1 week ago
I think one of the most important things to take note of in what was said here is that we don't know everything. I chose to be agnostic because I learned that there is more to life and the world around me than what the bible had to teach me. There are philosophies and ideas that I have learnt which have gone unnoticed, even disregarded, by some religions. Morality, like religion, revolves around life, not vice versa.
HisMajestyTim1 1 week ago
Everyone has with in themselves to do good things or bad. No matter what your beleifs are (or are'nt) We all know right from wrong and we all have a choice.
SethBrundleify 1 week ago
In other words, belief in a God or religion has absolutely nothing to do with our moral ethics.
100 percent correct!
Haroldbeavis1969 1 week ago
I would love to cum right inside your birth canal while staring at your eyes and you scream at me to "cum in your pussy"
porterhouseful 1 week ago
@porterhouseful Renee also made a video here in which she shows her pussy. I myself have a fat pussy like that too. Mine is black, but it's also a Main coon kat. Wth a furry tail and a fat ass. Conrad Anderson, CNN, The Netherlands.
wouldbeactor 1 week ago
@porterhouseful
sick.
saintpine 1 week ago
As always! Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I think it's moments like these really help people sit down with themselves or others and think things through. No matter the cause or reasoning, people are still people. Were all on equal grounds on something :)
LinearFlight 1 week ago
Bunk to all her posts
JesusSmurf 1 week ago
@JesusSmurf
Brilliant. Moar, please.
glasshammer52 1 week ago
it's so funny that "atheists" use so many different names for God when it suits there purpose. They pride themselves on "calling out" the many different names that God has been called. They leave out the differences in all of these different ways of perceiving God. I guess it's easier to deny God than to sift through the many different human perceptions of God. Am I glad I'm not an "atheist".
diglightdig 1 week ago
Tits. The reason for (I would estimate) at least 80%of all views on her channel.
ThePokemonWanderer 1 week ago
Thank you so much for accurately representing the Christian claim. You are right that Christians are NOT arguing that atheists cannot be moral; only that they are unable to ground morality in atheism. You apparently disagree with the Christian claim but yet you accurately represent it in this video. That is very rare in my experience so, again, I thank you.
evangelical1 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos 2
@evangelical1 Oh, thank you! Finally someone understands (not that you agree with me, but you know what I mean)!!! :)
suvarenee 1 week ago
@suvarenee Several mistakes: (A) Beliefs about moral principles may change, but the truth of moral principles do not. Take,“Slavery is wrong.” There was a change of belief about slavery before and after the Civil War, not a change in principle. It is not as if Slavery was “good” one day, and “bad” the next. Slavery was always “bad.” To suppose otherwise is moral relativism, and entails the absence of an objective foundation of morality, they very thing you pretend to argue for.
grunderlyme 1 week ago
@suvarenee (B) You seem to offer some quasi-evolution account of the orign of moral belief. But explaining the origin of a moral belief does not explain why they are true, much less objective. If that were the case, then had we evolved to believe “murder is ok,” then, according to you, we would be right. But this is false.
grunderlyme 1 week ago
@suvarenee ......Apparently, chimpanzees believe ripping the genitals off male sexual competitors is ok. Does that mean such an action is ok for everyone because this belief is a product of evolutionary development? I seriously doubt it. Hitler's beliefs were also a product of evolutionary development. Because he thought genocide was ok, therefore genocide was ok? I doubt it. Therefore, the truth of moral principles are not contingent on evolutionary histories.
grunderlyme 1 week ago
@suvarenee (C) Finallly, in your attempt to ground objective moral principles, you try to identify the Moral Good with something like "human well-being" or "human flourishing," and evil with something like "individual harm." But this won't work. Of course individual harm is a bad thing, and human flourishing a good thing. But these are predicative statements, not identity statements. So it doesn't follow that the Moral Good just IS human flourishing. Proof they are not identical:
grunderlyme 1 week ago
@suvarenee ....Suppose there are two worlds, A and B. And suppose both A and B tie for the maximum amount of human flourishing, but in world A, everyone is a psychopath, and in world B, everyone is virtuous. Which world is more Morally Good? Clearly, world B in which people are virtuous and not psychopaths. Therefore, Moral Good =/= human flourishing.
grunderlyme 1 week ago
@grunderlyme
Human flourishing is defined as “to live within an optimal range of human functioning, one that connotes goodness, generativity, growth, and resilience.”
