Right, Dr Craig got pwned. Thats why most people, including Atheists that have reviewed this debate have come to the conclusion that Craig won. Right, keep dreaming bud..........
Many types of animalia have displayed altruism that fits into the paradigm of human morality. Chimps have been known to take in orphaned youths. Reciprocal, kin, and group-based altruistic acts have been observed in various primate groups. I don't quite know what the vid is getting at but there you go...
So...we're to believe that because there is a single video of a dog dragging the body of another dog off a freeway, this constitutes a moral act by that single dog? Is this your body of evidence? So, you're saying this video is proof that animals do display moral traits?
There may be substitutions (1 base exchanged for another), deletions (1 or more bases is deleted ) , insertions (1or more bases are inserted), duplication. fusions and re-arrangements.
Google 'human ape chromosome fusion' this answers the question of why humans only have 23 pairs of chromosome while the all great apes have 24 pairs.
It's believed chromosome 2 may play an important part in human intelligence.
You contradict yourself twice. But you wont see it and i wont show it to you. Just keep the video up. Intelligent people will see how silly your argument is.
@hellavadeal Oh yeah ? Instead of babbling, I suggest you to explain where does he contradict himself. Just because you've said that intelligent people will see it doesn't prove anything. Actually it proves one thing, and that is that you have no idea how to argue.
@baznian Gave you something to argue about didn't it? The fact that you came at me insteadof actually looking for yourself if what i said was correct. This is to be expected from someones whose reality is questioned. A bit defensive isn't it? Scared i'm right and seek to silence through ridicule? Typical.
@hellavadeal You've contradicted your self 3 times.. but I wont tell you where. If you're intelligent enough you'll get it.
Imagine if everybody was like that.. most of the people would still have no clue the earth is not flat. If you know something and you point that out.. at least do it with arguments.
I'm not scared if you're right.. actually I would love to hear what you got to say. But don't act like spoiled kid.
@baznian I need give no explanations for my actions and words. Just because you say so. Night is contradictory to day. My objective is to get you to think for yourself and not just believe anything just because it fits your world view. Have a good day.
@baznian So you think a code can come to be without a mind ? That it can assemble itself from goo and form complex life forms? Very scientific conclusion there.
@hellavadeal Its funny how things like dna, evolution and natural selection are unscientific to you. But yet you remain belief that jesus was resurected or that he had supernatural powers.. Yeah that's quite scientific.
@baznian Never said it was. Only made an observation. If all other possibilities are ruled out , the one left , no matter how plausible, must be the answer. You've heard of logic haven't you? Science cannot study what is beyond the physical. But life indicates there is more. It doesn't matter if you believe me. Rejecting God is more detrimental. Not my words. Gods. Wrote thousands of years ago. Has for me , believe what you want. Not my job to convince you of anything.
@hellavadeal Of course science can't study beyond physical,probably because there is nothing beyond it. I don't see how life indicate any different. And why would not believing in god be harmful ? I've been a believer and I can only say that atheism improved my life. I see thing quite different since then, in better way.
But still you haven't said what contradiction he made. And this whole conversation started because of it. As I said, I would love to hear them.
@baznian Adding. You believe life came to be by chance. This would be miraculous. And you think we are wrong for believing in miracles . LOL Science know very little. It can never answer the unobserved. Speculation is not science.
@hellavadeal I don't believe life came by chance. That's one of religious delusion about life origin. Life it self came from basic laws of physics(simple life, the bacteria).. today's life is a work of a slow process of natural selection. Random mutation occurs in all life, and nature's laws prefer one over others. Some species die out, new occurs, the better ones that can survive nature.
@hellavadeal When I say bacteria, I don't mean present type of bacterias. Those are complex form of life compare to first type of bacteria, that was only able to reproduce. Within their reproduction, random mutations occurred which gave new type of life .. slow .. time by time it came to be more and more complex....
@baznian Yes but mutations are the loss of information not the adding of it. And no where do biological molecules form outside of an organism. And Origins are at the heart of the argument.
@hellavadeal There are mutations that both Add and remove genetic material. But amount of genetic material has no correlation to complexity. Most plants have more genes than we do.
Mr. Uploaded, A humble opinion: First of all, I'm not a "Religious Believer", just as a point of clarification. Your Atheism is a bit aggressive rather than objective and intelligent. Having no proof of Jesus' existence, I still have a certain respect for many, though not all his parables and so called deeds or miracles.. There are many other examples of animal ethics, even with different species. Where you lost me is when you insulted Jesus. There was simply no need to do that.
I think Craig's, point of morality is if God doesn't exist absolutes don't exist, and they must be attributed. We here in our culture can't judge other cultures, and me greeting a burglar with a golf club is imposing my values of not robbing me on the burglar. Evolution can only say why I behaved in a "moral fashion."(past), it cannot say why I should.(present-future.) Without God the prescriptive power is gone, and they only become descriptive.
you and all atheist are so ignorant and dumb to think that " human are animals too". Let alone to say it. Please for your own physical protection, dont say out loud. You may just meet your Creator or lassie (your grandmother) sooner than you think.
That was the biggest waste of my time. This video just shows you have no idea what your talking about. I shouldnt have bothered watching this when you called a Dog an Atheist. haha. You should be embarrassed at yourself for showing everyone how clueless you are on the definitions of Atheism.
@lunchbox420wb has it exactly right... this is refuting a legit debate with a single sample that isn't even applicable. Affinity for the same species is NOT morality.
but let's put all that aside for a moment... notice the passive-aggressive language. Regardless of whether I agree with someone, egregious insults / unprofessional language almost always imply a weaker argument.
This could perhaps add some weight in the argument that we evolved morals as it shows that other animals can exhibit selfless acts, though it is only one insance. For a Christian like Craig who I understand believes the Big Bang may have been a mechanism of God creating the universe, nothing can escape the 'God did it' mentality.
The "First Awakened Human" In the "Human Race", had to be "Re-engineered" To Have A Proper Biological Mechanism To Enforce The First Law: STRICTLY NO SEX BETWEEN CLOSEST FAMILY MEMBER, There is All SEEING, FEARFUL yet LOVING GOD, If Your Break The Law, You'll be Thrown into the BURNING HELL Literally. Means, There was other "MUCH MORE ADVANCE ENTITY" that GUIDED this The First Awakened Human To Understand the BAD RESULT of Being Forever APE / Primate As "THEY" Want Human..Right?
Don't Tell me, The "First Awakened Human", In the beginning of "Human Race", had a knowledge in Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, made some experiment in Genetic Engineering, Finally, discovered that if SEXUAL ACTIVITY kept on going between closest family member, You all Forever PRIMATE / Monkey. Instead of Obeying The Order of Natural Selection, This Awakened Human made a Revolutionary Movement to Fulfil Natural Selection of The Evolution ??? Please Explain >>>
Info: Neutrally and Without Political Border, We Studied Various Disciplinary such as Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry, Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, Recorded History, Geography and so on, We have implemented the same "Repeatable Proven System" as required by Science, We see Mr Dawkins is SOOOOOOOOOOOO Outdated/Backward/Stupid for Ignoring the ULTIMATE Role of Evolution Of Languages and Evolution of Religions in The Evolution Of Mankind. For Both That Make Us ALL "HUMAN" Now..
Your whole argument in this video is that Craig is wrong, meaning animals have morals because you see a dog drag another dog? LOL.
Thats not morals. Morals is right and wrong. Love for your species is not a moral concept. If I was a lion sure I would love my offspring but that doesnt mean I wont kill a Zebras offspring. Therefore animals have no morals.
@lunchbox420wb “ If I was a lion sure I would love my offspring but that doesn’t mean I wont kill a Zebras offspring. Therefore animals have no morals.” Simple substitution of species in this sentence could give us“ If I was a human sure I would love my offspring but that doesn’t mean I won’t kill a cow’s offspring. Therefore humans have no morals.” Oops, I forgot that God gave us dominion over the other species, so I suppose we’re exempt from the no morals charge. :0))
@lunchbox420wb Then why dogs adopt cat as children? Or why there are cases when wolves adopt other animal children? Even loving your offspring shows a morality, a morality towards your own creed! Let's talk about humans now! How many times a man fells on the street, and another fellow human doesn't help him but even steals his watch and wallet? Well this 2 situations show that the dogs have more morality towards their species than people have towards other people!
@ANashuu Just because a few dogs are nice to other dogs doesnt mean anything. Some dogs are nice some dogs are mean. Same with humans. Some are nice and some are mean. To say dogs/animals have better morals than humans is ignorant because not every human would steal a persons wallet in the street or any bad acts.
while I agree with you mostly how would you know what that dog believes? pack animals (like canines) display behavior akin to worship towards the alpha male and female of the pack (or human companion) Wolves and their close cousins dogs evolved as protective family groups in order to optimize species survival.
