About 8) Also, the assumption is made, that if there is a God, he will reward us for believing in him, and punish us if we don't. However there is of course also the possibility that:
a) he will punish those that believe in him and reward those that don't,
b) he will punish us whether or not we believe in him
c) he resents the whole idea of "thought crimes" and will reward us, regardless of whether or not we believe in him (The Good God Hypothesis)
It's strange that people put forward Pascal's wager and suggest that the choice is between (their version of) the Christian God or no god at all.
This is like a pathologist investigating the cause of death of someone, and arriving at the conclusion that the person must either have died a natural death, or must have been killed by a 43 year old guy with light brown curly hair and a birth mark on his left shoulder.
@TheraminTrees So you're saying what appeared to me to be assumptions in this video, such as the implication that one of those arguing with you believed about the noah's ark myth is a fact you knew to be true. My initial question was quite weighted. It should have been:
In this video how (and how much) did you know about the beliefs of the makers of the statements you were refuting?
@googolplexbyte 'My initial question was quite weighted. It should have been: In this video how (and how much) did you know about the beliefs of the makers of the statements you were refuting?'
—Where I refer to those beliefs, I'm conveying what's been explicitly expressed in exchanges/discussions — often, a tiny fragment of protracted discussions.
Is it possible to make this a response to a video by hdregmore's Pascal's Wager Proven (Atheists Fail Again)? /watch?v=QAVWNb1qDrs He ignores and censors comments, a video response can't be censored right?
"To stop asking the questions that lead you away from belief in God."
See, the problem with that is that you don't know whether the question will lead you away from God until you find the answer to it. Acknowledging this, the early church decided to punish ALL questioning of anything religious, and some things that had nothing to do with religion at all.
@RobeonMew02 Sarcasm's tricky to express in writing. Sarcastic speech works because there's a disparity between what's said and the tone in which it's said, that alerts us to the fact the sentiment isn't sincere. In writing, there's no such disparity to indicate sarcasm, so other indicators are required. Personally, I tend to err on the side of benefit of the doubt with dubious comments — I like to think people have brains so must be joking. But as I say, sad how often this is not the case.
@gocrazy432 Common sense - if satire is easily confused for extremism, the satirist is not a good comedian and should find a new hobby because they are only serving up an annoying obstacle that misdirects productive efforts.
Poe's law is what you mentioned, and it is regarding satire being confused with the genuine article; where imitation is intended to be sarcastic but causes confusion in perception by failing to convey "I'm an impressionist doing an impression" {a performer who mimics the way people speak and behave, usually in a humorous exaggerated way.}
Those that recognize the mockery but react with overstatement or yellow journalism are respectively paranoid and manipulative.
That's my entire point - you can't evaluate the quality of a satire simply by the perception of a particular audience, especially one that is know for its paranoia lack of reasonable judgement on certain issue.
@grozde Again, the person I originally responded to was talking about "Poe's law."
There's got to be a point where self-proclaimed comedians who do not bother to give clear signals for the nature of their presentation such is that is given when something is broadcasted on "Comedy Central" or published in "MAD" magazine and the like, have to accept the onus rather than pawning it on their audience of diverse demographics for taking them seriously and causing a misdirection of social efforts.
@RobeonMew02 Obviously, nope — not one more point for theists. As anyone with half a brain can see, I'm clearly not making rebuttals to 'betting on infinity', but dealing with rebuttals made by others. But as a side note,isn't it depressing that readers can't take it for granted that comments like yours must be a joke. There are just too many pig-ignorant twerps who leave comments like that and, embarrassingly for them, actually mean it.
@bloodrunsclear It is utterly absurd for you to claim morality is a theistic trait when empathy for suffering has been shown to be a great basis for morality in brain scan tests. Also, remember if anyone is going to pay attention to you, you must back up your claims with evidence, otherwise no one has any reason to listen to you. Human morality can be explained by science.
@TheEdgarAllenGospis And if the Greek gods live in a spiritual world that overlaps ours, and they only venture into our world when they choose to do so? Suddenly they might exist again.
Love most of your points, but as a posh British bloke I cringed every time you missed a "t" sound at the end of a word or in the middle of "critic". I suggest an appointment or two with a public speaking coach would be very helpful :-)
@M3t4lManiac An assumption that there need be an all-powerful god is one of the problems with the wager. The god(s) need only control what happens after we die. Think of the Architect in the Matrix -- it was just a computer AI. Omnipotence is not necessary. If you assume it is in your wager, you could be wrong in an infinite number of ways.
@riahmatic I know, I just made that obvious point clear, if you posit to me Pascal's Wager as a Christian, you have not considered the fact that there are an infinite number of possible deities while your specific version of salvation will contradict any number of possibilities. That there are thousands of different Christian denominations immediately destroys the argument if posited by a Christian. You'll just have to ask them which denomination or religion to bet on and why.
Its hilarious to me these poor, underdog atheists have so many views, are featured on websites and youtube, and endlessly thumb up each others comments.
I find the idea that this world isn't actually real, and that I am in a coma or virtual reality, to be fascinating. Does anyone know any GOOD quality videos/articles debating this idea?
I've met several people who use #12 in passing and got thoroughly angry with them because until recently I couldn't understand the real emotional drive for the statement.
Because rationality depends on adapting to new or more accurate evidence, any morality based on rationality will (most likely) be wrong sometimes on some points esp. those for which the morality is inconclusive. Against those risks, an "inerrant" and unchanging basis for morality is appealing.
@webmaster2089 I don't know if I'd be able to argue it's "more wrong" because I assume that evidence, reasons, and assertions need to be judged independently of one another. It's worse than just pretending to be right, though. It turns being right into a personal necessity.
For some, at risk for being wrong is an infinite, unending punishment. Even without that, imagine if posting on youTube caused aneurysms. The guilt of causing so much pain needlessly is something I'd be compelled to evade.
AN EXTRAORDINARILY SUPREMELY INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED UNIVERSE REQUIRES AN EXTRAORDINARILY SUPREMELY INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, and I know Him and He knows you. In fact you are one of his supremely intelligent designs. I am available daily on my IS ATHEISM LOGICAL? video to discuss this with you. Be sure to bring your evidence if you have any.
In no way can you ever define or describe reality. Not with words, ideas, logic or pictures. No satisfaction or relief can ever be had in this manner. Barking up the wrong tree. Endless defining, creates endless suffering. I separated from thou can not describe or know thou. This is " The wrong side of Infinity". YES? When I and Thou merge, definitions end with a direct knowable experience. The result is the end of suffering ( pain ) and the return of life loving life!
Technically you need close to 2000 members of a species to keep them from an irreversible genetic bottleneck which will result in too little genetic diversity causing the species to become permanently inbred and thus will not, in the long run, survive.
Well to be fair point 12 is similar to what Sam Harris argues that morals can be studied scientifically . Taken from wiki: Harris asserts that "morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science" discerning what humans ought to do by looking at what is.
You are in a lovely position here. For one thing half of your arguments are dependent upon popular hatred of your detractors, but that's fine because popular hatred is against your detractors anyway. One of your rebuttals was 'this is an example of irrationality'
Um...if you say so.
I also liked the lie about downplaying atheism for religious tolerance. Where?
Not in public education. Not in law. Not in entertainment.
You built giants out of wind mills and people cheer as you tilt at them.
@bloodrunsclear Or maybe when you hear something you disagree with you can form actual rebuttals to it rather then tossing pointless insults that contain no constructive criticism whatsoever at other peoples hard work.
There are no rebuttals here though. His position is entirely based on the concept that everyone besides himself have no points to make and are irrational. My 'insults' are not pointless, its calling a spade a spade here.
He's popular because his position is popular and he presents it in an appealing way.
I've provided constructive criticism in the past and been ignored. Apparently direct attacks are the only way to be heard.
@bloodrunsclear "His position is entirely based on the concept that everyone besides himself have no points to make and are irrational." I'm very curious as to how you come to this conclusion, he tells you the arguments presented to him and clearly and logically explains the flaws in said arguments, that's pretty much the definition of a rebuttal, you could argue that he only showed irrational arguments and ignored good ones, but he did refute these arguments nonetheless.
@HHHonoth (cont.) "I've provided constructive criticism in the past and been ignored. Apparently direct attacks are the only way to be heard." If constructive criticism didn't work then i hardly see how attacks are going to work any better, if i were you i'd just cut my losses and take my bussiness elsewhere, let the irrational be irrational.
You haven't been listening. Several times his positions are entirely based on the simple and inescapable fact that his opponents are irrational. How so? Not even worth discussing really.
Logical explanation of a positions weakness IS the definition of rebuttal, which makes it unjust to refer to this video as one. He refuted the arguments only in as far as he said they were wrong. If I made a video like this refuting this fellow, even with posh graphics, you'd say I was unjust.
@bloodrunsclear I have been listening (well technically i've been reading) i just disagree with you, he never just said they where wrong, he explained why they where wrong every time, the only argument he didn't technically refute was that the wager was rational, he explained that Pascal himself said it wasn't rational, which does of course greatly support his claim that it isn't but doesn't actually prove it as even though Pascal proposed the wager, he could be wrong about any part of it.
@HHHonoth(cont)"If I made a video like this refuting this fellow, even with posh graphics, you'd say I was unjust." I tend to judge arguments on their own merit as opposed to which side of the argument i'm on so that would depend entirely on how you handle the refuting, if you handle it like how Ttrees does then i may or may not disagree but i wouldn't take issue with it, however if you handle it how you seem to think he does then maybe i would.
PS: who do you think this "prejudice" is aimed at?
Again, no argument that he says they're wrong but his positions for doing so depends completely in most cases on his monopoly on truth and rationality, a monopoly he assumes throughout all of his videos. I could say he was wrong in my own video and site his irrationality...but given my beliefs, you'd say I had no right to make the exact same accusation with the same amount of justification.
