@CannotEscapeReality my friend,im sorry if i was a bit aggressive.but i want you to know God loves you.He came down to die for you and took your sin on his body.cause He loves you so much bro.He resurrected beating death,now He can give you eternal life.He will give you His love and peace.i love you bro
Why can't people just use their reason and intelligence to make good decisions, political or otherwise? Why do they feel the need to force their religious beliefs into areas where they don't belong? There was once a time when religious policy completely dictated policy. We call those times the Dark Ages. Enough said.
@CannotEscapeReality oh wow.ur arguments really proved the existence of God wrong.hahah just messing bro.well lets continue,all matter has information,we have information in all our body.in the beginning when the universe was began,matter was full of info.as it is right now.first law of information,tell us that info cannot originate in statistical processes(time + chance). the second law tells us info can only originate from an intelligent sender
The universe isn't "chance." It's not "random." It is governed by observable, testable laws existing in various domains. If it were random, nothing would stick together. The universe is a huge movement of ordered processes, ticking away. Statistical processes in the universe are not random - they are either describable as a pattern, or as a statistical regularity. Portraying the universe as "random" (nobody literate in the sciences thinks this) is the worst kind of straw-man.
@abyssquick you have to understand that your evolutionary assumptions requiere the belief that all these processes have no intelligence,they just occur.what you are saying is that they are not random,they are orders,you actually believe in design.you believe in laws,which can be explained in the language of mathematics but you dont believe in a lawgiver.everything has information,and the laws have plenty of information.where did this information com from.information has plenty of intelligence.
@turi73 - This is not logical at all. The existence of a parameter or domain is not indication of a "law-giver" or anyone who put it there. Do you say this about something like the carbon cycle? The fact that carbon is exchanged in finite, measurable ways throughout the earth's surface systems? Not likely. That is a narrow, anthropocentric (human-centered) view. Science is universal, and it is built from the bottom up. Empirically all that can be said is that there is a domain / barrier there.
@abyssquick it is very logical.science is universal.and instead of refuting my argument of information you go on and duck my arguemnt.what i am simply showing is that my theory of thiesm is perfectly compatible with science.what you CANT show me is how the information i gave you,points to athiesm.same facts we both have,different conclusions.come on bro,give it a try,i havent seen you once trying to defend you position
No, I didn't duck your argument. I'm not "defending a position," I'm having an exchange. I'm not an atheist. You are operating on illogical assumptions to begin with. It's not compatible with science because the epistemology is all wrong. Judging from your responses, you don't even know what the "epistemology" of science even is, or how it differs from religious thought, and human though in general.
@turi73 Since the natural world is a given, it is not an assumption that natural laws have no supernatural intelligence behind them. By your logic, I could accuse you of being ignorant for "assuming" the universe wasn't created by universe-creating fairies since you have no evidence to the contrary. Put another way, the natural world/natural processes require no assumptions. Adding supernatural answers to them does require evidence since there is no evidence of a supernatural dimension.
Also, by your logic, everything that exists must contain some sort of information. Therefore, your god must also be designed by a designer, and so must that designer, and that designer, and so on. To say otherwise would be to contradict your rule about everything needing a designer. It is much more honest to accept/admit the appearance of design is just that--an appearance/perspective, and an illusion. If your god designs everything, he must design everything from clouds to cancer cells, too.
@Danothy03 so that means we would go on an infinite regression.so by your logic,what your saying is that because the desgner would need a designer, we should not accept the first reasonable theory because that first reasonable theory would need a another reasonable theory for its existence.since when did we deal with science work this way?in no way does your argument prove the existence of God wrong.how about you go over the facts i showed.and prove to me how your belief of athiesm is plausible.
One must question what he means by "information." Judging by his use of the word, he means "ordered stuff." It's a redundant definition, since observably the universe is full of "stuff" and near as we can see, it's all ordered on some level in the first place. Rather than gravity, geometry, atomic forces, (i.e. what we can actually measure and see) perhaps he thinks this default organization is itself "God." Or that science terms are just words for "God." Who knows. It's dense and it's odd.
@CannotEscapeReality i am not making things up.you as a scientist are supposed to show me WHY the facts(aminos acids,proteins,cells,organisms,earth,moon,sun,stars,blackholes ect) point to your theory of athiesm.why do the observations show us that the assumption of no God plausible.but you cant.take a try.all times space matter points to a creater.all matter has information.2nd fundamnetal law of info tells us that info is nonmaterial and not a property of matter.infor has intelligence. (cont)
The weird thing is that people are not listening to what he is saying, but are reading the title and judging. He is saying that God does not support stuff like supply-side economics or food stamps. In fact, he is arguing that this debate is irrelevant. The argument is that with HUMAN-MADE ideas such as food stamps or supply-side economics, do these policies give opportunities to fulfill their potential for everyone and do these policies help justice? Listen to what he is saying before answering.
@CannotEscapeReality hahaha no.according to real mainstream empirical evidence,all babies are bron with a belief in a Creator.athiesm is also a theory when it comes to science,and what you CANT do and your fellow athiest CANT do is to show me how the facts point to your theory of athiesm.show me how the observations and all of science point to your belief of athiesm
Cut out "God gave us...", and you have arguably credible secular morality. This God is a fuzzy comfortable blanket and a gap filler. Why do people need to hold on? Grow the fuck up.
interesting. the guy started suggesting over 'how religious values and ethics are implemented, that matters' ... saw a 360 degree contradiction right till the end of the vid.
yes sir it is the 'how' that matters, and how u finished yer sermon was as shallow and un creative as the following three dots '. . .'
@CannotEscapeReality i can easily show you.simply look at aLl matter,it has information,all matter has information.all information can be created through statistical process.and yes your belief of athiesm is big time blind faith.you and me as truth seekers in the scientific world would have to ask eachother,how to the facts point to the theory.you would have to tell me,how to the observations in the universe point to your theory of athiesm
I'm a passionate atheist who is often frustrated by the invasion of faith-based, irrational thinking into the realm of reason. However, I largely agree with what he is saying. Religious values do not HAVE TO BE irrational, and indeed, they are not always irrational. Take the golden rule--this is commonly seen as a religious value, and I think it carries a lot of weight even outside of religion. Secularists shouldn't say, "No religion!" They should ask, "Is this religious value rational?"
@turi73 You MIGHT be able to argue that ANY belief system is faith based in so far as there is no absolute certainty (brain in a vat kind of thing). But I get the sense that you're the type of person who thinks believing in something like evolution, or the big bang, or...you know...gravity...requires more faith than to believe in the one true, all powerful [insert personal savior of choice here], which is illogical, intellectually dishonest...and hilarious :D I hope I'm wrong.