If you are suggesting that the psychopaths A world ties with virtuous world B, than I would like to know what NEGATIVE aspect of world B balanced the tendency of World A’s psychopathic behavior?
You need to rephrase your question, you’ve only shown that not all morals are equally valuated in different worlds.
saintpine 1 week ago
@saintpine "what NEGATIVE aspect?"
--Any vice will do. How about failing to be humble, for instance? Humility is a virtue. And any world in which a everyone flourished but one person was not humble would be a world showing human floursihing =/= the moral good.
grunderlyme 1 week ago
@grunderlyme
You cannot judge the quality of a world by the failure of one or more elements, we need to consider that not everyone is going to abide, otherwise we would likely be in a robotic life without free will and the goodness and morality would simply be a biological aspect of each person or it’s well applied due to threats and severe control, and this alone is not an ideal world.
We need to consider that the people are able to understand and choose.
saintpine 1 week ago
@saintpine "You cannot judge the quality of a world by the failure of one or more elements"
--Sure you can. If we suppose A and B are IDENTICAL in every respect except one feature, then it's rather easy. Talking about "possible worlds" is just a semantic device philosophers use to draw out these distinctions. All I am saying is that of two worlds identical in every respect, the world in which one more person is humble is the better the world. Is it not? Why would it not be?
grunderlyme 1 week ago
@grunderlyme
Let's ignore for a while that I don't agree that “humble” is a virtue, your argument would be correct if being humble is intrinsically in the nature of the people in one world, in reality we have people that need to understand concepts of being humble, accept them and follow them as best as possible.
The success in one world cannot be an indication of its advantage because it could depend on other aspects, like the efficiency of education, control and punishment.
saintpine 1 week ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@saintpine Where does my argument say that humility is "intrinsic to people in the world"? I'm not following. You're going off track from my point. If you don't think humility is a virtue, that's fine. My argument works with the virtue of prudence too, one of 4 Cardinal Virtues of the ancient Greeks. The point is that I gave several arguments for the conclusion that the Moral Good is not identical to interdependence, flourishing, or social functioning. Do you disagree. If so, why?
grunderlyme 1 week ago
@saintpine ....I am not sure why you think the rest of your post has anything to do with what I said.
grunderlyme 1 week ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@saintpine You/Renee have trouble understanding what is going on. When ethical philosophers talk about "the moral good," they mean something like "good in itself" or "good without qualification," which is why something like social functioning (group efficiency/resilience) is not good without qualification. It only requires one instance in which an action is both socially functional and evil, like the functional genocide of the Nazi Party, to make social functioning =/= the moral good
grunderlyme 1 week ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@saintpine Another counterexample: Worlds A and B are identical in every respect tying for maximal human flourishing, such that every person is kind and fair to the other person, with one only exception. In world A there is one person whose only motive for treating others kind is selfish, not because it is the right thing to do. So he is kind to everyone, but only because it benefits himself. World B is clearly the better world, even when both worlds tie for human flourishing.
grunderlyme 1 week ago
@suvarenee Why would you think some vague notion of "interdependence" is identical to the Good? Interdependence seems to be a useful strategy to promote the Good, but it is flat out false to say it just IS the Good. Even violent gangs are interdependent, but I wouldn't say their interdependence grounded the principle that murder is wrong when they happen to engage in, and endorse, murder. I see no logical connection there.
grunderlyme 1 week ago
@grunderlyme Concerning your statement 2 paragraphs above, based on our accumulated knowledge of psychopaths, I don't think that an entirely psychopathic world could ever be a socially functional world.
In Violent gangs, perhaps there is some cohesion and interdependence among their internal structure, but if the gang is harming outsiders, they are still causing harm to society at large.
suvarenee 1 week ago
@suvarenee Social functioning? But people in groups can function together quite well with amazing speed and efficiency to promote evil. Nazi Germany? So social functioning =/= the Moral Good. The point is that, of two worlds, A and B, that are tied for maximal human flourishing, if there is at least one less virtuous person in A over B, then B is the morally better world independent of human flourishing.
grunderlyme 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@suvarenee "perhaps there is some cohesion and interdependence among their internal structure, but if the gang is harming outsiders, they are still causing harm to society at large."
