Every time Hitch opens his pen to jot down something, it makes me smile. You know he is writing down which weapon (from his infinite arsenal) to use to blow away each of the barricades his fleeing opponent tries to build.
Douglas Wilson is a dangerous freak masquerading as a normal human. He has the fascist obsession of sequestering gays and other undesirables he got from the Family Research Council. He's like William Lane Craig and the rest of the closet fascists, he's asked his "savior" for license to genocide on fellow Americans, and gotten the thumbs up. But we're supposed to take him seriously for some reason, so don't mind me or Christopher Hitchens, we're just talking reality. I know, boring, right?
@redcommander27 Oh he's far too cunning for that. Hes more concerned with playing a "moderate evangelical" role, for respectability. He recently did a podcast where he relayed information about homosexuality that originates from the FRC, FOTF, and falsified studies that have been proven to be politically motivated. He parroted the "facts" (misinformation) and left out the truth intentionally. Rick Warren, Scott lively etc. are others who use this propaganda like Craig, but WLC is better at it.
If that's true its rather shameful, I always thought WLC was a supporter of political (not social or moral) secularism and wouldn't align with dominionist groups like the FRC and FOTF
@redcommander27 It's strange how this information posted on YouTube brings up an error msg again and and again., but here goes another try. Craig was propagating non-falsifiable conclusions from the work of Paul Cameron and George Reikers, among others Give them a google unless you want to keep your lunch down. An Accurate look into the minds of our "friends" the theists indeed.
William Lane Craig is the better of the better of these apologists. I think Wilson is just WLC's parrot. Though WLC's logic just eats me alive.
Sam Harris goes much deeper into objective morality and how science can answer such questions. His debate with WLC is great.
/watch?v=gVBEuyiRPsA&feature=relmfu
I just don't how people can appeal to objective morality based on a lunatic of a god who has a petty emotion such as jealousy (who seems to only think subjectively)?
There is no ultimate standard for those things to begin with.
I can just as easily make up a tangible object, assume it is not a deity, that nonetheless bestowed upon the people of this world through lots of magic giving them standards to which to abide. I've done nothing but invent an objective system of values.
Without Islam there is no objective morality/standard.
Without Scientology...
The difference between right and wrong are essentially the maximisation of human wellbeing.
@lurk192 Hitch would see you as being unlettered as well as uncultured! Take your dumb ass time, make less spelling mistakes and try commenting again. Other wise shut the fuck up and go back to school. And yes, I am Black. That's why I enjoyed this reply.
@tweekyseagull Hitchens made my point in this video!!!! Atheists are no more able to face the facts as theists. I am a black man who majored in philosophy. I am sickened by the myth that the bunch of white supremacists americas call "the founding fathers" are praised over and over again by so-called white intellectuals! The facts show that Thomas Jefferson was a man who was morally bankrupt and quite possibly a rapist of a black woman at least 6 times! So he thought maybe beating and working
@tweekyseagull So Jefferson "thought" maybe, just perhaps, "God" would not like his beating and working black people to death!!!! Hitch does not choose to admit nor does he seem to care that Jefferson increased is slave lot after making that statement!!! if hitch was as much a lover of "right" as he claims he would have held up Thomas Pain, a man who disliked both Jefferson and Washington because of their poor character. Christopher Hitchens is just another white man who cannot swallow
@tweekyseagull So Jefferson "thought" maybe, just perhaps, "God" would not like his beating and working black people to death!!!! Hitch does not choose to admit nor does he seem to care that Jefferson increased is slave lot after making that statement!!! if hitch was as much a lover of "right" as he claims he would have held up Thomas Pain, a man who disliked both Jefferson and Washington because of their poor character. Christopher Hitchens is just another white man who cannot swallow
@tweekyseagull Hitchens is just another white man who cannot swallow the bitter pill! he too bends the facts to fit his aversions and that is not the mark of an intellectual. What does a white intellectual do, he does what Joe R. Feagin And Bob Avakian does, they admit the fact that the constitution is a ducument for white supremacy and the writers were morally challenged in intent and action.
Hitchens totally dodged the question. He still hasn't given a foundation of how he can or society can abolish slavery. We need a foundation for his logic and frankly he has dodged it, and went on another Hitchens name-calling rampage.
Problem w/ Hitch is, he's a brilliant man w/ no ANSWERS of his own - except for outright hedonism.
The allure w/ him is this bravado, no limits, unbridled 'freedom,' which unfortunately (as is usually the case) is costing him his life in a most horrific & painful way (throat cancer) - & this not as a curse from God, but by biological cause & effect from his own life choices (alcohol & tobacco). There is HOPE Chris, even @ this stage of your life. God is real, He's alive & loves u! SEEK & TRUST
I can't understand why Christians or any religious people, can't accept that if one were to believe, then one's argument could always be argued in a completely abstract way. A creator would exist outside of space and time, outside of human judgements. To logically argue for divinity is futile. Go abstract, and see it's so much easier to debate. Surely a creator would exist outside of popular culture, be it musical, intellectual, literary or otherwise. Outside of existence. Illogical & abstract.
The correlation I drew was that you were obviously inferring objectivity = tangibility, which makes no sense in any line of thinking that uses logic or reasoning as a basis.
Do you think you are actually making any sense WHATSOEVER?
Unlike you, who lyingly stated you "felt sorry for [me]", I actually DO feel sorry for you.
The sharing of subjective states by two or more individuals is what intersubjectivity is. Nobody described this.
@4cellar2door0 He was saying that there is a problem that there is no objective morality or beauty in the world. I'm pointing out the fact that this would not be objective, but intersubjective.
@2nDoppelganger Okay I am getting confused (not due to misunderstanding, but due to YouTube's hideous 500 char. limit and the fact that some of our conversation is up here at the top and some of it is down in the pages below...
If you'd like to continue our discussion (I'd be glad to) please send a message to my YT inbox.
I was catholic until I was told that racism was good, women were inferior, and that the world was 6000 years old. A very potent wake up call if I may say so myself.
Which I may, and without the need for permission from a supreme celestial dictator.
@DLUXMONKEYS Catholicism does not teach those things, and neither does the Bible.
Just because you CHOOSE to IGNORE (definition: ignorance) the proper explanation of your out-of-context ''interpretations'' of scripture doesn't make you right.
Who do you claim the Bible is racist against?
Jesus Christ was an Arabic Jew.
I'll continue in the next comment. I mean no hostility, but your comment seems like your were opening yourself up for a debate.
Many people claim the verses ""And a man will choose...any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman...Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33" As the source for that.
Anyone using logic can see that scripture is condemning of only Eve. Not ALL women. The only use of the word "all" was to describe the people who would be affected.
Go ahead and Google some examples of female inferiority for me to debunk :).
If you were using your brain, and actually studying and examining the evidence (I.e. if you actually cared about your existence) then you would not have the logic-incompatibility problem that you have with a Young Earth theory.