Its ironic he complains about the marginalizing of atheism when he's proof of its dominance.
@bloodrunsclear "I could say he was wrong in my own video and site his irrationality...but given my beliefs, you'd say I had no right to make the exact same accusation with the same amount of justification." nice strawman, i don't care what you believe, whether it be Allah, Zues, yahweh, Odin or the internal combustion engine (as long as you don't believe something like x group of people should be killed) if you have something you want to say i'll listen.
Its no strawman at all. You're predisposed to accept certain arguments as true, others as false.
Here's a little test: The church arrested Gallelio for the heresy of proposing his geo-centric theory of the galaxy which went against religious teaching. True of false.
@bloodrunsclear "Its no strawman at all. You're predisposed to accept certain arguments as true, others as false." even if this where true it would still be a strawman as you have no way of knowing this. "Here's a little test: The church arrested Gallelio for the heresy of proposing his geo-centric theory of the galaxy which went against religious teaching. True of false." thats not an argument, it's a question, im not that familiar with Gallelio so i really don't know.
I do have a way of knowing this. All your previous statements have been based on my unworthiness to argue with this fellow and you see nothing wrong in his arguments at all.
As for Gallelio popular teaching still claims he was arrested by the church for speaking out against it; an atheist martyr. Really he was arrested for personally insulting a church official who had been supporting his theories.
These among other misrepresentations are examples of atheist revisionism.
@bloodrunsclear "All your previous statements have been based on my unworthiness to argue with this fellow" that's strawman number 2, i don't view you as unworthy of argument, i'm merely curious as to why you think he's being irrational or prejudiced. Interesting fact about Gallelio, it's truly unfortunate when anyone tries to rewrite history for their own gain, whether they be atheists or not.
Again, I'm not meaning to make strawmen. All of your previous statements before you decided to champion Theramin's impeccable logic was that I had no right to argue with him at all.
I think he's being irrational and prejudicial because as I mentioned he's not mentioning Pasquel was not a believer, that saying the opposition is irrational and moving on is not an argument, that lying about atheists being the underdog is perpetuating a sterotype that's greatly affected my life.
@bloodrunsclear "All of your previous statements before you decided to champion Theramin's impeccable logic" I'm not sure what you mean by that, are you reffering to the back and forth nonsense that took place before we started debating? i admit i didn't think much of you at first but that's because i assumed you had no interest in actually making a point, when i realised you did that changed, but even then i didn't think you had no right to argue, it's just that you weren't actually arguing.
@HHHonoth (cont) "he's not mentioning Pasquel was not a believer" finally something that attempts to support your claim of irrationality, can we have a bit more of that please?
anyway, i don't really see how pascal being a beleiver is relevent to the argument, he proposed an argument to believing in Yahweh and that's what the original video was counter-arguing against "saying the opposition is irrational and moving on is not an argument" i agree, when does this happen though?
First of all many arguments depend on the misapprehension that Pasquel was some kind of theologian, so taking the bit in his teeth Theramin pressed his advantage by first claiming this to be the position of all religious people (which it is not) and then debunking it with ease. Also his previous argument depended on the idea that if God doesn't do what you want he must not be powerful.
One argument he dismissed entirely by calling it irrational and moving on.
@bloodrunsclear "Theramin pressed his advantage by first claiming this to be the position of all religious people" please don't tell me you got that from "an argument that has been used, confused and abused"
"Also his previous argument depended on the idea that if God doesn't do what you want he must not be powerful." which argument is that? look if you're going to keep referring to things Ttree said can you atleast give me a qoute so i know what you're talking about?
Do I really have to nit pick? I'd much rather discuss the themes presented so this doesn't become a quote hunt.
And if you cannot pick up arguments that are front and center...well then that's a bit like Qualiasoup who in his own videos continually champions nonconformity and personal opinion...then goes ahead and denies an entire line of thought validity because he doesn't agree with it, effectively only seeing one side of the issue.
Theramintrees is making these same pre-suppositions with overwhelming support because of the popularity of his claims. Consider: what's the most popular villain in every form of media? The crazed cultist, oftentimes overtly Christian. What videos are featured most often on Youtube? Atheist apologists.
These are simply the facts and claiming to be some kind of embattled underground movement is simply untrue. Atheists aren't fired for their beliefs, or blown up in Egypt.
@bloodrunsclear i agree atheism isn't an underground movement on the internet, it is "embattled" in a sense but not really any more than religion is, i've heard that it gets alot of shit in certain parts of the U.S but i can't really confirm that, here in Australia atheism certainly isn't embattled or underground, most people i know are atheists, and people here tend to keep their beliefs to themselves, when does Theramintrees claim such a thing? can you provide a link to the video/s?
@bloodrunsclear 'There are continued instances of atheism being downplayed in order to keep religion from being offended' that's probably true in some places, i'm sure there are equal or greater instances of other religions being downplayed aswell, but that doesn't mean prejudiced against atheism doesn't exist, in any case it's a bit assumptive to say he was implying that atheism was an underground movement because of this.
@bloodrunsclear Your joking about religions not persecuting athiests right?
They are persecuted in schools, internet, and popular culture... They are bashed on TV, they are bashed on the internet, and they are bashed in schools to help put Creationist ideas in schools as if they are worth teaching.
Actually, I think that smokers and athiests are the most acceptable groups to persecute.
@Silentsam7532 'Your joking about religions not persecuting athiests right?' Nope. 'They are persecuted in schools' Um...no. 'internet,' Ha. 'popular culture...' Utter nonsense. 'They are bashed on TV' Prove it. 'they are bashed on the internet' You're delusional. Actually Scientologists are the most persecuted. And I sure remember all the atheist villains in popular movies... Like...um...um...
Well FOX news bashes atheists whenever they can. This would count as both TV and popular culture. It may be trash but enough Americans watch it to show that it is part of American culture. I can't put a link here or I would.
There are many people on the internet bashing atheists, its very common. Im not even sure how you could deny this.
When it comes to schools its the whole evolution vs creationism. Religious people with no understanding of evolution try to bash it.
@bloodrunsclear Just because I give one example does not mean it only happens once. There was a lot of controversy over athiest billboards where people demands they be removed. I would say taking away free speech from athiests is a pretty sad thing to see in America. I hope you don't next think that is the only other case...
Yes, YoutTube is filled with videos of atheists and religious people arguing. Most of it is not persecution, but both sides can go to the extreme.
@bloodrunsclear Are you claiming someone was actually arressted for praying in a school? Was this by any chance a Muslim or Wiccan person?
God has no place in the government, or in schools.
Religion should be in schools, but only for education. All religious holdiays should be taught in school with no one holiday getting special treatment.
"Well you've yet to show me one case."
"One news agency. The only agency itself parodied by every other network?"
@bloodrunsclear Were the teachers themelves praying, or praying for the kids. It does sound creepy, but not bad. I doubt they faced any charges or were convicted though. Many strange arrests happen. Courts decide after that.
The founding fathers were against God and government mixing and also some of them where against some things in the bible and Chritianity. Some spoke out against Christianity.
Its strange American's don't understand this. That is why they seperated church and state.
Listen. When I was in public education we learned all about Chinese New Year, we had a Muslim come in and talk about their holidays too but I wasn't able to say the word 'Christmas' without being shouted at.
And your example about Fox news as the only channel that actually takes on atheists and is itself synonymous in our culture as evil isn't all those movies and popular cultural, or internet references you claimed.
@bloodrunsclear Not persecuted in a strong sense of the word, but neither are Christians. Muslims are by far the most persecuted in America, but not in an extreme way.
I really doubt people are screamed at in school for mentioning christmas. Many schools still have christmas plays etc.
Not sure what your trying to say about FOX news and those movies there. FOX news is bad, but I wouldn't say evil. Those movies, I have mostly not seen, are just movies. News and movies are quite different.
@bloodrunsclear My favourite popular example of something for atheists and against religion was Bill Kahr's Religulous. That was very funny and very informative. I have actually seen it convert a Christian.
Religion really neds to start to take a back seat in society. It has no place in deciding laws or morals. it has no place at all in education other than to mention their existence and maybe origins. Of course until later schooling when everything should be looked into in depth.
'My favourite popular example of something for atheists and against religion was Bill Kahr's Religulous.'
Bill Maher, and is this actually an example of how I am RIGHT about the media being against religion?
Oops.
'I have actually seen it convert a Christian.'
'Convert' to atheism? Hmm...interesting.
So not only do you admit the media is on your side and that you believe Christianity SHOULD be persecuted and belittled you refer to atheism like it was a religion.
@bloodrunsclear No, I did not say atheism is a religion, I said it converted a christian. Converted from being a believer into one who doesn't believe in a christian god. This is no way makes atheism a religion. You make the normal fallicy the people arguing against atheism make, you try to claim that it and or science are a belief of some kind.
Atheists existing and expressing their views is not a persecution of religion. Christians trying to stop atheists from doing so is persecution.
@bloodrunsclear I will admit though that the media does allow both sides to be viewed so no one could say that the media is for one side or the other.
'I will admit though that the media does allow both sides to be viewed so no one could say that the media is for one side or the other.'
Good point. I mean there's Religious, Golden Compass, Agora, Paul (in which there's stupid christians and the alien says God doesn't exist), Red State, V for Vendetta, the television shows Glee, The Big Bang Theory, and NCIS that bash on Christians all the time. Not to mention video games and news agencies.
Seriously, you want religion entirely phased out of everywhere and don't call it persecution. You accept the inconsistencies of science on faith and don't call it a religion. You believe that one news agency is representative of atheist persecution and ignore the mega-tons of media bashing Christians daily not to mention Christens being murdered in Iran.
Please consider your position carefully. I appreciate your fervor, but consider the facts.