--Exactly. So interdependence =/= the Moral Good.
grunderlyme 1 week ago
@suvarenee Renee, if what is Good were identical to what is Interdependent, then everything that was not Interdependent would not be Good (but Evil). --This is wrong. Interdependence may be useful for promoting what is good (and evil), but it's not the cause that interdpendence just IS the Good. Take an illustration..
grunderlyme 1 week ago
@suvarenee ..Two companies, one of which manufactures ketchup, the other mustard, are "interdependent" in the sense that the profits of one company depend on the sales of the condiment of the other company, since ketchup & mustard are what economists call "complimentary goods" often bought at the same time. But is a company that sells BOTH ketchup & mustard independently of other companies therefore "evil" on account of not being interdependent? No. So Interdependence=/=the Moral Good
grunderlyme 1 week ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 1 week ago
@evangelical1 Unable to ground morality in atheism? Uh, gee, what was your first hint? Atheism isnt an ideology, it isnt a doctrine, it isnt even dogmatic - it is simply a rejection of theistic claims. Thats it, nothing more. You say "Jesus did such and such" - we say "no evidence? Don't believe ya". That simple act is what makes one an atheist. Anything else is something else. Full stop. Try remembering that.
JoeNietzsche 1 week ago
n virtuesAre morals not continuly improving...largly due to secular thought and disscusion.Societies treatment of say women,homosexuals even animals is constanly improving...abolishment of slavery.If we were only getting morals from religion would they not be set at pre history values...i dont beleive in god as set out in the bible..and certainly not religion...but im the nicest gut i know.tho that could speak more for the company i keep..than my ow
lowdown476 1 week ago
Comment removed
holdontoyourwig 1 week ago
@rhov233 DON'T BLAME HER.........red-heads subconsciously use sex as a means of domination and assertion.
They are ALL super horny ALL of the time.
I say this in half jest, but there are sometimes I think to myself "damn, this redhead girl is really sexy, but shes really crazy and horny? I'm scared."
TechnologicalTyranny 1 week ago
I agree with your explanation of how morality is good for mankind's survival, it's obvious.
pippaknuckle 2 weeks ago
Creationism is bullshit. The last three popes have recognized evolution, majority of Orthodox/Catholics have in Canada, and an Orthodox Christian scientist helped promote Darwinism. Creationists need to give up.
Crobat87 2 weeks ago
I AM JESUS,
I AM THE 666 IN REVELATION,
I AM THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH...
ulived1969 2 weeks ago
morality is subjective by any account. In the bible is you break a commandment you are to be killed. However Jesus said if you think it you are a sinner, such as in adultery. So in effect thanks to human nature your are automatically condemmed to death, cause we all think of ourselfs as gods, as Jesus spoke of in John, we all want the neighbors wife (hint hint), so we cant escape the thoughts, no one can, not even christians.
8osiris 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@8osiris
The dirty little secret is discovered in pre KJV Bibles. It states instead of Mary ministering to Jesus, he slept "knew" her and spilled his "seed" sperm on the ground so the scriptures would be fulfilled.
It hints Jesus sodomized Mary.It says Jesus did her from the "back" doggie style, like he would do to the disciple whom he loved. It was often suspicioned Jesus and John were lovers just like David and Jonathan were lovers. John lay upon Jesus breast....?
thedagonjones 2 weeks ago
well here is how that goes: how does a THEIST get morality?
it seems as though not from the bible... do you have any idea the crazy stuff that you would NEVER do that jesus commands? like killing nonbelievers and whatnot... i can provide some easy examples for you.
this is just another example of a christian that claims to be a "good christian" without reading the manual first (the bible; especially the new testament).
AssistingHealth 2 weeks ago
I'm sorry but you are an idiot. All these arguments have already been discussed and dismissed. I strongly suggest you do a YouTube search for Christopher Hitchens, and watch every video that is longer than one hour. You have very limited knowlege of the world, whereas Mr. Hitchens has an immense knowlege and faultless logic. Alternatively, you can simply stick your boobs out and float through life on a dreamy cloud as evidently you have up to now.
RealiveProds 2 weeks ago
Next, it is OK to kill the chicken because you eat it. It is forbidden to kill the dog. It is all subjective. We haven't had objective morality and I doubt we ever will.
TheEKastrioti 2 weeks ago
@TheEKastrioti I understand your idea, but I don't buy that argument. You're talking about the food chain, which unarguably humans are among the top. But the moral premise that you only kill what you eat still remains the objective morality.