No thinking christian, let alone any reasonable individual, would ever pin a label like "bad morality" as stated on an atheists. No one says atheists dont live moral lives. God best accounts for morals being objective, some things are wrong and right, good and bad. An atheist would have too call them subjective. Thats the only point dealing with values and morality for a theist's arguement.
“All of that religion stuff shouldn’t matter to you”. If only that were true. Sadly the thousands of dead at ground zero; or as a result of Christian/Muslim genocide in the Balkans, Jewish Muslim genocide in Israel and Palestine; not to mention religious opposition to stem cell research and use of condoms to fight AIDS make it very difficult for the rest of us to pretend religion doesn’t matter. Sadly it does matter.
@Douglaslid says"..Sadly the thousands of dead at ground zero;.." That's obviuosly the wrong religion.
.
"or as a result of Christian/Muslim genocide in the Balkans" That was a land grab, athiests are the penultimate historical revisionist, claiming God did not create the universe or life.
"religious opposition to stem cell research " Pagans have been sacrificing their children for their own health benefits for thousands of years, which is totally immoral.
@ozredneck22 Sadly your assertion that around 25% of the world population are in the "wrong" religion does not reassure. Neither is it a particularly good argument for religious belief. Exactly who decides "right" and "wrong". Many early Christian sects were monotheistic and closer to the Muslim rather than modern Christian traditions until the Emperor Constantine chose one and suppressed the rest.
The Xtian god and his bible are truly TERRIBLE foundations for moral and ethical behavioral guidelines! Same goes for the other two desert-dogmas and their "funny" books. Instead we have mounting evidence from neuro-psychologists that moral behavior is indeed hardwired into our brains, hence an evolutionary product.
Morality comes from god only if you believe that silly book was dictated by god. otherwise it comes from the campfire stories of illiterate bronze age wandering desert goat herders which was later written down and through error, omission and addition evolved again, again and again etc. until we end up with the evil and condtradictory book we call the modern bible. a book that endorses slavery, homophobia, stoning of children and the repression of women.
"Atheist dog"? That is one of the least thought out statements I've read on these sort of videos. That's like saying an animal is a naturalist because they dont wear clothes. Or that they are anarchists because they don't recognise national borders and legal authority.
Animals don't do right or wrong they just do what they do by what they are. Your argument must then follow by that people don't do right or wrong but just do what they do according to the fact the're just animals.
@jrmaximus Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. While I don't think that Garbaligion has a very good argument, because it is anecdotal, the dog is technically atheist, unless you are willing to submit that it's a theist.
Yes, we are animals. Humans invented morality and it is relative and possibly nonobjective. Why does that mean God is real? Dr. Craigs argument offers no explanation for a reason why God exists. He just states he doesn't understand how something came to be.
@vaguevocalist17 ok-I understand- a dog is an athiest due to its lacking the ability to comprehend such a concept- a tree would be athiest so would a cabbage.
@jrmaximus Yup. Just like you are an atheist in regards to Zeus. You just can't understand such an odd concept. In fact, you're an atheist about every single god that has ever been invented by man, accept yahweh. You just go one god further, while I don't. I guess it's just because I'm stupid.
@vaguevocalist17 nah-your not stupid- you just don't see things the same way I do. Come to think of it most religious people don't either. Oh what it must be like to be a dog.
@jrmaximus Well, good for you. I'm glad you feel you're in good company. I'll take the company of the "dog like". You know... the overwhelming bulk of highly educated scientists and philosophers; those that require proper evidence for claims of truth; those that understand the beauty of the scientific method. I'll choose to "see things" like they do. You can keep your bible. I'd personally prefer to worship a God that isn't filled with so much contradiction, but to each their own.
@jrmaximus Wait wait wait... are you saying that my science based reason is imaginary, while your faith based justification is real?
Are you stating that falsifiable data is worth less than faith based claims?
Are you calling me a puppet (me being one who has formed my own justifiable moral code, and doesn't have any dogmatic justifications), and you are a free thinker?
Can you really make these claims without being just a little embarrassed?
@vaguevocalist17 Again you prove my point - you can't even read without making prejudice assumptions from your own preconceptions without any regard to what you even read. How can you therefore have me believe you have formed any logical thought that I should listen to.
If you go back and read what I have wrote to a smart person they would see you have built a philosophy and believe into what I wrote instead of reading it.
@vaguevocalist17 sorry I just get a little on a rant when someone makes assumptions about what I believe or my philosophy based on what they think I probably am thinking instead of what I actually say. *Note where I said most religious people do not see things the same way I do? Yet you placed on me an entire assumed belief and philosophy. Imaginary is your view of me based on preconceptions you have. A puppet because you let your preconceptions control how you view reality.
For all we know, that dog dragged the other dog off the road to eat its corpse. There's no reason to think that the dog has a rational will or did this out of a sense of moral duty.
If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
The second half of the video makes no sense, tho I agree with the first two minutes. Our morality is only objective to us as a species, because that is how it evolved after MILLIONS of years of living in communities. We've developed a socially benificial compass. Other complex organisms have evolved a moral compass too, albeit a less intricate one. I for the life of me don't see how this can't be understood without the need to invoke an abstract, magical entity...
@jtubeu2288 you mean the woman that found joy in the misery of other people because that brought her closer to her god, the woman that found that this terrenal life was ment to be a vale of tears? before you answer saying how she helped the poor, listen, i mean, really listen what she says about poberty and suffering and take a look at her "hospital" in calcuta and other places and how "pacients" were treated there or read the stories told by former sisters that chosed to leave. She was sick.
Never heard any of that stuff, so I will look into it.
Still, the worst crimes against humanity are a result of Friedrich Nietzsche philosophies that leads to communism/dictatorships... because if there is no Creator God to give you intrinsic value, there is no intrinsic value which leads to survival of the fittest. Such as Hitler saying that unless you have blond hair and blue eyes, you have no value......but along come Jesse Owens at the Berlin Olympics! Thank God! : )
@jtubeu2288 oh man, i wanna say so many things about that cause you are deeply mistaken imo. if i send you a personal message will you read it? (i dont think it will fit in just 500 characters). i feel like ranting cause i dont want to study and need to do something else lol. but srsly what u said made no sense at all, i know u think it does though, christians have repeated ad nauseam those things so many times that it doesnt surprise me.
@jtubeu2288 your an idoit. thank god for jesse? really? god put jesse in the olympics to spite hitler? People have been killing each other over religion for thousands of years, ( read exodus ) way before Nietzsche.People who believe in god have no idea what the bible says. If they did they would be atheist. The worst crimes commited to humanity were comitted by the christians.Do your research. Crusades ,inqusition, witch hunts, conquest of the Americas..the tea party (what bunch of assholes)...
Question have you ever been to atheist communist countries before?Have you seen what atheist communist countries do to it's own people and others?Do you know the total sum of people killed by atheist dictators?
@ninetailschris Mao was Buddhist, Stalin said that he received messages from god and Hitler was Christian. anyways, most wars fought today is because of religion
Mao Zedong may have been raised in the Buddhist tradition, but he rejected all forms of religion for the atheistic socialism of Marxism-Leninism, which sees organised religion as the 'opiate of the masses'.Most wars today are over land.That is a fact only people who listen to ours who don't do actual research believe it's because of religion.
@ninetailschris Hitler killed more than any atheist, Hitler the roman catholic christian, the one that made it part of the solders uniform to have belts stating "god with us" on them, granted Hitler was a bit of a one of case in modern times (although a very significant one) you still can not deny the wrongdoings of religion from the crusades to the recent cases of child abuse where the pope(member of Hitler youth) , the priest was "punished" to a life of prayer and penance (AKA his job)
@nojhead Mao Zedong may have been raised in the Buddhist tradition, but he rejected all forms of religion for the atheistic socialism of Marxism-Leninism, which sees organised religion as the 'opiate of the masses'.Hitler was a christian but he violated everything a christian is suppose to do and be.He killed thousands of Christians because they told him the same thing.His actions contradict that of a christian but atheist contradict nothing because were all just animals and tools in nature.
@ninetailschris as these atheist dictators you mentioned went against everything our beliefs stand for, atheism is like any other believe you have people who follow its moral code which is found from philosophy and debate, and you have those whom neglect the morals or twist them to fit their agenda, simply stating you are atheist you are evil/more likely to be evil is not a valid argument. and without that philosophical debate the world would still consider it moral to stone someone to death.
@ninetailschris "His actions contradict that of a christian but atheist contradict nothing because were all just animals and tools in nature."
