I did think that this young man was one given over to homosexuality. I APOLOGIZE FOR CONCLUDING SUCH BASED ON PRESUMPTION. HE LEFT ME KNOW HE WAS NOT GAY, AND I DO THANK GOD FOR THAT. Usually , those that defend such a life style of open sin, are those that engage in such themselves. But he left me know he was not gay, but didn't see any fault with being such.
I knew that I was hearing the rant of reprobation when I heard his first video moments ago. Any viral virulent voice that fiendishly finds fault with God and basically tells anyone who will listen to him that he is right, and God is unreasonable and wrong about imposing moral absolutes, is a person walking in darkness who hates the light of God's word. He openly, and sadly so, lets all those that will hear him, hear him belittle God and even the notion that there is a God. So lost, so sad.
Jude 8 tells us: Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Jude 15 tells us To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
The apostle Paul well has told us in part of 2nd Corinthians chapter 5 verses 10 & 11 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. vs. 11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men;I warn this young lad in love that he needs to repent of his baneful blasphemy, and come to Christ, repenting of his sins and be saved.
His kind fiendishly feeds upon the misguided flattery that lacking intellect from others cause them to cheer him on, but Jesus tells us that every idle word that leaves your mouth is a word that you will have to give an account for on judgement day. Anyone who elevates his own disagreeing reprobate reason of rot against the finality of God's blessed word, is one that embraces eternal death in the lake of fire, where the soul is ever alive.
Because his demonic degree of reprobation and blasphemy is more freakishly filthy than most,he is the hero of those that feel they need his misguided mouth to speak out their baneful blasphemies also.The word of God calls anyone that does not believe in HIM a fool, so when you hear him speak, you are not listening to an intelligent person at all, but one that God calls a fool.He wants his infidel immoral lust to freely engage in,and call it happiness, and refers to God as vanity for faulting it.
What he said in another video concerning being in heaven with God, a God he does not believe in, is this: I DON'T KNOW HOW I WOULD BE ABLE TO HANDLE SPENDING ETERNITY ALONG SIDE A BEING WHOSE IDEA OF COMPASSION AND FAIRNESS MAKES ME SICK TO MY STOMACH, A BEING WHOSE EMPATHY WOULD BE SO EASILY TRUMPED BY HIS VANITY.Such blistering blasphemy could only come from the mouth of one God has turned over to a reprobate mind.He is trying to convince his audience there is no God, and the bible nonsense.
Jude 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. vs. 17 But beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; vs. 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. / With a misguided manacled mouth he is telling you there are no moral absolutes that are right
I have to disagree with anyone who would even entertain that this guy is intelligent in the least. The bible tells me that : THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART THAT THERE IS NO GOD. Sin is wrong, and 1st John 3:4 tells us that sin is the transgression of the law. God has given us laws and commandments and because they come from God, that finalizes it that they are good at all times, and transgressing any of them are not right. Some people go to lengths to try to justify their sinful life style.
Of course rational ought's are the only ones that exist in a realistic world view, because human intelligence is the only thing that allows us to ponder these sorts of questions in the first place. If one creature in the wild kills another to provide itself with essential nourishment, is it committing an unethical act? No. All moral considerations are subject to bias perception and unique circumstance. The world is grey, and those who view it in terms of black and white are stuck in a box...
@DarkTrojanHorse Moral absolutes are hated by those who do not want to submit to their reasonable restraints that are only designed for our mental and physical and spiritual good.God's Law is called the perfect law of liberty, when these laws of God are obeyed, we are liberated from the consequences that follow disobeying them. To true Christians, there is nothing gray about any portion of the Word of God, we accept the truth of it in our heart, and are transformed by it.
I'm a Christian but this guy is very interesting to watch. He's obviously super intelligent, and although I don't agree with his belief of no God, he does make some very true and legitimate statements. That being said, I think the debate between Christianity and Atheism is a complete waste of time, if people's minds are set on what they believe, you are not going to change that. As Christians we need to focus our energies elsewhere on people who really are open to the idea of God.
@MelKNeufeld When you use critical thinking across the board the mind becomes "unset". To say that minds will not change is a common view coming from a theistic conclusive view of the universe. Your curiosity about what really is happening concerning reality is close cased as you already think you know. My perspective moves every day. With evidence, I'd change on the god issue as well. I'm not set regarding anything. How could I be with such an obvious lack of knowledge?
@Explorer766 What I was meaning was that, if someone really truly believes there is no God or that there is a God, no amount of debate of any sort will change that. If you took someone like Richard Dawkins and tried to convince him til you passed out that there is a God, you would simply be wasting your breath. He has solidly made up his mind about where he stands on the God issue. I know that doesn't apply to all with atheistic views, but in certain cases, it is true.
NON-COGNITIVISM.... read about it. I'm not suing it is, but you cannot state that rape is wrong just like that.
i am guessing you state your opinion that rape is wrong since it may cause unnecessary harm and suffering. since man tends to want good and avoid evil and pain for egoistic justifiable reasons, then you can say that ONLY THEN rape COULD BE SEEN TO BE WRONG
According to many Atheists, a "Singularity", smaller than an atom, appeared out of "nowhere" and exploded. And all the matter and energy in the universe was contained in that "Singularity".. so my question is... where did the Singularity come from? And what existed before it appeared? And where did it come from? And what caused it to appear? And what caused it to explode?
Christians by faith believe that God created everything and Atheists have faith in the "Singularity" as creator.
@EvangelistEvan Where did God come from? What existed before God appeared? And where did God come from? And what caused God to appear? And what caused God to create the universe?
@americannightmare76 God has always existed. If God didn't always exist and "nothing" existed at some time in the past, the "nothing" would exist today. Do you believe "nothing" existed at some stage or do you believe "something" existed always?
God created the universe and people from love and because He wants a personal relationship with us.
Now answer this, are you 100% sure God does not exist and do you have proof that God does not exist? Yes or No?
I cannot "Show" or "Prove" that A god does not exist because there's no method to do that. However, I can and have proven that the biblical god due to his conflicting characteristics cannot exist. Now, the only way this god COULD exist is if the bible is WRONG about the actions of that god. (Refer to what I said earlier to understand why that is)
Secondly, I do not "Believe" he is real, if I simply "Accept" him, that would be a lie because i don't ACTUALLY believe it and biblically you must TRULY believe and have faith, something I can't just "Decide" to do because I HONESTLY and TRULY don't believe in the biblical god (Because of the inconsistencies in his character) Lastly, FEAR of punishment shouldn't be a reason to "believe" something, and can't be...either you believe or not believe, there is no "Choice"
@MrOmniblast You just admitted that you have no proof that God does not exist, so please answer this question honestly and directly... do you admit there is a possibility that God exists?
False, I stated that I CAN in fact prove that your specific god is not real because there are very specific testable things written in the bible. Either logical impossibilities or scientific ones. What I stated was that I cannot prove that A god exists, that is...ANY ONE god. Don't twist my words, pay attention to what I'm saying. I'll show you ONE, again.
YOUR god cannot exist because of a logical impossibility. (MANY OF THEM) But we'll do ONE.
God knows everything-therefore he knows the best course of action-from that, no one could ever think of a better solution to a problem than god-Moses DID think of a better solution to a problem than god did-therefore god is NOT all knowing.
Because it is stated that god IS all knowing according to the bible, he either doesn't exist or the bible is wrong (which is a problem 2)
@MrOmniblast That strategy you are using is an old outdated strategy that many Atheists have tried on me,u refuse to answer my questions, my questions frighten you and instead of answering my questions,you dance, and sidestep and desperately try to change topics and ask me questions instead and refusing to address my questions! That old strategy won't work on me my friend, I been around too long to play that game:)
Now just admit that you are too frightened to answer my questions!
Dude, I HAVE answered all your questions, but you did NOT respond to my reasoning of my answer. You CANNOT ask me a question in response to my response which INCLUDED a question -_- Answer my question/logic chain and then I will answer your question, you're the one running away, obviously. I have no problem answering you, but there needs to be some ground rules, answer me, I'll answer you.
@MrOmniblast You have now resorted to more lying and more dancing and more sidestepping strategy, a very common move by Atheists who are frightened to answer my questions. You did NOT fully answer my questions at all, yet then again, as an Atheist I suppose you see nothing wrong in lying!
Again, no, that's what YOU are doing. I'm being fair here, ask me again any question I have not answered PRIOR to me asking you to address my argument. That's VERY fair, so anything you asked that I allegedly didn't answer, I will now answer as long as it's something you asked me BEFORE I made my argument against the all knowingness of your alleged god (The first time I asked it, not the 2 or 3 times after that since you never addressed it. Ball's on your court.
You know, anyone who can read these comments thinks you're retarded right? Here I am asking you to ask me any question you believe I have no answered prior to making my syllogism and you answer me back with that? Instead of restating the questions so that I may answer them? Is English your first language? Are you trying very hard NOT to understand what I'm' saying? I don't get it. Again, I'll state it clearly, ASK ME THE QUESTIONS I DIDN'T ANSWER. Do it, or stfu
@EvangelistEvan What you've done for MrOmniblast is repeated 4 times now that he's 'sidestepping' your questions, but I've read your questions and you haven't asked anyway. And he's asking you some, which you are ignoring. It's quite ignorant of you.