And I also have to say that the use of dogs in your argument is probably the worst example you could use there, because since the beginning of man no animal has had a closer bond with humans then dogs have.
PirateFish1 2 weeks ago
@PirateFish1 You don't have to buy the argument it is self evident. I don't sell you anything I'm just telling you how I see it.
TheEKastrioti 2 weeks ago
@PirateFish1 You also kill what you don't eat.
TheEKastrioti 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shizzleman8 "We can't have people who believe in nothing with their thumb on the button. They're apt to push it."
Why would someone with only one life to live do that?
Now somebody who believes this world is just an illusion, a testing ground for the hereafter, destined to be sterilised to make way for the (long overdue) second coming... now THAT is a person to fear. Just itching to do Jehovah's work. These people exist and they have the ear of the US government at the highest levels.
Terncote 2 weeks ago
@shizzleman8 "So basically what this dunce is saying is that the survival of the fittest = morality."
No she is saying that cooperative behaviours for social animals are adaptive and we call them morals. No Jehovah needed. But you have had that explained to you numerous times on other threads and yet you persist with your strawman bullshit.
Don't you have a judge to bore or a client to screw. Is business that slow?
Terncote 2 weeks ago
So basically what this dunce is saying is that the survival of the fittest = morality. In Darwins' On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life the doctrines of Christian nor moral society are ever invoked. The reason why atheists have a hard time being moral is because the reject everything good. Atheism/naturalsim are systems of believe that dictate action not investigation, introspection, or morality. Get it?
shizzleman8 2 weeks ago
@shizzleman8 Where do you get that atheists have a hard time being moral?It isn't difficult.Where do you see all the atheists running around committing all the crime? The crime rate among atheists or those that don't subscribe to the belief in a god/religion is rather low compared that of the faithful.Religious morals are co-opted from society not the other way around.The morals in the bible reflect that. There are many things in it that were acceptable 2000+ yrs ago that aren't now
wraith168 2 weeks ago
Just lookin' across at the thumbnails on the right.Which has a photo of a ugly guy with glassess under the heading of Atheist's Nightmare= a simple question.Just a word of advice to that guy get a better lookin' thumbnail cos Renee just blows you away when it comes to looks.And once again Renee what you say makes sense to me.Respect.
themanfromutopia1 2 weeks ago
@themanfromutopia1 She's not smart enough to read these comments. Her visual appearance is what's kept her from being educated. Atheistis are NOT the intelligencia in society. We can't have people who believe in nothing with their thumb on the button. They're apt to push it. Atheism they way it's practiced in conversation on YouTube is = nihilism. She advertises because of her tits. You have no respect to give because you're just her 'john'.
shizzleman8 2 weeks ago
@shizzleman8 please dont speak to me as you lower my inteligence.Thank you.
themanfromutopia1 2 weeks ago 2
@shizzleman8 You really need to look up the definition of atheism since you clearly have no idea what it is.
Sweddude 2 weeks ago
@shizzleman8 Yea you definitely don't have a clue about atheism. It is simply the rejection of the assertion that there is any god based on the total lack of credible evidence of a god. That is it nothing else.
Btw did you mean "intelligentsia"?
wraith168 2 weeks ago
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? YOU ARE A SLAVE. IF YOU WORK IN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY, YOU ARE A SLAVE. ITS JUST MASKED VERY WELL. YOU THINK YOUR FREE?UNLESS YOUR A PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNER WHO DOSENT PAY TAXES LIKE THE ROTHCHILDS AND THE ROCKAFELLAS,THEN YOUR A SLAVE. A CORPORATE SLAVE IS A MATTER OF FACT.YOU WERE BORN INTO SLAVERY WITH OUT EVEN KNOWING IT. WE DONT EVEN OWN OUR BIRTH CERTIFICS.THOSE ARE BOUGHT AND SOLD ON THE WORLD MARKET DAILY."LOOK IT UP"UNLESS YOUR A SOVIERN..
onehndrdprcntcreep 2 weeks ago
Human beings establishing a code of morals and ethics not derived from some book written by some guy from some agrarian culture in a primarily mountainous desert environment over two thousand years old?!? How do they find anything relevant to establish thier moral and ethical beliefs upon?!? O.o?? Yeah, think the question just got answered...current existing religious texts are not relevant in our technological, post-modern state of being. Morals and ethics exist...but they need redefined...
mdlittle5466 2 weeks ago
@cheagan “Because some a-hole keeps maligning my integrity."