Excellent point, also Atheism is the "Opiate of the masses" . It lulls its adherents into a false sense of relaxation in the "knowledge" that there is no Creator, there is no judgement for their actions. The New Atheists are the new drug dealers, selling their wares to an unsuspecting youth.
Didn't Marx say that Religion was the opiate of the people? Lulling adherents into a false sense of arrogant superiority thinking that they will be saved while all others with burn in eternal damnation, and oh don't worry about what abhorrent things you do as long as you truly repent things the slate is wiped clean. The ultimate reset button. Truth is religion was, and is still is,the most effective way to keep a population under effective control and not thinking for themselves.
@dimsoneill But if you subscribe to Atheism and its philosophy of metaphysical naturalism, then all of that religion stuff shouldn't matter to you anyway, there is no right and wrong, good or evil, just blind pityless indifference.
Not at all. Of course there is a right and wrong way to behave, as other have said there is mounting evidence that "moral" or altruistic behavior is selected for and has become part of our makeup as higher mammals, independent of any religious belief. Also helping others makes you feel good and gives you a happy life for the short time you are on this planet,and gives you the only chance of any sort of immortality you will ever have. To be remembered after your death for your deeds
@nojhead Crusades don't even come close to Stalin or Mao.Not even close to a quarter of an amount.Historians will tell that the main reason why they did what they did was for the land and the religion could have been easily replaced with patriotism.Pope and priest are not God or Jesus so when they rape children it doesn't effect Christianity in anyway unless all Christians were starting to rape kids because of the pope.Pope or these priest are acting against Christianity teachings.
@ninetailschris what about the killings occurring around the world under names of other religions? more people through history in its entirety have been killed because of religious people following their holy law or sick twisted forms of it. a belief or lack their of does not make someone evil. and the pope im afraid does effect Christianity as as the leader of the catholic faith he sets the moral yardstick of what is acceptable, and what is capable of being forgiven.
Religions?What does religions have to do with Christianity?You can't count all the religions deaths and then say see how Christianity kills the most?This is fallacious.This is called cherry picking arguments.Never said belief or no belief makes someone evil I was showing when you cherry pick to can form any argument that something is evil.The Pope is not the moral stick,the bible is and Jesus/God.No where catholic bible does it say follow the Pope morals it says Jesus.To much credit.
@ninetailschris religion on a whole is evil without the mechanism for atheist morals. they mostly all impose horrific moral codes especially Christianity such as:
parents should stone their child to death for being disobedient.
kill those who work on the "Sabbath day"
the punishment for apostasy is death in the Muslim faith.
without this secular debate such as that which atheists conduct the world would be a much less moral place.
what you do is called "cherry picking" faith according to time.
@ninetailschris (cont) you say you are not saying faith or lack of it dictates if someone is evil and yet i quote you "atheist contradict nothing because were all just animals and tools in nature." basically meaning we have no morals and can do as we please because we are animals. i was proving to you that this statement is wrong.
@cuchinadas Sorry, that is not exactly what I meant.
I am just glad that Jesse Owens proved to Hitler and anyone else who ever reads Mein Kamph that blond haired blue eyed people are not the master race.
In another sense, I do believe God made everything including Jesse Owens, but Jesse Owens also of his own free will worked his butt off to develop his God-given talent into greatness. So in a way, I do thank God, but do not believe God put Jesse Owens in the olympics for spite.
@cuchinadas As for the worst war crimes, not to get into a pissing match because I personally believe that all human life is sacred because humans are made in the image of God, but Crusades were around 200,000 deaths and so on.....Hitler, 12 million, Stalin, What, like 40 million and so on it goes. BIG differences even though they all suck.
I personally am not a fan of religion, but love relationship.
@jtubeu2288 I'm pretty sure,and many others would agree with me,that Hitler was a Christian.And also,these men did not commit their horrible and vile crimes in the name of their Atheism,but many religious people have done horrible deeds like the ones in the Inquisition because of their zeal for their sky-daddy.
Im pretty disappointed in this video. Apparently Garbaligion needs to rewatch his own videos so that he could understand all the things that are wrong with his thesis
Because it comes from a non human being, Craig claims that it is somehow objective. Bizarre logic, especially considering that the bible has countless examples of morality contradictions and outright morally deprived actions taken by god and those under his service.
So if God created all the animals here on this wonderful planet, is he moral? In that he created these things to eat each other alive, to rip, tear, constrict, posion, cause unthinkable agony. To suffer starvation from drought etc. Are the animals subject to the sin of Adam? Could not this loving, caring all merciful God create things that could live without eating each other? Of course you will answer yes, he can do anything, right? So why didn't he? Is not love his very essence? Strange.
Wow so you think because a Dog was pulling his "buddy" Dog that instills a moral set of values. What about the fact a Dog eats his own Terds!! what moral is that under. Fight for survival is in everyone it doesnt mean that dog has morals.
@7051kevin are you implying that eating your own terds is immoral? or that the basis of ours and every other creatures moral system doesn't derive from a survival strategy of working cooperatively against stronger faster and deadlier creatures in our environment?
I say that man kind would be much better off if we behaved more like dogs and less as were prone to do.
this is the most spastic video, in saying animals have morality implies they have conciousness, so you cant personally say what it thinks or believes in. such a stupid video
Funny. We humans make the mistake of considering ourselves so much higher than other creatures. Sounds Like. Craig's gotta eat his own words. But I'd like to know how Garbaligion came to the conclusion that the dog is an "atheist". lol Does anybody know what that dog believes; speak less of why the dog really saved the other dog? We can only assume.
@DarkHelixVII There have been studies on animal cognition.Capacity to think depends on presence of certain lobes in your brain,cranial capacity and more.Dogs aren't capable of such higher levels of understanding because of their brains.Their life is mostly based on fulfilling primal needs- food,mating,defending territory and resting.They don't have division of labour in their societies,to enable time for reflection.
@DarkHelixVII So science and studies on sociology indicate that the chances of a dog thinking about a God is pretty low.
From theistic perspective no scripture/prophet indicate presence of God consciousness in animals.Most say animals are made for benefiting humans(which is more immoral as it means you can kill them for food as you want).So presence of God consciousness in animals will be more risky for theists,as it seems all their prophets and Gods forgot to say that animals also know of God.
Reminds me of March of the Penguins. At one point a penguin mother that lost her child tries to steal another penguins's kid but all of the other nearby penguins intervene and stop it. Countless penguins die every year making routine trips to places where they will birth and retrieve food and while there's no guarentee they will make these trips, they are looking out for each other.
I don't get it, why is this dog's behavior considered moral by the author of the video ? Moral by what standards ? Man's ? God's ? He doesn't believe in God, so it must be man's standards. What man's standards then ? Mine ? His ? His probably. What if I don't consider the dog's act as a moral one ? How is my opinion any less justified than Garbaligion's ? If I or any other man watching this do NOT consider that dog to be moral, atheists simply have no case. So Craig DID have a point here.
@maxavail Why do you need God to say what is a good act? Do you also need God to say if you are in good health? What if I think that having a tumour is what makes me healthy - is there no way to tell if I have correct medical teachings or you do? Of course I am wrong about the tumour as you would be wrong if you thought rape was a good act.
@JimothyMcgee The word "good" has different substance when used in "good act" as opposed to "good health". The first has pure moral meaning whereas the second has a pure functional meaning. If you fail to see the polysemantism then you have no grounds to continue the argument. There's simply NO WAY to assert any immutable morality starting from a SUBJECTIVE perception of ethics and that's because every person is the center of his own universe. Hence we need God to dictate morality.
@maxavail OK I put that wrong, "good" obviously has those two meanings. Who would you consider healthy - do you need an objective standard, why, why not?
@JimothyMcgee Health is defined by medical standards and unanimously validated by the objective "feel-good" sensation all healthy people have in both their body and their mind. That's because its base is set in the bio-physical, bio-chemical laws of nature, which are indisputable.
Morality has none of this, it's entirely subjective unless properly checked by an authoritative figure. What's moral for me may be immoral for you, and we may both feel good about ourselves.
@maxavail Lol that was just poor. Sensations are not objective- they are subjective. Medical standards could just as easily be replaced by philisophical standards. As for feeling good, you can feel good and have cancer. If a 98 y/o feels stiff is he unhealthy? And also by whose authority do you reject ideas of stoning people who work on Sundays or forcing a woman to marry her rapist but you keep the punishments for murder and stealing?
@JimothyMcgee Just to clarify I meant if you put your standards of Health in medical authorities, why can you not put your standards of morality in Human authority figures?