@ForkEye I completely understand what you're saying but the "golden rule" aka "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is absolutely NOT a religious value. That has been around long before religion ever got a hold of it. If modern humans did not already apply that "rule of thumb"... there would be no modern humans.
I don't think that religion should have a monopoly on morality. You do not have to worship invisible deities to know not to kill or steal.
@JayJayAbels You are absolutely correct to point out that the golden rule did not begin with religion; however, in many respects, that is at the heart of my point...many of the values that people commonly associate with religion are in fact humanistic values that have been adopted by religion. This is precisely why secularists shouldn't be afraid to consider the possibility that such values are perfectly legitimate...even if they've been put forth in a religious context.
@ForkEye Ah ha! Now I see what you were saying! Definitely from a different angle but I see your point now.
With that said... I still believe that the most difficult executive decisions shouldn't be influenced by emotion... which religion seems to cater the most to... but by logic and reason first. Then... of course... there are special cases where emotion can and should play a part in the decision process.
I'd just prefer to Occam's Razor "religion" out of the decision process altogether.
@JayJayAbels You make a great point, and I largely agree. I only differ in that I think ANY decision requires a person to attempt to uphold some kind of value, and values necessarily--and rightly--have emotional underpinnings, which can SOMETIMES have a legitimate religious basis. So the religious influence is indirect. I agree Occam's Razor applies to the ontological claims made by religion, but it doesn't necessarily apply to the values it puts forth. Still, we're mostly on the same page.
He forgot that religion is a human invention worthy of applying those questions and tests to as well. In so doing he makes an arguement based on false presuposition.
That his religion provides the things he asks to find in political and governmental systems. Wich it does not, none of the abrahamic traditions do.
For the love of god, can we please keep religion OUT of ALL secular government and governmental policies!? Jesus! Why does everyone want to force their non-secular beliefs into secular debate?
I don't think there would be a difference or change if religious values were to influence policy since both appear to be the product of imagination and a fantasy conjured up in the mind with no connection to reality.
The only "religious values" that should influence policy are those that aren't unique to religion, such as not harming others or taking their stuff. Those values that are actually the domain of religion (authority, obedience, ritual) are best left to personal choice and should absolutely not be made part of policy or influence it in any way.
@CannotEscapeReality how can i prove him wrong when he needs to prove his statement fact first.but i can surely show you how the existence of God is reasonable faith,while your belief of athiesm relies on pure BLIND FAITH.
@turi73 "reasonable faith ... pure BLIND FAITH." ... Faith - 'firm belief in something for which there is no proof' ... and you're saying there is a continuum between 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' (marked by 'pure BLIND FAITH') where some beliefs for which there is no proof are acceptable, while other beliefs for which there is no proof are not ... how do you determine, lacking any solid ground (proof) to stand on, which is reasonable and which is not?
@Alitari i can show you by using many of the observations we see today to show you how it points to the theory of an intelligent mind.for example,information.while you,you certainly can NOT show me all the observations in the universe point to your theory of athiesm.
@turi73 "your theory of athiesm." .. atheism .. and it's not 'my' theory. A theory, to be of any value, has to be falsifiable .. what kind of evidence would you suggest would falsify "the theory of an intelligent mind"? "for example,information." .. please, explain how information 'proves' or at the very least 'suggests' "the theory of an intelligent mind". On that note, I can't seem to find anything online that speaks of "the theory of an intelligent mind", do you have another name for it?
@turi73 "i can show you by using many of the observations" vs. "you certain can NOT show me all the observations" ... so you lower the bar for yourself, allowing 'many' but you raise the bar for me, requiring 'all'. If two rival ideas are to be considered, we should at least consider them on equal footing ... that is, we either go with 'many' for both or 'all' for both. I would prefer to go with the latter (all), as it requires a great deal more.
@turi73 I asked for another name, because we can both look up, say, "String theory" or "Theory of relativity" or "Germ theory", and be able to say, this is what is proposed, this is why it is proposed, these are the experiments that have been done that have validated this proposal, these are the experiments that could be done to validate this proposal, etc. Without us both knowing what exactly is proposed by "the theory of an intelligent mind", we can't talk reasonably about it.
@TomFynn how about policies such as banning the burqa? Should the burqa be aloud to be worn in places where sunglasses and masks are otherwise required to be taken off or should Islam influence domestic policy and permit women to wear a burqa in a place where a person is prohibited from wearing a mask?
@Tait011 - Perhaps religious ideas *should* be put forward in the "free market of ideas" to compete with secular morals... and be henceforth, quashed.
But he's also saying that we have to constantly examine moral truths rather than having unchanged absolutes. He's more sensible than many religious politicians that people would gladly elect.
The dislikes tell one all they need to know about what to expect going into this video. This will certainly be one occasion that I won't be bothering to check out the complete video in the description box.
Just because your "holy" book has good parts in it, that doesn't excuse all the bad. It's like if a guy raped, tortured and ate a bunch of children alive, poisoned the water supply and went on a massive shooting spree in a hospital and you came to his defense and said "But one time he rescued my cat when it was stuck in a tree and I saw him give a dollar to a homeless man!"
This country was formed one christian values.the founders believed that out liberty came from no other source but God. They even believed that out nation was founded by devine providence. That it was a miracle from god that we were given the right circumstances to beat the most powerful nation in the world and we had so many resources to help us be an economically successful nation. This is not a bad thing. Atheists who protest against religion are simply bigoted and intolerant
@TheCarpecarp Nice try home boy. keep reading that line of the Declaration of Independense. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." They said God gave us these unalienable rights. There are many references to religion and the Divine Providence (miracles) that made our country great throughout the Federalist Papers.
@SuperNache Let's make a massive assumption and say that it does actually talk about the christian God when it is referring to this declaration. That still does not mean God gets to be included in state legislature and rulings as outlined the First amendment. It may be that they refer to God, but under no circumstances is religion and God allowed to interfere with state matters.
@TheCarpecarp It's not an assumption. the reasoning is backed by the Federalist Papers. It means that no man or governing body has the right to infringe on another's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness because we are given these rights by the highest authority possible. God. You are right about state matters. The separation of church and state means that no religion or religious leaders will influence our govt. this protects us from foreign influence, discrimination, &things like sharia law
@SuperNache No, it means that religious isn't going to influence state laws, foreign or not. John Adams- "The Government of the United States is in no sense founded by the Christian religion".
"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
-The Treaty of Tripoli 1796
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity"r hereafter.