Previously on Planet Cheagan:
“Morality is INHERENT to intelligence. So it is no wonder we find BIMBOS parading around half-dressed arguing against it.” – “Tell your girlfriend she must COVER HERSELF before she expects anyone to take her opinions seriously... or go apply for a job at Hooters.”
AND: “...you never even noticed the irony.”
How could anyone but an arrogant twit miss the irony here?
Do unto others and all that.
Terncote 3 weeks ago
Beautiful woman and clearly, more importantly, somewhat more well educated than many Americans...
bluemoonrising26 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from suvarenee
@cheagan "Because some a-hole keeps maligning my integrity."
The same A-hole who keeps claiming moral superiority because he's bought into a bullshit book of myths and can't get tits out of his stunted little mind long enough to make a substantive reply that doesn't involve baseless assertions or false data or strawmen or repeated personal attacks against a woman who is ignoring him because he's a shrill, sexist pig?
Your issue is NOT relevant, except to you and you have little integrity.
Terncote 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pablogenio7 "I wrote here some examples of materialistic atheists governments..and their actions...."
I have seen your examples and I have replied with cogent arguments you have clearly ignored, preferring to repeat your baseless accusations instead. It's tiresome.
"if people would be naturally good the code would be unnecessary.."
I never said they were perfect. I said that on balance they were more good more often than bad. That's good enough for life. The Xtian heaven is fantasy.
Terncote 3 weeks ago
What you're explaining is not morality, or at least, it's not a set of objective moral codes or laws. You're explaining analysis of situations and conclusions that certain altruistic actions (Ironic, because they actually aren't altruistic as you describe the hypothetical. The human you describe is a purely selfish analyst) will in turn benefit that person. In reality, a person can, in calculation, destroy other human beings for self benefit (will no backlash, might I add).
gaphary 3 weeks ago
@gaphary And, indeed, in 40+ years of studying comparative religion, I've only encountered one truly objective set of moral codes, and that's in the atheistic tradition of Theravada Buddhism. In that tradition, *all* beings, both deity and human, are subject to the objective laws of karma for immoral behavior. In practice, a truly non-relativistic "moral code" is not to be found, neither in human affairs nor in religion -- with a very, very few notable exceptions down through history.
BlatzBeer 3 weeks ago
@BlatzBeer Interesting, although unrelated. I understand that many moral structures are not truly objective; I was simply being general in my use of the word objective, in that, comparatively to this woman's theory of individual moral creation, objectiveness or 'structure', perhaps, doesn't exist in this type of thinking, nor are our innate human sentiments enough to push us towards a single guided path of 'morality' (it's more-so our current society in time which does this).
gaphary 3 weeks ago
@gaphary In practical terms, as we look at the real-world history of religion, philosophy, psychology and man's treatment of his fellow man, "individual moral creation" is the only kind of moral system that has ever worked for human-kind, despite claims to the contrary. And I find the her dialectic much more structured and objective (with even an appeal to the empiricism of biological science) than any theistic-based framework for morality, which in final analysis is always subjective.
BlatzBeer 3 weeks ago
@Pablogenio7 "BUT..if your morality is : "there is no morality" and you are also materialistic...the result is a disaster."
That's a big IF. Fortunately for Atheists and Agnostics, the general "don't be a dick" morals that comes along with being intelligent social beings.
It is sad that some less mindful people require an invisible parent to keep them from misbehaving, and a formal code to remind them that stealing, lying and killing are not cool. But if that's what you need, please avail.
Terncote 3 weeks ago
@Terncote I wrote here some examples of materialistic atheists governments..and their actions....if people would be naturally good the code would be unnecessary..
Pablogenio7 3 weeks ago
@Pablogenio7 and every other law would be unnecessary..
Pablogenio7 3 weeks ago
@Terncote Furthermore, this invisible parent commands them to discriminate against certain group or exterminate them.
petion2010 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cheagan "Data? Oh, you must mean the observable fact that the many species came from one primordial one.."
Yup, fossils and DNA. Common descent works. What have you got? A BOOK! Whoooopeee! And it mentions light during creation, like every other creation myth. Rock solid proof that of all possible deities, Jehovah's myth reigns supreme.