Your atheistic presuppositions (Noah's flood didn't happen/or wasn't global/or there was no Ark) keep you from seeing how our world in it's current status and all of it's wonder can be explained as being very young indeed.
Objects CAN change, and they carry no inherent value content. "Subjective" refers to subjects--or human ideas. This does not mean they are "unreal"--just that they are real in the sense that we construct them socially, nor are they necessarily unimportant. Subjective ideas are often vitally important in helping us live together as a culture. Justice, beauty, morality, are all examples of concepts that are fundamentally subjective.
I think much of the debate on this post stems from a lack of understanding on the part of some posters about the terms "objective" and "subjective". In our society, we've come to misconstrue the word "objective" to mean "real," "unchanging," and even "good", and "subjective" to mean "fake," "changeable" and "bad". This is not the case. "Objective" refers to OBJECTS--they can be sensed, studied in a lab, measured, demonstrated to exist physically, or at least in a measurable way. (cont)
Hey atheists! I found an interesting argument *against* the morality of the bible, USING THE BIBLE.
So Christians believe that our morality was instilled within us by God, thus allowing Objective Morality. Here's the problem: Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil! So christian theology indicates that God never wanted us to have these morals. Basically, our morals were given to us by Satan, because he convinced us to eat? Checkmate, Christians!
@DirectInjected Hey Christians !! Why does your god make us excrete fecal matter from out bodies everyday ?? Seriously. If We're so far above the animals why do we have to produce such a foul odor and substance from our bodies ?? WHY ???
I think Wilsons point is that Christianity (or just religion in general) has invented the concepts of good and bad, right and wrong etc. ... So if it weren't for religion, we wouldn't have a clue as to how we should behave.
Let me make it perfectly clear that I do not agree we this argument, but I hope it'll answer your question.
I encourage anyone who is asking the question " who created god?!" to search up on YouTube LetsTalkChrist's video on this subject. I was an atheist but this video has totally changed my life and I am now a firm Christian. I urge any atheists here to check it out.
@coolal19 i personally don't have the time nor the energy to fight with hardcore atheists such as yourself. Not saying all atheists are bad but really ,if u have a problem i suggest u use the proper language or proof instead of hiding behind a computer and using profanity....honestly what has the world come too?
@spartan2070 I think most reasonable people here would agree that calling you an idiot and a liar would not qualify as profanity. On the other hand, if I were to add a f**king in front of idiot and liar, then you may have a point. The comment you posted has nothing to do with this video, rather it is a cheap attempt to advertise christrian propaganda introduced by the old and stale proclaimation of "I was a (fill in the blank) until I found jesus". You were an atheist? I doubt it.
@coolal19 Your just spouting ignorant drivel, because you know absolutely zero about the moral, theological, scientific and social arguments for Christianity
@relarerfhjk Incidentally, there is no such thing as a moral or social argument for the validity of Christianity; the theological matters not to an atheist and is completely undone by science, which provides no evidence for Christianity's validity.
@Useless2112 There are moral and social arguments for Christianity,the beneficial effect of Christianity in creating the best features of Western Civilisation,& the existence of objective moral values,which indicates a divine source of morality.Science cant "undo" theology,moral truths arent accessible to science.Science has provided proof of Christianity,e.g string theory found the Universe is fine-tuned for life, and there is evidence that Christians live longer,happier,healthier lives.
@relarerfhjk Well first of all there is no such thing as an objective moral value and no evidence to suggest otherwise. Secondly, you'll note that I was referring to "validity" in my first comment, on which morality has no bearing. Theology is undone by science because there is no evidence for God; if there is no evidence for God then it can't be studied scientifically. The universe is not fine-tuned for life, we live in a tiny ghetto of the universe in which the conditions are right.
@Useless2112 There is strong evidence of objective moral values, and many scientists agree we can't explain this at present, you are utterly clueless.
Theology is not undone by science there is strong scientific evidence for God,(read Oxford University Professor John Lennox's" Has Science Buried God") to the extent Richard Dawkins said "a scientific case can be made for a deity".the Universe is so intricately fine-tuned its highly unlikely time, space/matter etc came from nothing with no cause
@relarerfhjk "Many scientists agree" nothing of the sort. I happen to have studied psychology at university level; we know how moral behaviours are learned, we know that there is no objective morality and there is plenty of evidence which proves this point (including the aforementioned existence of sociopathy). You're talking to someone who has actually studied this topic sunshine, so I'd keep the insults to yourself. Show me some of this "strong evidence".
@Useless2112 Psychology isnt a science,(which produces measurable results), its a social science, BIG DIFFERENCE! You have demonstrated so far that you have studied nothing, you didnt even know about string theory proving the Universe is fine-tuned for life. Moral behaviours are not "learned" because many of them are universal, and psychologists like Jung (founder of CBT) proved objective moral truths existed. We know objective values exist, because we have different standard to animals
@relarerfhjk Psychology is a science. It is the study of cause and effect; it uses evidence to draw conclusions. I recommend that you read into it, because you demonstrate the kind of knowledge of the subject that one would glean from reading the wikipedia page on Freud. I know what string theory is; I also know that it doesn't provide evidence for the "tuning" of the universe. Moral behaviours are obviously not universal; I am genuinely flabbergasted that anyone could make such a ridiculous...
@Useless2112 You dont even understand psychology. It isnt a science because it doesnt have objective proof or measurable results.
String theory proves the fine-tuning of the Universe because it proved the perfect intricacy of circumstances needed for life to exist is so astonishingly elaborate that it is almost impossible that it came from nothing with no cause. Moral VALUES (not behaviours) are objective, you ignoramus! Thats why we apologize for slavery, as we know it was objectiely wrong.
@relarerfhjk Actually, much of psychology does involve exactly that. Are you sure you're not confusing it with psychiatry?
Moral behaviours come from moral values. Moral behaviours are objectively measurable but subjectively caused; a person's moral values are entirely subjective. If they weren't, then everybody would share the same moral values regardless of their upbringing, faith or the state of their psyche. Slavery is not objectively wrong. If it was, the people who wrote the Bible...
@relarerfhjk ...statement. I have already given you several examples of how this is obviously... OBVIOUSLY not the case. Aside from the examples of sociopathic and psychopathic behaviour (which you conveniently ignore), moral behaviour differs between cultures, between countries, between societies and over time periods. Obviously. Jung proved nothing of the sort, and again you show extreme ignorance of Jung's work. What you say about animals means absolutely nothing.
@Useless2112 You havent given any examples of how this "is not the case" you've just given examples which prove you dont even get the argument. Sociopathic behaviour, proves there are objective moral values. We call the behaviour "psychopathic", (not "good") because we recognise their behaviour to be objectively wrong. Thats why we have a justice system that punishes evil (regardless of whether the criminal thinks it was good). Animals dont think theft or rape are absolutely wrong, we do.
@relarerfhjk ...would have considered it morally wrong. But since morality is subjective, attitudes towards slavery have changed dramatically over the years.