@MrOmniblast You have found proof to provide the world that God does not exist! Well tomorrow morning you will be very famous, even more famous than Bold and Beautiful actors lol.
No, because the majority will be too stupid to understand the logical chain that I just set up. Likewise you DO understand it, which is why you won't tackle it.
@EvangelistEvan I'd like you to address statement #4, because the person you're talking to brought up a good point. Where's the freedom of choice if we're damned to hell merely for not believing in God? Thomas Jefferson made an appropriate statement about God and fear: "If there be a god, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind-folded fear." If you admit you could be wrong about God existing, can you admit you may be wrong about how to believe in him?
@EvangelistEvan That is not a fair choice as there is duress placed upon one option. If you consider that to be true freedom of will, then you're misguided.
@americannightmare76 It is a fair choice because it's still defined as a FREE CHOICE! Are you seriously claiming that you do not have free choice or free will and that you are some type of pre-programmed robot who is forced to make choices against your will? Is that what you are really trying to to claim?
If you live with your parents and they tell you that you must behave a certain way or get out of the house,do you still have FREEDOM OF WILL AND CHOICE to make a decision?
@EvangelistEvan So the only reason for me to believe in God is not because it's what my heart tells me, or any of that nonsense. No, I should instead believe in God because I'm fearful that if I don't accept him I'm going to burn in hell for all of eternity. What evidence do you have of hell existing in the first place? You seem to have no qualms about questioning beliefs about the big bang, so allow me to question your basis for believing hell is the only other option for non-Christians.
@EvangelistEvan There is no true choice if there is a punishment attached to one of the choices. It's a strong armed way to force you into one choice and has been beautifully demonstrated by many examples that can be found here on YouTube.
And you're damn skippy I'm claiming we don't have free will because it's a tool designed by religions to create this divide between those that believe and those that don't.
@EvangelistEvan If your god is truly omniscient then there is no such thing as free will because god will have already known what your choice would have been and therefore destroys the illusion of free will. This would mean that we're all "pre-programmed robot(s)" as you put it, because no one can go against the fore knowledge your god already possesses over us all.
@EvangelistEvan Obviously I don't if I really hope to stay with my parents - my only option then is to become obedient to their whims to avoid the punishment attached to the choice I may have thought would have been to my benefit.
@americannightmare76 But you do have FREE WILL and FREEDOM OF CHOICE to obey or disobey your parents and you do have FREE WILL and FREEDOM OF CHOICE to stay or move.
So your comments regarding God and FREE WILL and FREEDOM OF CHOICE is invalid and flawed.
@EvangelistEvan Firstly, your example pales to demonstrate the absurdity of your "free will" in terms of your god. Why? Because the consequences are much harsher when dealing with your god. He's laid out torment and torture for those that "choose" to ignore him, or failed to live up to his expectations. But I'll side-step that to look back at your actual example.
@EvangelistEvan No, I don't really have much of a choice if the duress of the options is obey or be cast out. There's no positive incentive or reinforcement for me, in your example, to obey, only the stigma of the negative to keep me in line. To claim that as a fair choice is absurd as obviously I'm being pressured to make a decision that favors the other party. It is not beneficial for me at all to make any kind of decision other than the one without a negative stipulation.
@americannightmare76 The truth and reality is.. you DO have a free choice, so you can dance, sidestep and tippy toe all you like around that fact, but the truth is, YOU DO have a possibility to choose freely, however, you have freely chosen to make certain decisions because you fear the consequences, however that doesn't force you to make those choices.
Now I ask you, do you have FREE WILL or do you claim you do not? Yes or No?
@EvangelistEvan No, asserting that it is truth and/or reality does not make it so. You can claim it to be choice, but it is not a free choice because consequences are attached to one of the options. This nullifies the idea that it is a "free" choice because freedom would indicate that both options are open without any kind of penalty attached to either outcome.
For example: if I hold a gun to your head and demand you pay me $1,000 or I'll kill you, do you really have a freedom of choice?
@EvangelistEvan I've already answered your question: no, there is no such thing as free will for one of two reasons: 1. if your god is truly omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient then he is all powerful, ever present, and all knowing and nothing we do would ever be beyond his realm of knowledge. If that's true, then no decision we make is truly our own, because it was already known by your god before we ever came upon the choice.
@EvangelistEvan 2. if all religions are false - as I believe them to be - then there is no plan laid out for us that would dictate our lives for us that can or cannot be altered by our decisions. We are simply instinctual creatures and thus act accordingly to every scenario presented to us in a manner that we decide. I wouldn't call this free will because that term is one of religious connotation.
Also, you seem very keen on asking questions but not so much on answering any.
@americannightmare76 I am a Christian and Creationist, yet I humbly will admit to you that I am not 100% certain that God exists and that's because I do not have solid 100% proof that God exists, so I believe in God by faith alone and not by proof.
Now I ask you a question, are you 100% sure God does not exist? Or do you humbly admit there is a possibility that God exists? Yes or No? If you say no, then can you provide proof that God does not exist so then the world will know.
@EvangelistEvan Uhm...no it's not. If your god is omniscient, like I pointed out earlier, then there is no true free will because every choice is already known. If it is already known then you never had a chance to pass god's little test, making this live completely meaningless. I do believe you haven't really thought this thing through entirely.
I need to set the record straight about what Scottt was teaching in this video. Scott is in error when he suggests people enter heaven through morality. People do not enter heaven by being "good" or being "moral", rather, people enter heaven by having faith in Jesus. That's the GOOD NEWS (Gospel) that a sinner, a person who does not always do the right and stumbles in immorality, through sincere repentance and regret, they enter into free grace and by their faith in Jesus they can enter heaven.
If you take God out of the equation, then "right and wrong" is relative and has no one true foundation.
So I ask all unbelievers and Atheists a question. What stops you from killing your children or your friends children? What makes it right or wrong, and according to who?
You didn't watch the video did you? And by the way...people have always felt the way they feel now, that these things are not to be done. Christianity did not always exist, especially not in the world as a whole. I'll give you a time machine, go back to before Christianity...no, Judaism...and ask them that question.
But I'm more worried about people like you...who only have that one reason NOT to kill children. Disgusting.
@MrOmniblast You make false accusations about people because there is no truth in you. In fact I can tell you hate the truth, hence, you reject God. Well at Judgement Day you can tell God that He doesn't exist. It ain't going to go well for you shortly afterwards when you are thrown into the lake of fire. You have made your choice and I hope you realise there will be consequences for your choices.
Do you think? Prove your god exists...and no, you cannot "Logic" him into existence (Not that you'd do it right anyway) The fact of the matter is that I want the truth, you do not; you want what feels best for you, you want hope and you want comfort. I do not "Reject" god, because "Belief" is NOT and I repeat...NOT a choice when you don't see any reason to believe. Example, "I swam to school today" I can't prove it at all, you have no reason to believe me
Not only do you have no reason to believe me, you have reason to NOT believe this as how likely is it that I live somewhere where I can SWIM up to a school? -_- Do you understand? You would NOT believe that right off, you'd need proof and don't say you won't. Now lets make it more unbelievable, and say I live in the city...now it's damn near impossible because it's all concrete and no waterways leaving to a school.
These two things, Swimming and Concrete- Swimming ON concrete are incompatible concepts and thus my statement "I Swam to school today" MUST necessarily be false.
Likewise- P1 God exists and is omniscient P2 God knows the best course of action to take. Following from 1 and 2 God cannot be convinced of a BETTER course of action than the one he has selected.
Problem is, Moses DID convince him of a better course of action, thus. P1=VOID
@MrOmniblast I am a Christian and Creationist, yet I humbly will admit to you that I am not 100% certain that God exists and that's because I do not have solid 100% proof that God exists, so I believe in God by faith alone and not by proof.
Now I ask you a question, are you 100% sure God does not exist? Or do you humbly admit there is a possibility that God exists? Yes or No? If you say no, then can you provide proof that God does not exist so then the world will know.
I have never, ever, EVER seen anyone destroy William Lane Craig and his fellow apologetics as brilliantly and eloquently as you! You pulverized every single argument I've heard in favour of theistic morality. I am utterly blown away... WOW! I stand in awe of you, sir!
I believe sweeping generalisations on various groups of people rather than individuals is something I believe is wrong. How about judging the person rather than the box you have placed them in? I agree with your ideas but not with your sweeping generalisations which is a trait you share with someone like Hitler or any other bigot. Nice to see you defending homosexuals it's not nice to see you showing your bigotry in other ways. Not everyone is in the box you placed them so ignorantly in.
@xYowYowCanGirlX oh whoops. this wasn't meant to be a reply to you, well it was, but then i changed it and it no longer made sense as a reply to you. I thought i'd deleted the comment. disregard it. I was saying that if I was gay I'd have a huge crush on theoreticalbullshit.