" No, Turncoat - God has made Himself evident to you."
That's Terncote, chuckles. Try and get something right.
If bosoms so offend you, why are you here?
Terncote 3 weeks ago
@Terncote Because some a-hole keeps maligning my integrity. Here's the funny thing: while you've been haranguing me, I've yet to hear from the lady. My thoughts? She's realized that I was right. So, chalk one up for the good guys. Hooray for the FORWARD progress of western civilization! However, since no one here seems to want to discuss the RELEVANT issue, you've got your wish.
Bye.
cheagan 3 weeks ago
@Terncote And to think: you never even noticed the irony. What a waste of an obviously expensive education.
cheagan 3 weeks ago
I am not a complete atheist, I think consciousness is like any other form of energy that I know of. I like the creationist video that you put up. You should try to really cut evangelist opinion up in your videos next time I am not American, they are the largest religious group in the US, no?
MrLittlekate 3 weeks ago
Marry me!
Derekinstpete 3 weeks ago
@cheagan "Hide. FLEE HIS COMING WRATH. Call on the rocks to fall on you, anything instead of the wrath of the Lamb of God. THAT'S the story of the Bible."
Yup. When reason fails, when you have no evidence, when you've been repeatedly caught in your own deceits, when lying for Jesus wears thin and when even hubris won't serve you... ISSUE DIRE THREATS IN ALL CAPS!!!!!
Terncote 3 weeks ago
@cheagan "Now, back to the ISSUE AT HAND, if you please. "
Put your pants back on, chuckles! Nobody gave you the keys to the internet. Just because you roll around with a portable pulpit doesn't give you any authority, let alone to tell someone what they may and may not wear in their own video.
You assume there's a god, that this god is Jehovah, that of all the 3,800 denominations you joined the right club and that you get to speak on behalf of Jehova & Son. Talk about "bullshit presumptions".
Terncote 3 weeks ago
@cheagan " I am interested in exposing the "bullshit" presuppositions upon which atheism and moral relativism are based."
By massacring cosmology, referring to discredited theories about c-decay?
What's happening is you are bouncing from one thing to another and pretending that whenever you get caught in a lie or some ignorant presumption, you can dodge the bullet by changing the subject again.
Evolution is accepted year after year because the data fits. You creationist have no data.
Terncote 3 weeks ago
@Terncote Data? Oh, you must mean the observable fact that the many species came from one primordial one... or the fact that given time, systems become MORE complex, not less... no - wait. I guess those wouldn't qualify, now would they? What we have is a record that each KIND replicates after its own KIND... and that the most fundamental building block of matter is LIGHT... oh YEAH - JUST LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS! No, Turncoat - God has made Himself evident to you. It is YOU who have
cheagan 3 weeks ago
@Terncote ... embraced BULLSHIT.
cheagan 3 weeks ago
Of course there's morality without God. Anybody who says otherwise simply refuses to study human history. Selective reasoning is not reasonable.
Mangina9000 3 weeks ago
@Mangina9000 I would agree; those Christians who say otherwise are barking up the wrong tree and trying to win arguments they don't need to. Romans 1 says all this. EVERYONE knows right from wrong. And NO ONE does what is right. NO, NOT ONE. (Rom 3:12). I will say it again: morality is inherent to intelligence. You are WITHOUT EXCUSE (Rom. 1:20).
cheagan 3 weeks ago
Thank you for posting this Renee!
HemmHon 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩☆ ۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
★ ☆ ★ ☆ RON PAUL 4 PRESIDENT 2012 ☆ ★ ☆ ★
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩☆ ۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Clorell 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pablogenio7 "those numbers are public, communism made massive killings everywhere..such a coincidence...they were all atheists...and materialistic...that means something...they made the new rules,"
Exactly like the tyrannical religious regimes before them.
Listen to schr4nz - there is no correlation between ones religion or lack thereof, and the willingness to defraud, abuse and kill other people. More modern tyrants simply had larger populations and more efficient ways to hurt them.