@bloodrunsclear "You believe that one news agency is representative of atheist persecution"
Ive already said that me giving one very obvious example did not mean there was nothing else to mention. Its funny you keep trying to make this claim.
If I was to use your logic and use movies and such as examples I could make a big list. I don't know what makes you think some TV shows or movies are persecuting christians or any religion.
The existence of ahtiests does not persecute christians...
@bloodrunsclear "evil Christians terrorize people" hmm, that is a pretty weak example. Many christians might see this as only being against fundamentalist or extreme christians, not against christians as a whole.
Do you have any actual examples of atheists trying to stop christians from being christian or following their faith?
There was a case of a congressman or senator not being allowed in Arizona because he was an atheist and would not swear to god. Thats actual (attempted) persecution.
Ah, against fundamentalist Christians. Darn shame there's NO OTHERE KIND REPRODUCED IN ANY MEDIA.
A person in my country was denied a research grant for being a Christian. In the recent movie Soul Diver the company actually edited out the holy Bible. Several companies have refused to build churches on their land because of presure from atheist groups.
A congressmen or senator...very specific. Did you witness this?
@bloodrunsclear Actually the media shows all types of people. The only times it show the fundamentalists are when they are portrayed as bad or extreme.
You yourself give very vague and weak examples. First, anything done in a movie or TV isn't really important. Real life means more, and news can be brought into that.
Several companies refuse some land somewhere... very specific. Did you witness this?
I can't remember off hand if is was a congressman or senator. it was on the news, and Youtube.
@bloodrunsclear weak examples because movies are technically art, and just an expression. You other example is some company somewhere.
My example was specific to Arizona, and the fact that their state constitution says only those believeing in god can serve. It didn't work because the US constitution trumps it. I just can remember if it was a congressman or senator.
Also I never claimed to witness it, I said it was on the news, and that news clip was put on youtube.
Um...art defines a people, especially the young. Imagine how many people grew to hate capitalists, jews, and communists thanks to propaganda. I guess it IS nice when all the propaganda agrees with you, but that doesn't make it not propaganda. Museums host people who submerge crucifixes in piss. Art?
Ah, it is a shame that the US Constitution pulled rank based on a misconception of a non existent 'separation of church and state' clause to trump state law. Disgusting.
@bloodrunsclear A good example would be something from the news. Even just a little more info in the story you already said. It would be wrong not to build a church, unless there was zoning and or oter reasons.
Its like when people in America where dumb enough to not want that Mosque built in NewYork. it was just prejudice without reason.
Oh, and FOX news is the most watched news in America. It is not hated by the majority of American's.
@bloodrunsclear OK, so your attributing these bombings in the middle east to atheists persecuting christians. The details shows youre example is in now way atheists persecuting christians.
FOX news is parodied because it is stupid. FOX news can hardly be called news. That does not stop it from being the most watched news agency in America and is actually expressing the views of many American's. There are many in Americca who think Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck are actually worth watching.
@bloodrunsclear Christians being persecuted by other religions doesn't matter. Many religions persecute other religions.
I thought you could give examples of atheists persecuting christians, or any religion. many of us express the view that religion obviously does the world no good, but most do not actually stop religions from existing.
Converting people to reason and seeing them abandon faith is a nice thing. It give one hope that the world could get past these old superstitions and move on.
Oh, I see. You mean that persecution only matters when its one opposing view over another.
I showed you endless amounts of proof of atheist persecution of religion, but it also didn't count.
You're not using reason at all in abandoning faith, you're trading one religion for another, old superstitions for new. Conversion is a fine word for changing from worship God to worship science.
It is a nice thing to think your selfish gain is the only purpose of life.
@bloodrunsclear You gave no proof of atheists persecuting christians. You gave me movies and TV shows. These are artists expression, not persecution. I would never site movies with pro christian themes as persecuting atheists.
You did give an example of one religion fighting another, and that is all. That actually lends more credit to atheists. Religion is not something to fight over.
Other than that there is no faith in science. There is also no worship in science. Science is truth.
@bloodrunsclear "you actually DID site pro-christian movies and TV shows"
No, I mentioned FOX news and other news clips. When did i mention any movies or TV shows as being persecution of atheists?
Saying science is truth can be called an error, but not worshipful or faithful in anyway. I take nothing that science says on faith, nor does any scientist. These things are tested and verified.
I don't think you really understand what a theory is. Its not something you take on faith.
@bloodrunsclear Theories can not be proven, they stand until disproven. So far no religion or creationist argument has disproven anything claimed by science, and science disproves many things claimed by religion.
You show a lack of understand of what science even is with statements like "Theories unproven are beliefs taken on faith."
Nothing in science is taken on faith, but backed by experiment or math.
Um...wait a moment, how can science disprove things claimed by religion when theories cannot stand until disproven? What things are you talking about?
Ah, nothing about science is taken on faith.
Except say string theory, parallel universes, subatomic particles we can't even observe without changing their behavior, and theories we accept even with a lack of evidence, as well as materialism which you and other scientists take as a given. So yes, faith.
@bloodrunsclear "Um...wait a moment, how can science disprove things claimed by religion when theories cannot stand until disproven? What things are you talking about?"
Lets get this straight. Theories stand until disproven. The flood story has not only been shown to have not covered the world, but was likely only about a people that had its area flooded when the Black Sea formed.
The age of the world has been disproven, or that the world is flat which was only hinted at by the bible.
@bloodrunsclear No one can show atheism to be a bad thing, and trying to swap other things in there does nothing but show your inability to fully comprehend the full scope of this discussion.
I would not discount any actual proof. Please find something besides movies using extremist christians as villans.
No one can show atheism is a bad thing? Um...why not? The recent shooter of the congressmen in Arizona was an atheist. Stalin was an atheist. Pol Pot was an atheist. Nobunaga was an atheist.
You've yet to provide any proof of your counter claims except for very fine statements of implicit belief.
@bloodrunsclear You can show atheists to have been bad people, and there is a long list of religious people and leaders who were bad people. I am not going to try and claim that all these bad religious people make that religion bad.
I will say that some religions, namely christianity, have had a net negative impact on the world. That is not a hard cliam to make.
You yourself have provided nothing but evidence of your own inability to understand the conversattion.
@bloodrunsclear "First of all, show me using secular reasoning that good and bad even have a meaning."
Well first off can you show me using religious reasoning that good and bad have meaning. Its not that I think you can't, I am just curious which religious reasoning you follow since there are many.
This video explains different types of atheist morality:
Religious reasoning runs thusly: God created man to be a certain way but with the capacity to be another. This other fashion is inherently flawed, evil, because man cannot be as good a god as God. So good is the way man should be and evil is the choice to be god.
I can't open your video but if its Thinkingatheist I already disproved him and got blocked for it.
Nihilism by the by is the antithesis of morality ironically. You're beginning to see the problem...
@bloodrunsclear "I can't open your video but if its Thinkingatheist I already disproved him and got blocked for it."
Add a third "w" to the beginng. YouTube wont let me put the full link in the reply here. Its not that video though, and only talks about atheists and never touches theists. Its more an internal debate amonsgts atheists.
For every evil atheist you could possibly cite, there are a hundred evil Christians, Muslims, etc. A person's belief or lack thereof doesn't make them good or evil.
Tell me using secular logic how someone can be either good or evil when morality is subjective according to atheists?
A person's believe can lead them to good or evil actions. Ironically the religious people who did evil that you site did their villainous actions when they surrendered to secular ideals.
So no, this isn't going away. First tell me its possible to be good or evil secularly.
@bloodrunsclear I'm not trying to prove religion makes someone evil. I just SAID it doesn't. Religion only provides excuses for people to commit evil acts.
And morality isn't subjective. What hurts people is bad, what benefits people is good. Simple as that. The problems arise when the religious start singling out as "evil" things which do no harm (homosexuality) or do great good (science).
Oh, and try telling the Inquisitors of Spain that the evil they did was because of secular ideals.
....What. Of course Gregor Mendel did great good. His work is the foundation of modern genetics, which spawned revolutionary discoveries in medicine and agriculture to name just two.
And you're oversimplifying the morality issue. A cop or soldier that hurst someone isn't automatically bad, what matter is who they hurt and why.
And please, name me some great evils done in the name of science.
Sorry, I meant Josef Mengele, another famous scientist.
Funny thing, Gregor was a monk...
I'm over simplifying the issue? You claimed it was 'as simple as' hurts people = bad, benefits = good.
I guess you were wrong?
Evils in the name of science; eugenics, nazi experimentation, attempts to cure homosexuality, cruel experiments with diseases on amazon tribesmen, vivisection, biological warfare...
@bloodrunsclear Allow me to be a bit more clear on the morality thing, then.
Anything which is beneficial to humanity, by providing for our needs, giving us happiness, pleasure or fulfillment, or lessening/eradicating our suffering, is good.
Anything detrimental to humanity, by increasing suffering, injustice, or need, is bad.
Mendel being a monk is irrelevant to his contributions. And yes, evil can be done in the name of science. Which is why many atheists espouse what I outlined above.
By what authority do you declare either good or evil? Personal preference? The law? Usually the law and morality are not the same since the law can enforce 'evil' as well as good. But if this is just you saying stuff you consider good or bad, what gives you the right to?
Evolution doesn't support this standard since fulfillment rarely comes into the picture at all and injustice, suffering and detriment to others are the name of the survival game. These aren't natural rules.
@bloodrunsclear I don't declare it by any authority. I don't "declare" it at all. I'm simply explaining a system of morality that I and others share. I base it on the simple premise that human suffering should be minimized as much as possible.
And no, evolution doesn't support this standard. It doesn't need to. It's just the way the world works. Saying human morality should have some bearing on evolution is like saying you should be able to wish really hard and influence the weather.
So you base the imperative of your system of morality...on the system of morality.
That's called circular logic.