Murder is not wrong, neither is stealing......like you said GOD takes peoples lives all the time...so if we are to be like GOD, then start taking peoples lives.
Is stealing wrong? stealing does not exist. A man grows food on a tree that grew from no power of the man yet gives fruit for free to the man who sells that which was given for free. Who is stealing, the thief who takes to eat or the shop owner who sells something that was given freely. The shop owners are the thieves.
@machinedean100 I watched the last 10mins of the show yesterday and he play by the name of Liam Spencer who is married to Steffy Forrester.And the inbred family(Forrester)is not very happy.Or something like that.Thought I let you know.Cheers
@machinedean100 Actually, it has been proven that Homosexual parents are more prone to raising a much more functional, normal family, because of the fact that they cannot have a child on accident, and that impossibility alone gives Homosexual parents the credibility they need to prove they are capable of all of the same rights as Heterosexuals. I have homosexual friends, and they're as nice, if not nicer than my heterosexual friends. They cause no social strife in my own life.
@TheAlexANGST there Social behavior is not my concern. I realize gays are nice caring and kind. And I also have gay friends. It also a proven that they they spread disease. They are also like conduit for aids.
@TheAlexANGST Look at like this Alcoholism destroys the liver. Lets say you know a nice caring and kind alcoholic. Just because he is nice doesn't mean he isn't destroying his liver. Now homosexuality should be treated the same way alcoholism is.
@machinedean100 You're seriously comparing being Gay with being an alcoholic? Disease spreads in a lot of dumbasses who decide to have unprotected sex.
@TheAlexANGST Yea and I would stand against that also. Its what you call a sex addict. They no bounds and they have no dignity. Just do some research on sex addiction and disease in gay men. Yea that is what I am seriously doing you got a prob!
@machinedean100 Sex addiction is one thing, but unsafe sex? That's what we call an idiot. You really think the fact that certain STD's are more abundant in gay couples is a reasonable argument against homosexuality? People need to get tested before they start infecting people, not change who they are. So rather than thinking you're better than everyone else because you know "statistics", wake up and stop being a complete jackass to people just because you love being right.
@machinedean100 CERTAIN diseases are more abundant in homosexual people than straight people, while other diseases are more abundant in heterosexual people than gay people. Pull your head out of your ass, and stop being so arrogant.
hahahaha, If I kill a man in that lives in the woods who has no family and I do it very quickly. And no one ever knows about it. How could it ever be wrong according to you. This sucks! Why doesn't this guy makes vids no more?
@machinedean100 Well if you kill a man you cause harm to him, You steal his life everything he ever did. You took that away from him, wich causes harm to his wishes and his feelings, now he is dead and can't enjoy life anymore, because you took it from him, wether he has family or not, you took something from him, wich causes harm to him, you took away his enjoyment of life, wich is also a meaning from harm, Also why does homosexuality cause communal harm?
@mittaagangsta Ok what if he was suffering horribly in the woods and asked me to kill him. and he had no family and no would know about it. Would that be ok! Do the research on the gay stuff. Its just a click away.
@machinedean100 I don't have to do research on gay stuff, i have friends who are gay, and soonwe will be roommates but it does'nt bother me at all. Why should i worry about homosexuality, it does'nt harm anyone, but if you feel violated, that means that you're butthurt.Gay people are normal people. Also if you feel like killing that guy in the woods be my quest, you could also ignore him and save him. But by your morals killing would be better because it's easier.
@mittaagangsta killing would be better by my morals. Thats a straw man. People have been accusing me of murder a lot lately. WTH is wrong denie the facts then call some body a murderer. Like I said I have gay friends. It does harm people its spreads disease. Its the number one carrier of aids. Hey rats don't harm any one and there actually kind of cute; but they carry the plague.
@machinedean100 Great, now you're comparing a group of human beings to rodents. You ARE aware that STD's are only primarily passed through blood transfusions and unprotected sexual activity, right? People in Utah have an outrageous number of cases of Chlamydia. Should we make it illegal for them to get married, or rather, should we increase the amount of preventative care?
@TheAlexANGST yea, that wasn't very nice. They are not rodents. I apologize all though rodents spread disease we can kill rodents and be justified. But with people that is horrible. Apologize for my horrible comparison. yea I realized they passed through the blood stream. That is why compared to alcoholism to begin with. It can only harm them. Just alcohol can only harm the one who drinks it. What do you not understand. Homosexuality is a sickness. That is why it should be shunned.
@machinedean100 A sickness? And what empirical evidence do you have to support such a claim? Homosexuality is who someone is, something they cannot help, Go ahead and provide some empirical evidence, scientific evidence, or take a wild shot at trying to find logic through believing that homosexuality is wrong. I'll just keep stomping your arguments out, because you have no material to go on, just personal bias.
@TheAlexANGST Um, you never stomped out any of my arguments. And you seem angry yet I am not. There is plenty of empirical evidence. All you have to do is Google it. I will admit I do have a bias, but it is not one of prejudice. Lets reverse tables seeing how already know that the evidence I need is just a click away. I would like you to provide me with evidence that homosexuality is not a sickness or spread disease or cause communal harm.
@machinedean100 TBS has already destroyed that argument. He has already shown through logic how morality is not something that is defined by some divine being, that it is simply conclusions we reach through rationalization that all ethics boil down to the need for minimal pain and suffering, and to maximize the well-being of everyone. Homosexuality does not cause any harm to others, nor is it preventing the well-being of anyone.
@TheAlexANGST I just destroyed his argument. By showing that i can kill someone with out causing harm. And the homosexuals cause's self harm. Also, by showing would be ok to kill some one in great suffering. Also, I can give arguments that also show there can be no logic with god. So, he used laws given to him by god to disprove god.
@machinedean100 Killing someone DOES cause harm, you can't commit murder without causing harm. You have yet to show me how homosexuality is directly linked to inherent "self-harm", and in situations like Euthanasia, that is actually death, given with the consent of someone who is suffering, solely for the purpose of ending their suffering. The ethical implications are obvious to those who aren't brought up to be brainwashed otherwise. So you're saying there is a God?
@TheAlexANGST If I shot man in the head in the middle of woods and also he has nofamily. So, no one will morn his passing. I did not cause any pain by shooting him in the head and I did not cause any body emotional pain. because they do not exist. The reason I haven't shown how homosexuality is linked to self harm and communal and or family harm. Is because you are just being intellectually lazy. You can look it up your self these things are that well known.
@TheAlexANGST Also, you are assuming now that I am brainwashed. Yes, I am saying there is a god. What if the pain was so excruciating that the person was begging me to take there life. But, I know that in just a few days. With a lil help they will get better.
@machinedean100 You are still taking that lonely bastard's life without that lonely bastard's consent, and that goes against objective ethics in the sense of something beyond rational doubt. It's obvious ethics, and it doesn't take the belief in a God to see the obviousness of it. You assume I'm "intellectually lazy", when the case happens to be that you have no real argument that does not truly counteract any argument I've already given you. Well known? I think not.
@TheAlexANGST So, then we have determined stealing is wrong. Even if does not cause harm. Because his life was taken from with out any harm being done. So, then TBS's form of morality is invalid. In-fact you have not contradicted any of my arguments and have only strengthened them.
@machinedean100 (cont.) You also say there is a God, though this God has no identity to anyone, other than your own mental fabrication, and if you were to attribute this God with common characteristics given to many "Gods" that are commonly worshipped, such God would be unlikely to exist because of the irrational details inherent in the concept of it.
@TheAlexANGST A god with characteristics given to it is a fabrication. How can it be commonly worshiped and have no identity to anyone. Yes, fabricated gods with characteristics given to it would be most likely to not exist. What is this blibber blabber you have spoken. I know bob and just because you do not know does not mean bob does not exists.
@machinedean100 Actually, TBS's form of objective ethics is not invalid, because as I have said a few times already, taking a life IS harm, whether it causes physical suffering, or strips someone of their rights and freedoms. You seem to not understand the concept of "harm", or how to define it correctly in this case. Stealing is not always wrong, as well, as tales of Robin Hood can certainly show how it can be justified. "Minimal pain and suffering, maximum well-being, or both".
@machinedean100 (cont.) Incorrect, because while Bob would not be a figment of your imagination, but rather, a physical human being, I cannot say whether or not he is real, because the concept of Bob is a logically plausible concept, although, I couldn't really tell whether you are the kind of person to make him up, or if he is indeed a real person. God on the other hand, not a physically real concept to anyone, so the existence of such a being still remains a logical fallacy.
@TheAlexANGST stating that there is no god is a logical fallacy. To first even to claim that there is no god. You must first have all knowledge and this would make you god. This is why atheist's don't exist. The term atheist is a logical fallacy. So, god is not a figment of my imagination. He is a physical real concept to me. Meaning he is a physical real concept to someone. You arguments stinks something harsh and is circular. God does not exist I have stated there for it is true.
@TheAlexANGST You god spoken god out of existence and last I checked god is the only person who can speak things in and out of existence. So, there fore you are claiming you self to be god.