@VernonKrudlik Common Law refers to unwritten laws or precidences that are generally accepted in court. That treaty just says that we cannot persecute someone for breaking a commandmant or something that might not be generally accepted outside of the christian faith.
the Payne quote is just an opinion and i don't know the context within which it was said. you could be like the guy who just misquoted the Dof I to say our liberty is self-evident rather than endowed by our Creator.
Cite one example where Christianity was established as the official US religion via legal president.
"treaty just says that we cannot persecute someone"
No. The treaty was an assurance to Muslims that there was no state Christian religion.
Benjamen Franklin, likely an atheist, insisted on the "self evident" line, specifically to exclude any reference to a religious deity. The Creator line is not talking about a literal god, but "creator" in the general sense.
@SuperNache refer to the Treaty of Tripoli... and the writings of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams on the subject of religion in addition I would suggest to any and all instances of George Washington's questioning as to whether or not he was a Christian (in every instance he refused to comment as he thought religion held no place in politics). We ARE NOT a christian nation, this is expressly forbidden in the Constitution.
@capereyda So as not to appear as though a certain faith was governing the country as it did in England, it makes sense for the POTUS to refrain from speaking on his religious beliefs, but nothing in the Constitution says he cannot speak about them or have them. It merely says that religious figures have no power over our government and that we must be tolerant of all religious faiths. And the Atheists i was referring to are the kind who sue the City of New York for the Ground Zero Cross.
I don't get what people find objectionable here. All he is saying is that a morals based on a religious belief can only have validity as a basis for law if it also protects those who DO NOT also share that belief. It's actualy a view which promotes tollerance and freedom. Whether or not you believe in god is beside the point.
this jew is a jewish prosperity pimp....they jews are the reason why we are in a world of shit..anythime they speak its always about the jew and how much they have sufferd...lets talk about how evil they are....
He is attempting to associate morality to religion, but we KNOW religion is a terrible guide to morality. Morality MUST be determined by maximizing the well being of conscious life - and we can only make policies that promote this principle if the methods used are reflecting of reality.
Well, god does exist and the devil too, I got a god inside of me that shows me when I do good things and I also got a devil that shows me when I do the wrong things, and when I face those things; I became god cause I got the will to choose one between them. I'm god and all of you as well...
I don't understand why you guys are pissing your pants over this so much. If the idea wins on this 'free market of ideas' then why shouldn't the people be able to apply it? It's not like 'religious value' has to be some crap.
@GompCelticPL Simply because an "idea wins on this 'free market of ideas'" doesn't mean that it is a good idea. We put limits on the economic free market, because without them, it produces hardship and inequality, and memes don't care about their carriers, they just want themselves to spread into new carriers (which may or may not be beneficial to their original carriers). To be open minded is not to let any and all ideas in, but to consider them carefully, which is not a 'free market'.
@Alitari Ok Sir this is just a bunch of economic illiteracy but anyway. Free market means competition and strive for excellence free market of ideas produces the most practical solutions and moral standards. Even if they make a mistake it's their freedom, and if you're not an uncivilized cave man you'll respect it. The opposite is a lack of free market, a monopoly. And obviously we've seen how monopoly on ideas turned our when the catholic Vatican claimed it or atheist soviets.
@GompCelticPL "A free market is a market in which economic intervention and regulation by the state is limited to tax collection, and enforcement of private ownership and contracts. It is the opposite of a controlled market, in which the state directly regulates how goods, services and labor may be used, priced, or distributed, rather than relying on the mechanism of supply and demand" - Wikipedia ... a controlled market is a kind of monopoly but monopolies can form in free markets.
@GompCelticPL "Free market means competition and strive for excellence" ... you may wish that to be the definition, but excellence is not necessarily the result of non-interference by the government. Your statement that "Even if they make a mistake" is contradicted by your statement that "free market of ideas produces the most practical solutions and moral standards." ... it either does it right or it does it wrong, it can't produce the best ideas and still be a mistake.
@Alitari STRIVE for excellence nothing is perfect. But it's definitely better if the idea is a subject to competition rather than when it's enforced through force. It's not a contradiction. The claim is that competition makes things better than if there's a monopoly on ideas so they might make a mistake but without a free market of ideas they would make more of them. Besides that's how we f-ing progress. Make mistakes, correct them, and learn from them.
@GompCelticPL "STRIVE for excellence" ... I see your point, but in either realms of economics or ideas, the 'goal' of the 'free market' is dominance, which can mean the best products or ideas, but it can mean a product or idea which isn't that good wins out because something else, other than quality, makes it more attractive ... for instance, would Religion be as successful as it is, if we required that it not be taught to children? I feel its success in the idea marketplace would be hampered.
@GompCelticPL "better if the idea is a subject to competition rather than when it's enforced" ... I agree, but we have to be wary of bad ideas spreading because the method by which they spread is more effective than the quality of the idea itself. Just like in economics our governments typically break up monopolies, we have to have mechanisms to break up monopolies of ideas ... and I don't think we've been able to do that yet ... consider how 'Liberal' is used pejoratively in the USA.
This is a scary thought, and one I'd normally shy away from entertaining. We have separation of church and state for a reason, and it should be left at that. These "religious values" are societal creations, and are older than religion. Also, "free marketplace" is an oxymoron.. Please stop using it. If you want to control politics, buy an island an rule there... Don't try to tell us what is right and wrong, because in many cases right and wrong differ from each individual situation.
I dont understand how in this day and age and so much communication and knowledge of other people and cultures...how on earth could one possibly assume that morality comes from anything other than the society that one grows up in? Societal morality and their religious doctrine have NOTHING to do with each other. Worldly morality comes from genetics - its evolutionarily bread into humans. Not contradictory books. This debate is long over. For shame, ForaTV. Why give these hacks a platform?!
I also find it convenient that he doesn't mention any examples. I'd love to hear what good "values" holy books could provide that us mere mortals in present day haven't already figured out without referring to scripture.
im gonna say no. if religion influenced policy, we would still be stoning witches and burning people at the stake. if anything should guide policy it should be reason, and nothing else.
@metalgearanarchist Secular reasoning, experimentation and compassion (we can't always get everything right, and when in doubt it's good to be careful).
also if we're using a free market approach to ideas, we need to look for the best ideas. So I'm sure that books written thousands of years ago, which contain some rather horrific things, are less relevant to the abundant of more relevant more modern more moral and less fictional sources.
@johnstall5350 I was going to to post a reply to this video stating how stupid the things this guy is saying, but then I read the comments section and realized you are doing a much better job then I would.