The behaviour of a psychopath is not always necessarily wrong by any means at all. It is clearly you who doesn't get the argument, or understand psychology, if you make such a ridiculous claim. We call these people sociopaths because they lack the understanding to reach the moral judgments that most people make, not because of their...
@relarerfhjk ...behaviour per se. My point in bringing these cases up was to demonstrate the obvious fact that since not everybody shares the same moral values, or even understands those of others, morality amongst humans cannot possibly be objective. I could just as well have mentioned autism, the sufferers of which have no conventional understanding of the emotions and needs of others and therefore often seem insensitive and engage in behaviours most people would consider immoral.
@relarerfhjk On the other hand, they may have sensitivities and morals which we do not share due to their autistic, entirely subjective nature. If morality is objective, then there can be no such thing as autism; their behaviour isn't merely autistic in nature, it is inherently immoral. The justice system is not simply for the punishment of evil and is in fact a perfect example of the subjective nature of morality. Most people would consider the forcible imprisonment of other immoral...
@relarerfhjk The universe is not fine-tuned and the fact of our not yet knowing how the universe came about no more proves the existence of God than it proves the existence of the tooth fairy. Show me the "strong scientific evidence" for God. I don't have time to read a book but I promise to look into Lennox's work on the subject.
@Useless2112 You are embarassingly ignorant. the Universe IS fine-tuned for life,that is one of the major discoveries of string-theory in physics, if even one tiny cog in the great machine of the Universe were 1% differently adjusted, the whole thing wouldnt exist. The scientistis discovered that the Universe is so intricately fine-tuned for life,and so astonishingly complex and delicate that the idea it came from nothing is almost impossible
@relarerfhjk I rather feel that when my opponent in a debate can only think to insult me that the debate is already over, but I'll humour your pettiness for the sake of enlightening you. The universe is not fine-tuned for the simple reason that there is no evidence for tuning. It certainly isn't fine-tuned for life, the sumple reason being that Earth is the only place in the entirety of the known universe in which life can exist. We are the exception, not the rule.
@Useless2112 If you would go away and read, you could learn alot from this debate. The Universe is fine-tuned for life,thats the basis of the argument about the Anthropic PrincipleIf As were increased by just 1% all our oxygen would have burned to carbon, even a decrease of one part in a million million (when the temperature of the universe was 1010 degrees) would have resulted in the universe's collapse long ago; a 1% increase would also have destroyed the galaxy
@relarerfhjk ...but under certain circumstances it becomes moral. If it was objectively morally wrong to imprison a fellow human being then the entire concept of a social justice system would be inherently immoral. Similarly, if it was objectively morally wrong to break the law and incur the wrath of the justice system then we would have to consider Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and Gandhi inherently immoral. If killing is inherently immoral we would have to consider everyone who has ever...
@relarerfhjk ...fought in a war inherently immoral, regardless of the reasons for going to war.
I would recommend you also go away and read. There's a lot you could learn from this too.
In case I haven't made this clear, I don't believe in the anthropic principle. I think its central premise falls in on itself and is no match for empirical study. All of the facts you post are lending weight to a presupposition, but they are not evidence for God. Occam's razor.
@relarerfhjk There are many, many different ways in which a universe could exist. To claim that there could be no universe whatsoever if any of the laws of physics were adjusted betrays a monumental mosconception of the nature of physics. Again, show me a single piece of evidence for a tuner, then I will accept the notion that it is tuned. There is also a huge difference between having the intelligence to say that we don't know how the universe came about and claiming it came "from nothing".
@Useless2112 And, of course, all atheists believe in objective moral truth, which is why atheists believe in the principle upon which Western civilisation is founded, which is that there is a universal law which is above power,(hence the concepts of individual rights, international law etc) and thus the powerful must be bound by the same law as the weak, which only makes sense if there are universal, objective moral truths which are above human power to alter.
@relarerfhjk I am an atheist. I don't believe in objective moral truth. Disproved your first statement right there. Believing in equality does not require universal truth and all the insults in the world won't change that fact. You're arguing from a house built on sand; you make a great number of assumptions which are not based on fact. Arguing that all atheists believe in objective morality is an utterly baseless and ridiculous assertion.
@Useless2112 But you do believe in objective moral truth, its easily testable,as you couldnt support equal rights, inernational law, or the primacy of law over power if you didnt Only if moral truth is objective, and humans were all created equal, is there any basis for treating us all equally before the law, or for the idea that law is above human power (which it isn't if it isn't objective, and absolute).Atheist philosopher Nietzche said universal rights make no sense without Christianity
@relarerfhjk Everything you say about objective moral truth is pure assertion without a shred of evidence or logic to support it. Yes I can believe in equality without objective moral truth governing it. After all, the very nature of equality - like the nature of objectivity - is subjective, which is why for example we imprison people who commit crimes - their freedom is subject to law, which is subject to society.
@Useless2112 Its not assertion, its obvious truth, read Nietzche!
If your such a child that I must tutor you through very basic arguments, then here goes...Universal equality makes no sense without Christianity, as Nietzche wrote, because humans are not equally valuable in any sense, (we aren't equally "useful" to the species, we are not equally strong, intelligent etc) unless you believe we were each created for a unique purpose.Equality isnt "subjective" it is called "freedom within the law"
@relarerfhjk Universal equality does make sense without Christianity (perhaps moreso, considering the outcome promised in the Bible). It is based on a concept you don't seem to understand: empathy. The idea that none of us are more important than the other is based on the fact that we are sensitive creatures who have evolved to the level that we can choose to treat others as we wish to be treated. Children figure this out at an early age without recourse to the Bible or to Nietzsche.
@Useless2112 Are you too ignorant to know the answer to that?
Christians do NOT "point out there is no such thing as objective morality".They believe there is.
The point Christians make is if you do not believe in a creator, then you must believe that nothing is inherently "good" or "evil", since the atheistic basis for morality is "intraspecies social cohesion" so rape isnt objectively "wrong" its just bad, at present, for social cohesion, but could become moral in the future, if that changes.
@relarerfhjk Ho hum. You completely missed the point I was making. Let me spell it out for you.
I know that Christians believe in objective morality. The contention of any rational person is that there is not. The fact of there being no objective morality neither denigrates nor eliminates the validity of a moral action or judgment taken by a non-Christian. I thought that was fairly bloody obvious from the context but you still apparently felt the need to take a little shot at a straw man there.
@Useless2112 The contention if any rational person is the opposite. Most rational atheists believe in objective morality, they just dont realise it cant exist without Christianity. For example, most atheists support universal rights, international law, individual freedom, equality, and the idea the powerful must be ruled by the same law as the weak.None of these ideas (including the notion murder etc is absolutely wrong) make any sense unless there are absolute morals above human power to alter
Wow, are you and 13 other atheists really that clueless as to what he's saying?
He is saying in an ATHEIST'S UNIVERSE (hypothesizing that in fact God doesn't exist) THEN how could objective morality exist.