@TheAlexANGST Also, working out cause's physical harm and suffering. Is it wrong for me to do this. Working cause physical harm and suffering having baby's causes physical harm and suffering. Are all of these things wrong.
@TheAlexANGST "all ethics boil down to the need for minimal pain and suffering, and to maximize the well-being of everyone."
Says who? Prove that happiness always comes with doing the right thing, and prove that suffering is always bad. If you can, then I'll grant the utilitarian argument. If you can't, you might want to examine that statement further.
@Wags321 You might as well ask me to prove that the sun is bright, because details as such would become VERY trivial to explain any better than they are SELF-explanatory.
@TheAlexANGST I don't see how they're analogous, especially considering that the basis for right and wrong are often debated among philosophers. People generally agree that the sun is bright. The utilitarian argument, which is what you and TBS have put forth, has already been postulated and criticized. Defining and judging happiness becomes vague, and you have to show how it is directly related to doing the right thing. We might say the truth is good, but it doesn't make everyone happy.
@Wags321 The argument here isn't about what makes us happy, it is about what maximizes personal well-being, and causing minimal harm and suffering, and those concepts don't go hand in hand, and they are not the same thing. If someone is unhappy, it is not necessarily a flaw in ethical views, but can be a dissatisfaction with one's own lifestyle. This is two different topics entirely.
@TheAlexANGST Also, from what I've encountered, the argument IS about what maximizes happiness. That is part of the utilitarian theory, you can check me on that. You saying that it doesn't correspond to ethics or morals might mean that you personally disagree with it, or prefer to substitute "well-being" in its place, but the theory is what it is. Happiness factors in as a big chunk of it. Again, a conflict arises either way.
@Wags321 The argument is about objective ethics, and being "unhappy" is a possible ramification of doing what is right, because often times, doing otherwise would leave one feeling worse, or leave one in a position to make others feel worse. Happiness is not an inherent feeling that comes from making the best ethical decisions, happiness can come from making unethical decisions, as well as ethical ones. Ethical decisions are rational ones. Emotion and Reason are two different categories
@TheAlexANGST "Ethical decisions are rational ones." I think a number of people would disagree with you here in the sense that emotions are believed to play at least some role in ethical decisions, but that is beside the point. I don't disagree with you on the former part of that post. But what about well-being? Happiness is closely linked to this and you still say pain and suffering are to be minimized, yet these are also feelings. You imply them as inherent to ethics, along with well-being.
@Wags321 The role that emotions play in ethical decisions can lead one to what is obvious, or lead one in the wrong direction ethically. People who have a problem with things that are far from objectively unethical, such as gay marriage, are using their personal emotions, rather than their logic. Feeling empathy is an obvious emotion felt with something that can most certainly be rationalized. As for unhappiness, it's certainly not always, or even often, linked to unethical decisions.
@TheAlexANGST And if we treated our actions with pure, unfeeling "logic" then we'd have another slew of problems, because sometimes doing what may seem morally practical may not be what is intuitively right. But I don't want to get into that too much, because originally we were talking about whether right and wrong are linked with well-being and suffering. You haven't talked about well-being in the last few replies, though you brought it up, and I've been questioning it. Let's not get off track.
@Wags321 Logic is going to lead to more of a good effect on our well-being than our emotions do, because our emotions often lead us to making irrational decisions that inherently cause suffering, like relationships and religious fundamentalism. One of my longest lasting relationships actually was ruined by an unfortunate case of religious fundamentalism on her part, and as for well-being, that kind of attachment cannot last without rationalizing it. Most things need to be rationalized.
@Wags321 (cont) For instance, if we are to enter in these various relationships without identifying every key factor that is involved, such as each person's personality traits, beliefs, etc, one cannot save time and see that something will not work, and break things off before the relationship picks up speed, and ends with a painful trainwreck, damaging one's mental and emotional well-being. Some relationships often turn into abuse, and the emotional attachment hinders the end of it.
@TheAlexANGST I don't see why both logic and emotions can't have an equally good or bad effect on well-being. Just because emotions can lead to extremism doesn't mean that the other end of the spectrum is somehow preferable to that. Too much rationalization and objectivity will lead to a meaningless existence. As far as relationships, that is a rather a foolish philosophy you go by. A big part of relationships is working with differences, not against them. No couple is 'perfectly' compatible.
@TheAlexANGST Why is minimizing pain or suffering the right thing to do? It would be one thing to say that doing so is generally good, but another to say we "ought" to do so, as if you're trying to provide an absolute standard for judging right from wrong.
@Wags321 Right and wrong exist on a plane of absolute standards, the only part that makes such a topic in any ways subjective is the degree of opinionated feelings, and as some people come to the wrong conclusions due to these subjective matters, what we know is that when they believe they're doing something right, when objectively, it is wrong, it's due to their lack of understanding as to the reason it is wrong. There's often a perspective they don't see, or a truth they have missed.
@TheAlexANGST Funny that earlier I was arguing here with a person called Stauntz who would agree with me that morality loses value if we only look at absolute standards; if we exclude context and any subjective feelings that played a part. I'm hesitant about absolute standards, because while there may be a few actions that are always wrong (rape may be, as I don't see any context where we could justify it), there are a number actions which are morally vague and/or depend entirely on context.
I did think that this young man was one given over to homosexuality. I APOLOGIZE FOR CONCLUDING SUCH BASED ON PRESUMPTION. HE LEFT ME KNOW HE WAS NOT GAY, AND I DO THANK GOD FOR THAT. Usually , those that defend such a life style of open sin, are those that engage in such themselves. But he left me know he was not gay, but didn't see any fault with being such.
moseseseseses 12 hours ago
I knew that I was hearing the rant of reprobation when I heard his first video moments ago. Any viral virulent voice that fiendishly finds fault with God and basically tells anyone who will listen to him that he is right, and God is unreasonable and wrong about imposing moral absolutes, is a person walking in darkness who hates the light of God's word. He openly, and sadly so, lets all those that will hear him, hear him belittle God and even the notion that there is a God. So lost, so sad.
moseseseseses 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jude 8 tells us: Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Jude 15 tells us To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
moseseseseses 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The apostle Paul well has told us in part of 2nd Corinthians chapter 5 verses 10 & 11 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. vs. 11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men;I warn this young lad in love that he needs to repent of his baneful blasphemy, and come to Christ, repenting of his sins and be saved.
moseseseseses 12 hours ago
Comment removed
moseseseseses 16 hours ago
His kind fiendishly feeds upon the misguided flattery that lacking intellect from others cause them to cheer him on, but Jesus tells us that every idle word that leaves your mouth is a word that you will have to give an account for on judgement day. Anyone who elevates his own disagreeing reprobate reason of rot against the finality of God's blessed word, is one that embraces eternal death in the lake of fire, where the soul is ever alive.
moseseseseses 16 hours ago
Because his demonic degree of reprobation and blasphemy is more freakishly filthy than most,he is the hero of those that feel they need his misguided mouth to speak out their baneful blasphemies also.The word of God calls anyone that does not believe in HIM a fool, so when you hear him speak, you are not listening to an intelligent person at all, but one that God calls a fool.He wants his infidel immoral lust to freely engage in,and call it happiness, and refers to God as vanity for faulting it.
moseseseseses 16 hours ago
What he said in another video concerning being in heaven with God, a God he does not believe in, is this: I DON'T KNOW HOW I WOULD BE ABLE TO HANDLE SPENDING ETERNITY ALONG SIDE A BEING WHOSE IDEA OF COMPASSION AND FAIRNESS MAKES ME SICK TO MY STOMACH, A BEING WHOSE EMPATHY WOULD BE SO EASILY TRUMPED BY HIS VANITY.Such blistering blasphemy could only come from the mouth of one God has turned over to a reprobate mind.He is trying to convince his audience there is no God, and the bible nonsense.
moseseseseses 16 hours ago
Jude 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. vs. 17 But beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; vs. 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. / With a misguided manacled mouth he is telling you there are no moral absolutes that are right
moseseseseses 16 hours ago
Comment removed
moseseseseses 16 hours ago
Comment removed
moseseseseses 16 hours ago
I have to disagree with anyone who would even entertain that this guy is intelligent in the least. The bible tells me that : THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART THAT THERE IS NO GOD. Sin is wrong, and 1st John 3:4 tells us that sin is the transgression of the law. God has given us laws and commandments and because they come from God, that finalizes it that they are good at all times, and transgressing any of them are not right. Some people go to lengths to try to justify their sinful life style.
moseseseseses 17 hours ago
great vid dude, you always seem to say what I've been thinking for years
SoCalAries 1 day ago
Of course rational ought's are the only ones that exist in a realistic world view, because human intelligence is the only thing that allows us to ponder these sorts of questions in the first place. If one creature in the wild kills another to provide itself with essential nourishment, is it committing an unethical act? No. All moral considerations are subject to bias perception and unique circumstance. The world is grey, and those who view it in terms of black and white are stuck in a box...