For instance by the same logic I could say me and my friends declare all people named Jeb need to be arrested. Why? Because of the simple premise that all people named Jeb need to be arrested.
And you just admitted the way the world works is actually counter to natural processes?
Of course the world doesn't follow human morality. The universe is utterly indifferent to our suffering. If it wanted us to be happy there'd be no natural disasters, and if it wanted us to suffer, there'd be many more. And morality isn't unnatural...it doesn't take much debate to realize our species can survive better if we don't kill, rape and steal from each other.
And if your religious morality has so much authority, why has it caused so much unnecessary suffering?
So wait a moment...you said that your version of morality was the 'way the world works'
Now its not? Now its the opposite of the way the world works?
Why is survival moral in any case or happiness and also the easiest ways to survive and be happy are usually considered immoral! Again, curious.
Actually Christianity has an explanation for suffering; the fall of man. Unfortunately that taints religion as well as anything else we do to try and become God ourselves. We need to be humble.
@bloodrunsclear You misunderstood me. I didn't say morality was the way the world works, I said that the world not caring about our morality was the way it works.
The point of ANY system of morality, no matter it's origin or tenets, is to ensure the survival and happiness of our species. Some do better than others, of course. And how exactly is survival and happiness considered immoral?
And I wouldn't recommend bringing up Christian explanations for anything. Those are too easy to pick apart.
So if the world works in a way that implies the opposite of morality, shouldn't that indicate that morality is pointless? I thought we could only follow what we could prove.
I'm picking apart your own system with the greatest of ease so I'd love to see your own deconstruction.
The Christian explanation is that man was created to be moral but chose not to be, essentially attempting to be God by denying his true nature. Your explanation is we're moral...because it makes us happy?
It doesn't indicate morality is pointless, morality has an obvious use; a world where we treat each other fairly is much more enjoyable to live in than a world where we're all massive pricks.
And the religious explanation is destroyed thus: If god is all knowing/loving/powerful, how does suffering exist? if he can't get rid of it, he's not all powerful. If he can but won't, he's not all loving. And why exactly would a good god create humans KNOWING they would sin, and then punish them anyway?
Morality however is unprovably the just means of behavior. Certainly its nice and all for people, but isn't selfishness also immoral? If the only thing we can prove is natural events then morality, which goes against these, is pointless.
How does suffering exist? We created it and he let us BECAUSE he loves us. Free will.
Um...if you give someone a ball and you expect them to play with it, not throw it at their brother or sister really hard, did you make them suffer?
Actually free-will and omniscience/potent is not mutually exclusive at all. God perceives all times in the same eternity, we just perceive it in the limits of our own broken universe.
And what I was trying to say is you like to claim you accept nothing without proof.
Well we can 'prove' naturalism which trumps morality. Oops.
But what if you give them that ball KNOWING they'll throw it? If god is omniscient, he knew. If he didn't know, he's not omniscient.
And if he's omniscient, he knows what every single person who ever will/did exist will do. If god knows every tiny little action you will every make, how exactly do you have free will?
Lastly, naturalism doesn't 'trump' morality. All I said is that the world is indifferent. That doesn't change the fact the world is a better place if we treat each other fairly.
You're again thinking in terms of our time. He knew we'd throw it eventually, but he saw fit to give us the chance to. Would you rather we be obedient robots? How can they love anything?
God can know what you do and you can still do it. How does knowing the end of a race prevent the race from happening? He knows it because you do it, not the other way around.
'Better' is another meaningless word, like bad or good.
You should say 'the world is more convenient for me when...'
@bloodrunsclear This is all moot, anyway. You'll believe whatever you want to believe regardless of what arguments are made. It's the adult equivalent of a child sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
Do me a favor, though. At least have the decency to understand that others have the right to their beliefs, and that NO ONE'S beliefs have any bearing on scientific fact. If you can follow that one simple rule, the world will be a slightly better place.
Um...you are trumpeting a totally baseless system of morality which originated in the very belief you're trying to debunk! I've listened to all your points and even questioned my own views. Which of us is sticking whose fingers in which ears again?
I hope you honor the rights of others to have beliefs contrary to yours too, besides assuming that religion=delusion apparently.
About 8) Also, the assumption is made, that if there is a God, he will reward us for believing in him, and punish us if we don't. However there is of course also the possibility that:
a) he will punish those that believe in him and reward those that don't,
b) he will punish us whether or not we believe in him
c) he resents the whole idea of "thought crimes" and will reward us, regardless of whether or not we believe in him (The Good God Hypothesis)
d) he exists but there is no afterlife
FomalhautBeer 1 day ago
@FomalhautBeer to continue:
e) he is not a he, but a she or an it.
It's strange that people put forward Pascal's wager and suggest that the choice is between (their version of) the Christian God or no god at all.
This is like a pathologist investigating the cause of death of someone, and arriving at the conclusion that the person must either have died a natural death, or must have been killed by a 43 year old guy with light brown curly hair and a birth mark on his left shoulder.
FomalhautBeer 1 day ago
Hate to nitpick, but your list of spiders said "cinnamon taratula"
Snakepliskinist 1 day ago
@Snakepliskinist You love to nitpick, don't lie.
metsubo 1 day ago
@metsubo Yeah...but everyone loves to do things they are good at.
Snakepliskinist 1 day ago
Why do you always assume those whom disagree with you, must be christian or even hold certain christian beliefs?
googolplexbyte 1 day ago
@googolplexbyte I don't
TheraminTrees 1 day ago 8
@TheraminTrees So you're saying what appeared to me to be assumptions in this video, such as the implication that one of those arguing with you believed about the noah's ark myth is a fact you knew to be true. My initial question was quite weighted. It should have been:
In this video how (and how much) did you know about the beliefs of the makers of the statements you were refuting?
googolplexbyte 1 day ago
@googolplexbyte 'My initial question was quite weighted. It should have been: In this video how (and how much) did you know about the beliefs of the makers of the statements you were refuting?'
—Where I refer to those beliefs, I'm conveying what's been explicitly expressed in exchanges/discussions — often, a tiny fragment of protracted discussions.
TheraminTrees 1 day ago
@TheraminTrees Oh okay, thanks for the quick responses.
googolplexbyte 1 day ago
Is it possible to make this a response to a video by hdregmore's Pascal's Wager Proven (Atheists Fail Again)? /watch?v=QAVWNb1qDrs He ignores and censors comments, a video response can't be censored right?
gocrazy432 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
"To stop asking the questions that lead you away from belief in God."
See, the problem with that is that you don't know whether the question will lead you away from God until you find the answer to it. Acknowledging this, the early church decided to punish ALL questioning of anything religious, and some things that had nothing to do with religion at all.
mchandler2112 2 weeks ago 6
@RobeonMew02 I've accidentally replied to myself as well.
Traveler246 1 month ago
@RobeonMew02 Why do you talk to yourself?
Traveler246 1 month ago
@RobeonMew02 Sarcasm's tricky to express in writing. Sarcastic speech works because there's a disparity between what's said and the tone in which it's said, that alerts us to the fact the sentiment isn't sincere. In writing, there's no such disparity to indicate sarcasm, so other indicators are required. Personally, I tend to err on the side of benefit of the doubt with dubious comments — I like to think people have brains so must be joking. But as I say, sad how often this is not the case.
TheraminTrees 1 month ago
@TheraminTrees Poe's law, the inability to differentiate extremism and satire
gocrazy432 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@gocrazy432 Common sense - if satire is easily confused for extremism, the satirist is not a good comedian and should find a new hobby because they are only serving up an annoying obstacle that misdirects productive efforts.
Furoar 1 day ago
@Furoar
Common nonsense!
To many Muslims - and to Bill O'Riley - almost ANY satire (or irony) with their religion would be viewed as "extremism".
grozde 1 day ago
@grozde Wait what.
Poe's law is what you mentioned, and it is regarding satire being confused with the genuine article; where imitation is intended to be sarcastic but causes confusion in perception by failing to convey "I'm an impressionist doing an impression" {a performer who mimics the way people speak and behave, usually in a humorous exaggerated way.}
Those that recognize the mockery but react with overstatement or yellow journalism are respectively paranoid and manipulative.
Furoar 1 day ago
@Furoar
That's my entire point - you can't evaluate the quality of a satire simply by the perception of a particular audience, especially one that is know for its paranoia lack of reasonable judgement on certain issue.
grozde 1 day ago
@grozde Again, the person I originally responded to was talking about "Poe's law."
There's got to be a point where self-proclaimed comedians who do not bother to give clear signals for the nature of their presentation such is that is given when something is broadcasted on "Comedy Central" or published in "MAD" magazine and the like, have to accept the onus rather than pawning it on their audience of diverse demographics for taking them seriously and causing a misdirection of social efforts.
Furoar 12 hours ago
@Furoar
I beg your pardon. I guess I have missed the actual beginning of your conversation and have interpreted you somewhat out of context. My bad.
grozde 5 hours ago
@RobeonMew02 Obviously, nope — not one more point for theists. As anyone with half a brain can see, I'm clearly not making rebuttals to 'betting on infinity', but dealing with rebuttals made by others. But as a side note,isn't it depressing that readers can't take it for granted that comments like yours must be a joke. There are just too many pig-ignorant twerps who leave comments like that and, embarrassingly for them, actually mean it.
TheraminTrees 1 month ago
@bloodrunsclear It is utterly absurd for you to claim morality is a theistic trait when empathy for suffering has been shown to be a great basis for morality in brain scan tests. Also, remember if anyone is going to pay attention to you, you must back up your claims with evidence, otherwise no one has any reason to listen to you. Human morality can be explained by science.
zthomasack 2 months ago
We can't count the Greek Gods, people recurs the summit of mt Olympus and we found nothing there... Lol keep up the good work! :-)
TheEdgarAllenGospis 2 months ago
@TheEdgarAllenGospis And if the Greek gods live in a spiritual world that overlaps ours, and they only venture into our world when they choose to do so? Suddenly they might exist again.