Terncote 3 weeks ago
@Pablogenio7 I'm not correlating athiesm with doing 'good' or 'bad'. I'm saying atheism/religiousness is probably largely irrelevant, hence there is NO 'correlation'. The reason these countries do well is because they are well fed, largely rational societies with governments that look after their people. "the USSR 100% of atheism" - that's what's called a totalitarian government, which is already what I said in my last comment was the cause of their ills.
schr4nz 3 weeks ago
I Think you are fit, Are you in a relationship?
dpavobubi 3 weeks ago
@Pablogenio7 "Lenin, Stalin alone: 20 million (the lowest estimate) it didn´t stop after Stalin,it continued till 85, my source was Gorbachov.....and Mao about 60 millions(ww2 not included)...I can also mention Pol Pot: about 2 million(1979)..Ceauscescu: about 400.000(till89)..North Corea almost 2millions(still exists).."
And Jehovah, the omnipotent, and his son, Jesus, the Prince of Peace, watched and ignored the prayers of their believers.
Terncote 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pablogenio7 "human nature is inherently evil, that's why it is natural to reject a moral law.."
Sorry dude but that's just an Abrahamic guilt trip intended to create the conditions of self loathing necessary to take emotional control of vulnerable people.
We are social beings. If humans were inherently evil (immoral) we would not have achieved any level of civilisation. Our success comes because, on balance, we are good more than we are bad.
Don't be such a pessimist.
Terncote 3 weeks ago
@cheagan "No, we don't need the Bible to give us morality; in fact, as much is actually STATED in the Bible (Rom. 1:19,20)!"
*It is also well known that a given body of data can be inadvertently manipulated due to subjective bias in such a way as to yield unwarranted conclusions.* A quote from a creationist website. LOLZ
Jehovah obviously disagrees with you about inherent morality or he wouldn't have written the 10 commandments. Moses trashed the first draft! What was that rebellion about?
Terncote 3 weeks ago
@Terncote human nature is inherently evil, that's why it is natural to reject a moral law..that goes against that nature...
Pablogenio7 3 weeks ago
@Terncote Who are you quoting? I never quoted any creationist site. Fyi, the "Law of Moses" is there to show us the perfect standard of a holy God. It isn't something you can live up to. Your heart is where sin occurs... not your action. You are simply MADE of the stuff.
cheagan 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cheagan "The "steady state" comment was in reference to the philosophical footprint that the theory has left on the discussion vis a vis sociological implications."
You said - "Every system in the universe is expanding from the others; how can this be if the speed of light is constant? Answer: it cannot be. The steady-state theory FALLS."
You want us to believe that the cosmological term "steady state", in this context, was referring to "sociological implications"?
Backpedalling Bullshit.
Terncote 3 weeks ago
@Terncote I am interested in exposing the "bullshit" presuppositions upon which atheism and moral relativism are based. According to the theory of inflation, the universe expanded by a factor of ten to the sixtieth in less than ten to the negative thirtieth seconds. And just like the BULLSHIT that Darwinian evolution is based upon, it flies in the face of the most fundamental tenets of science itself. Yet year after year, these are accepted by scientists as "the way it is". And...
cheagan 3 weeks ago
@Terncote ...year after year, these and other BULLSHIT theories give place to atheism and moral relativism as natural consequences of what you must arrive at when BULLSHIT bedrock presuppositions are accepted as "scholarly".
Now, back to the ISSUE AT HAND, if you please. Tell your girlfriend she must COVER HERSELF before she expects anyone to take her opinions seriously... or go apply for a job at Hooters. Meanwhile, I will teach MY children RIGHT AND WRONG,using her as an example of
cheagan 3 weeks ago
@cheagan You are an immoral scumbag who has all too easily fallen into a simple trap. Way to represent religion as immoral, moron.
Mangina9000 3 weeks ago
@Mangina9000 Well... RELIGION isn't any more "moral" than atheism, or witchcraft, or pedophilia, for that matter. RELIGION is what you get when humanity acts as if they're seeking God. NO ONE does that; rather, it is God who seeks, and finds, His own. So, if you haven't been tapped, well then, I would be re-HEALY worried if I were you. Run. Hide. FLEE HIS COMING WRATH. Call on the rocks to fall on you, anything instead of the wrath of the Lamb of God. THAT'S the story of the Bible.
cheagan 3 weeks ago
@cheagan Santa Claus is coming on Dec 25th. BE PREPARED!!!!
(No seriously get mental help if you actually believe all that nonsense schizo. Read your post off to a psychiatrist and see how fast you end up in a padded cell.)
bibletardrage 3 weeks ago
@Terncote ... THE LATTER.
cheagan 3 weeks ago