DarkTrojanHorse 3 days ago
@DarkTrojanHorse quite true, moral absolutism lacks a depth of understanding
SoCalAries 1 day ago
@DarkTrojanHorse Moral absolutes are hated by those who do not want to submit to their reasonable restraints that are only designed for our mental and physical and spiritual good.God's Law is called the perfect law of liberty, when these laws of God are obeyed, we are liberated from the consequences that follow disobeying them. To true Christians, there is nothing gray about any portion of the Word of God, we accept the truth of it in our heart, and are transformed by it.
moseseseseses 16 hours ago
SOMEBODY GIVE THAT MAN A NOBEL PRICE!
Trollinator2 3 days ago
I'm a Christian but this guy is very interesting to watch. He's obviously super intelligent, and although I don't agree with his belief of no God, he does make some very true and legitimate statements. That being said, I think the debate between Christianity and Atheism is a complete waste of time, if people's minds are set on what they believe, you are not going to change that. As Christians we need to focus our energies elsewhere on people who really are open to the idea of God.
MelKNeufeld 5 days ago
Comment removed
Explorer766 22 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MelKNeufeld When you use critical thinking across the board the mind becomes "unset". To say that minds will not change is a common view coming from a theistic conclusive view of the universe. Your curiosity about what really is happening concerning reality is close cased as you already think you know. My perspective moves every day. With evidence, I'd change on the god issue as well. I'm not set regarding anything. How could I be with such an obvious lack of knowledge?
Explorer766 22 hours ago
@Explorer766 What I was meaning was that, if someone really truly believes there is no God or that there is a God, no amount of debate of any sort will change that. If you took someone like Richard Dawkins and tried to convince him til you passed out that there is a God, you would simply be wasting your breath. He has solidly made up his mind about where he stands on the God issue. I know that doesn't apply to all with atheistic views, but in certain cases, it is true.
MelKNeufeld 11 hours ago
Great video.
RequiemFear 1 week ago
NON-COGNITIVISM.... read about it. I'm not suing it is, but you cannot state that rape is wrong just like that.
i am guessing you state your opinion that rape is wrong since it may cause unnecessary harm and suffering. since man tends to want good and avoid evil and pain for egoistic justifiable reasons, then you can say that ONLY THEN rape COULD BE SEEN TO BE WRONG
thenordica1 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Please have a small penis, dammit.
peterlikesthis 1 week ago
According to many Atheists, a "Singularity", smaller than an atom, appeared out of "nowhere" and exploded. And all the matter and energy in the universe was contained in that "Singularity".. so my question is... where did the Singularity come from? And what existed before it appeared? And where did it come from? And what caused it to appear? And what caused it to explode?
Christians by faith believe that God created everything and Atheists have faith in the "Singularity" as creator.
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan Where did God come from? What existed before God appeared? And where did God come from? And what caused God to appear? And what caused God to create the universe?
By all means, start answering those questions.
americannightmare76 1 week ago
@americannightmare76 God has always existed. If God didn't always exist and "nothing" existed at some time in the past, the "nothing" would exist today. Do you believe "nothing" existed at some stage or do you believe "something" existed always?
God created the universe and people from love and because He wants a personal relationship with us.
Now answer this, are you 100% sure God does not exist and do you have proof that God does not exist? Yes or No?
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan How do you know he always existed? Why can't the super dense atom of the Big Bang have always existed as well?
The "nothing," you so eloquently put it, does exist today but in different forms as we are all products of it.
I don't hold irrational beliefs about things that science is still searching answers to.
Asserting that your god exists doesn't make him real.
I'm 100% certain that if your god exists he's a prick. Do you have proof that he does exist and isn't a prick?
americannightmare76 1 week ago
1. Are you 100% sure God does not exist? If no, then do you admit God may exist?
2. Do you have proof that God does not exist? If not, then how can you be 100% sure God doesn't exist?
3. Do you admit you could wrong? As a Christian and Creationist, I humbly admit I could be wrong. What about you? Do you admit you could be wrong?
4. If you are right, how am I going to be worse off than you in the grave? But if I am right, are you going to be worse off than me in the grave?
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan
I cannot "Show" or "Prove" that A god does not exist because there's no method to do that. However, I can and have proven that the biblical god due to his conflicting characteristics cannot exist. Now, the only way this god COULD exist is if the bible is WRONG about the actions of that god. (Refer to what I said earlier to understand why that is)
MrOmniblast 1 week ago
@MrOmniblast
Secondly, I do not "Believe" he is real, if I simply "Accept" him, that would be a lie because i don't ACTUALLY believe it and biblically you must TRULY believe and have faith, something I can't just "Decide" to do because I HONESTLY and TRULY don't believe in the biblical god (Because of the inconsistencies in his character) Lastly, FEAR of punishment shouldn't be a reason to "believe" something, and can't be...either you believe or not believe, there is no "Choice"
MrOmniblast 1 week ago
@MrOmniblast You just admitted that you have no proof that God does not exist, so please answer this question honestly and directly... do you admit there is a possibility that God exists?
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan
False, I stated that I CAN in fact prove that your specific god is not real because there are very specific testable things written in the bible. Either logical impossibilities or scientific ones. What I stated was that I cannot prove that A god exists, that is...ANY ONE god. Don't twist my words, pay attention to what I'm saying. I'll show you ONE, again.
MrOmniblast 1 week ago
@MrOmniblast
YOUR god cannot exist because of a logical impossibility. (MANY OF THEM) But we'll do ONE.
God knows everything-therefore he knows the best course of action-from that, no one could ever think of a better solution to a problem than god-Moses DID think of a better solution to a problem than god did-therefore god is NOT all knowing.
Because it is stated that god IS all knowing according to the bible, he either doesn't exist or the bible is wrong (which is a problem 2)
MrOmniblast 1 week ago
@MrOmniblast Do you believe life exists somewhere in the universe besides Earth? Yes or No?
If yes, then where is your proof? And what makes you believe there is life besides on Earth somewhere in the universe?
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan
I'm sorry, but you have NOT responded to my logical chain which completely destroys the idea that your god is omniscient. Respond to that.
MrOmniblast 1 week ago
@MrOmniblast That strategy you are using is an old outdated strategy that many Atheists have tried on me,u refuse to answer my questions, my questions frighten you and instead of answering my questions,you dance, and sidestep and desperately try to change topics and ask me questions instead and refusing to address my questions! That old strategy won't work on me my friend, I been around too long to play that game:)
Now just admit that you are too frightened to answer my questions!
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan
Dude, I HAVE answered all your questions, but you did NOT respond to my reasoning of my answer. You CANNOT ask me a question in response to my response which INCLUDED a question -_- Answer my question/logic chain and then I will answer your question, you're the one running away, obviously. I have no problem answering you, but there needs to be some ground rules, answer me, I'll answer you.
MrOmniblast 1 week ago
@MrOmniblast You have now resorted to more lying and more dancing and more sidestepping strategy, a very common move by Atheists who are frightened to answer my questions. You did NOT fully answer my questions at all, yet then again, as an Atheist I suppose you see nothing wrong in lying!
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan
Again, no, that's what YOU are doing. I'm being fair here, ask me again any question I have not answered PRIOR to me asking you to address my argument. That's VERY fair, so anything you asked that I allegedly didn't answer, I will now answer as long as it's something you asked me BEFORE I made my argument against the all knowingness of your alleged god (The first time I asked it, not the 2 or 3 times after that since you never addressed it. Ball's on your court.
MrOmniblast 1 week ago
@MrOmniblast You are sidestepping my questions and hiding from them. What is it about my questions that frighten you so much?
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan
You know, anyone who can read these comments thinks you're retarded right? Here I am asking you to ask me any question you believe I have no answered prior to making my syllogism and you answer me back with that? Instead of restating the questions so that I may answer them? Is English your first language? Are you trying very hard NOT to understand what I'm' saying? I don't get it. Again, I'll state it clearly, ASK ME THE QUESTIONS I DIDN'T ANSWER. Do it, or stfu
MrOmniblast 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan What you've done for MrOmniblast is repeated 4 times now that he's 'sidestepping' your questions, but I've read your questions and you haven't asked anyway. And he's asking you some, which you are ignoring. It's quite ignorant of you.
alienhell663 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan What you're doing is actually defined about 3 minutes into the video... which you probably haven't watched.
fram4153 5 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@EvangelistEvan Sounds like you're refusing to ask your questions buddy.
AnonymousAscendent 6 days ago
@MrOmniblast You have found proof to provide the world that God does not exist! Well tomorrow morning you will be very famous, even more famous than Bold and Beautiful actors lol.
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan
No, because the majority will be too stupid to understand the logical chain that I just set up. Likewise you DO understand it, which is why you won't tackle it.
MrOmniblast 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan I'd like you to address statement #4, because the person you're talking to brought up a good point. Where's the freedom of choice if we're damned to hell merely for not believing in God? Thomas Jefferson made an appropriate statement about God and fear: "If there be a god, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind-folded fear." If you admit you could be wrong about God existing, can you admit you may be wrong about how to believe in him?
Wags321 1 week ago
@Wags321 There is freedom of choice to avoid the lake of fire, but you have decided to reject God by using your FREEDOM OF WILL!