TheoryOfThought 1 month ago
Yet another great video.
GoDrex 3 months ago
7 people still don't get it
eahazell 3 months ago
Love most of your points, but as a posh British bloke I cringed every time you missed a "t" sound at the end of a word or in the middle of "critic". I suggest an appointment or two with a public speaking coach would be very helpful :-)
aika092 4 months ago
@aika092 it's his accent, not a speech defect so give the guy a break.
MusicStudyMan 2 months ago
Love the 'stained-glass houses' line :D
COEXISTential 4 months ago
I love the response to your #11 on this list
Qilue2179 5 months ago
Even though the wager only concerned all-powerful gods, there's thousands of Christian denominations and they're all contradicted by Islam.
M3t4lManiac 5 months ago
@M3t4lManiac An assumption that there need be an all-powerful god is one of the problems with the wager. The god(s) need only control what happens after we die. Think of the Architect in the Matrix -- it was just a computer AI. Omnipotence is not necessary. If you assume it is in your wager, you could be wrong in an infinite number of ways.
riahmatic 1 month ago
@riahmatic I know, I just made that obvious point clear, if you posit to me Pascal's Wager as a Christian, you have not considered the fact that there are an infinite number of possible deities while your specific version of salvation will contradict any number of possibilities. That there are thousands of different Christian denominations immediately destroys the argument if posited by a Christian. You'll just have to ask them which denomination or religion to bet on and why.
M3t4lManiac 1 month ago
Excellent.
Dazzletoad 6 months ago
Comment removed
bloodrunsclear 6 months ago
Preach on!
Its hilarious to me these poor, underdog atheists have so many views, are featured on websites and youtube, and endlessly thumb up each others comments.
Ah well, whatever makes you feel better I guess.
bloodrunsclear 6 months ago
I find the idea that this world isn't actually real, and that I am in a coma or virtual reality, to be fascinating. Does anyone know any GOOD quality videos/articles debating this idea?
7pulford 8 months ago
@7pulford Look for the "simulation argument/hypothesis" on Wikipedia.
GuruEvi 8 months ago
I've met several people who use #12 in passing and got thoroughly angry with them because until recently I couldn't understand the real emotional drive for the statement.
Because rationality depends on adapting to new or more accurate evidence, any morality based on rationality will (most likely) be wrong sometimes on some points esp. those for which the morality is inconclusive. Against those risks, an "inerrant" and unchanging basis for morality is appealing.
asquii 8 months ago
@asquii but then you're not any less wrong, you're more wrong and just pretending to be right.
webmaster2089 7 months ago
@webmaster2089 I don't know if I'd be able to argue it's "more wrong" because I assume that evidence, reasons, and assertions need to be judged independently of one another. It's worse than just pretending to be right, though. It turns being right into a personal necessity.
For some, at risk for being wrong is an infinite, unending punishment. Even without that, imagine if posting on youTube caused aneurysms. The guilt of causing so much pain needlessly is something I'd be compelled to evade.
asquii 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AN EXTRAORDINARILY SUPREMELY INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED UNIVERSE REQUIRES AN EXTRAORDINARILY SUPREMELY INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, and I know Him and He knows you. In fact you are one of his supremely intelligent designs. I am available daily on my IS ATHEISM LOGICAL? video to discuss this with you. Be sure to bring your evidence if you have any.
MegaSage007 8 months ago
thumbs up! :)
yinyangcali 9 months ago
I love your videos.
LoquaciousApe 9 months ago
In no way can you ever define or describe reality. Not with words, ideas, logic or pictures. No satisfaction or relief can ever be had in this manner. Barking up the wrong tree. Endless defining, creates endless suffering. I separated from thou can not describe or know thou. This is " The wrong side of Infinity". YES? When I and Thou merge, definitions end with a direct knowable experience. The result is the end of suffering ( pain ) and the return of life loving life!
I could be wrong.
3877michael 10 months ago
Technically you need close to 2000 members of a species to keep them from an irreversible genetic bottleneck which will result in too little genetic diversity causing the species to become permanently inbred and thus will not, in the long run, survive.
jackalsocoke 10 months ago
Well to be fair point 12 is similar to what Sam Harris argues that morals can be studied scientifically . Taken from wiki: Harris asserts that "morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science" discerning what humans ought to do by looking at what is.
BlackMagister 1 year ago
5 people are still searching for a female of the 40,000th spider species. Storm clouds are brewing overhead, better get back to the arc soon!
Occidentally 1 year ago 27
You are in a lovely position here. For one thing half of your arguments are dependent upon popular hatred of your detractors, but that's fine because popular hatred is against your detractors anyway. One of your rebuttals was 'this is an example of irrationality'
Um...if you say so.
I also liked the lie about downplaying atheism for religious tolerance. Where?
Not in public education. Not in law. Not in entertainment.
You built giants out of wind mills and people cheer as you tilt at them.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
I like how your rebuttals are nothing new, nothing very grounded...
But hey! Look at the cartoons!
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear
I like how your comment is nothing new, nothing very grounded...
But hey! Look at the sarcasm!
HHHonoth 1 year ago
@HHHonoth
You have a point.
Where are my accolades and people saying 'you go dude' for me?
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear you'll probably get them once you present something interesting and/or intelligent to say.
HHHonoth 1 year ago
@HHHonoth
Or when I lose my integrity and start making popular statements.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear Or maybe when you hear something you disagree with you can form actual rebuttals to it rather then tossing pointless insults that contain no constructive criticism whatsoever at other peoples hard work.
Just an idea.
HHHonoth 1 year ago
@HHHonoth
There are no rebuttals here though. His position is entirely based on the concept that everyone besides himself have no points to make and are irrational. My 'insults' are not pointless, its calling a spade a spade here.
He's popular because his position is popular and he presents it in an appealing way.
I've provided constructive criticism in the past and been ignored. Apparently direct attacks are the only way to be heard.
Fine idea. Took it to heart.
The irrational will not listen.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear "His position is entirely based on the concept that everyone besides himself have no points to make and are irrational." I'm very curious as to how you come to this conclusion, he tells you the arguments presented to him and clearly and logically explains the flaws in said arguments, that's pretty much the definition of a rebuttal, you could argue that he only showed irrational arguments and ignored good ones, but he did refute these arguments nonetheless.
HHHonoth 1 year ago 2
@HHHonoth (cont.) "I've provided constructive criticism in the past and been ignored. Apparently direct attacks are the only way to be heard." If constructive criticism didn't work then i hardly see how attacks are going to work any better, if i were you i'd just cut my losses and take my bussiness elsewhere, let the irrational be irrational.
HHHonoth 1 year ago
@HHHonoth
Well it did actually get someone to talk to me.
Maybe he's away but I'd love to actually have it out with Theramintrees when he didn't have his flash animations to hide behind.
I'm not running a business, I just hate irrationality and prejudice and both are rife in these videos.
But I may go elsewhere if true discussion is impossible.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@HHHonoth
You haven't been listening. Several times his positions are entirely based on the simple and inescapable fact that his opponents are irrational. How so? Not even worth discussing really.
Logical explanation of a positions weakness IS the definition of rebuttal, which makes it unjust to refer to this video as one. He refuted the arguments only in as far as he said they were wrong. If I made a video like this refuting this fellow, even with posh graphics, you'd say I was unjust.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear I have been listening (well technically i've been reading) i just disagree with you, he never just said they where wrong, he explained why they where wrong every time, the only argument he didn't technically refute was that the wager was rational, he explained that Pascal himself said it wasn't rational, which does of course greatly support his claim that it isn't but doesn't actually prove it as even though Pascal proposed the wager, he could be wrong about any part of it.
HHHonoth 1 year ago
@HHHonoth(cont)"If I made a video like this refuting this fellow, even with posh graphics, you'd say I was unjust." I tend to judge arguments on their own merit as opposed to which side of the argument i'm on so that would depend entirely on how you handle the refuting, if you handle it like how Ttrees does then i may or may not disagree but i wouldn't take issue with it, however if you handle it how you seem to think he does then maybe i would.
PS: who do you think this "prejudice" is aimed at?
HHHonoth 1 year ago
@HHHonoth
Again, no argument that he says they're wrong but his positions for doing so depends completely in most cases on his monopoly on truth and rationality, a monopoly he assumes throughout all of his videos. I could say he was wrong in my own video and site his irrationality...but given my beliefs, you'd say I had no right to make the exact same accusation with the same amount of justification.
Its ironic he complains about the marginalizing of atheism when he's proof of its dominance.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear "I could say he was wrong in my own video and site his irrationality...but given my beliefs, you'd say I had no right to make the exact same accusation with the same amount of justification." nice strawman, i don't care what you believe, whether it be Allah, Zues, yahweh, Odin or the internal combustion engine (as long as you don't believe something like x group of people should be killed) if you have something you want to say i'll listen.
HHHonoth 1 year ago
@HHHonoth
Its no strawman at all. You're predisposed to accept certain arguments as true, others as false.
Here's a little test: The church arrested Gallelio for the heresy of proposing his geo-centric theory of the galaxy which went against religious teaching. True of false.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear "Its no strawman at all. You're predisposed to accept certain arguments as true, others as false." even if this where true it would still be a strawman as you have no way of knowing this. "Here's a little test: The church arrested Gallelio for the heresy of proposing his geo-centric theory of the galaxy which went against religious teaching. True of false." thats not an argument, it's a question, im not that familiar with Gallelio so i really don't know.
HHHonoth 1 year ago
@HHHonoth
I do have a way of knowing this. All your previous statements have been based on my unworthiness to argue with this fellow and you see nothing wrong in his arguments at all.
As for Gallelio popular teaching still claims he was arrested by the church for speaking out against it; an atheist martyr. Really he was arrested for personally insulting a church official who had been supporting his theories.