Religious "values" are about gods, magic, superstition, delusion.. Like, the ten commandments centered about gawd, those are religious "values"; Not killing, stealing etc, those are human values
There is no problem with taking religious values and applying them to policy, when it comes to things like killing and stealing, and other things that you don't need religion to know is wrong. The problem that does occur is when people try to make policy based on religious values for purely religious reasons, but disguise it behind irrational arguments that the religious majority buys into.
Moral is subjective or do you think its wrong to steal food to feed your child and prevent it from starving, when there is no other way to do so? I could do this with mostly anything you come up with, with a little mind bending at least. :)
@leechmasterb of course it's subjective, I never said I believe in an objective morality. Sorry I don't clarify every word I say, but I'm sure everyone besides you knows exactly what I mean.
Too much bullshit in religion, it's hard enough to get our lawmakers to come to reasonable agreement as it is.
PatPowers1995 6 months ago
no religion should influence policy of any government.
cavs608 6 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality my friend,im sorry if i was a bit aggressive.but i want you to know God loves you.He came down to die for you and took your sin on his body.cause He loves you so much bro.He resurrected beating death,now He can give you eternal life.He will give you His love and peace.i love you bro
turi73 7 months ago
I saw the title of the video and was expecting a 2 second vid with the text NO.
I was disappointed.
raheelak29 7 months ago
to ponder over a yess is to open pandora's box.. a swift "no" should suffice...
Th3Wab3 7 months ago
Why can't people just use their reason and intelligence to make good decisions, political or otherwise? Why do they feel the need to force their religious beliefs into areas where they don't belong? There was once a time when religious policy completely dictated policy. We call those times the Dark Ages. Enough said.
Danothy03 7 months ago
@1:21
god just is not
unamaxify 7 months ago
Imaginary creatures gave us a way to explain that which we did not understand.
Religion used those imaginary creatures to create a means to control ignorant people through fear.
Today, we have the scientific method to expain that which we don't understand, yet religion continues to control ignorant people through fear.
The irony is that what we should really fear is religion itself, not the boogyman it proposes.
Qillz 7 months ago
Does Religion presume peace and justice or does it harm peace and justice? Does it enhance freedom of choice or does it diminish freedom of choice?
Well.. if you want to test ALL human inventions, start with religion goddamit!
liquidminds 7 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality oh wow.ur arguments really proved the existence of God wrong.hahah just messing bro.well lets continue,all matter has information,we have information in all our body.in the beginning when the universe was began,matter was full of info.as it is right now.first law of information,tell us that info cannot originate in statistical processes(time + chance). the second law tells us info can only originate from an intelligent sender
turi73 7 months ago
The universe isn't "chance." It's not "random." It is governed by observable, testable laws existing in various domains. If it were random, nothing would stick together. The universe is a huge movement of ordered processes, ticking away. Statistical processes in the universe are not random - they are either describable as a pattern, or as a statistical regularity. Portraying the universe as "random" (nobody literate in the sciences thinks this) is the worst kind of straw-man.
abyssquick 7 months ago 4
@abyssquick you have to understand that your evolutionary assumptions requiere the belief that all these processes have no intelligence,they just occur.what you are saying is that they are not random,they are orders,you actually believe in design.you believe in laws,which can be explained in the language of mathematics but you dont believe in a lawgiver.everything has information,and the laws have plenty of information.where did this information com from.information has plenty of intelligence.
turi73 7 months ago
@turi73 - This is not logical at all. The existence of a parameter or domain is not indication of a "law-giver" or anyone who put it there. Do you say this about something like the carbon cycle? The fact that carbon is exchanged in finite, measurable ways throughout the earth's surface systems? Not likely. That is a narrow, anthropocentric (human-centered) view. Science is universal, and it is built from the bottom up. Empirically all that can be said is that there is a domain / barrier there.
abyssquick 7 months ago
@abyssquick it is very logical.science is universal.and instead of refuting my argument of information you go on and duck my arguemnt.what i am simply showing is that my theory of thiesm is perfectly compatible with science.what you CANT show me is how the information i gave you,points to athiesm.same facts we both have,different conclusions.come on bro,give it a try,i havent seen you once trying to defend you position
turi73 7 months ago
No, I didn't duck your argument. I'm not "defending a position," I'm having an exchange. I'm not an atheist. You are operating on illogical assumptions to begin with. It's not compatible with science because the epistemology is all wrong. Judging from your responses, you don't even know what the "epistemology" of science even is, or how it differs from religious thought, and human though in general.
abyssquick 7 months ago
@turi73 Since the natural world is a given, it is not an assumption that natural laws have no supernatural intelligence behind them. By your logic, I could accuse you of being ignorant for "assuming" the universe wasn't created by universe-creating fairies since you have no evidence to the contrary. Put another way, the natural world/natural processes require no assumptions. Adding supernatural answers to them does require evidence since there is no evidence of a supernatural dimension.
Danothy03 7 months ago
Also, by your logic, everything that exists must contain some sort of information. Therefore, your god must also be designed by a designer, and so must that designer, and that designer, and so on. To say otherwise would be to contradict your rule about everything needing a designer. It is much more honest to accept/admit the appearance of design is just that--an appearance/perspective, and an illusion. If your god designs everything, he must design everything from clouds to cancer cells, too.
Danothy03 7 months ago
@Danothy03 so that means we would go on an infinite regression.so by your logic,what your saying is that because the desgner would need a designer, we should not accept the first reasonable theory because that first reasonable theory would need a another reasonable theory for its existence.since when did we deal with science work this way?in no way does your argument prove the existence of God wrong.how about you go over the facts i showed.and prove to me how your belief of athiesm is plausible.
turi73 7 months ago
One must question what he means by "information." Judging by his use of the word, he means "ordered stuff." It's a redundant definition, since observably the universe is full of "stuff" and near as we can see, it's all ordered on some level in the first place. Rather than gravity, geometry, atomic forces, (i.e. what we can actually measure and see) perhaps he thinks this default organization is itself "God." Or that science terms are just words for "God." Who knows. It's dense and it's odd.
abyssquick 7 months ago
More babble from a religious figure...
renaudldw88 7 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality i am not making things up.you as a scientist are supposed to show me WHY the facts(aminos acids,proteins,cells,organisms,earth,moon,sun,stars,blackholes ect) point to your theory of athiesm.why do the observations show us that the assumption of no God plausible.but you cant.take a try.all times space matter points to a creater.all matter has information.2nd fundamnetal law of info tells us that info is nonmaterial and not a property of matter.infor has intelligence. (cont)
turi73 7 months ago
Religious values are a subset of human values. They are not all about morality and they are not all worth keeping.