@JimothyMcgee Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
@JimothyMcgee That's an easy one. As I've said in my previous post, health is determined by bio-physical and bio-chemical laws of nature which are immutable. Therefore we can trust medical standards because, unlike moral standards, they are grounded in nature, not in man.
Yes, you can be sick and feel good at the same time or vice-versa, but that's actually an indicative of dysfunction, sanctioned by medical standards.
@maxavail If the best health was determined by nature then you could be considered healthy for dying at the age of 30? Also answer my second question please :)
@JimothyMcgee I answered your second question on this very page, it's a reply to myself.
I fail to grasp the relationship between good health and dying at a tender age in your example. You can die a healthy man in a car crash for instance. Could you be more specific ?
@maxavail O sorry I didn't see that. That is an argument for not following/ punishing any law? Jesus also said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (matthew 5:17). Secondly the dying at 30 is what happened for thousands of years before medicine, there was nothing more natural than dying of dysentery at 30 - but that is no longer the norm.
@JimothyMcgee I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you meant by "That is an argument for not following/ punishing any law?" To me, it seems more like a change of paradigm, not an actual abolishment.
Dying of dysentery at age 30 is a consequence of bad health. It does not change in any way the immutable bio-physical and bio-chemical laws of nature and human body. Perhaps I'm missing your point again.
@maxavail perhaps, you should go and watch the debate between Sam Harris and Craig on this issue its very good, I side with Harris but I'm sure you will side with Craig
@JimothyMcgee Well, Craig is a philosopher, he's naturally much better trained in rational argumentation, whereas Harris just appeals to common sense and often emotional statements. I wonder why you still hold to the idea that health, like morals, is subjective, even after I offered you clear proof that it's entirely objective and based in natural laws. Harris makes the same mistake by not acknowledging the various meanings of polysemantic words such as "good".
@maxavail Its funny because "natural laws" is a term usually referred to in law talking about morality. Also I have gotten confused in my argument, I'll admit it I am wrong here so obviously, go watch the debate I was meant to try and show how you could have objective criteria for morality just like you can in health, my bad! Sorry about that, we all make mistakes :)
@maxavail As for stoning people who worked oh Sundays and forcing a woman to marry her rapist, I reject that by the authority of Jesus Christ who says "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone" (John 8:7)
You're also misinformed, the Torah required rapists to marry their victims, not the other way around. The woman was free to refuse but often did not because once she had lost her virginity she was "damaged goods" and doomed to starve without a husband and kids.
and most drivers in shown cars were probably Christians (in South America many people believe in a God), and they didn't do anything about the dead dog... Which makes you think if Christians understand the concept of morality, or just don't care
And if you are really neutral and lack a belief in god, you entertain the notion that evidence could be there for god and it just hasn't been produced, so it could be there which you don't deny, why hate on believers one iota, because if god does exist, which you admit could be the cause, than theists are logical in their beliefs
@squareboys1 not when the evidence has not been produced. And if their god is not real it mean the voices really are in their heads. A scary thought indeed.
If you lack a belief in god, a neutral position then the words there is no god should ever come out of your mouth right, cause you don't know, and come on if you lack a belief in god and are reserving judgement for proper evidence why troll god denying videos and websites and hate on theists, shouldn't you simply observe arguments for the existence of god
If I lack a car I don't have a car, if I lack an idea I don't have an idea, if I lack a belief in unicorns I don't believe in unicorns, its a game of semantics, stand up for your position with boldness
The lack a belief line is bullshit, if you say that than you can never ever with intellectual honesty say there is no god, cause your lack a belief statement means the only reason you don't believe in a god is because of lack of evidence for god, which is not logical proof that there is absolutely no god
I am an atheist and Hitchens fan. However I think the starving dog just saw an easy meal lying in the street. Sorry.
Douginasia 17 hours ago
What a bullshit.
tkazmierski 3 days ago
Nice argument, would have been better presented with a narration.
EmmittBrownBTTF1 4 days ago
Craig is a weeny with weak arguments, but this video is nearly as weak as Craig himself.
embich 4 days ago
You can't win a war with an imaginary army. Fact.
KeefWest1988 6 days ago
Right, Dr Craig got pwned. Thats why most people, including Atheists that have reviewed this debate have come to the conclusion that Craig won. Right, keep dreaming bud..........
jamaicanification 1 week ago
@jamaicanification
I didnt come to that conclusion. Sorry.
1878EFC2008 2 days ago
Many types of animalia have displayed altruism that fits into the paradigm of human morality. Chimps have been known to take in orphaned youths. Reciprocal, kin, and group-based altruistic acts have been observed in various primate groups. I don't quite know what the vid is getting at but there you go...
brandnubian69 1 week ago
Get to the point!
My patience has run out, goodbye.
Interabderian 1 week ago
So...we're to believe that because there is a single video of a dog dragging the body of another dog off a freeway, this constitutes a moral act by that single dog? Is this your body of evidence? So, you're saying this video is proof that animals do display moral traits?
elmerfud551 1 week ago
@elmerfud551 where is your boddy of evidence of god? at least animal morality is visable, moreover can be captured on camera
mrcool9191 6 days ago
Destruction! Yes!! Curse the g
Jakster840 1 week ago
LMAO! Thank God no one takes this video serious haha
Jovan14606 1 week ago
LMAO. A dog defeats Craig. Brilliant!
chinopisces 1 week ago
WLC always spits out the same bullshit in every debate.
AQGOAT24 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
" Yes but mutations are the loss of information"
This is not true.
There may be substitutions (1 base exchanged for another), deletions (1 or more bases is deleted ) , insertions (1or more bases are inserted), duplication. fusions and re-arrangements.
Google 'human ape chromosome fusion' this answers the question of why humans only have 23 pairs of chromosome while the all great apes have 24 pairs.
It's believed chromosome 2 may play an important part in human intelligence.
AndyCielecki 1 week ago
You contradict yourself twice. But you wont see it and i wont show it to you. Just keep the video up. Intelligent people will see how silly your argument is.
hellavadeal 2 weeks ago
@hellavadeal Oh yeah ? Instead of babbling, I suggest you to explain where does he contradict himself. Just because you've said that intelligent people will see it doesn't prove anything. Actually it proves one thing, and that is that you have no idea how to argue.
baznian 1 week ago
@baznian Gave you something to argue about didn't it? The fact that you came at me insteadof actually looking for yourself if what i said was correct. This is to be expected from someones whose reality is questioned. A bit defensive isn't it? Scared i'm right and seek to silence through ridicule? Typical.
hellavadeal 1 week ago
@hellavadeal You've contradicted your self 3 times.. but I wont tell you where. If you're intelligent enough you'll get it.
Imagine if everybody was like that.. most of the people would still have no clue the earth is not flat. If you know something and you point that out.. at least do it with arguments.
I'm not scared if you're right.. actually I would love to hear what you got to say. But don't act like spoiled kid.
baznian 1 week ago
@baznian I need give no explanations for my actions and words. Just because you say so. Night is contradictory to day. My objective is to get you to think for yourself and not just believe anything just because it fits your world view. Have a good day.
hellavadeal 1 week ago
@hellavadeal Maybe you should do it yourself. Atheism didn't fit my world views, but I ended up being one.
baznian 1 week ago
@baznian So you think a code can come to be without a mind ? That it can assemble itself from goo and form complex life forms? Very scientific conclusion there.
hellavadeal 1 week ago
@hellavadeal It depends what kind of code we are speaking
baznian 1 week ago
@hellavadeal Its funny how things like dna, evolution and natural selection are unscientific to you. But yet you remain belief that jesus was resurected or that he had supernatural powers.. Yeah that's quite scientific.
baznian 1 week ago
@baznian Never said it was. Only made an observation. If all other possibilities are ruled out , the one left , no matter how plausible, must be the answer. You've heard of logic haven't you? Science cannot study what is beyond the physical. But life indicates there is more. It doesn't matter if you believe me. Rejecting God is more detrimental. Not my words. Gods. Wrote thousands of years ago. Has for me , believe what you want. Not my job to convince you of anything.
hellavadeal 1 week ago
@hellavadeal Of course science can't study beyond physical,probably because there is nothing beyond it. I don't see how life indicate any different. And why would not believing in god be harmful ? I've been a believer and I can only say that atheism improved my life. I see thing quite different since then, in better way.