These among other misrepresentations are examples of atheist revisionism.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear "All your previous statements have been based on my unworthiness to argue with this fellow" that's strawman number 2, i don't view you as unworthy of argument, i'm merely curious as to why you think he's being irrational or prejudiced. Interesting fact about Gallelio, it's truly unfortunate when anyone tries to rewrite history for their own gain, whether they be atheists or not.
HHHonoth 1 year ago
@HHHonoth
Again, I'm not meaning to make strawmen. All of your previous statements before you decided to champion Theramin's impeccable logic was that I had no right to argue with him at all.
I think he's being irrational and prejudicial because as I mentioned he's not mentioning Pasquel was not a believer, that saying the opposition is irrational and moving on is not an argument, that lying about atheists being the underdog is perpetuating a sterotype that's greatly affected my life.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear "All of your previous statements before you decided to champion Theramin's impeccable logic" I'm not sure what you mean by that, are you reffering to the back and forth nonsense that took place before we started debating? i admit i didn't think much of you at first but that's because i assumed you had no interest in actually making a point, when i realised you did that changed, but even then i didn't think you had no right to argue, it's just that you weren't actually arguing.
HHHonoth 1 year ago
@HHHonoth (cont) "he's not mentioning Pasquel was not a believer" finally something that attempts to support your claim of irrationality, can we have a bit more of that please?
anyway, i don't really see how pascal being a beleiver is relevent to the argument, he proposed an argument to believing in Yahweh and that's what the original video was counter-arguing against "saying the opposition is irrational and moving on is not an argument" i agree, when does this happen though?
HHHonoth 1 year ago
@HHHonoth
First of all many arguments depend on the misapprehension that Pasquel was some kind of theologian, so taking the bit in his teeth Theramin pressed his advantage by first claiming this to be the position of all religious people (which it is not) and then debunking it with ease. Also his previous argument depended on the idea that if God doesn't do what you want he must not be powerful.
One argument he dismissed entirely by calling it irrational and moving on.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear "Theramin pressed his advantage by first claiming this to be the position of all religious people" please don't tell me you got that from "an argument that has been used, confused and abused"
"Also his previous argument depended on the idea that if God doesn't do what you want he must not be powerful." which argument is that? look if you're going to keep referring to things Ttree said can you atleast give me a qoute so i know what you're talking about?
HHHonoth 1 year ago
@HHHonoth
Do I really have to nit pick? I'd much rather discuss the themes presented so this doesn't become a quote hunt.
And if you cannot pick up arguments that are front and center...well then that's a bit like Qualiasoup who in his own videos continually champions nonconformity and personal opinion...then goes ahead and denies an entire line of thought validity because he doesn't agree with it, effectively only seeing one side of the issue.
Its not a strawman, its simply observance.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@HHHonoth
Cont...
Theramintrees is making these same pre-suppositions with overwhelming support because of the popularity of his claims. Consider: what's the most popular villain in every form of media? The crazed cultist, oftentimes overtly Christian. What videos are featured most often on Youtube? Atheist apologists.
These are simply the facts and claiming to be some kind of embattled underground movement is simply untrue. Atheists aren't fired for their beliefs, or blown up in Egypt.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear i agree atheism isn't an underground movement on the internet, it is "embattled" in a sense but not really any more than religion is, i've heard that it gets alot of shit in certain parts of the U.S but i can't really confirm that, here in Australia atheism certainly isn't embattled or underground, most people i know are atheists, and people here tend to keep their beliefs to themselves, when does Theramintrees claim such a thing? can you provide a link to the video/s?
HHHonoth 1 year ago
@HHHonoth
Of course you've heard of a lot of shit. I did too in between teachers openly declaring there was no God.
I live in Seattle and people have been arrested here for singing Christmas carols. Can't offend anybody!
When does Theramin claim such a thing?
'There are continued instances of atheism being downplayed in order to keep religion from being offended'
Then he provides unsubstantiated statements attacking popular scientific theories.
Again, he's making a point, no citation need.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear 'There are continued instances of atheism being downplayed in order to keep religion from being offended' that's probably true in some places, i'm sure there are equal or greater instances of other religions being downplayed aswell, but that doesn't mean prejudiced against atheism doesn't exist, in any case it's a bit assumptive to say he was implying that atheism was an underground movement because of this.
HHHonoth 1 year ago
@HHHonoth
He does imply atheism is an underground movement. I'm continually amazed that you are not hearing this.
What else am I supposed to derive from his assertion that religion 'constantly' silences atheist opinions?
Which is, by the way, simply untrue.
Where is atheism persecuted? Schools? No. Internet? No. Popular culture? No...
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear Your joking about religions not persecuting athiests right?
They are persecuted in schools, internet, and popular culture... They are bashed on TV, they are bashed on the internet, and they are bashed in schools to help put Creationist ideas in schools as if they are worth teaching.
Actually, I think that smokers and athiests are the most acceptable groups to persecute.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear
Well FOX news bashes atheists whenever they can. This would count as both TV and popular culture. It may be trash but enough Americans watch it to show that it is part of American culture. I can't put a link here or I would.
There are many people on the internet bashing atheists, its very common. Im not even sure how you could deny this.
When it comes to schools its the whole evolution vs creationism. Religious people with no understanding of evolution try to bash it.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
'Well FOX news bashes atheists whenever they can.'
One news agency. The only agency itself parodied by every other network?
'There are many people on the internet bashing atheists, its very common.'
Uh huh. So are any of them Youtube partners? Featured on Youtube?
'When it comes to schools its the whole evolution vs creationism.'
I agree, people bashing creationism without understanding it.
Look I know you like your position but you're just no martyr.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear Just because I give one example does not mean it only happens once. There was a lot of controversy over athiest billboards where people demands they be removed. I would say taking away free speech from athiests is a pretty sad thing to see in America. I hope you don't next think that is the only other case...
Yes, YoutTube is filled with videos of atheists and religious people arguing. Most of it is not persecution, but both sides can go to the extreme.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
'There was a lot of controversy over athiest billboards where people demands they be removed.'
Like the ones on all my city's buses and close to my church?
'I would say taking away free speech from athiests is a pretty sad thing to see in America.'
It would be. Arresting people for praying in school lunch rooms however is...fine?
'I hope you don't next think that is the only other case...'
Well you've yet to show me one case.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear Are you claiming someone was actually arressted for praying in a school? Was this by any chance a Muslim or Wiccan person?
God has no place in the government, or in schools.
Religion should be in schools, but only for education. All religious holdiays should be taught in school with no one holiday getting special treatment.
"Well you've yet to show me one case."
"One news agency. The only agency itself parodied by every other network?"
You noticed one before...
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
'Are you claiming someone was actually arressted for praying in a school?'
Praying in a lunch room. Several teachers in Seattle for 'corrupting the young'
We've also had people arrested for singing Christmas carols.
'God has no place in the government, or in schools.'
The founding fathers disagree with you 'One nation under God'
'Religion should be in schools, but only for education.'
Mythology was banned for me till high school.
'You noticed one before...'
A weak example.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear Were the teachers themelves praying, or praying for the kids. It does sound creepy, but not bad. I doubt they faced any charges or were convicted though. Many strange arrests happen. Courts decide after that.
The founding fathers were against God and government mixing and also some of them where against some things in the bible and Chritianity. Some spoke out against Christianity.
Its strange American's don't understand this. That is why they seperated church and state.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
'Were the teachers themelves praying'
Bingo. They could corrupt the kids I guess.
'The founding fathers were against God and government mixing'
Which is why they made the clause to PROTECT religion, not deny it.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
Cont...
Listen. When I was in public education we learned all about Chinese New Year, we had a Muslim come in and talk about their holidays too but I wasn't able to say the word 'Christmas' without being shouted at.
And your example about Fox news as the only channel that actually takes on atheists and is itself synonymous in our culture as evil isn't all those movies and popular cultural, or internet references you claimed.
So no you're not persecuted. Not by a long shot.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear Not persecuted in a strong sense of the word, but neither are Christians. Muslims are by far the most persecuted in America, but not in an extreme way.
I really doubt people are screamed at in school for mentioning christmas. Many schools still have christmas plays etc.
Not sure what your trying to say about FOX news and those movies there. FOX news is bad, but I wouldn't say evil. Those movies, I have mostly not seen, are just movies. News and movies are quite different.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Silentsam7532
'but neither are Christians.'
Except for all the examples I gave.
'I really doubt people are screamed at in school for mentioning christmas.'
I was.
'News and movies are quite different.'
Good thing they mostly support atheists and demonize Christians then.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear My favourite popular example of something for atheists and against religion was Bill Kahr's Religulous. That was very funny and very informative. I have actually seen it convert a Christian.
Religion really neds to start to take a back seat in society. It has no place in deciding laws or morals. it has no place at all in education other than to mention their existence and maybe origins. Of course until later schooling when everything should be looked into in depth.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
'My favourite popular example of something for atheists and against religion was Bill Kahr's Religulous.'
Bill Maher, and is this actually an example of how I am RIGHT about the media being against religion?
Oops.
'I have actually seen it convert a Christian.'
'Convert' to atheism? Hmm...interesting.
So not only do you admit the media is on your side and that you believe Christianity SHOULD be persecuted and belittled you refer to atheism like it was a religion.
Fascinating....
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear No, I did not say atheism is a religion, I said it converted a christian. Converted from being a believer into one who doesn't believe in a christian god. This is no way makes atheism a religion. You make the normal fallicy the people arguing against atheism make, you try to claim that it and or science are a belief of some kind.
Atheists existing and expressing their views is not a persecution of religion. Christians trying to stop atheists from doing so is persecution.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Silentsam7532
'Converted from being a believer into one who doesn't believe in a christian god. This is no way makes atheism a religion.'