If you think Christians are "pointing out" (as in, you are inferring the Christian believes the following to be TRUE) that there is no such thing as objective morality, then you are truly ignorant and I shake my head at the ridiculousness of your comment.
@4cellar2door0 I know that, you fucking moron. Read my comment again. I, like most atheists, do not believe in objective morality. Of course Christians believe that there is. By saying that he is "pointing out" this fact then the inference is not that Christians believe it, it is blatantly that I consider it to be a fact. You completely misunderstood my comment.
As for calling me a "bandwagoner"? Utterly pathetic. Go read a book.
I called the people who mindlessly read your comment and agreed, likely not on an intellectual basis but rather the fact that you are an atheist was all they needed to thumbs up your comment.
I inferred that you my friend are the bandwagon itself.
Secondly, you are just wrong.
You can say that's not the inference, but it absolutely is.
Also, re-reading your comment only further solidified this fact.
@4cellar2door0 Hmm, no you didn't. Try harder next time. You're either the lousiest troll ever or simply thick as pig shit. I'm banking on the former, and I would take that as a compliment if I were you.
@4cellar2door0 Demonstrate it for me again, because I'm failing to see it. All I see when I reread your comments is a jackass misinterpreting a comment I left two months ago and then whining when I point out his mistake. Would you care to pick your toys up, change your underwear and carry on this conversation like adults or did you, as I suggested, just come on here in order to argue with things you don't understand?
@4cellar2door0 I hate to break this to you buddy, but it is you who launched into the ad hominems. Saying things like "typical atheist" (lol!) aren't exactly helping your case.
I've reread your original comment several times. In it, you blatantly misunderstand my original point and try to argue that my suggestion is that Christians don't believe in objective morality, which any fool could see is not the original point I made. Seriously, reread it again because you clearly didn't understand this.
@Useless2112 A false point :). Whether there are objective moral rules or not, it certainly does not depend on God. There are some moral codes that derive their objectivity from other sources, e.g. reason, human pursuit of happiness. Kant and Mill are two examples that come to mind. Of course, they are not full proof, far from it, but at least we don't take them as set in stone and we are still looking.
@ahmedeox But reason and the pursuit of happiness are both contingent on each individual human's subjective understanding of the concepts, which differ from person to person. I'm not well-versed enough in Kant or Mill to argue their positions. I don't believe in God and I don't believe in objective morality; I personally think that the subjective nature of morality is plainly visible and I am slightly baffled by the fact that some people can't see it.
@Useless2112 What reason and pursuit of happiness ARE, is completely independent from somebody understanding the concepts. If I say that all human beings have reason, then each individual has reason, even though he doesn't know the concept,i.e. he cannot give me a definition. Just like if I tell someone he has a disease called QWERTY, he has the disease, even though he has no clue what it does or what caused it.
@ahmedeox Of course reason itself as a concept is seperate from human inderstanding of it, but it only exists insomuch as humans experience it. We don't have to know it exists for us to use it, but we do have to use it in order for us to know it exists. Same goes for the pursuit of happiness.
@Useless2112 There are several problems with subjective morality. 1.We could never agree on moral issues. X believes stealing is bad,Y believes otherwise, and they cannot reach an agreement. Moreover, they are both "right" so to speak.2.Where does the normativity of the moral rules come from? WHY should I respect my own moral rules? Just because I gave them?Doesn't seem enough.3 We do seem to have common moral rules(don't kill,steal, etc.),if morality is subjective,then this is a big coincidence
@ahmedeox 1. We never CAN all agree on moral issues. This is why democracy exists, so that a compromise could be reached. If you sit two people down with a long enough list of moral conundrums, eventually they will disagree with something. Besides which, if morality was objective then there would be no argument ever - people would always understand that a certain action was wrong and they would all react the same way to it.
@ahmedeox 2. It's entirely up to you whether or not you respect your own moral views. I'm sorry if it 'doesn't seem enough' to you, but from an atheistic point of view there is nowhere else for morality to come from (taking the 'nurture' argument as leading into one's own moral views).
3. We do have largely common moral rules. This isn't a coincidence, it's a combination of childhood learning and social evolutionary traits.
Beauty is truth and that is all we need to know? Why? We are all plummeting towards heat death one day. All truth will be wiped out as if it never existed. So why is it beautiful? Who cares. Truth from his worldview is meaningless. It is amazing, that even if atheism were true I would still stay a Christian because there is more evolutionary benefit to me. Even if atheism wins the argument its worldview is so bankrupt it does me no good. Christianity provided me more benefit.
The theistic moral landscape is typically populated by imaginary archetypal dichotomies; Godly/ungodly, holy/unholy, moral/immoral, sacred/profane etc. These archetypes, though simple and stereotypical, must appear real enough to be believable and to be correctly applied. The question is, who, what and where are the ungodly, unholy, profane? Here’s the sinister bit, what exactly is supposed to be done to them?
@Ch3mG33k There has to be an initial cause, because our world did not just pop into existence from nothing... something had to cause the universe to exist. What things in our universe are infinite?
@owengroen101 Your claim is pretty much something could not have come out of nothing, which I agree with and I am assuming that you claim god started the whole deal. I need to stop you there and ask the infamous question, if god is something and he made more somethings then you must first answer where did god come from and if you say he is infinite then you must explain how you concluded that with some sort of evidence. We created god not the other way around.
@owengroen101 I'm going to pop into this debate. How do you know that our universe didn't pop into existence from nothing? How do you know something had to cause it to exist? And even if a cause was required, where is the proof that such cause need be intelligent? Even if it were, how do we know this must be an all-powerful God all-knowing all-good God, and finally even if it were--how does this prove Christianity?
sorry...this guy does not make sense........I find beauty in alot of things others don't.....Like i like the smell of a skunk from a distance...where most don't....so Mr.Wilson does not make any sense,as far as saying... if there is no god,you cant judge beauty
@latelydown shows you can't think ,or understand what you read..
if your going to insult someone,at least think it out what your going to say
MAYBE...dumb ass!!!
its a example of the differences in people on what they like,or find beauty in,no need for a god to see it....I don't like the color green,and you might,I also don't like shit heads like you,and you do,because you are obviously still living with yourself!!
@chucka59 sorry wrong choice of words... you're a FOOL!! you contradict yourself ... you are a skunk and people smells you from a distant ..sigh .. another waste of space
Here you go if your to lazy to read your own Book.
Matt 5:22.-But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
I just realized how pointless this all is. I've known it before, but for some reason looking outside listening to this made me see it in yet more depth.
I do wish atheists would just try thinking for five seconds about the horrible implications of their belief in a meaningless Universe <= "buhuhuhu I am afraid to be alone in the universe and having to think for myself! mummy..god help meeee!"