But still you haven't said what contradiction he made. And this whole conversation started because of it. As I said, I would love to hear them.
baznian 1 week ago
@baznian I'm sure you would. And are you certain beyond doubt? No man can be. Anyone that says they are is lying to themselves.
hellavadeal 1 week ago
@baznian Adding. You believe life came to be by chance. This would be miraculous. And you think we are wrong for believing in miracles . LOL Science know very little. It can never answer the unobserved. Speculation is not science.
hellavadeal 1 week ago
@hellavadeal I don't believe life came by chance. That's one of religious delusion about life origin. Life it self came from basic laws of physics(simple life, the bacteria).. today's life is a work of a slow process of natural selection. Random mutation occurs in all life, and nature's laws prefer one over others. Some species die out, new occurs, the better ones that can survive nature.
baznian 1 week ago
@hellavadeal When I say bacteria, I don't mean present type of bacterias. Those are complex form of life compare to first type of bacteria, that was only able to reproduce. Within their reproduction, random mutations occurred which gave new type of life .. slow .. time by time it came to be more and more complex....
baznian 1 week ago
@baznian Yes but mutations are the loss of information not the adding of it. And no where do biological molecules form outside of an organism. And Origins are at the heart of the argument.
hellavadeal 1 week ago
@hellavadeal There are mutations that both Add and remove genetic material. But amount of genetic material has no correlation to complexity. Most plants have more genes than we do.
Chronoecho 1 week ago
mammals are moral. moron
quantum8kid 2 weeks ago
Mr. Uploaded, A humble opinion: First of all, I'm not a "Religious Believer", just as a point of clarification. Your Atheism is a bit aggressive rather than objective and intelligent. Having no proof of Jesus' existence, I still have a certain respect for many, though not all his parables and so called deeds or miracles.. There are many other examples of animal ethics, even with different species. Where you lost me is when you insulted Jesus. There was simply no need to do that.
Hakulanni 2 weeks ago
I think Craig's, point of morality is if God doesn't exist absolutes don't exist, and they must be attributed. We here in our culture can't judge other cultures, and me greeting a burglar with a golf club is imposing my values of not robbing me on the burglar. Evolution can only say why I behaved in a "moral fashion."(past), it cannot say why I should.(present-future.) Without God the prescriptive power is gone, and they only become descriptive.
JOYcrusader 2 weeks ago
@JOYcrusader Hey, if god says we can bash burglars with golf clubs, maybe there is some value to this religion stuff after all. :0))
Douglaslid 2 weeks ago
@Douglaslid lol...I believe there are self defense clauses in the Bible. There is such a thing as a just war.
JOYcrusader 2 weeks ago
humans are animals animals with the imagination to ask the questions why are we here?
and the stupidity to believe that we know the answer we don't! but it wont be found in the text of goat farmers from 2k years ago.
TheIronomega 2 weeks ago
you and all atheist are so ignorant and dumb to think that " human are animals too". Let alone to say it. Please for your own physical protection, dont say out loud. You may just meet your Creator or lassie (your grandmother) sooner than you think.
caitlyn20051 2 weeks ago
@caitlyn20051 Any reasoning behind that statement?
peteymandem 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@caitlyn20051 Any reasoning behind that statement?
peteymandem 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@caitlyn20051 Any reasoning behind that statement?
peteymandem 2 weeks ago
You're providentially correct sir!
C.H.
lifeschild1 2 weeks ago
Very sweet dog, but we can't call what he did 'moral'. If that dog had given no help, would you have regarded his behaviour as 'immoral'?
bordereye 2 weeks ago
That was the biggest waste of my time. This video just shows you have no idea what your talking about. I shouldnt have bothered watching this when you called a Dog an Atheist. haha. You should be embarrassed at yourself for showing everyone how clueless you are on the definitions of Atheism.
skivvykiv 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lunchbox420wb has it exactly right... this is refuting a legit debate with a single sample that isn't even applicable. Affinity for the same species is NOT morality.
but let's put all that aside for a moment... notice the passive-aggressive language. Regardless of whether I agree with someone, egregious insults / unprofessional language almost always imply a weaker argument.
joeyavankuiken 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
joeyavankuiken 2 weeks ago
This could perhaps add some weight in the argument that we evolved morals as it shows that other animals can exhibit selfless acts, though it is only one insance. For a Christian like Craig who I understand believes the Big Bang may have been a mechanism of God creating the universe, nothing can escape the 'God did it' mentality.
deadlyrhythm 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The "First Awakened Human" In the "Human Race", had to be "Re-engineered" To Have A Proper Biological Mechanism To Enforce The First Law: STRICTLY NO SEX BETWEEN CLOSEST FAMILY MEMBER, There is All SEEING, FEARFUL yet LOVING GOD, If Your Break The Law, You'll be Thrown into the BURNING HELL Literally. Means, There was other "MUCH MORE ADVANCE ENTITY" that GUIDED this The First Awakened Human To Understand the BAD RESULT of Being Forever APE / Primate As "THEY" Want Human..Right?
Ordeal1000 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't Tell me, The "First Awakened Human", In the beginning of "Human Race", had a knowledge in Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, made some experiment in Genetic Engineering, Finally, discovered that if SEXUAL ACTIVITY kept on going between closest family member, You all Forever PRIMATE / Monkey. Instead of Obeying The Order of Natural Selection, This Awakened Human made a Revolutionary Movement to Fulfil Natural Selection of The Evolution ??? Please Explain >>>
Ordeal1000 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Info: Neutrally and Without Political Border, We Studied Various Disciplinary such as Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry, Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, Recorded History, Geography and so on, We have implemented the same "Repeatable Proven System" as required by Science, We see Mr Dawkins is SOOOOOOOOOOOO Outdated/Backward/Stupid for Ignoring the ULTIMATE Role of Evolution Of Languages and Evolution of Religions in The Evolution Of Mankind. For Both That Make Us ALL "HUMAN" Now..
Ordeal1000 2 weeks ago
Your whole argument in this video is that Craig is wrong, meaning animals have morals because you see a dog drag another dog? LOL.
Thats not morals. Morals is right and wrong. Love for your species is not a moral concept. If I was a lion sure I would love my offspring but that doesnt mean I wont kill a Zebras offspring. Therefore animals have no morals.
lunchbox420wb 2 weeks ago
@lunchbox420wb
By that same logic humans would have no morals due to our slaughtering and consumption of other animals for their meat.
thejack1212 2 weeks ago
@thejack1212 I said love for your species.
lunchbox420wb 2 weeks ago
@lunchbox420wb “ If I was a lion sure I would love my offspring but that doesn’t mean I wont kill a Zebras offspring. Therefore animals have no morals.” Simple substitution of species in this sentence could give us“ If I was a human sure I would love my offspring but that doesn’t mean I won’t kill a cow’s offspring. Therefore humans have no morals.” Oops, I forgot that God gave us dominion over the other species, so I suppose we’re exempt from the no morals charge. :0))
Douglaslid 2 weeks ago
@Douglaslid exactly
lunchbox420wb 2 weeks ago
@lunchbox420wb Then why dogs adopt cat as children? Or why there are cases when wolves adopt other animal children? Even loving your offspring shows a morality, a morality towards your own creed! Let's talk about humans now! How many times a man fells on the street, and another fellow human doesn't help him but even steals his watch and wallet? Well this 2 situations show that the dogs have more morality towards their species than people have towards other people!
ANashuu 2 weeks ago
@ANashuu Just because a few dogs are nice to other dogs doesnt mean anything. Some dogs are nice some dogs are mean. Same with humans. Some are nice and some are mean. To say dogs/animals have better morals than humans is ignorant because not every human would steal a persons wallet in the street or any bad acts.
lunchbox420wb 2 weeks ago
@ANashuu There's a big confusion here about what 'morality' means.
bordereye 2 weeks ago
lets face it,any animal that can lick its own nads has evolved a very envious function,folks!
MegaFloyd100 2 weeks ago
while I agree with you mostly how would you know what that dog believes? pack animals (like canines) display behavior akin to worship towards the alpha male and female of the pack (or human companion) Wolves and their close cousins dogs evolved as protective family groups in order to optimize species survival.
moldrad 2 weeks ago
The (awesome i might say) dog proved that animals do care and feel compassion etc & ofcourse, they are not unintelligent creatures,who said that?
Also don't forget all those videos with opposite kind friendship, dog with cat, mouse with cat e.t.c. but that proves nothing on morality.
I also..can love my wife & kill someone else.. we talk about a general state, a way of attitude and living and not about incidents & random events.
This video proves nothing compared to Craig's initial argument.
luez2 2 weeks ago
@luez2 morality is subjective. umad that it's not objective.
sniped101 2 weeks ago
No thinking christian, let alone any reasonable individual, would ever pin a label like "bad morality" as stated on an atheists. No one says atheists dont live moral lives. God best accounts for morals being objective, some things are wrong and right, good and bad. An atheist would have too call them subjective. Thats the only point dealing with values and morality for a theist's arguement.