In general conversion is a reference to religion.
'you try to claim that it and or science are a belief of some kind.'
Both are.
'Christians trying to stop atheists from doing so is persecution.'
When do Christians say 'Atheism has no place in schools, government, any public arena'?
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear I will admit though that the media does allow both sides to be viewed so no one could say that the media is for one side or the other.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
'I will admit though that the media does allow both sides to be viewed so no one could say that the media is for one side or the other.'
Good point. I mean there's Religious, Golden Compass, Agora, Paul (in which there's stupid christians and the alien says God doesn't exist), Red State, V for Vendetta, the television shows Glee, The Big Bang Theory, and NCIS that bash on Christians all the time. Not to mention video games and news agencies.
And on the other side there's...um...
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
Cont...
Seriously, you want religion entirely phased out of everywhere and don't call it persecution. You accept the inconsistencies of science on faith and don't call it a religion. You believe that one news agency is representative of atheist persecution and ignore the mega-tons of media bashing Christians daily not to mention Christens being murdered in Iran.
Please consider your position carefully. I appreciate your fervor, but consider the facts.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear "You believe that one news agency is representative of atheist persecution"
Ive already said that me giving one very obvious example did not mean there was nothing else to mention. Its funny you keep trying to make this claim.
If I was to use your logic and use movies and such as examples I could make a big list. I don't know what makes you think some TV shows or movies are persecuting christians or any religion.
The existence of ahtiests does not persecute christians...
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
'ts funny you keep trying to make this claim.'
Well the issue is you have no other examples and the example you made was weak.
'If I was to use your logic and use movies and such as examples I could make a big list.'
I'd like to see you true.
'...are persecuting christians or any religion.'
Red State: evil Christians terrorize people. Agora: Evil Christians kill a woman scientist. NCIS: Evil Christians kill people.
'...does not persecute christians...'
Propaganda does.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear "evil Christians terrorize people" hmm, that is a pretty weak example. Many christians might see this as only being against fundamentalist or extreme christians, not against christians as a whole.
Do you have any actual examples of atheists trying to stop christians from being christian or following their faith?
There was a case of a congressman or senator not being allowed in Arizona because he was an atheist and would not swear to god. Thats actual (attempted) persecution.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
Ah, against fundamentalist Christians. Darn shame there's NO OTHERE KIND REPRODUCED IN ANY MEDIA.
A person in my country was denied a research grant for being a Christian. In the recent movie Soul Diver the company actually edited out the holy Bible. Several companies have refused to build churches on their land because of presure from atheist groups.
A congressmen or senator...very specific. Did you witness this?
Also it didn't work did it?
So no, you're still flailing at smoke.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear Actually the media shows all types of people. The only times it show the fundamentalists are when they are portrayed as bad or extreme.
You yourself give very vague and weak examples. First, anything done in a movie or TV isn't really important. Real life means more, and news can be brought into that.
Several companies refuse some land somewhere... very specific. Did you witness this?
I can't remember off hand if is was a congressman or senator. it was on the news, and Youtube.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
Um...name an instance of an extremist atheist being portrayed.
Weak examples? I'm sorry if every film, television show, video game and class room lecture isn't enough for you.
What would be a good example? One widely hated news agency? Rumors?
So you ask me for specifics...then you claim not to remember your own.
In case you're wondering seeing something on Youtube doesn't count as witnessing it.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear weak examples because movies are technically art, and just an expression. You other example is some company somewhere.
My example was specific to Arizona, and the fact that their state constitution says only those believeing in god can serve. It didn't work because the US constitution trumps it. I just can remember if it was a congressman or senator.
Also I never claimed to witness it, I said it was on the news, and that news clip was put on youtube.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
Um...art defines a people, especially the young. Imagine how many people grew to hate capitalists, jews, and communists thanks to propaganda. I guess it IS nice when all the propaganda agrees with you, but that doesn't make it not propaganda. Museums host people who submerge crucifixes in piss. Art?
Ah, it is a shame that the US Constitution pulled rank based on a misconception of a non existent 'separation of church and state' clause to trump state law. Disgusting.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear A good example would be something from the news. Even just a little more info in the story you already said. It would be wrong not to build a church, unless there was zoning and or oter reasons.
Its like when people in America where dumb enough to not want that Mosque built in NewYork. it was just prejudice without reason.
Oh, and FOX news is the most watched news in America. It is not hated by the majority of American's.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
In Aug 3 2010 contractors in Saudi Arabi denied the building of a church despite adequate funding.
Then again over twenty churches have been bombed in the middle east. You wouldn't have read it in the news.
They were just Christians.
Ironic that the most watched news in America is the only one our president targets in his speeches and SNL parodies...
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear OK, so your attributing these bombings in the middle east to atheists persecuting christians. The details shows youre example is in now way atheists persecuting christians.
FOX news is parodied because it is stupid. FOX news can hardly be called news. That does not stop it from being the most watched news agency in America and is actually expressing the views of many American's. There are many in Americca who think Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck are actually worth watching.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
Um...when did I say it was atheists bombing Christians? I said Christians are being persecuted. Read please.
Fox can hardly be called news? Um...John Stewart, CNN, and MSNBC can also be hardly called news.
There are many who watch Bill Maher. Those no counting for taste.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear Christians being persecuted by other religions doesn't matter. Many religions persecute other religions.
I thought you could give examples of atheists persecuting christians, or any religion. many of us express the view that religion obviously does the world no good, but most do not actually stop religions from existing.
Converting people to reason and seeing them abandon faith is a nice thing. It give one hope that the world could get past these old superstitions and move on.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
Oh, I see. You mean that persecution only matters when its one opposing view over another.
I showed you endless amounts of proof of atheist persecution of religion, but it also didn't count.
You're not using reason at all in abandoning faith, you're trading one religion for another, old superstitions for new. Conversion is a fine word for changing from worship God to worship science.
It is a nice thing to think your selfish gain is the only purpose of life.
Its also a lie.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear You gave no proof of atheists persecuting christians. You gave me movies and TV shows. These are artists expression, not persecution. I would never site movies with pro christian themes as persecuting atheists.
You did give an example of one religion fighting another, and that is all. That actually lends more credit to atheists. Religion is not something to fight over.
Other than that there is no faith in science. There is also no worship in science. Science is truth.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
Um...you actually DID site pro-christian movies and TV shows (of which you were able to mention one) as persecuting atheists earlier.
Science is truth...what a fine worshipful, faithful statement.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear "you actually DID site pro-christian movies and TV shows"
No, I mentioned FOX news and other news clips. When did i mention any movies or TV shows as being persecution of atheists?
Saying science is truth can be called an error, but not worshipful or faithful in anyway. I take nothing that science says on faith, nor does any scientist. These things are tested and verified.
I don't think you really understand what a theory is. Its not something you take on faith.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
Okay, good point. You SAID you could site anti-atheist movies and ended up not.
Saying science is the definition of possible reality IS a faithbased statement.
Theories unproven are beliefs taken on faith. Religion has evidence too.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear Theories can not be proven, they stand until disproven. So far no religion or creationist argument has disproven anything claimed by science, and science disproves many things claimed by religion.
You show a lack of understand of what science even is with statements like "Theories unproven are beliefs taken on faith."
Nothing in science is taken on faith, but backed by experiment or math.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
Um...wait a moment, how can science disprove things claimed by religion when theories cannot stand until disproven? What things are you talking about?
Ah, nothing about science is taken on faith.
Except say string theory, parallel universes, subatomic particles we can't even observe without changing their behavior, and theories we accept even with a lack of evidence, as well as materialism which you and other scientists take as a given. So yes, faith.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear "Um...wait a moment, how can science disprove things claimed by religion when theories cannot stand until disproven? What things are you talking about?"
Lets get this straight. Theories stand until disproven. The flood story has not only been shown to have not covered the world, but was likely only about a people that had its area flooded when the Black Sea formed.
The age of the world has been disproven, or that the world is flat which was only hinted at by the bible.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
The flood story is a myth. The New Testament is not.
Its like saying that by proving that Achilles wasn't dipped in the river Styx that there was no Troy.
We dug up Troy and we have historical evidence of Jesus too.
All you disproved were stories that are logically mythology, added to try and explain the historical encounters with Jesus.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
Cont...
Its a nice thing to convince people to be anarchists. It gives one hope we can get past these old governments and move it.
Its a nice thing to convince people to be hedonists. It gives one hope we can get past these old morals and move it.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear No one can show atheism to be a bad thing, and trying to swap other things in there does nothing but show your inability to fully comprehend the full scope of this discussion.
I would not discount any actual proof. Please find something besides movies using extremist christians as villans.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
No one can show atheism is a bad thing? Um...why not? The recent shooter of the congressmen in Arizona was an atheist. Stalin was an atheist. Pol Pot was an atheist. Nobunaga was an atheist.
You've yet to provide any proof of your counter claims except for very fine statements of implicit belief.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear You can show atheists to have been bad people, and there is a long list of religious people and leaders who were bad people. I am not going to try and claim that all these bad religious people make that religion bad.
I will say that some religions, namely christianity, have had a net negative impact on the world. That is not a hard cliam to make.
You yourself have provided nothing but evidence of your own inability to understand the conversattion.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
First of all, show me using secular reasoning that good and bad even have a meaning.
Its not a hard claim that a religion whose core basis is peace and reconciliation had a negative impact?
I'm guessing that every problem science created however cannot be attributable to science.
I've understood this conversation fine, but I guess if you say that I do not I magically don't.
Must be nice to just create your own opposition. I bet you win a lot of arguments.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear "First of all, show me using secular reasoning that good and bad even have a meaning."
Well first off can you show me using religious reasoning that good and bad have meaning. Its not that I think you can't, I am just curious which religious reasoning you follow since there are many.