@trannyniggr It's not about being afraid of having to think for yourself. Rather, there is no purpose to "thinking", nor is thought itself anything other than an illusion, if you understand the implications of atheism. But I don't expect you have troubled yourself to actually think about it too much. Most people don't. Its not a very pleasant thought
@relarerfhjk Here....let's put it in terms you can understand.
Assume my mother and your mother are in a car crash and die. (Sorry for the horrible imagery) To you your mother's death is painful. The meaning you assign to it is that it was God's will and you will meet again. The meaning I assign is that Mom was always a terrible driver and it was bound to happen someday especially since she refused to wear glasses and to not text while driving.
@CityzenJane Meaning is "human made" if God did not create us, thats the whole point! But this means it only exists in your mind and not in reality...therefore its not real meaning!
Yet most Western atheists live their life as if there is real morality and objective meaning,otherwise they wouldnt believe passionately in equality?human rights etc.
Yet they have borrowed these beliefs from Christian ideas because they make no sense without belief in a created Universe. now do you get it??
Things within the confines of art, music or literature are set by man made rules (laws) once a person memorised these rules/laws within their field they are considered 'good' at it. Once they have memorised these rules/laws and can now play with the rules or step outset the laws whilst still adhering to them then we enter the realms of being a great practitioner.
I'm surprised how Hitchens even considers this guy worthy of a debate. I have seen better theist arguments. It's only an apologist professor could invite such an ass to a debate. Such people deserve to spend their life with a belief in god, that is their best treatment.
The teleological argument is redundant "without god there would be no reason.." A reason cannot exist without being attributed to something, so "before" the universe where/when/how would the reason exist? Do christians have a god function in their excel spreadsheets? Logic does not permit it.
Wilson insists that God must exist for objective standards for beauty? Really??
OKAY THEN!
Can ANYONE tell me what the OBJECTIVE standard for beauty is? If it's objective, then it should be explainable in such a way that we can all look at it and agree on what is beautiful.
Is this standard to be found in the Bible? It must be, for how else can one claim that God sets the standard for beauty? Please supply the Book, chapter and verse(s).
@DandAinTac It is objective. Do some reading on "The Beauty Equation". As it turns out, people tend to find things attractive when they are built in certain proportions. However, I think you have misapprehended Mr. Wilson's argument.
@DandAinTac what a bizarre question. The point Lane Craig made was that, if God exists, then there is such a thing as objective truth, and objective morality, which never changes, and objective beauty because,if there is a God, these things exist OUTSIDE OF OURSELVES, and were not just created by our minds.
@relarerfhjk Are you talking about the question I posted 5 months ago asking what the objective standard of beauty is? Why is that bizarre? Craig claims there is one--please tell me what it is. There are a number of mistakes Craig (and you I guess) make with this argument. First, you are trying to claim an objective standard exists to begin with, when these things may be fundamentally subjective. Just because you WANT it to be objective does not make it so. (cont)
@DandAinTac No, we are not "trying to claim an objective standard of beauty exists", what we are claiming is two things. First, that most atheists actually believe there is objective morality and objective truth, but they don't realise that such things couldn't exist if there is no creator.(If morality is just a by-product of evolutionary social mechanisms, there is no reason for atheists to get so worked up about "human rights") Secondly,without a designer, there is no meaning outside our minds
@relarerfhjk So, you have evidence that most atheists actually believe there is objective morality and truth? I don't. Provide evidence for this contention please. And please provide some evidence, or even logic, that these things require a creator in order to be objective. This is merely your assertion. You seem to be assuming that we are unable to set rational standards of morality. Maybe there is no meaning outside of conscious minds. "Meaning" is a subjective word we create.
@DandAinTac I certainly do have evidence that most atheists think there is objective truth,and objective morality... their behaviour confirms it. Most atheists strongly denounce immoral acts (Chris Hitchens thunderously denounces the actions of many regimes) and most atheists believe in science (which pursues truth).None of these actions make any sense unless there is objective morality and objective truth. Why passionately denounce a crime if its not objectively "wrong"?
@relarerfhjk Prove to me that most atheists believe in objective morality. Do you have a link to a study or survey? You are merely making an assertion (again) without producing evidence. Sure we denounce immoral acts, but this does not prove that morality is objective. We can certainly denounce immorality even if it is subjective. You don't understand science. Science is not about finding truth. We can denounce a crime because people get hurt, and it breaks the laws we agree to live by.
@DandAinTac I can prove to you that atheists believe in objective morality, simply because nothing they say or do would make any sense without it. For example, all decent atheists believe rape is objectively, absolutely wrong, and would strongly punish it, regardless of the circumstances of the perpetrator. Yet, if morality is not objective, but is simply a by-product of evolutionary social mechanism, rape is not inherently "wrong" its just bad for social cohesion within the species at present
@relarerfhjk There is also evidence that Christians are more likely to commit violent crimes, know less about religion in general than atheists and are less intelligent than atheists. None of these things has anything to do with whether or not Christianity is correct though, and I wouldn't insult you by suggesting that they did.
We believe rape is wrong not because there is an objective morality telling us to believe so, but because we are thoughtful empathic creatures who learn at a young age
@Useless2112 There is no such evidence whatsover, but many studies show Christianity is associated with longer, healthier, happier lives, and that many tenets of Christian morality (specifically support for lifelong marraige/opposition to abortion and contraception and pornography) also happen to be, what is best for human happiness, and health.
All empathy does is pretend you are feeling what your victim feels,it doesnt tell you something is objectively wrong, which most atheists believe it is.
@relarerfhjk Your first assertion is both incorrect and irrelevant. It is also entirely based on your opinion. "Most atheists" do NOT believe in objective morality, obviously, because they don't believe in a force which can create an objective morality. Empathy tells us that certain actions are wrong; the fact that this isn't objective means absolutely nothing and does not denigrate the validity of the judgment. Your description of what empathy is is also inaccurate.
@relarerfhjk how to interact withour fellow humans. Not all "decent" atheists believe that rape is objectively wrong because most atheists don't believe in objective morality. The implication that the subjective nature of morality somehow denigrates or weakens it is a Christian lie and logically absurd, so you have in fact proved nothing. I could just as well argue that English is the universe's objective form of communication because so many people speak it.
@Useless2112 Subjective morality does'nt "weaken" morality, it completely destroys it. If morality isnt objective, we can make it up as we go along, to suit ourselves, and, in that case, we can justify any crime,if circumstances are altered, and the powerful can bend the moral rules to suit themselves, at the expense of the weak.
All decent atheists believe in objective morality, which is why they assert moral truth with a certainty that is baseless unless morality is absolute and objective.
@relarerfhjk "If morality isnt objective, we can make it up as we go along, to suit ourselves, and, in that case, we can justify any crime,if circumstances are altered, and the powerful can bend the moral rules to suit themselves, at the expense of the weak."
All of that comes purely from the viewpoint of a single creature. Humans are social animals, which is why subjective morality tends to work. You have in fact described only a sociopath's view of the world.