MikeyTdrums 3 weeks ago
@MikeyTdrums yup, morals are subjective. but that doesnt mean you can go around killing others :)
sniped101 2 weeks ago
For the first 3 minutes of the video I was wondering why he was calling Hitchens, whose side he seemed to be on, a dog 0_o
TheBruggs 3 weeks ago
This dog proves atheism. Thanks for video.
MissPinkAsian 3 weeks ago
“All of that religion stuff shouldn’t matter to you”. If only that were true. Sadly the thousands of dead at ground zero; or as a result of Christian/Muslim genocide in the Balkans, Jewish Muslim genocide in Israel and Palestine; not to mention religious opposition to stem cell research and use of condoms to fight AIDS make it very difficult for the rest of us to pretend religion doesn’t matter. Sadly it does matter.
Douglaslid 3 weeks ago
@Douglaslid says"..Sadly the thousands of dead at ground zero;.." That's obviuosly the wrong religion.
.
"or as a result of Christian/Muslim genocide in the Balkans" That was a land grab, athiests are the penultimate historical revisionist, claiming God did not create the universe or life.
"religious opposition to stem cell research " Pagans have been sacrificing their children for their own health benefits for thousands of years, which is totally immoral.
.
.
ozredneck22 3 weeks ago
@ozredneck22 what have pagans got to do with atheism?
LordYon13 3 weeks ago
@ozredneck22 Sadly your assertion that around 25% of the world population are in the "wrong" religion does not reassure. Neither is it a particularly good argument for religious belief. Exactly who decides "right" and "wrong". Many early Christian sects were monotheistic and closer to the Muslim rather than modern Christian traditions until the Emperor Constantine chose one and suppressed the rest.
Douglaslid 3 weeks ago
The Xtian god and his bible are truly TERRIBLE foundations for moral and ethical behavioral guidelines! Same goes for the other two desert-dogmas and their "funny" books. Instead we have mounting evidence from neuro-psychologists that moral behavior is indeed hardwired into our brains, hence an evolutionary product.
macmarine 3 weeks ago
Morality comes from god only if you believe that silly book was dictated by god. otherwise it comes from the campfire stories of illiterate bronze age wandering desert goat herders which was later written down and through error, omission and addition evolved again, again and again etc. until we end up with the evil and condtradictory book we call the modern bible. a book that endorses slavery, homophobia, stoning of children and the repression of women.
lhurien 3 weeks ago 2
Worst attempt to disprove Craig I've seen in a while. Sorry bud, maybe next time.
Superbee4401 4 weeks ago 2
Lord Krishna is the one.......of many
malozivcan 4 weeks ago
"Atheist dog"? That is one of the least thought out statements I've read on these sort of videos. That's like saying an animal is a naturalist because they dont wear clothes. Or that they are anarchists because they don't recognise national borders and legal authority.
Animals don't do right or wrong they just do what they do by what they are. Your argument must then follow by that people don't do right or wrong but just do what they do according to the fact the're just animals.
jrmaximus 1 month ago
@jrmaximus Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. While I don't think that Garbaligion has a very good argument, because it is anecdotal, the dog is technically atheist, unless you are willing to submit that it's a theist.
Yes, we are animals. Humans invented morality and it is relative and possibly nonobjective. Why does that mean God is real? Dr. Craigs argument offers no explanation for a reason why God exists. He just states he doesn't understand how something came to be.
vaguevocalist17 4 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 ok-I understand- a dog is an athiest due to its lacking the ability to comprehend such a concept- a tree would be athiest so would a cabbage.
Good analogy I must admit.
jrmaximus 4 weeks ago
@jrmaximus Yup. Just like you are an atheist in regards to Zeus. You just can't understand such an odd concept. In fact, you're an atheist about every single god that has ever been invented by man, accept yahweh. You just go one god further, while I don't. I guess it's just because I'm stupid.
vaguevocalist17 4 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 nah-your not stupid- you just don't see things the same way I do. Come to think of it most religious people don't either. Oh what it must be like to be a dog.
jrmaximus 4 weeks ago
@jrmaximus Well, good for you. I'm glad you feel you're in good company. I'll take the company of the "dog like". You know... the overwhelming bulk of highly educated scientists and philosophers; those that require proper evidence for claims of truth; those that understand the beauty of the scientific method. I'll choose to "see things" like they do. You can keep your bible. I'd personally prefer to worship a God that isn't filled with so much contradiction, but to each their own.
vaguevocalist17 4 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 Typical puppet, walking around thinking you're a big thinker and have some great ability of logic and reason.
You really "see things" alright - imaginary such you see what you want in what someone says and don't pay attention to what is actually said.
Is this the way you evaluate everything - open your eyes and look around instead of living on stupid assumptions. You might learn something.
P.S. The dog comment means a dog doesn't have the worries/issues we do.
jrmaximus 3 weeks ago
@jrmaximus Wait wait wait... are you saying that my science based reason is imaginary, while your faith based justification is real?
Are you stating that falsifiable data is worth less than faith based claims?
Are you calling me a puppet (me being one who has formed my own justifiable moral code, and doesn't have any dogmatic justifications), and you are a free thinker?
Can you really make these claims without being just a little embarrassed?
vaguevocalist17 3 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 Again you prove my point - you can't even read without making prejudice assumptions from your own preconceptions without any regard to what you even read. How can you therefore have me believe you have formed any logical thought that I should listen to.
If you go back and read what I have wrote to a smart person they would see you have built a philosophy and believe into what I wrote instead of reading it.
jrmaximus 3 weeks ago
@jrmaximus Haha. Deal Will do.
vaguevocalist17 3 weeks ago
@vaguevocalist17 sorry I just get a little on a rant when someone makes assumptions about what I believe or my philosophy based on what they think I probably am thinking instead of what I actually say. *Note where I said most religious people do not see things the same way I do? Yet you placed on me an entire assumed belief and philosophy. Imaginary is your view of me based on preconceptions you have. A puppet because you let your preconceptions control how you view reality.
jrmaximus 3 weeks ago
Whoever made this video clearly got desperate and has way too much time on their hands. There is a GOD.
reidj75 1 month ago
@reidj75 All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the true God.
Taikand 1 month ago
@Taikand: Fuck you! We all know Zeus is the true God. :-P
jezmundberserker 4 weeks ago
@reidj75 his name is Odin and he has a giant sword
bardiche1989 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is it just me, or does anyone else think William Lane Craig is actually David Lee Roth?
watch?v=3WfQ-hV3WtA
ninjamojo711 1 month ago
For all we know, that dog dragged the other dog off the road to eat its corpse. There's no reason to think that the dog has a rational will or did this out of a sense of moral duty.
cengime 1 month ago 2
This has nothing to do with morality, the dog is acting on instinct, it must be a relative, or its mate.
Kmessenger1974 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
YOURINQUIRER 1 month ago in playlist William Lane Craig
Correction to my previous post: it APPEARS objective to us.
OSTube1 1 month ago
The second half of the video makes no sense, tho I agree with the first two minutes. Our morality is only objective to us as a species, because that is how it evolved after MILLIONS of years of living in communities. We've developed a socially benificial compass. Other complex organisms have evolved a moral compass too, albeit a less intricate one. I for the life of me don't see how this can't be understood without the need to invoke an abstract, magical entity...
OSTube1 1 month ago
So I guess this means that the morals of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc....are greater than lets say Mother Teresa's as well?
jtubeu2288 1 month ago
@jtubeu2288 you mean the woman that found joy in the misery of other people because that brought her closer to her god, the woman that found that this terrenal life was ment to be a vale of tears? before you answer saying how she helped the poor, listen, i mean, really listen what she says about poberty and suffering and take a look at her "hospital" in calcuta and other places and how "pacients" were treated there or read the stories told by former sisters that chosed to leave. She was sick.
annatar3 1 month ago
Never heard any of that stuff, so I will look into it.
Still, the worst crimes against humanity are a result of Friedrich Nietzsche philosophies that leads to communism/dictatorships... because if there is no Creator God to give you intrinsic value, there is no intrinsic value which leads to survival of the fittest. Such as Hitler saying that unless you have blond hair and blue eyes, you have no value......but along come Jesse Owens at the Berlin Olympics! Thank God! : )
jtubeu2288 1 month ago
@jtubeu2288 oh man, i wanna say so many things about that cause you are deeply mistaken imo. if i send you a personal message will you read it? (i dont think it will fit in just 500 characters). i feel like ranting cause i dont want to study and need to do something else lol. but srsly what u said made no sense at all, i know u think it does though, christians have repeated ad nauseam those things so many times that it doesnt surprise me.
annatar3 1 month ago
@annatar3 Sure, I am not sure how you do that, but send away.
jtubeu2288 1 month ago
@jtubeu2288 your an idoit. thank god for jesse? really? god put jesse in the olympics to spite hitler? People have been killing each other over religion for thousands of years, ( read exodus ) way before Nietzsche.People who believe in god have no idea what the bible says. If they did they would be atheist. The worst crimes commited to humanity were comitted by the christians.Do your research. Crusades ,inqusition, witch hunts, conquest of the Americas..the tea party (what bunch of assholes)...
cuchinadas 1 month ago
@cuchinadas
Question have you ever been to atheist communist countries before?Have you seen what atheist communist countries do to it's own people and others?Do you know the total sum of people killed by atheist dictators?
ninetailschris 1 month ago
@ninetailschris not as much as christian dictators
fudgedupcheese 1 month ago
@fudgedupcheese
Stalin 40 million 29 million Mao
Oh I more too in the millions.