Morkindie 7 months ago
The weird thing is that people are not listening to what he is saying, but are reading the title and judging. He is saying that God does not support stuff like supply-side economics or food stamps. In fact, he is arguing that this debate is irrelevant. The argument is that with HUMAN-MADE ideas such as food stamps or supply-side economics, do these policies give opportunities to fulfill their potential for everyone and do these policies help justice? Listen to what he is saying before answering.
devilsadvocate22289 7 months ago
I think they should... Also Drug-induced Hallucinations, Paranoid Conspiracy-Theories and what people believe their Pets are telling them.
liquidminds 7 months ago
You can make good decisions using stone age "values". Ia this preaching on FORA?
paperfreeck 7 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality hahaha no.according to real mainstream empirical evidence,all babies are bron with a belief in a Creator.athiesm is also a theory when it comes to science,and what you CANT do and your fellow athiest CANT do is to show me how the facts point to your theory of athiesm.show me how the observations and all of science point to your belief of athiesm
turi73 7 months ago
Cut out "God gave us...", and you have arguably credible secular morality. This God is a fuzzy comfortable blanket and a gap filler. Why do people need to hold on? Grow the fuck up.
blackwolf1200 7 months ago
@blackwolf1200 its not just a gap filler.it is reasonable theory wich all of todays observations in csomoly and other areas point to
turi73 7 months ago
So far, 197 humans up in this.
YettiYogiBear 7 months ago
interesting. the guy started suggesting over 'how religious values and ethics are implemented, that matters' ... saw a 360 degree contradiction right till the end of the vid.
yes sir it is the 'how' that matters, and how u finished yer sermon was as shallow and un creative as the following three dots '. . .'
yasirali 7 months ago
No.
maggot432 7 months ago
Anything religion can do... atheism can do better.
Religion should NOT have a monopoly on morality.
Nothing from an individuals "belief system" should be added into or mixed with ANY political decisions.
Unfortunately they already form many individuals opinions and biases... but they should not be the guiding factor to reaching an answer.
It is this kind of garbage that has prevented gay people from becoming legally married.
There's NOTHING in an outdated, book that we don't already know.
JayJayAbels 7 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality i can easily show you.simply look at aLl matter,it has information,all matter has information.all information can be created through statistical process.and yes your belief of athiesm is big time blind faith.you and me as truth seekers in the scientific world would have to ask eachother,how to the facts point to the theory.you would have to tell me,how to the observations in the universe point to your theory of athiesm
turi73 7 months ago
To answer the title of this video:
No.
Aliksmyth 7 months ago
human inventions.... God was created by man in man's image...
lagook 7 months ago
did God give you wisdom?
correct me if I am wrong, but Satan gave Eve the Apple to have knowledge!
BabakNassiri 7 months ago
Has this guy even read the Torah?
boxa78 7 months ago
I'm a passionate atheist who is often frustrated by the invasion of faith-based, irrational thinking into the realm of reason. However, I largely agree with what he is saying. Religious values do not HAVE TO BE irrational, and indeed, they are not always irrational. Take the golden rule--this is commonly seen as a religious value, and I think it carries a lot of weight even outside of religion. Secularists shouldn't say, "No religion!" They should ask, "Is this religious value rational?"
ForkEye 7 months ago
@ForkEye athiesm is 100 percent faith based
turi73 7 months ago
@turi73 You MIGHT be able to argue that ANY belief system is faith based in so far as there is no absolute certainty (brain in a vat kind of thing). But I get the sense that you're the type of person who thinks believing in something like evolution, or the big bang, or...you know...gravity...requires more faith than to believe in the one true, all powerful [insert personal savior of choice here], which is illogical, intellectually dishonest...and hilarious :D I hope I'm wrong.
ForkEye 7 months ago
@ForkEye I completely understand what you're saying but the "golden rule" aka "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is absolutely NOT a religious value. That has been around long before religion ever got a hold of it. If modern humans did not already apply that "rule of thumb"... there would be no modern humans.
I don't think that religion should have a monopoly on morality. You do not have to worship invisible deities to know not to kill or steal.
JayJayAbels 7 months ago
@JayJayAbels You are absolutely correct to point out that the golden rule did not begin with religion; however, in many respects, that is at the heart of my point...many of the values that people commonly associate with religion are in fact humanistic values that have been adopted by religion. This is precisely why secularists shouldn't be afraid to consider the possibility that such values are perfectly legitimate...even if they've been put forth in a religious context.
ForkEye 7 months ago
@ForkEye Ah ha! Now I see what you were saying! Definitely from a different angle but I see your point now.
With that said... I still believe that the most difficult executive decisions shouldn't be influenced by emotion... which religion seems to cater the most to... but by logic and reason first. Then... of course... there are special cases where emotion can and should play a part in the decision process.
I'd just prefer to Occam's Razor "religion" out of the decision process altogether.
JayJayAbels 7 months ago
@JayJayAbels You make a great point, and I largely agree. I only differ in that I think ANY decision requires a person to attempt to uphold some kind of value, and values necessarily--and rightly--have emotional underpinnings, which can SOMETIMES have a legitimate religious basis. So the religious influence is indirect. I agree Occam's Razor applies to the ontological claims made by religion, but it doesn't necessarily apply to the values it puts forth. Still, we're mostly on the same page.
ForkEye 7 months ago
He forgot that religion is a human invention worthy of applying those questions and tests to as well. In so doing he makes an arguement based on false presuposition.
That his religion provides the things he asks to find in political and governmental systems. Wich it does not, none of the abrahamic traditions do.
Ihatemelee 7 months ago
For the love of god, can we please keep religion OUT of ALL secular government and governmental policies!? Jesus! Why does everyone want to force their non-secular beliefs into secular debate?
NekoMouser 7 months ago
If I didn't have a policy of not flagging videos, I'd flag this one for:
'Hateful or Abusive Content' -> 'promotes hatred and violence'
or
'Violent or Repulsive Content' -> 'promotes terrorism'
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
To the title: No.
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
policy (the state) IS a religious value
BroBroDude 7 months ago
Comment removed
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BroBroDude Oh come on. Let them have their delusional fun that interferes with our lives! It's not like it's hurting anyone!