This video explains different types of atheist morality:
ww.youtube.com/watch?v=exiCcOcjbBY&feature=related
Nihilism would be the quick one word answer though. Many are nihilist humanists.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
Religious reasoning runs thusly: God created man to be a certain way but with the capacity to be another. This other fashion is inherently flawed, evil, because man cannot be as good a god as God. So good is the way man should be and evil is the choice to be god.
I can't open your video but if its Thinkingatheist I already disproved him and got blocked for it.
Nihilism by the by is the antithesis of morality ironically. You're beginning to see the problem...
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear "I can't open your video but if its Thinkingatheist I already disproved him and got blocked for it."
Add a third "w" to the beginng. YouTube wont let me put the full link in the reply here. Its not that video though, and only talks about atheists and never touches theists. Its more an internal debate amonsgts atheists.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532
I added a third w and all it did was open Youtube :/
And I can imagine atheists agreeing with each other would be a little less then enlightening.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear Ugh, this shit again.
For every evil atheist you could possibly cite, there are a hundred evil Christians, Muslims, etc. A person's belief or lack thereof doesn't make them good or evil.
Maphysto 1 year ago
@Maphysto
Tell me using secular logic how someone can be either good or evil when morality is subjective according to atheists?
A person's believe can lead them to good or evil actions. Ironically the religious people who did evil that you site did their villainous actions when they surrendered to secular ideals.
So no, this isn't going away. First tell me its possible to be good or evil secularly.
Then prove its religion that makes a person evil.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear I'm not trying to prove religion makes someone evil. I just SAID it doesn't. Religion only provides excuses for people to commit evil acts.
And morality isn't subjective. What hurts people is bad, what benefits people is good. Simple as that. The problems arise when the religious start singling out as "evil" things which do no harm (homosexuality) or do great good (science).
Oh, and try telling the Inquisitors of Spain that the evil they did was because of secular ideals.
Maphysto 1 year ago
@Maphysto
Provides excuses?
Hmm...I wonder how many times people have done evil 'in the name of science'
How can you say with any authority what hurts people is bad? Are soldiers bad then? Cops?
Also are you saying Gregor Mendel was going 'great good'?
Think about this a bit.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear
....What. Of course Gregor Mendel did great good. His work is the foundation of modern genetics, which spawned revolutionary discoveries in medicine and agriculture to name just two.
And you're oversimplifying the morality issue. A cop or soldier that hurst someone isn't automatically bad, what matter is who they hurt and why.
And please, name me some great evils done in the name of science.
Maphysto 1 year ago
@Maphysto
Sorry, I meant Josef Mengele, another famous scientist.
Funny thing, Gregor was a monk...
I'm over simplifying the issue? You claimed it was 'as simple as' hurts people = bad, benefits = good.
I guess you were wrong?
Evils in the name of science; eugenics, nazi experimentation, attempts to cure homosexuality, cruel experiments with diseases on amazon tribesmen, vivisection, biological warfare...
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear Allow me to be a bit more clear on the morality thing, then.
Anything which is beneficial to humanity, by providing for our needs, giving us happiness, pleasure or fulfillment, or lessening/eradicating our suffering, is good.
Anything detrimental to humanity, by increasing suffering, injustice, or need, is bad.
Mendel being a monk is irrelevant to his contributions. And yes, evil can be done in the name of science. Which is why many atheists espouse what I outlined above.
Maphysto 1 year ago
@Maphysto
By what authority do you declare either good or evil? Personal preference? The law? Usually the law and morality are not the same since the law can enforce 'evil' as well as good. But if this is just you saying stuff you consider good or bad, what gives you the right to?
Evolution doesn't support this standard since fulfillment rarely comes into the picture at all and injustice, suffering and detriment to others are the name of the survival game. These aren't natural rules.
Explain?
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear I don't declare it by any authority. I don't "declare" it at all. I'm simply explaining a system of morality that I and others share. I base it on the simple premise that human suffering should be minimized as much as possible.
And no, evolution doesn't support this standard. It doesn't need to. It's just the way the world works. Saying human morality should have some bearing on evolution is like saying you should be able to wish really hard and influence the weather.
Maphysto 1 year ago
@Maphysto
So you base the imperative of your system of morality...on the system of morality.
That's called circular logic.
For instance by the same logic I could say me and my friends declare all people named Jeb need to be arrested. Why? Because of the simple premise that all people named Jeb need to be arrested.
And you just admitted the way the world works is actually counter to natural processes?
Very curious...
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear I argued that the world works counter to natural processes...how?
And are you attempting to argue that human suffering is good?
Maphysto 1 year ago
@Maphysto
You said-and no, evolution does not support this standard. Its just the way the world works.
So which is the unnatural element: evolution or morality?
Or are you claiming that even though they contradict they're BOTH natural? Neat trick.
I don't believe human suffering is good but then again I'm going by religious morality which has authority.
If I believe mankind was nothing more then randomized genetics and chemical reactions I might reconsider, if I was even capable.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear
Of course the world doesn't follow human morality. The universe is utterly indifferent to our suffering. If it wanted us to be happy there'd be no natural disasters, and if it wanted us to suffer, there'd be many more. And morality isn't unnatural...it doesn't take much debate to realize our species can survive better if we don't kill, rape and steal from each other.
And if your religious morality has so much authority, why has it caused so much unnecessary suffering?
Maphysto 1 year ago
@Maphysto
So wait a moment...you said that your version of morality was the 'way the world works'
Now its not? Now its the opposite of the way the world works?
Why is survival moral in any case or happiness and also the easiest ways to survive and be happy are usually considered immoral! Again, curious.
Actually Christianity has an explanation for suffering; the fall of man. Unfortunately that taints religion as well as anything else we do to try and become God ourselves. We need to be humble.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear You misunderstood me. I didn't say morality was the way the world works, I said that the world not caring about our morality was the way it works.
The point of ANY system of morality, no matter it's origin or tenets, is to ensure the survival and happiness of our species. Some do better than others, of course. And how exactly is survival and happiness considered immoral?
And I wouldn't recommend bringing up Christian explanations for anything. Those are too easy to pick apart.
Maphysto 1 year ago
@Maphysto
So if the world works in a way that implies the opposite of morality, shouldn't that indicate that morality is pointless? I thought we could only follow what we could prove.
I'm picking apart your own system with the greatest of ease so I'd love to see your own deconstruction.
The Christian explanation is that man was created to be moral but chose not to be, essentially attempting to be God by denying his true nature. Your explanation is we're moral...because it makes us happy?
Um no
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
It doesn't indicate morality is pointless, morality has an obvious use; a world where we treat each other fairly is much more enjoyable to live in than a world where we're all massive pricks.
And the religious explanation is destroyed thus: If god is all knowing/loving/powerful, how does suffering exist? if he can't get rid of it, he's not all powerful. If he can but won't, he's not all loving. And why exactly would a good god create humans KNOWING they would sin, and then punish them anyway?
Maphysto 1 year ago
@Maphysto
Morality however is unprovably the just means of behavior. Certainly its nice and all for people, but isn't selfishness also immoral? If the only thing we can prove is natural events then morality, which goes against these, is pointless.
How does suffering exist? We created it and he let us BECAUSE he loves us. Free will.
We punished ourselves and continue to do so.
Explanation not destroyed at all.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear If you know that putting a gun to someone's head and pulling the trigger will kill them, and then do it, you've committed murder.
If you know that people will suffer if you create them, and then do it, you made them suffer.
Also, free will and an omniscient/potent god are mutually exclusive.
And I honestly have no idea what you're even trying to say in your first paragraph.
Maphysto 1 year ago
@Maphysto
Um...if you give someone a ball and you expect them to play with it, not throw it at their brother or sister really hard, did you make them suffer?
Actually free-will and omniscience/potent is not mutually exclusive at all. God perceives all times in the same eternity, we just perceive it in the limits of our own broken universe.
And what I was trying to say is you like to claim you accept nothing without proof.
Well we can 'prove' naturalism which trumps morality. Oops.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
But what if you give them that ball KNOWING they'll throw it? If god is omniscient, he knew. If he didn't know, he's not omniscient.
And if he's omniscient, he knows what every single person who ever will/did exist will do. If god knows every tiny little action you will every make, how exactly do you have free will?
Lastly, naturalism doesn't 'trump' morality. All I said is that the world is indifferent. That doesn't change the fact the world is a better place if we treat each other fairly.
Maphysto 1 year ago
@Maphysto
You're again thinking in terms of our time. He knew we'd throw it eventually, but he saw fit to give us the chance to. Would you rather we be obedient robots? How can they love anything?
God can know what you do and you can still do it. How does knowing the end of a race prevent the race from happening? He knows it because you do it, not the other way around.
'Better' is another meaningless word, like bad or good.
You should say 'the world is more convenient for me when...'
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear This is all moot, anyway. You'll believe whatever you want to believe regardless of what arguments are made. It's the adult equivalent of a child sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
Do me a favor, though. At least have the decency to understand that others have the right to their beliefs, and that NO ONE'S beliefs have any bearing on scientific fact. If you can follow that one simple rule, the world will be a slightly better place.
Maphysto 1 year ago
@Maphysto
Um...you are trumpeting a totally baseless system of morality which originated in the very belief you're trying to debunk! I've listened to all your points and even questioned my own views. Which of us is sticking whose fingers in which ears again?
I hope you honor the rights of others to have beliefs contrary to yours too, besides assuming that religion=delusion apparently.
Scientific fact has a habit of being disproved.
Follow this rule: question everything.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago
@bloodrunsclear
Are you still trying to argue morality as a way to prove the existence of god?
Ok, for purpose of argument only, let's assume that a magical, universal system of morality exists.
Now show us the evidence that this is proof of your specific god and not the god from any other religion.
luminaeus 1 year ago