But you know it's worst right?
Want to know what happens if you sing christimas songs in cuba?
I bet you find this perfectly ok right ?
ninetailschris 1 month ago
@ninetailschris Mao was Buddhist, Stalin said that he received messages from god and Hitler was Christian. anyways, most wars fought today is because of religion
fudgedupcheese 1 month ago
@fudgedupcheese
Mao Zedong may have been raised in the Buddhist tradition, but he rejected all forms of religion for the atheistic socialism of Marxism-Leninism, which sees organised religion as the 'opiate of the masses'.Most wars today are over land.That is a fact only people who listen to ours who don't do actual research believe it's because of religion.
ninetailschris 1 month ago
@ninetailschris Hitler killed more than any atheist, Hitler the roman catholic christian, the one that made it part of the solders uniform to have belts stating "god with us" on them, granted Hitler was a bit of a one of case in modern times (although a very significant one) you still can not deny the wrongdoings of religion from the crusades to the recent cases of child abuse where the pope(member of Hitler youth) , the priest was "punished" to a life of prayer and penance (AKA his job)
nojhead 1 month ago
@nojhead Mao Zedong may have been raised in the Buddhist tradition, but he rejected all forms of religion for the atheistic socialism of Marxism-Leninism, which sees organised religion as the 'opiate of the masses'.Hitler was a christian but he violated everything a christian is suppose to do and be.He killed thousands of Christians because they told him the same thing.His actions contradict that of a christian but atheist contradict nothing because were all just animals and tools in nature.
ninetailschris 1 month ago
@ninetailschris as these atheist dictators you mentioned went against everything our beliefs stand for, atheism is like any other believe you have people who follow its moral code which is found from philosophy and debate, and you have those whom neglect the morals or twist them to fit their agenda, simply stating you are atheist you are evil/more likely to be evil is not a valid argument. and without that philosophical debate the world would still consider it moral to stone someone to death.
nojhead 1 month ago
@ninetailschris "His actions contradict that of a christian but atheist contradict nothing because were all just animals and tools in nature."
Excellent point, also Atheism is the "Opiate of the masses" . It lulls its adherents into a false sense of relaxation in the "knowledge" that there is no Creator, there is no judgement for their actions. The New Atheists are the new drug dealers, selling their wares to an unsuspecting youth.
ozredneck22 3 weeks ago
@ozredneck22
Didn't Marx say that Religion was the opiate of the people? Lulling adherents into a false sense of arrogant superiority thinking that they will be saved while all others with burn in eternal damnation, and oh don't worry about what abhorrent things you do as long as you truly repent things the slate is wiped clean. The ultimate reset button. Truth is religion was, and is still is,the most effective way to keep a population under effective control and not thinking for themselves.
dimsoneill 3 weeks ago
@dimsoneill But if you subscribe to Atheism and its philosophy of metaphysical naturalism, then all of that religion stuff shouldn't matter to you anyway, there is no right and wrong, good or evil, just blind pityless indifference.
ozredneck22 3 weeks ago
@ozredneck22
Not at all. Of course there is a right and wrong way to behave, as other have said there is mounting evidence that "moral" or altruistic behavior is selected for and has become part of our makeup as higher mammals, independent of any religious belief. Also helping others makes you feel good and gives you a happy life for the short time you are on this planet,and gives you the only chance of any sort of immortality you will ever have. To be remembered after your death for your deeds
dimsoneill 3 weeks ago
@nojhead Crusades don't even come close to Stalin or Mao.Not even close to a quarter of an amount.Historians will tell that the main reason why they did what they did was for the land and the religion could have been easily replaced with patriotism.Pope and priest are not God or Jesus so when they rape children it doesn't effect Christianity in anyway unless all Christians were starting to rape kids because of the pope.Pope or these priest are acting against Christianity teachings.
ninetailschris 1 month ago
@ninetailschris what about the killings occurring around the world under names of other religions? more people through history in its entirety have been killed because of religious people following their holy law or sick twisted forms of it. a belief or lack their of does not make someone evil. and the pope im afraid does effect Christianity as as the leader of the catholic faith he sets the moral yardstick of what is acceptable, and what is capable of being forgiven.
nojhead 1 month ago
@nojhead
Religions?What does religions have to do with Christianity?You can't count all the religions deaths and then say see how Christianity kills the most?This is fallacious.This is called cherry picking arguments.Never said belief or no belief makes someone evil I was showing when you cherry pick to can form any argument that something is evil.The Pope is not the moral stick,the bible is and Jesus/God.No where catholic bible does it say follow the Pope morals it says Jesus.To much credit.
ninetailschris 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ninetailschris religion on a whole is evil without the mechanism for atheist morals. they mostly all impose horrific moral codes especially Christianity such as:
parents should stone their child to death for being disobedient.
kill those who work on the "Sabbath day"
the punishment for apostasy is death in the Muslim faith.
without this secular debate such as that which atheists conduct the world would be a much less moral place.
what you do is called "cherry picking" faith according to time.
nojhead 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ninetailschris (cont) you say you are not saying faith or lack of it dictates if someone is evil and yet i quote you "atheist contradict nothing because were all just animals and tools in nature." basically meaning we have no morals and can do as we please because we are animals. i was proving to you that this statement is wrong.
nojhead 1 month ago
@cuchinadas Sorry, that is not exactly what I meant.
I am just glad that Jesse Owens proved to Hitler and anyone else who ever reads Mein Kamph that blond haired blue eyed people are not the master race.
In another sense, I do believe God made everything including Jesse Owens, but Jesse Owens also of his own free will worked his butt off to develop his God-given talent into greatness. So in a way, I do thank God, but do not believe God put Jesse Owens in the olympics for spite.
jtubeu2288 1 month ago
@cuchinadas As for the worst war crimes, not to get into a pissing match because I personally believe that all human life is sacred because humans are made in the image of God, but Crusades were around 200,000 deaths and so on.....Hitler, 12 million, Stalin, What, like 40 million and so on it goes. BIG differences even though they all suck.
I personally am not a fan of religion, but love relationship.
jtubeu2288 1 month ago
@jtubeu2288 I'm pretty sure,and many others would agree with me,that Hitler was a Christian.And also,these men did not commit their horrible and vile crimes in the name of their Atheism,but many religious people have done horrible deeds like the ones in the Inquisition because of their zeal for their sky-daddy.
MrSaxman321 1 month ago
Im pretty disappointed in this video. Apparently Garbaligion needs to rewatch his own videos so that he could understand all the things that are wrong with his thesis
MuseKook 1 month ago
Because it comes from a non human being, Craig claims that it is somehow objective. Bizarre logic, especially considering that the bible has countless examples of morality contradictions and outright morally deprived actions taken by god and those under his service.
ultim4t32 1 month ago
So if God created all the animals here on this wonderful planet, is he moral? In that he created these things to eat each other alive, to rip, tear, constrict, posion, cause unthinkable agony. To suffer starvation from drought etc. Are the animals subject to the sin of Adam? Could not this loving, caring all merciful God create things that could live without eating each other? Of course you will answer yes, he can do anything, right? So why didn't he? Is not love his very essence? Strange.
swann62 1 month ago
a very creative, but also very odd angle to approach the issue...
Danzkaz 1 month ago
Wow so you think because a Dog was pulling his "buddy" Dog that instills a moral set of values. What about the fact a Dog eats his own Terds!! what moral is that under. Fight for survival is in everyone it doesnt mean that dog has morals.
7051kevin 1 month ago
@7051kevin are you implying that eating your own terds is immoral? or that the basis of ours and every other creatures moral system doesn't derive from a survival strategy of working cooperatively against stronger faster and deadlier creatures in our environment?
I say that man kind would be much better off if we behaved more like dogs and less as were prone to do.