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
Comment removed
atheistnarutofan 7 months ago
No!
bradjbourgeois73 7 months ago
I don't think there would be a difference or change if religious values were to influence policy since both appear to be the product of imagination and a fantasy conjured up in the mind with no connection to reality.
mattghtpa 7 months ago
Intellectual imbeciles like this one are as funny as they are dangerous, and they are very funny
Svendar 7 months ago 2
The only "religious values" that should influence policy are those that aren't unique to religion, such as not harming others or taking their stuff. Those values that are actually the domain of religion (authority, obedience, ritual) are best left to personal choice and should absolutely not be made part of policy or influence it in any way.
graey42 7 months ago 2
One more thumbs down coming rabbi Snakeoilstein's way.
Enjoy it, old man, enjoy it while it lasts, beause your religion is dying.
d3st88 7 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality how can i prove him wrong when he needs to prove his statement fact first.but i can surely show you how the existence of God is reasonable faith,while your belief of athiesm relies on pure BLIND FAITH.
turi73 7 months ago
@turi73
My love, that's just pure stupid. Think again.
d3st88 7 months ago
@turi73 "reasonable faith ... pure BLIND FAITH." ... Faith - 'firm belief in something for which there is no proof' ... and you're saying there is a continuum between 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' (marked by 'pure BLIND FAITH') where some beliefs for which there is no proof are acceptable, while other beliefs for which there is no proof are not ... how do you determine, lacking any solid ground (proof) to stand on, which is reasonable and which is not?
Alitari 7 months ago
@Alitari i can show you by using many of the observations we see today to show you how it points to the theory of an intelligent mind.for example,information.while you,you certainly can NOT show me all the observations in the universe point to your theory of athiesm.
turi73 7 months ago
@turi73 "your theory of athiesm." .. atheism .. and it's not 'my' theory. A theory, to be of any value, has to be falsifiable .. what kind of evidence would you suggest would falsify "the theory of an intelligent mind"? "for example,information." .. please, explain how information 'proves' or at the very least 'suggests' "the theory of an intelligent mind". On that note, I can't seem to find anything online that speaks of "the theory of an intelligent mind", do you have another name for it?
Alitari 7 months ago
@turi73 "i can show you by using many of the observations" vs. "you certain can NOT show me all the observations" ... so you lower the bar for yourself, allowing 'many' but you raise the bar for me, requiring 'all'. If two rival ideas are to be considered, we should at least consider them on equal footing ... that is, we either go with 'many' for both or 'all' for both. I would prefer to go with the latter (all), as it requires a great deal more.
Alitari 7 months ago
@turi73 I asked for another name, because we can both look up, say, "String theory" or "Theory of relativity" or "Germ theory", and be able to say, this is what is proposed, this is why it is proposed, these are the experiments that have been done that have validated this proposal, these are the experiments that could be done to validate this proposal, etc. Without us both knowing what exactly is proposed by "the theory of an intelligent mind", we can't talk reasonably about it.
Alitari 7 months ago
I used to live in Buffalo,how dare you lecture a bunch of elderly rich jews.
rickuj 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
a simple question, simple answer: NO!
MGsven 7 months ago
Which religious values?
Kill the unbeliever?
Genital mutilation?
Accept bullshit unquestioningly?
TomFynn 7 months ago 49
@TomFynn how about policies such as banning the burqa? Should the burqa be aloud to be worn in places where sunglasses and masks are otherwise required to be taken off or should Islam influence domestic policy and permit women to wear a burqa in a place where a person is prohibited from wearing a mask?
Volf99 6 months ago
@Volf99 What the hell do some obscure clothing rules have to do with values?
TomFynn 6 months ago
No, they shouldn't.
leungchaan 7 months ago
God is a human invention.
rehabwales 7 months ago 2
This guy is silly.
AngilasGuy 7 months ago 2
No, no they should not. Shut the fuck up, you are in the wrong line of work.
Tait011 7 months ago 32
@Tait011 he is a Rabbi, you twat
Volf99 6 months ago
@Volf99
Well done, I also noticed that fact.. what is your point?
Tait011 6 months ago
@Tait011 you typed that he was in the wrong line of work. The man is a Rabbi so of course he is going to have a pro-religious view on the subject.
Volf99 6 months ago
@Volf99
...I think you completely misunderstood what I meant. The entirety of my comment.
Tait011 6 months ago
@Tait011 - Perhaps religious ideas *should* be put forward in the "free market of ideas" to compete with secular morals... and be henceforth, quashed.
PurpleGhost 6 months ago
@PurpleGhost
Haha, a wise idea. Just dont let the jesus freaks catch on to the market..
Tait011 6 months ago
Does god pursue peace or does god hurt peace?
knome434 7 months ago
But he's also saying that we have to constantly examine moral truths rather than having unchanged absolutes. He's more sensible than many religious politicians that people would gladly elect.
merdufer 7 months ago
"Should religious values influence policy?"
Short answer: No.
TheLegendarySkeptic 7 months ago 7
can't decide what I hate more; his imbecilic message or his imbecilic voice
10templetons 7 months ago
Short answer = No.
lShishkaBerryl 7 months ago
@lShishkaBerryl That's also the long answer.
craigdavid00 7 months ago 4
"Should Religious Values Influence Policy?" Ofc not! Take a look around. How much more proof u need that that won't work?
kaxitaksi 7 months ago 3
The dislikes tell one all they need to know about what to expect going into this video. This will certainly be one occasion that I won't be bothering to check out the complete video in the description box.
jtbovis 7 months ago
Just because your "holy" book has good parts in it, that doesn't excuse all the bad. It's like if a guy raped, tortured and ate a bunch of children alive, poisoned the water supply and went on a massive shooting spree in a hospital and you came to his defense and said "But one time he rescued my cat when it was stuck in a tree and I saw him give a dollar to a homeless man!"
blackkakari 7 months ago
Someone please slap this cracka!
MRfullon 7 months ago
lol
jonybrown 7 months ago
This country was formed one christian values.the founders believed that out liberty came from no other source but God. They even believed that out nation was founded by devine providence. That it was a miracle from god that we were given the right circumstances to beat the most powerful nation in the world and we had so many resources to help us be an economically successful nation. This is not a bad thing. Atheists who protest against religion are simply bigoted and intolerant
SuperNache 7 months ago
@SuperNache actually there is a clear cut separation between church and state that was borne from liberty as it is self evident.
TheCarpecarp 7 months ago
@TheCarpecarp Nice try home boy. keep reading that line of the Declaration of Independense. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." They said God gave us these unalienable rights. There are many references to religion and the Divine Providence (miracles) that made our country great throughout the Federalist Papers.
SuperNache 7 months ago
@SuperNache Let's make a massive assumption and say that it does actually talk about the christian God when it is referring to this declaration. That still does not mean God gets to be included in state legislature and rulings as outlined the First amendment. It may be that they refer to God, but under no circumstances is religion and God allowed to interfere with state matters.