@Useless2112 Atheism leads to tyranny because,when there is no higher authority, human power becomes the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.Subjective morality leads to tyranny because,when morality is subjective,and there is no authority above humans the interests of the strong prevail over the weak. That is why abortion/euthanasia are rising as atheism grows,the unborn and elderly are voiceless and weak, and no longer protected by the Christian idea all life is sacred,and law is above power.
@relarerfhjk "All decent atheists believe in objective morality, which is why they assert moral truth with a certainty that is baseless unless morality is absolute and objective."
Obviously not. Case in point: I am a "decent" atheist, and I try always to do right for my fellow humans. I don't believe in objective morality. I know many people who are exactly the same as me in this regard and none of them behave the way you assert that such a person would. Look around you and you'll see this too.
@Useless2112 Your so stupid that you've just proved my point, without realizing it. "I always do right for my fellow humans" who decides what is "right" if it isnt objective? How do we know your version of "right" isnt wrong, or might not become "wron"g tomorrow? Why bother doing "right" to other humans, if you and they are just purposeless, undesigned clusters of cells in a meaningless Universe, with no objective right and wrong, outside your own mind?
@relarerfhjk I decide what's right! My knowledge of what's right comes from the judgments I make about what will provide the greatest happiness for me and those around me! I don't need anyone to TELL me what's right! And you have the nerve to call me "stupid". You make so many assumptions, you use so little evidence. I honestly suggest you actually research this, because seeing all your comments I expected you to be able to make even a single point on the subject. You said nothing of substance.
@relarerfhjk Your "proof" fails. Just because you assert something, does not make it so. It might help if I explain "objective" vs "subjective". "Objective" means that which is an object. It can be sensed, measured, or at least demonstrated in a lab in some way. "Subjective" means that which is an idea--a human concept. (continued)
@relarerfhjk Now as far as rape and "objective morality". If it's objectively wrong, we need a clear definition. I challenge you to come up with a definition of rape that is universal in all human cultures. In some cultures, a husband by definition cannot rape his wife, for example. You will find in every culture, there are variances in how rape is defined, and also how bad it is. If it were objective, every culture would have the exact same definition, and the same idea of how serious it is.
Respond to this video... Oh, and you ask me to provide evidence that these things require a creator? Do you not know what subjective and objective mean? Logically, there cannot be objective truth if there is no source of truth outside of our minds.Similarly, there cannot be objective standards of "right" and "wrong" (morality) if morality is simply invented by humans, and can therefore be changed by humans.
that isle should be named after him now that he's gone.
jackiechano1 6 days ago
Every time Hitch opens his pen to jot down something, it makes me smile. You know he is writing down which weapon (from his infinite arsenal) to use to blow away each of the barricades his fleeing opponent tries to build.
ratedAD 1 month ago
Douglas Wilson is a dangerous freak masquerading as a normal human. He has the fascist obsession of sequestering gays and other undesirables he got from the Family Research Council. He's like William Lane Craig and the rest of the closet fascists, he's asked his "savior" for license to genocide on fellow Americans, and gotten the thumbs up. But we're supposed to take him seriously for some reason, so don't mind me or Christopher Hitchens, we're just talking reality. I know, boring, right?
kern0099 6 months ago
@kern0099
William Lane Craig is pretty mild for an evangelical, I don't remember him ever advocating any sort of dominionist policies
redcommander27 5 months ago
@redcommander27 Oh he's far too cunning for that. Hes more concerned with playing a "moderate evangelical" role, for respectability. He recently did a podcast where he relayed information about homosexuality that originates from the FRC, FOTF, and falsified studies that have been proven to be politically motivated. He parroted the "facts" (misinformation) and left out the truth intentionally. Rick Warren, Scott lively etc. are others who use this propaganda like Craig, but WLC is better at it.
kern0099 5 months ago
@kern0099
If that's true its rather shameful, I always thought WLC was a supporter of political (not social or moral) secularism and wouldn't align with dominionist groups like the FRC and FOTF
redcommander27 5 months ago
@redcommander27 It's strange how this information posted on YouTube brings up an error msg again and and again., but here goes another try. Craig was propagating non-falsifiable conclusions from the work of Paul Cameron and George Reikers, among others Give them a google unless you want to keep your lunch down. An Accurate look into the minds of our "friends" the theists indeed.
kern0099 5 months ago
@rashaan6
William Lane Craig is the better of the better of these apologists. I think Wilson is just WLC's parrot. Though WLC's logic just eats me alive.
Sam Harris goes much deeper into objective morality and how science can answer such questions. His debate with WLC is great.
/watch?v=gVBEuyiRPsA&feature=relmfu
I just don't how people can appeal to objective morality based on a lunatic of a god who has a petty emotion such as jealousy (who seems to only think subjectively)?
ElDuorPaso 6 months ago
@rashaan6
There is no ultimate standard for those things to begin with.
I can just as easily make up a tangible object, assume it is not a deity, that nonetheless bestowed upon the people of this world through lots of magic giving them standards to which to abide. I've done nothing but invent an objective system of values.
Without Islam there is no objective morality/standard.
Without Scientology...
The difference between right and wrong are essentially the maximisation of human wellbeing.
ElDuorPaso 6 months ago
@lurk192 As for me being a Christian, I am an agnostic! Don't pretend to know white people that would be ashamed of you!!!!
REASONINFUSION 7 months ago
@lurk192 Hitch would see you as being unlettered as well as uncultured! Take your dumb ass time, make less spelling mistakes and try commenting again. Other wise shut the fuck up and go back to school. And yes, I am Black. That's why I enjoyed this reply.
REASONINFUSION 7 months ago
Comment removed
REASONINFUSION 7 months ago
seems as though atheists make the bulk of the views (judging by commentry) of these types of videos. maybe they are wanting to bolster their faith?
nice1holmes 7 months ago
@nice1holmes
If you think so, you don't understand what faith means.
heeh2 7 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
Theists are so arrogant as to believe their GOD can't fight for himself.
tweekyseagull 8 months ago 2
@tweekyseagull Hitchens made my point in this video!!!! Atheists are no more able to face the facts as theists. I am a black man who majored in philosophy. I am sickened by the myth that the bunch of white supremacists americas call "the founding fathers" are praised over and over again by so-called white intellectuals! The facts show that Thomas Jefferson was a man who was morally bankrupt and quite possibly a rapist of a black woman at least 6 times! So he thought maybe beating and working
REASONINFUSION 7 months ago
@tweekyseagull So Jefferson "thought" maybe, just perhaps, "God" would not like his beating and working black people to death!!!! Hitch does not choose to admit nor does he seem to care that Jefferson increased is slave lot after making that statement!!! if hitch was as much a lover of "right" as he claims he would have held up Thomas Pain, a man who disliked both Jefferson and Washington because of their poor character. Christopher Hitchens is just another white man who cannot swallow
REASONINFUSION 7 months ago
@tweekyseagull So Jefferson "thought" maybe, just perhaps, "God" would not like his beating and working black people to death!!!! Hitch does not choose to admit nor does he seem to care that Jefferson increased is slave lot after making that statement!!! if hitch was as much a lover of "right" as he claims he would have held up Thomas Pain, a man who disliked both Jefferson and Washington because of their poor character. Christopher Hitchens is just another white man who cannot swallow
REASONINFUSION 7 months ago
Comment removed
REASONINFUSION 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tweekyseagull Hitchens is just another white man who cannot swallow the bitter pill! he too bends the facts to fit his aversions and that is not the mark of an intellectual. What does a white intellectual do, he does what Joe R. Feagin And Bob Avakian does, they admit the fact that the constitution is a ducument for white supremacy and the writers were morally challenged in intent and action.