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan That is not a fair choice as there is duress placed upon one option. If you consider that to be true freedom of will, then you're misguided.
americannightmare76 1 week ago
@americannightmare76 It is a fair choice because it's still defined as a FREE CHOICE! Are you seriously claiming that you do not have free choice or free will and that you are some type of pre-programmed robot who is forced to make choices against your will? Is that what you are really trying to to claim?
If you live with your parents and they tell you that you must behave a certain way or get out of the house,do you still have FREEDOM OF WILL AND CHOICE to make a decision?
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan So the only reason for me to believe in God is not because it's what my heart tells me, or any of that nonsense. No, I should instead believe in God because I'm fearful that if I don't accept him I'm going to burn in hell for all of eternity. What evidence do you have of hell existing in the first place? You seem to have no qualms about questioning beliefs about the big bang, so allow me to question your basis for believing hell is the only other option for non-Christians.
Wags321 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan There is no true choice if there is a punishment attached to one of the choices. It's a strong armed way to force you into one choice and has been beautifully demonstrated by many examples that can be found here on YouTube.
And you're damn skippy I'm claiming we don't have free will because it's a tool designed by religions to create this divide between those that believe and those that don't.
americannightmare76 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan If your god is truly omniscient then there is no such thing as free will because god will have already known what your choice would have been and therefore destroys the illusion of free will. This would mean that we're all "pre-programmed robot(s)" as you put it, because no one can go against the fore knowledge your god already possesses over us all.
americannightmare76 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan Obviously I don't if I really hope to stay with my parents - my only option then is to become obedient to their whims to avoid the punishment attached to the choice I may have thought would have been to my benefit.
/watch?v=aUtSM2oVy_E&feature=channel_video_title
americannightmare76 1 week ago
@americannightmare76 But you do have FREE WILL and FREEDOM OF CHOICE to obey or disobey your parents and you do have FREE WILL and FREEDOM OF CHOICE to stay or move.
So your comments regarding God and FREE WILL and FREEDOM OF CHOICE is invalid and flawed.
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan Firstly, your example pales to demonstrate the absurdity of your "free will" in terms of your god. Why? Because the consequences are much harsher when dealing with your god. He's laid out torment and torture for those that "choose" to ignore him, or failed to live up to his expectations. But I'll side-step that to look back at your actual example.
americannightmare76 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan No, I don't really have much of a choice if the duress of the options is obey or be cast out. There's no positive incentive or reinforcement for me, in your example, to obey, only the stigma of the negative to keep me in line. To claim that as a fair choice is absurd as obviously I'm being pressured to make a decision that favors the other party. It is not beneficial for me at all to make any kind of decision other than the one without a negative stipulation.
americannightmare76 1 week ago
@americannightmare76 The truth and reality is.. you DO have a free choice, so you can dance, sidestep and tippy toe all you like around that fact, but the truth is, YOU DO have a possibility to choose freely, however, you have freely chosen to make certain decisions because you fear the consequences, however that doesn't force you to make those choices.
Now I ask you, do you have FREE WILL or do you claim you do not? Yes or No?
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan No, asserting that it is truth and/or reality does not make it so. You can claim it to be choice, but it is not a free choice because consequences are attached to one of the options. This nullifies the idea that it is a "free" choice because freedom would indicate that both options are open without any kind of penalty attached to either outcome.
For example: if I hold a gun to your head and demand you pay me $1,000 or I'll kill you, do you really have a freedom of choice?
americannightmare76 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan I've already answered your question: no, there is no such thing as free will for one of two reasons: 1. if your god is truly omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient then he is all powerful, ever present, and all knowing and nothing we do would ever be beyond his realm of knowledge. If that's true, then no decision we make is truly our own, because it was already known by your god before we ever came upon the choice.
americannightmare76 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan 2. if all religions are false - as I believe them to be - then there is no plan laid out for us that would dictate our lives for us that can or cannot be altered by our decisions. We are simply instinctual creatures and thus act accordingly to every scenario presented to us in a manner that we decide. I wouldn't call this free will because that term is one of religious connotation.
Also, you seem very keen on asking questions but not so much on answering any.
americannightmare76 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@americannightmare76 I am a Christian and Creationist, yet I humbly will admit to you that I am not 100% certain that God exists and that's because I do not have solid 100% proof that God exists, so I believe in God by faith alone and not by proof.
Now I ask you a question, are you 100% sure God does not exist? Or do you humbly admit there is a possibility that God exists? Yes or No? If you say no, then can you provide proof that God does not exist so then the world will know.
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan Uhm...no it's not. If your god is omniscient, like I pointed out earlier, then there is no true free will because every choice is already known. If it is already known then you never had a chance to pass god's little test, making this live completely meaningless. I do believe you haven't really thought this thing through entirely.
americannightmare76 1 week ago
If only religious people gave a fuck about something like logic.
anonymousSWE 1 week ago
i wonder if he is reading a script or if hes simply articulating his thoughts on the spot.
nickallah 1 week ago
was this guy in a soap opera?
nickallah 1 week ago
@nickallah
Yes.
MrOmniblast 1 week ago
@MrOmniblast whats he doing now? he took philosophy in university Im guessing? hes more articulate than Sam Harris. he should write a book.
nickallah 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I need to set the record straight about what Scottt was teaching in this video. Scott is in error when he suggests people enter heaven through morality. People do not enter heaven by being "good" or being "moral", rather, people enter heaven by having faith in Jesus. That's the GOOD NEWS (Gospel) that a sinner, a person who does not always do the right and stumbles in immorality, through sincere repentance and regret, they enter into free grace and by their faith in Jesus they can enter heaven.
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
Comment removed
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
If you take God out of the equation, then "right and wrong" is relative and has no one true foundation.
So I ask all unbelievers and Atheists a question. What stops you from killing your children or your friends children? What makes it right or wrong, and according to who?
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan
You didn't watch the video did you? And by the way...people have always felt the way they feel now, that these things are not to be done. Christianity did not always exist, especially not in the world as a whole. I'll give you a time machine, go back to before Christianity...no, Judaism...and ask them that question.
But I'm more worried about people like you...who only have that one reason NOT to kill children. Disgusting.
MrOmniblast 1 week ago 2
@MrOmniblast You make false accusations about people because there is no truth in you. In fact I can tell you hate the truth, hence, you reject God. Well at Judgement Day you can tell God that He doesn't exist. It ain't going to go well for you shortly afterwards when you are thrown into the lake of fire. You have made your choice and I hope you realise there will be consequences for your choices.
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
@EvangelistEvan
Do you think? Prove your god exists...and no, you cannot "Logic" him into existence (Not that you'd do it right anyway) The fact of the matter is that I want the truth, you do not; you want what feels best for you, you want hope and you want comfort. I do not "Reject" god, because "Belief" is NOT and I repeat...NOT a choice when you don't see any reason to believe. Example, "I swam to school today" I can't prove it at all, you have no reason to believe me
MrOmniblast 1 week ago
@MrOmniblast
Not only do you have no reason to believe me, you have reason to NOT believe this as how likely is it that I live somewhere where I can SWIM up to a school? -_- Do you understand? You would NOT believe that right off, you'd need proof and don't say you won't. Now lets make it more unbelievable, and say I live in the city...now it's damn near impossible because it's all concrete and no waterways leaving to a school.
MrOmniblast 1 week ago
@MrOmniblast
These two things, Swimming and Concrete- Swimming ON concrete are incompatible concepts and thus my statement "I Swam to school today" MUST necessarily be false.
Likewise- P1 God exists and is omniscient P2 God knows the best course of action to take. Following from 1 and 2 God cannot be convinced of a BETTER course of action than the one he has selected.
Problem is, Moses DID convince him of a better course of action, thus. P1=VOID
MrOmniblast 1 week ago
@MrOmniblast I am a Christian and Creationist, yet I humbly will admit to you that I am not 100% certain that God exists and that's because I do not have solid 100% proof that God exists, so I believe in God by faith alone and not by proof.
Now I ask you a question, are you 100% sure God does not exist? Or do you humbly admit there is a possibility that God exists? Yes or No? If you say no, then can you provide proof that God does not exist so then the world will know.
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
The beauty of reasoning right here...Bravo!
gnuman05 1 week ago
Great job on the video. It is very clear and well thought out. Very appreciated. Hope to see you at TAM 10 this year, you'd be a great addition.
BrokenBard 1 week ago
Useful background reading:
Sam Harris - The Moral Landscape
Philip Kitcher - The Ethical Project
nnix 1 week ago
Such a great video. I subscribed to your videos. Very intelligent and well done. Way to go man!!!
Supermark121212 1 week ago
I have never, ever, EVER seen anyone destroy William Lane Craig and his fellow apologetics as brilliantly and eloquently as you! You pulverized every single argument I've heard in favour of theistic morality. I am utterly blown away... WOW! I stand in awe of you, sir!
Aarya100 1 week ago
<3 I heart you!
lulukan64 2 weeks ago
Yeah you fuckin' knocked this outta the park bro! Well done.