TheCarpecarp 7 months ago
@TheCarpecarp It's not an assumption. the reasoning is backed by the Federalist Papers. It means that no man or governing body has the right to infringe on another's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness because we are given these rights by the highest authority possible. God. You are right about state matters. The separation of church and state means that no religion or religious leaders will influence our govt. this protects us from foreign influence, discrimination, &things like sharia law
SuperNache 7 months ago
@SuperNache No, it means that religious isn't going to influence state laws, foreign or not. John Adams- "The Government of the United States is in no sense founded by the Christian religion".
TheCarpecarp 7 months ago
@SuperNache
"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
-The Treaty of Tripoli 1796
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity"r hereafter.
-Thomas Paine
VernonKrudlik 7 months ago
@VernonKrudlik Common Law refers to unwritten laws or precidences that are generally accepted in court. That treaty just says that we cannot persecute someone for breaking a commandmant or something that might not be generally accepted outside of the christian faith.
the Payne quote is just an opinion and i don't know the context within which it was said. you could be like the guy who just misquoted the Dof I to say our liberty is self-evident rather than endowed by our Creator.
SuperNache 7 months ago
@SuperNache
"Common Law"
Cite one example where Christianity was established as the official US religion via legal president.
"treaty just says that we cannot persecute someone"
No. The treaty was an assurance to Muslims that there was no state Christian religion.
Benjamen Franklin, likely an atheist, insisted on the "self evident" line, specifically to exclude any reference to a religious deity. The Creator line is not talking about a literal god, but "creator" in the general sense.
VernonKrudlik 7 months ago
@SuperNache refer to the Treaty of Tripoli... and the writings of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams on the subject of religion in addition I would suggest to any and all instances of George Washington's questioning as to whether or not he was a Christian (in every instance he refused to comment as he thought religion held no place in politics). We ARE NOT a christian nation, this is expressly forbidden in the Constitution.
capereyda 7 months ago
@capereyda So as not to appear as though a certain faith was governing the country as it did in England, it makes sense for the POTUS to refrain from speaking on his religious beliefs, but nothing in the Constitution says he cannot speak about them or have them. It merely says that religious figures have no power over our government and that we must be tolerant of all religious faiths. And the Atheists i was referring to are the kind who sue the City of New York for the Ground Zero Cross.
SuperNache 7 months ago
@SuperNache "This country was formed one christian values.the founders believed that out liberty came from no other source but God."
I wonder if it being founded on Christian values is the reason it's in the shitter? Naaaaaah!
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality Nice.
shraka 7 months ago
I can answer the question in the title: No.
What's with the sliding quality of FORA videos? The world is thinking? I'm not sure if that applies here anymore.
shraka 7 months ago
Religious "values" have ZERO place in modern society.
BitterCanuck 7 months ago
I don't get what people find objectionable here. All he is saying is that a morals based on a religious belief can only have validity as a basis for law if it also protects those who DO NOT also share that belief. It's actualy a view which promotes tollerance and freedom. Whether or not you believe in god is beside the point.
MrDLWheeler 7 months ago
Short answer: No.
Long answer: NO! What the fuck is wrong with you? God? Really?! I think the tooth fairy should influence policy! Geezus...
0xPUNKROCKx0 7 months ago
@0xPUNKROCKx0 Ha ha, tooth fairy.
shraka 7 months ago
short answer
no.
mrx0066600 7 months ago 2
Don't even have to watch the video. I read the title and the response is simple: No.
Move along. Move along.
slantythecamel 7 months ago
this jew is a jewish prosperity pimp....they jews are the reason why we are in a world of shit..anythime they speak its always about the jew and how much they have sufferd...lets talk about how evil they are....
MrEnlightenup 7 months ago
Your god(s) are human inventions... your kind can not die off (of naturally causes of course) soon enough.
lucerfarul 7 months ago
He is attempting to associate morality to religion, but we KNOW religion is a terrible guide to morality. Morality MUST be determined by maximizing the well being of conscious life - and we can only make policies that promote this principle if the methods used are reflecting of reality.
Skydaddy ain't no accurate reflection of reality.
lanceawatt 7 months ago 2
@1:12 "Eternal values?" I'm more concerned with constitutional values, which includes separation of church and state.
YY4Me133 7 months ago
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!MAYBE WE SHOULD INVOKE "THE CAT IN THE HAT" TO PUT AN END TO CANCER?FUCKING RELIGIOUS PSYCHOS,ALL OF THEM!
tiamat1296 7 months ago 2
blah blah blah,, he's talking out his ass and not saying anything,,
itsasin1969 7 months ago
Policy should be influenced by facts not fallacy.
SziaPocak 7 months ago 7
Short anwer: no they shouldnt
mrchoochoohead 7 months ago 5
no
neutonik 7 months ago
gee, what would america ever do without israel?? hahaha
kmardes 7 months ago
where is his little beanie hat?
jpc08109 7 months ago
god didn't make us, we made god
TheSyrupMan 7 months ago 3
Why isn't he talking about the MORAL ABOMINATION of Wacko Israeli Zionists STEALING Palestinian land in the West Bank to build ILLEGAL settlements???
Duhh???
goog2k 7 months ago
Religion is cancer!
AeroJimE27 7 months ago 5
@AeroJimE27 Certainly the abrahamic religion is a spreading cancer, a terminal one at that.
99minerkc 7 months ago
Well, god does exist and the devil too, I got a god inside of me that shows me when I do good things and I also got a devil that shows me when I do the wrong things, and when I face those things; I became god cause I got the will to choose one between them. I'm god and all of you as well...
WICKEDMAN9MM 7 months ago
I don't understand why you guys are pissing your pants over this so much. If the idea wins on this 'free market of ideas' then why shouldn't the people be able to apply it? It's not like 'religious value' has to be some crap.
GompCelticPL 7 months ago
@GompCelticPL Simply because an "idea wins on this 'free market of ideas'" doesn't mean that it is a good idea. We put limits on the economic free market, because without them, it produces hardship and inequality, and memes don't care about their carriers, they just want themselves to spread into new carriers (which may or may not be beneficial to their original carriers). To be open minded is not to let any and all ideas in, but to consider them carefully, which is not a 'free market'.
Alitari 7 months ago
@Alitari Ok Sir this is just a bunch of economic illiteracy but anyway. Free market means competition and strive for excellence free market of ideas produces the most practical solutions and moral standards. Even if they make a mistake it's their freedom, and if you're not an uncivilized cave man you'll respect it. The opposite is a lack of free market, a monopoly. And obviously we've seen how monopoly on ideas turned our when the catholic Vatican claimed it or atheist soviets.