REASONINFUSION 7 months ago
Hitchens totally dodged the question. He still hasn't given a foundation of how he can or society can abolish slavery. We need a foundation for his logic and frankly he has dodged it, and went on another Hitchens name-calling rampage.
ArginGerigorian 8 months ago
Just that the pyramids weren't built by slaves.
Samuraionthewall 8 months ago
Hitchens. thats not why its called the world series.... sigh.
Duckshmm 8 months ago
Problem w/ Hitch is, he's a brilliant man w/ no ANSWERS of his own - except for outright hedonism.
The allure w/ him is this bravado, no limits, unbridled 'freedom,' which unfortunately (as is usually the case) is costing him his life in a most horrific & painful way (throat cancer) - & this not as a curse from God, but by biological cause & effect from his own life choices (alcohol & tobacco). There is HOPE Chris, even @ this stage of your life. God is real, He's alive & loves u! SEEK & TRUST
alexdeltoro4 9 months ago
@alexdeltoro4 Could you perhaps delineate the "life choices" one can make which will not end in their ultimate death?
KGEXIII 8 months ago
@KGEXIII this comment is pure rape. That is all.
ftballfrk 8 months ago
Hitch starts at 2:49
adknerr 10 months ago
I can't understand why Christians or any religious people, can't accept that if one were to believe, then one's argument could always be argued in a completely abstract way. A creator would exist outside of space and time, outside of human judgements. To logically argue for divinity is futile. Go abstract, and see it's so much easier to debate. Surely a creator would exist outside of popular culture, be it musical, intellectual, literary or otherwise. Outside of existence. Illogical & abstract.
groovegears 10 months ago
Wilson should have put the red cap on.
garrymcnaney 10 months ago
if morality is objective then place it in my hand so i can take a bite out of it
2nDoppelganger 10 months ago
@2nDoppelganger That makes no sense.
Do you honestly think the words objective and tangible mean the same thing?
I feel bad for you :(
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0 Yes. What you describe as "objective" is called "intersubjective"
Do you actually call yourself a Christian? I feel sorry for you
2nDoppelganger 10 months ago
@2nDoppelganger YOU described it as objective, NOT me.
The correlation I drew was that you were obviously inferring objectivity = tangibility, which makes no sense in any line of thinking that uses logic or reasoning as a basis.
Do you think you are actually making any sense WHATSOEVER?
Unlike you, who lyingly stated you "felt sorry for [me]", I actually DO feel sorry for you.
The sharing of subjective states by two or more individuals is what intersubjectivity is. Nobody described this.
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0 He was saying that there is a problem that there is no objective morality or beauty in the world. I'm pointing out the fact that this would not be objective, but intersubjective.
2nDoppelganger 10 months ago
@2nDoppelganger Okay I am getting confused (not due to misunderstanding, but due to YouTube's hideous 500 char. limit and the fact that some of our conversation is up here at the top and some of it is down in the pages below...
If you'd like to continue our discussion (I'd be glad to) please send a message to my YT inbox.
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
I was catholic until I was told that racism was good, women were inferior, and that the world was 6000 years old. A very potent wake up call if I may say so myself.
Which I may, and without the need for permission from a supreme celestial dictator.
DLUXMONKEYS 10 months ago
@DLUXMONKEYS Catholicism does not teach those things, and neither does the Bible.
Just because you CHOOSE to IGNORE (definition: ignorance) the proper explanation of your out-of-context ''interpretations'' of scripture doesn't make you right.
Who do you claim the Bible is racist against?
Jesus Christ was an Arabic Jew.
I'll continue in the next comment. I mean no hostility, but your comment seems like your were opening yourself up for a debate.
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@DLUXMONKEYS
Women are inferior?
Many people claim the verses ""And a man will choose...any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman...Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33" As the source for that.
Anyone using logic can see that scripture is condemning of only Eve. Not ALL women. The only use of the word "all" was to describe the people who would be affected.
Go ahead and Google some examples of female inferiority for me to debunk :).
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@DLUXMONKEYS Comment 3:
If you were using your brain, and actually studying and examining the evidence (I.e. if you actually cared about your existence) then you would not have the logic-incompatibility problem that you have with a Young Earth theory.
Your atheistic presuppositions (Noah's flood didn't happen/or wasn't global/or there was no Ark) keep you from seeing how our world in it's current status and all of it's wonder can be explained as being very young indeed.
YOU are unscientific.
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
Objects CAN change, and they carry no inherent value content. "Subjective" refers to subjects--or human ideas. This does not mean they are "unreal"--just that they are real in the sense that we construct them socially, nor are they necessarily unimportant. Subjective ideas are often vitally important in helping us live together as a culture. Justice, beauty, morality, are all examples of concepts that are fundamentally subjective.
DandAinTac 11 months ago
I think much of the debate on this post stems from a lack of understanding on the part of some posters about the terms "objective" and "subjective". In our society, we've come to misconstrue the word "objective" to mean "real," "unchanging," and even "good", and "subjective" to mean "fake," "changeable" and "bad". This is not the case. "Objective" refers to OBJECTS--they can be sensed, studied in a lab, measured, demonstrated to exist physically, or at least in a measurable way. (cont)
DandAinTac 11 months ago
Hey atheists! I found an interesting argument *against* the morality of the bible, USING THE BIBLE.
So Christians believe that our morality was instilled within us by God, thus allowing Objective Morality. Here's the problem: Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil! So christian theology indicates that God never wanted us to have these morals. Basically, our morals were given to us by Satan, because he convinced us to eat? Checkmate, Christians!
DirectInjected 11 months ago
@DirectInjected Hey Christians !! Why does your god make us excrete fecal matter from out bodies everyday ?? Seriously. If We're so far above the animals why do we have to produce such a foul odor and substance from our bodies ?? WHY ???
MrBeautifulba1 11 months ago
@Useless2112:
I think Wilsons point is that Christianity (or just religion in general) has invented the concepts of good and bad, right and wrong etc. ... So if it weren't for religion, we wouldn't have a clue as to how we should behave.
Let me make it perfectly clear that I do not agree we this argument, but I hope it'll answer your question.