JayJayAbels 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I believe sweeping generalisations on various groups of people rather than individuals is something I believe is wrong. How about judging the person rather than the box you have placed them in? I agree with your ideas but not with your sweeping generalisations which is a trait you share with someone like Hitler or any other bigot. Nice to see you defending homosexuals it's not nice to see you showing your bigotry in other ways. Not everyone is in the box you placed them so ignorantly in.
neongirluk 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
neongirluk 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
neongirluk 2 weeks ago
I'm thinking you've read "The Moral Landscape"....if not, you should .....Scott.
RayThaw 2 weeks ago
@RayThaw he definitely read it. he even seemed to quote some passages from it.
nickallah 1 week ago
Holy crap this guy is intelligent. He managed to put my own entire treatise on morality and humanity into words I couldn't have put it into.
YourFaceWillDie468 2 weeks ago
DAMN. If I were gay, I'd have a HUGE crush on you.
biologicalhorror1991 2 weeks ago
@biologicalhorror1991 what do you mean? O.O im a woman lol
xYowYowCanGirlX 2 weeks ago
@xYowYowCanGirlX oh whoops. this wasn't meant to be a reply to you, well it was, but then i changed it and it no longer made sense as a reply to you. I thought i'd deleted the comment. disregard it. I was saying that if I was gay I'd have a huge crush on theoreticalbullshit.
biologicalhorror1991 2 weeks ago
Murder is not wrong, neither is stealing......like you said GOD takes peoples lives all the time...so if we are to be like GOD, then start taking peoples lives.
Is stealing wrong? stealing does not exist. A man grows food on a tree that grew from no power of the man yet gives fruit for free to the man who sells that which was given for free. Who is stealing, the thief who takes to eat or the shop owner who sells something that was given freely. The shop owners are the thieves.
mynameiszaccallaghan 2 weeks ago
SO HOT!
Yci 3 weeks ago
Ok anyone here is the fan of the show The bold and the beautiful?
Zodist 3 weeks ago
@Zodist Is that him on that show.
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
@machinedean100 Yep that's him.Not really a fan of the show.My missus is.Cheers
Zodist 3 weeks ago
@Zodist i knew it cheer's!
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
@machinedean100 I watched the last 10mins of the show yesterday and he play by the name of Liam Spencer who is married to Steffy Forrester.And the inbred family(Forrester)is not very happy.Or something like that.Thought I let you know.Cheers
Zodist 2 weeks ago
@Zodist Thank you I will look into it.
machinedean100 2 weeks ago
@Zodist I was at my sisters house and I was like. WTH, is that TBS.
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
ur hot :)
xYowYowCanGirlX 3 weeks ago 2
@xYowYowCanGirlX and and smart, well reasoned and articulate. if I was gay, I'd have a HUGE crush on you.
biologicalhorror1991 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xYowYowCanGirlX and and smart, well reasoned and articulate. if I was gay, I'd have a HUGE crush on you.
biologicalhorror1991 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xYowYowCanGirlX and smart, well reasoned and articulate. if I was gay, I'd have a HUGE crush on you.
biologicalhorror1991 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
biologicalhorror1991 2 weeks ago
And homosexuality does cause Communal harm.
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
@machinedean100 Actually, it has been proven that Homosexual parents are more prone to raising a much more functional, normal family, because of the fact that they cannot have a child on accident, and that impossibility alone gives Homosexual parents the credibility they need to prove they are capable of all of the same rights as Heterosexuals. I have homosexual friends, and they're as nice, if not nicer than my heterosexual friends. They cause no social strife in my own life.
TheAlexANGST 3 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST there Social behavior is not my concern. I realize gays are nice caring and kind. And I also have gay friends. It also a proven that they they spread disease. They are also like conduit for aids.
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST Look at like this Alcoholism destroys the liver. Lets say you know a nice caring and kind alcoholic. Just because he is nice doesn't mean he isn't destroying his liver. Now homosexuality should be treated the same way alcoholism is.
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST Noe lesbians seem to remain disease free. Lesbians are so clean its not funny. But in male gays disease spreads like the plague.
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
@machinedean100 You're seriously comparing being Gay with being an alcoholic? Disease spreads in a lot of dumbasses who decide to have unprotected sex.
TheAlexANGST 3 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST Yea and I would stand against that also. Its what you call a sex addict. They no bounds and they have no dignity. Just do some research on sex addiction and disease in gay men. Yea that is what I am seriously doing you got a prob!
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
@machinedean100 Sex addiction is one thing, but unsafe sex? That's what we call an idiot. You really think the fact that certain STD's are more abundant in gay couples is a reasonable argument against homosexuality? People need to get tested before they start infecting people, not change who they are. So rather than thinking you're better than everyone else because you know "statistics", wake up and stop being a complete jackass to people just because you love being right.
TheAlexANGST 3 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST I am right I don't love it just do the research.
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheAlexANGST 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@machinedean100 CERTAIN diseases are more abundant in homosexual people than straight people, while other diseases are more abundant in heterosexual people than gay people. Pull your head out of your ass, and stop being so arrogant.
TheAlexANGST 3 weeks ago
@machinedean100 please explain further
nickallah 1 week ago
hahahaha, If I kill a man in that lives in the woods who has no family and I do it very quickly. And no one ever knows about it. How could it ever be wrong according to you. This sucks! Why doesn't this guy makes vids no more?
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
@machinedean100 Well if you kill a man you cause harm to him, You steal his life everything he ever did. You took that away from him, wich causes harm to his wishes and his feelings, now he is dead and can't enjoy life anymore, because you took it from him, wether he has family or not, you took something from him, wich causes harm to him, you took away his enjoyment of life, wich is also a meaning from harm, Also why does homosexuality cause communal harm?
mittaagangsta 3 weeks ago
@mittaagangsta Ok what if he was suffering horribly in the woods and asked me to kill him. and he had no family and no would know about it. Would that be ok! Do the research on the gay stuff. Its just a click away.
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
@machinedean100 I don't have to do research on gay stuff, i have friends who are gay, and soonwe will be roommates but it does'nt bother me at all. Why should i worry about homosexuality, it does'nt harm anyone, but if you feel violated, that means that you're butthurt.Gay people are normal people. Also if you feel like killing that guy in the woods be my quest, you could also ignore him and save him. But by your morals killing would be better because it's easier.
mittaagangsta 3 weeks ago
@mittaagangsta killing would be better by my morals. Thats a straw man. People have been accusing me of murder a lot lately. WTH is wrong denie the facts then call some body a murderer. Like I said I have gay friends. It does harm people its spreads disease. Its the number one carrier of aids. Hey rats don't harm any one and there actually kind of cute; but they carry the plague.
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
@machinedean100 Great, now you're comparing a group of human beings to rodents. You ARE aware that STD's are only primarily passed through blood transfusions and unprotected sexual activity, right? People in Utah have an outrageous number of cases of Chlamydia. Should we make it illegal for them to get married, or rather, should we increase the amount of preventative care?
TheAlexANGST 3 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST yea, that wasn't very nice. They are not rodents. I apologize all though rodents spread disease we can kill rodents and be justified. But with people that is horrible. Apologize for my horrible comparison. yea I realized they passed through the blood stream. That is why compared to alcoholism to begin with. It can only harm them. Just alcohol can only harm the one who drinks it. What do you not understand. Homosexuality is a sickness. That is why it should be shunned.
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
@machinedean100 A sickness? And what empirical evidence do you have to support such a claim? Homosexuality is who someone is, something they cannot help, Go ahead and provide some empirical evidence, scientific evidence, or take a wild shot at trying to find logic through believing that homosexuality is wrong. I'll just keep stomping your arguments out, because you have no material to go on, just personal bias.
TheAlexANGST 3 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST Um, you never stomped out any of my arguments. And you seem angry yet I am not. There is plenty of empirical evidence. All you have to do is Google it. I will admit I do have a bias, but it is not one of prejudice. Lets reverse tables seeing how already know that the evidence I need is just a click away. I would like you to provide me with evidence that homosexuality is not a sickness or spread disease or cause communal harm.
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST i just want see how flawed TBS's form of morality and how with out morality does not exist.
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST With out god morality does not exist.*
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
@machinedean100 TBS has already destroyed that argument. He has already shown through logic how morality is not something that is defined by some divine being, that it is simply conclusions we reach through rationalization that all ethics boil down to the need for minimal pain and suffering, and to maximize the well-being of everyone. Homosexuality does not cause any harm to others, nor is it preventing the well-being of anyone.
TheAlexANGST 3 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST I just destroyed his argument. By showing that i can kill someone with out causing harm. And the homosexuals cause's self harm. Also, by showing would be ok to kill some one in great suffering. Also, I can give arguments that also show there can be no logic with god. So, he used laws given to him by god to disprove god.
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
@machinedean100 Killing someone DOES cause harm, you can't commit murder without causing harm. You have yet to show me how homosexuality is directly linked to inherent "self-harm", and in situations like Euthanasia, that is actually death, given with the consent of someone who is suffering, solely for the purpose of ending their suffering. The ethical implications are obvious to those who aren't brought up to be brainwashed otherwise. So you're saying there is a God?