KaijinDV 1 month ago
this is the most spastic video, in saying animals have morality implies they have conciousness, so you cant personally say what it thinks or believes in. such a stupid video
teequlah 1 month ago
Funny. We humans make the mistake of considering ourselves so much higher than other creatures. Sounds Like. Craig's gotta eat his own words. But I'd like to know how Garbaligion came to the conclusion that the dog is an "atheist". lol Does anybody know what that dog believes; speak less of why the dog really saved the other dog? We can only assume.
DarkHelixVII 1 month ago
@DarkHelixVII There have been studies on animal cognition.Capacity to think depends on presence of certain lobes in your brain,cranial capacity and more.Dogs aren't capable of such higher levels of understanding because of their brains.Their life is mostly based on fulfilling primal needs- food,mating,defending territory and resting.They don't have division of labour in their societies,to enable time for reflection.
lokenath123 1 month ago
@DarkHelixVII So science and studies on sociology indicate that the chances of a dog thinking about a God is pretty low.
From theistic perspective no scripture/prophet indicate presence of God consciousness in animals.Most say animals are made for benefiting humans(which is more immoral as it means you can kill them for food as you want).So presence of God consciousness in animals will be more risky for theists,as it seems all their prophets and Gods forgot to say that animals also know of God.
lokenath123 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Unintelligence at its finest
MrChristianBeliever 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Morality defined: Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
The dog has morals or instincts? I am not sure what helping another dog has to do with human characteristics.
Where did Mr Craig say "wrong morality comes from atheism? I missed that statement that the video author quoted.
Is this another hate Christians and prove them wrong video?
"Mr Craige and Jesus...and other dorks worship" time int 4:36.
angry atheist
MrChristianBeliever 1 month ago
Reminds me of March of the Penguins. At one point a penguin mother that lost her child tries to steal another penguins's kid but all of the other nearby penguins intervene and stop it. Countless penguins die every year making routine trips to places where they will birth and retrieve food and while there's no guarentee they will make these trips, they are looking out for each other.
thisfireboon 1 month ago
I don't get it, why is this dog's behavior considered moral by the author of the video ? Moral by what standards ? Man's ? God's ? He doesn't believe in God, so it must be man's standards. What man's standards then ? Mine ? His ? His probably. What if I don't consider the dog's act as a moral one ? How is my opinion any less justified than Garbaligion's ? If I or any other man watching this do NOT consider that dog to be moral, atheists simply have no case. So Craig DID have a point here.
maxavail 1 month ago
@maxavail Why do you need God to say what is a good act? Do you also need God to say if you are in good health? What if I think that having a tumour is what makes me healthy - is there no way to tell if I have correct medical teachings or you do? Of course I am wrong about the tumour as you would be wrong if you thought rape was a good act.
JimothyMcgee 1 month ago
@JimothyMcgee The word "good" has different substance when used in "good act" as opposed to "good health". The first has pure moral meaning whereas the second has a pure functional meaning. If you fail to see the polysemantism then you have no grounds to continue the argument. There's simply NO WAY to assert any immutable morality starting from a SUBJECTIVE perception of ethics and that's because every person is the center of his own universe. Hence we need God to dictate morality.
maxavail 1 month ago
@maxavail OK I put that wrong, "good" obviously has those two meanings. Who would you consider healthy - do you need an objective standard, why, why not?
JimothyMcgee 1 month ago
@JimothyMcgee Health is defined by medical standards and unanimously validated by the objective "feel-good" sensation all healthy people have in both their body and their mind. That's because its base is set in the bio-physical, bio-chemical laws of nature, which are indisputable.
Morality has none of this, it's entirely subjective unless properly checked by an authoritative figure. What's moral for me may be immoral for you, and we may both feel good about ourselves.
maxavail 1 month ago
@maxavail Lol that was just poor. Sensations are not objective- they are subjective. Medical standards could just as easily be replaced by philisophical standards. As for feeling good, you can feel good and have cancer. If a 98 y/o feels stiff is he unhealthy? And also by whose authority do you reject ideas of stoning people who work on Sundays or forcing a woman to marry her rapist but you keep the punishments for murder and stealing?
JimothyMcgee 1 month ago
@JimothyMcgee Just to clarify I meant if you put your standards of Health in medical authorities, why can you not put your standards of morality in Human authority figures?
JimothyMcgee 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JimothyMcgee Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 1 month ago
@JimothyMcgee That's an easy one. As I've said in my previous post, health is determined by bio-physical and bio-chemical laws of nature which are immutable. Therefore we can trust medical standards because, unlike moral standards, they are grounded in nature, not in man.
Yes, you can be sick and feel good at the same time or vice-versa, but that's actually an indicative of dysfunction, sanctioned by medical standards.
maxavail 1 month ago
@maxavail If the best health was determined by nature then you could be considered healthy for dying at the age of 30? Also answer my second question please :)
JimothyMcgee 1 month ago
@JimothyMcgee I answered your second question on this very page, it's a reply to myself.
I fail to grasp the relationship between good health and dying at a tender age in your example. You can die a healthy man in a car crash for instance. Could you be more specific ?
maxavail 1 month ago
@maxavail O sorry I didn't see that. That is an argument for not following/ punishing any law? Jesus also said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (matthew 5:17). Secondly the dying at 30 is what happened for thousands of years before medicine, there was nothing more natural than dying of dysentery at 30 - but that is no longer the norm.
JimothyMcgee 1 month ago
@JimothyMcgee I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you meant by "That is an argument for not following/ punishing any law?" To me, it seems more like a change of paradigm, not an actual abolishment.
Dying of dysentery at age 30 is a consequence of bad health. It does not change in any way the immutable bio-physical and bio-chemical laws of nature and human body. Perhaps I'm missing your point again.
maxavail 1 month ago
@maxavail perhaps, you should go and watch the debate between Sam Harris and Craig on this issue its very good, I side with Harris but I'm sure you will side with Craig
JimothyMcgee 1 month ago
@JimothyMcgee Well, Craig is a philosopher, he's naturally much better trained in rational argumentation, whereas Harris just appeals to common sense and often emotional statements. I wonder why you still hold to the idea that health, like morals, is subjective, even after I offered you clear proof that it's entirely objective and based in natural laws. Harris makes the same mistake by not acknowledging the various meanings of polysemantic words such as "good".
maxavail 1 month ago
@maxavail Its funny because "natural laws" is a term usually referred to in law talking about morality. Also I have gotten confused in my argument, I'll admit it I am wrong here so obviously, go watch the debate I was meant to try and show how you could have objective criteria for morality just like you can in health, my bad! Sorry about that, we all make mistakes :)
JimothyMcgee 1 month ago
@maxavail As for stoning people who worked oh Sundays and forcing a woman to marry her rapist, I reject that by the authority of Jesus Christ who says "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone" (John 8:7)
You're also misinformed, the Torah required rapists to marry their victims, not the other way around. The woman was free to refuse but often did not because once she had lost her virginity she was "damaged goods" and doomed to starve without a husband and kids.
maxavail 1 month ago
you and your faggot metal. i would rather listen to scrubstep than your shit metal.
Crobat87 1 month ago
and most drivers in shown cars were probably Christians (in South America many people believe in a God), and they didn't do anything about the dead dog... Which makes you think if Christians understand the concept of morality, or just don't care
romayne2 1 month ago
And if you are really neutral and lack a belief in god, you entertain the notion that evidence could be there for god and it just hasn't been produced, so it could be there which you don't deny, why hate on believers one iota, because if god does exist, which you admit could be the cause, than theists are logical in their beliefs
squareboys1 1 month ago
@squareboys1 not when the evidence has not been produced. And if their god is not real it mean the voices really are in their heads. A scary thought indeed.
satanisthetruegod666 1 month ago
If you lack a belief in god, a neutral position then the words there is no god should ever come out of your mouth right, cause you don't know, and come on if you lack a belief in god and are reserving judgement for proper evidence why troll god denying videos and websites and hate on theists, shouldn't you simply observe arguments for the existence of god
squareboys1 1 month ago
Comment removed
mrgejwaites 1 month ago
If I lack a car I don't have a car, if I lack an idea I don't have an idea, if I lack a belief in unicorns I don't believe in unicorns, its a game of semantics, stand up for your position with boldness
squareboys1 1 month ago
The lack a belief line is bullshit, if you say that than you can never ever with intellectual honesty say there is no god, cause your lack a belief statement means the only reason you don't believe in a god is because of lack of evidence for god, which is not logical proof that there is absolutely no god
squareboys1 1 month ago
@squareboys1 Nobody who is intellectually honest would state that they know for a fact that there are no gods.
XheraPhine 1 month ago
@XheraPhine And most atheists don't. They say god is highly unlikely...that is even if you can establish a coherent definition of the word "god".