GompCelticPL 7 months ago
@GompCelticPL "A free market is a market in which economic intervention and regulation by the state is limited to tax collection, and enforcement of private ownership and contracts. It is the opposite of a controlled market, in which the state directly regulates how goods, services and labor may be used, priced, or distributed, rather than relying on the mechanism of supply and demand" - Wikipedia ... a controlled market is a kind of monopoly but monopolies can form in free markets.
Alitari 7 months ago
@GompCelticPL "Free market means competition and strive for excellence" ... you may wish that to be the definition, but excellence is not necessarily the result of non-interference by the government. Your statement that "Even if they make a mistake" is contradicted by your statement that "free market of ideas produces the most practical solutions and moral standards." ... it either does it right or it does it wrong, it can't produce the best ideas and still be a mistake.
Alitari 7 months ago
@Alitari STRIVE for excellence nothing is perfect. But it's definitely better if the idea is a subject to competition rather than when it's enforced through force. It's not a contradiction. The claim is that competition makes things better than if there's a monopoly on ideas so they might make a mistake but without a free market of ideas they would make more of them. Besides that's how we f-ing progress. Make mistakes, correct them, and learn from them.
GompCelticPL 7 months ago
@GompCelticPL "STRIVE for excellence" ... I see your point, but in either realms of economics or ideas, the 'goal' of the 'free market' is dominance, which can mean the best products or ideas, but it can mean a product or idea which isn't that good wins out because something else, other than quality, makes it more attractive ... for instance, would Religion be as successful as it is, if we required that it not be taught to children? I feel its success in the idea marketplace would be hampered.
Alitari 7 months ago
@GompCelticPL "better if the idea is a subject to competition rather than when it's enforced" ... I agree, but we have to be wary of bad ideas spreading because the method by which they spread is more effective than the quality of the idea itself. Just like in economics our governments typically break up monopolies, we have to have mechanisms to break up monopolies of ideas ... and I don't think we've been able to do that yet ... consider how 'Liberal' is used pejoratively in the USA.
Alitari 7 months ago
This is a scary thought, and one I'd normally shy away from entertaining. We have separation of church and state for a reason, and it should be left at that. These "religious values" are societal creations, and are older than religion. Also, "free marketplace" is an oxymoron.. Please stop using it. If you want to control politics, buy an island an rule there... Don't try to tell us what is right and wrong, because in many cases right and wrong differ from each individual situation.
OriginalOrphan 7 months ago
gods don't exist.
DarthSchwartz 7 months ago 7
This is retarded.
gordontarpley 7 months ago
I dont understand how in this day and age and so much communication and knowledge of other people and cultures...how on earth could one possibly assume that morality comes from anything other than the society that one grows up in? Societal morality and their religious doctrine have NOTHING to do with each other. Worldly morality comes from genetics - its evolutionarily bread into humans. Not contradictory books. This debate is long over. For shame, ForaTV. Why give these hacks a platform?!
SezSays 7 months ago 2
@SezSays
Ever heard of ethical philosophy?
Redfingers 7 months ago
Obviously not.
plasticiconoclastic 7 months ago
No.
lianghaochen 7 months ago
You've got an opportunity here. You can pass a law informed by your religious values IF AND ONLY IF IT HAS A SECULAR PURPOSE, in the United States.
You can NOT pass any law informed solely by your religious values.
Redfingers 7 months ago
No. Next question.
elsquibbs 7 months ago 4
This joker is speaking as if God is NOT a human invention
JoshwithaJ 7 months ago 101
@JoshwithaJ your speaking as if your opinion is a fact
turi73 7 months ago
@turi73
Um... I hate to break it to you but he's right... and it is a fact... sorry... :/
mrx0066600 7 months ago
@JoshwithaJ you notice to
whtsox1958 7 months ago
@JoshwithaJ Lol, god has something in common with food stamps!
bradjbourgeois73 7 months ago
God for president !
Wait...Which god ? I don't want god of war to be my president.
VohnKarWarrior 7 months ago
Sorry but we no longer want fairytales and myths having anything to do with our reality, thanks but no thanks.
Atheistprimate 7 months ago 4
I also find it convenient that he doesn't mention any examples. I'd love to hear what good "values" holy books could provide that us mere mortals in present day haven't already figured out without referring to scripture.
johnstall5350 7 months ago
My god hates same thing i hate, how convenient.
DeusExWolksvagen 7 months ago 71
What a chode.
ThePublicPolemic 7 months ago
im gonna say no. if religion influenced policy, we would still be stoning witches and burning people at the stake. if anything should guide policy it should be reason, and nothing else.
metalgearanarchist 7 months ago 2
@metalgearanarchist Secular reasoning, experimentation and compassion (we can't always get everything right, and when in doubt it's good to be careful).
shraka 7 months ago 2
you just have to look at the dislike bar to know his answer is yes
i7q 7 months ago
@i7q ... I think you mean no.
shraka 7 months ago
also if we're using a free market approach to ideas, we need to look for the best ideas. So I'm sure that books written thousands of years ago, which contain some rather horrific things, are less relevant to the abundant of more relevant more modern more moral and less fictional sources.
johnstall5350 7 months ago 3
@johnstall5350 I was going to to post a reply to this video stating how stupid the things this guy is saying, but then I read the comments section and realized you are doing a much better job then I would.
Phelan666 7 months ago
God has given us enough wisdom to realize we made him, and we no longer need him to explain anything.
rednecktrucker1969 7 months ago 4
Religious "values" are about gods, magic, superstition, delusion.. Like, the ten commandments centered about gawd, those are religious "values"; Not killing, stealing etc, those are human values
MisterDoctorE 7 months ago 2
Is this parody?
sKepptiksowat 7 months ago
There is no problem with taking religious values and applying them to policy, when it comes to things like killing and stealing, and other things that you don't need religion to know is wrong. The problem that does occur is when people try to make policy based on religious values for purely religious reasons, but disguise it behind irrational arguments that the religious majority buys into.
johnstall5350 7 months ago
@johnstall5350
Moral is subjective or do you think its wrong to steal food to feed your child and prevent it from starving, when there is no other way to do so? I could do this with mostly anything you come up with, with a little mind bending at least. :)
leechmasterb 7 months ago
@leechmasterb of course it's subjective, I never said I believe in an objective morality. Sorry I don't clarify every word I say, but I'm sure everyone besides you knows exactly what I mean.
johnstall5350 7 months ago
@johnstall5350 I understood, don't worry.
shraka 7 months ago