TheAlexANGST 3 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST If I shot man in the head in the middle of woods and also he has nofamily. So, no one will morn his passing. I did not cause any pain by shooting him in the head and I did not cause any body emotional pain. because they do not exist. The reason I haven't shown how homosexuality is linked to self harm and communal and or family harm. Is because you are just being intellectually lazy. You can look it up your self these things are that well known.
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST Also, you are assuming now that I am brainwashed. Yes, I am saying there is a god. What if the pain was so excruciating that the person was begging me to take there life. But, I know that in just a few days. With a lil help they will get better.
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
@machinedean100 You are still taking that lonely bastard's life without that lonely bastard's consent, and that goes against objective ethics in the sense of something beyond rational doubt. It's obvious ethics, and it doesn't take the belief in a God to see the obviousness of it. You assume I'm "intellectually lazy", when the case happens to be that you have no real argument that does not truly counteract any argument I've already given you. Well known? I think not.
TheAlexANGST 3 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST So, then we have determined stealing is wrong. Even if does not cause harm. Because his life was taken from with out any harm being done. So, then TBS's form of morality is invalid. In-fact you have not contradicted any of my arguments and have only strengthened them.
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
@machinedean100 (cont.) You also say there is a God, though this God has no identity to anyone, other than your own mental fabrication, and if you were to attribute this God with common characteristics given to many "Gods" that are commonly worshipped, such God would be unlikely to exist because of the irrational details inherent in the concept of it.
TheAlexANGST 3 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST A god with characteristics given to it is a fabrication. How can it be commonly worshiped and have no identity to anyone. Yes, fabricated gods with characteristics given to it would be most likely to not exist. What is this blibber blabber you have spoken. I know bob and just because you do not know does not mean bob does not exists.
machinedean100 3 weeks ago
@machinedean100 Actually, TBS's form of objective ethics is not invalid, because as I have said a few times already, taking a life IS harm, whether it causes physical suffering, or strips someone of their rights and freedoms. You seem to not understand the concept of "harm", or how to define it correctly in this case. Stealing is not always wrong, as well, as tales of Robin Hood can certainly show how it can be justified. "Minimal pain and suffering, maximum well-being, or both".
TheAlexANGST 2 weeks ago
@machinedean100 (cont.) Incorrect, because while Bob would not be a figment of your imagination, but rather, a physical human being, I cannot say whether or not he is real, because the concept of Bob is a logically plausible concept, although, I couldn't really tell whether you are the kind of person to make him up, or if he is indeed a real person. God on the other hand, not a physically real concept to anyone, so the existence of such a being still remains a logical fallacy.
TheAlexANGST 2 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST stating that there is no god is a logical fallacy. To first even to claim that there is no god. You must first have all knowledge and this would make you god. This is why atheist's don't exist. The term atheist is a logical fallacy. So, god is not a figment of my imagination. He is a physical real concept to me. Meaning he is a physical real concept to someone. You arguments stinks something harsh and is circular. God does not exist I have stated there for it is true.
machinedean100 2 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST You god spoken god out of existence and last I checked god is the only person who can speak things in and out of existence. So, there fore you are claiming you self to be god.
machinedean100 2 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST Also, working out cause's physical harm and suffering. Is it wrong for me to do this. Working cause physical harm and suffering having baby's causes physical harm and suffering. Are all of these things wrong.
machinedean100 2 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST "all ethics boil down to the need for minimal pain and suffering, and to maximize the well-being of everyone."
Says who? Prove that happiness always comes with doing the right thing, and prove that suffering is always bad. If you can, then I'll grant the utilitarian argument. If you can't, you might want to examine that statement further.
Wags321 2 weeks ago
@Wags321 You might as well ask me to prove that the sun is bright, because details as such would become VERY trivial to explain any better than they are SELF-explanatory.
TheAlexANGST 2 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST I don't see how they're analogous, especially considering that the basis for right and wrong are often debated among philosophers. People generally agree that the sun is bright. The utilitarian argument, which is what you and TBS have put forth, has already been postulated and criticized. Defining and judging happiness becomes vague, and you have to show how it is directly related to doing the right thing. We might say the truth is good, but it doesn't make everyone happy.
Wags321 2 weeks ago
@Wags321 The argument here isn't about what makes us happy, it is about what maximizes personal well-being, and causing minimal harm and suffering, and those concepts don't go hand in hand, and they are not the same thing. If someone is unhappy, it is not necessarily a flaw in ethical views, but can be a dissatisfaction with one's own lifestyle. This is two different topics entirely.
TheAlexANGST 2 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST But the same conflict arises from both. How do we judge well-being?
Wags321 2 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST Also, from what I've encountered, the argument IS about what maximizes happiness. That is part of the utilitarian theory, you can check me on that. You saying that it doesn't correspond to ethics or morals might mean that you personally disagree with it, or prefer to substitute "well-being" in its place, but the theory is what it is. Happiness factors in as a big chunk of it. Again, a conflict arises either way.
Wags321 2 weeks ago
@Wags321 The argument is about objective ethics, and being "unhappy" is a possible ramification of doing what is right, because often times, doing otherwise would leave one feeling worse, or leave one in a position to make others feel worse. Happiness is not an inherent feeling that comes from making the best ethical decisions, happiness can come from making unethical decisions, as well as ethical ones. Ethical decisions are rational ones. Emotion and Reason are two different categories
TheAlexANGST 2 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST "Ethical decisions are rational ones." I think a number of people would disagree with you here in the sense that emotions are believed to play at least some role in ethical decisions, but that is beside the point. I don't disagree with you on the former part of that post. But what about well-being? Happiness is closely linked to this and you still say pain and suffering are to be minimized, yet these are also feelings. You imply them as inherent to ethics, along with well-being.
Wags321 2 weeks ago
@Wags321 The role that emotions play in ethical decisions can lead one to what is obvious, or lead one in the wrong direction ethically. People who have a problem with things that are far from objectively unethical, such as gay marriage, are using their personal emotions, rather than their logic. Feeling empathy is an obvious emotion felt with something that can most certainly be rationalized. As for unhappiness, it's certainly not always, or even often, linked to unethical decisions.
TheAlexANGST 2 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST And if we treated our actions with pure, unfeeling "logic" then we'd have another slew of problems, because sometimes doing what may seem morally practical may not be what is intuitively right. But I don't want to get into that too much, because originally we were talking about whether right and wrong are linked with well-being and suffering. You haven't talked about well-being in the last few replies, though you brought it up, and I've been questioning it. Let's not get off track.
Wags321 2 weeks ago
@Wags321 Logic is going to lead to more of a good effect on our well-being than our emotions do, because our emotions often lead us to making irrational decisions that inherently cause suffering, like relationships and religious fundamentalism. One of my longest lasting relationships actually was ruined by an unfortunate case of religious fundamentalism on her part, and as for well-being, that kind of attachment cannot last without rationalizing it. Most things need to be rationalized.
TheAlexANGST 2 weeks ago
@Wags321 (cont) For instance, if we are to enter in these various relationships without identifying every key factor that is involved, such as each person's personality traits, beliefs, etc, one cannot save time and see that something will not work, and break things off before the relationship picks up speed, and ends with a painful trainwreck, damaging one's mental and emotional well-being. Some relationships often turn into abuse, and the emotional attachment hinders the end of it.
TheAlexANGST 2 weeks ago
@TheAlexANGST I don't see why both logic and emotions can't have an equally good or bad effect on well-being. Just because emotions can lead to extremism doesn't mean that the other end of the spectrum is somehow preferable to that. Too much rationalization and objectivity will lead to a meaningless existence. As far as relationships, that is a rather a foolish philosophy you go by. A big part of relationships is working with differences, not against them. No couple is 'perfectly' compatible.
Wags321 1 week ago
@TheAlexANGST Why is minimizing pain or suffering the right thing to do? It would be one thing to say that doing so is generally good, but another to say we "ought" to do so, as if you're trying to provide an absolute standard for judging right from wrong.
Wags321 1 week ago
@Wags321 Right and wrong exist on a plane of absolute standards, the only part that makes such a topic in any ways subjective is the degree of opinionated feelings, and as some people come to the wrong conclusions due to these subjective matters, what we know is that when they believe they're doing something right, when objectively, it is wrong, it's due to their lack of understanding as to the reason it is wrong. There's often a perspective they don't see, or a truth they have missed.
TheAlexANGST 1 week ago
@TheAlexANGST Funny that earlier I was arguing here with a person called Stauntz who would agree with me that morality loses value if we only look at absolute standards; if we exclude context and any subjective feelings that played a part. I'm hesitant about absolute standards, because while there may be a few actions that are always wrong (rape may be, as I don't see any context where we could justify it), there are a number actions which are morally vague and/or depend entirely on context.
Wags321 1 week ago
@TheAlexANGST To give an example, killing another person becomes a different act