MarnieDK 11 months ago
Despite agreeing with Hitchens, I'm sad such an intelligent man would spout an urban myth.
roophies 11 months ago
I encourage anyone who is asking the question " who created god?!" to search up on YouTube LetsTalkChrist's video on this subject. I was an atheist but this video has totally changed my life and I am now a firm Christian. I urge any atheists here to check it out.
spartan2070 11 months ago
@spartan2070 = idiot and a liar.
coolal19 11 months ago
@coolal19 i personally don't have the time nor the energy to fight with hardcore atheists such as yourself. Not saying all atheists are bad but really ,if u have a problem i suggest u use the proper language or proof instead of hiding behind a computer and using profanity....honestly what has the world come too?
spartan2070 11 months ago
@spartan2070 I think most reasonable people here would agree that calling you an idiot and a liar would not qualify as profanity. On the other hand, if I were to add a f**king in front of idiot and liar, then you may have a point. The comment you posted has nothing to do with this video, rather it is a cheap attempt to advertise christrian propaganda introduced by the old and stale proclaimation of "I was a (fill in the blank) until I found jesus". You were an atheist? I doubt it.
coolal19 11 months ago 16
@coolal19 Your just spouting ignorant drivel, because you know absolutely zero about the moral, theological, scientific and social arguments for Christianity
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk Incidentally, there is no such thing as a moral or social argument for the validity of Christianity; the theological matters not to an atheist and is completely undone by science, which provides no evidence for Christianity's validity.
Useless2112 11 months ago
@Useless2112 There are moral and social arguments for Christianity,the beneficial effect of Christianity in creating the best features of Western Civilisation,& the existence of objective moral values,which indicates a divine source of morality.Science cant "undo" theology,moral truths arent accessible to science.Science has provided proof of Christianity,e.g string theory found the Universe is fine-tuned for life, and there is evidence that Christians live longer,happier,healthier lives.
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk Well first of all there is no such thing as an objective moral value and no evidence to suggest otherwise. Secondly, you'll note that I was referring to "validity" in my first comment, on which morality has no bearing. Theology is undone by science because there is no evidence for God; if there is no evidence for God then it can't be studied scientifically. The universe is not fine-tuned for life, we live in a tiny ghetto of the universe in which the conditions are right.
Useless2112 11 months ago
@Useless2112 There is strong evidence of objective moral values, and many scientists agree we can't explain this at present, you are utterly clueless.
Theology is not undone by science there is strong scientific evidence for God,(read Oxford University Professor John Lennox's" Has Science Buried God") to the extent Richard Dawkins said "a scientific case can be made for a deity".the Universe is so intricately fine-tuned its highly unlikely time, space/matter etc came from nothing with no cause
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk "Many scientists agree" nothing of the sort. I happen to have studied psychology at university level; we know how moral behaviours are learned, we know that there is no objective morality and there is plenty of evidence which proves this point (including the aforementioned existence of sociopathy). You're talking to someone who has actually studied this topic sunshine, so I'd keep the insults to yourself. Show me some of this "strong evidence".
Useless2112 11 months ago
@Useless2112 Psychology isnt a science,(which produces measurable results), its a social science, BIG DIFFERENCE! You have demonstrated so far that you have studied nothing, you didnt even know about string theory proving the Universe is fine-tuned for life. Moral behaviours are not "learned" because many of them are universal, and psychologists like Jung (founder of CBT) proved objective moral truths existed. We know objective values exist, because we have different standard to animals
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk Psychology is a science. It is the study of cause and effect; it uses evidence to draw conclusions. I recommend that you read into it, because you demonstrate the kind of knowledge of the subject that one would glean from reading the wikipedia page on Freud. I know what string theory is; I also know that it doesn't provide evidence for the "tuning" of the universe. Moral behaviours are obviously not universal; I am genuinely flabbergasted that anyone could make such a ridiculous...
Useless2112 11 months ago
@Useless2112 You dont even understand psychology. It isnt a science because it doesnt have objective proof or measurable results.
String theory proves the fine-tuning of the Universe because it proved the perfect intricacy of circumstances needed for life to exist is so astonishingly elaborate that it is almost impossible that it came from nothing with no cause. Moral VALUES (not behaviours) are objective, you ignoramus! Thats why we apologize for slavery, as we know it was objectiely wrong.
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk Actually, much of psychology does involve exactly that. Are you sure you're not confusing it with psychiatry?
Moral behaviours come from moral values. Moral behaviours are objectively measurable but subjectively caused; a person's moral values are entirely subjective. If they weren't, then everybody would share the same moral values regardless of their upbringing, faith or the state of their psyche. Slavery is not objectively wrong. If it was, the people who wrote the Bible...
Useless2112 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk ...statement. I have already given you several examples of how this is obviously... OBVIOUSLY not the case. Aside from the examples of sociopathic and psychopathic behaviour (which you conveniently ignore), moral behaviour differs between cultures, between countries, between societies and over time periods. Obviously. Jung proved nothing of the sort, and again you show extreme ignorance of Jung's work. What you say about animals means absolutely nothing.
Useless2112 11 months ago
@Useless2112 You havent given any examples of how this "is not the case" you've just given examples which prove you dont even get the argument. Sociopathic behaviour, proves there are objective moral values. We call the behaviour "psychopathic", (not "good") because we recognise their behaviour to be objectively wrong. Thats why we have a justice system that punishes evil (regardless of whether the criminal thinks it was good). Animals dont think theft or rape are absolutely wrong, we do.
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk ...would have considered it morally wrong. But since morality is subjective, attitudes towards slavery have changed dramatically over the years.
The behaviour of a psychopath is not always necessarily wrong by any means at all. It is clearly you who doesn't get the argument, or understand psychology, if you make such a ridiculous claim. We call these people sociopaths because they lack the understanding to reach the moral judgments that most people make, not because of their...
Useless2112 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk ...behaviour per se. My point in bringing these cases up was to demonstrate the obvious fact that since not everybody shares the same moral values, or even understands those of others, morality amongst humans cannot possibly be objective. I could just as well have mentioned autism, the sufferers of which have no conventional understanding of the emotions and needs of others and therefore often seem insensitive and engage in behaviours most people would consider immoral.
Useless2112 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk On the other hand, they may have sensitivities and morals which we do not share due to their autistic, entirely subjective nature. If morality is objective, then there can be no such thing as autism; their behaviour isn't merely autistic in nature, it is inherently immoral. The justice system is not simply for the punishment of evil and is in fact a perfect example of the subjective nature of morality. Most people would consider the forcible imprisonment of other immoral...
Useless2112 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk The universe is not fine-tuned and the fact of our not yet knowing how the universe came about no more proves the existence of God than it proves the existence of the tooth fairy. Show me the "strong scientific evidence" for God. I don't have time to read a book but I promise to look into Lennox's work on the subject.
Useless2112 11 months ago
@Useless2112 You are embarassingly ignorant. the Universe IS fine-tuned for life,that is one of the major discoveries of string-theory in physics, if even one tiny cog in the great machine of the Universe were 1% differently adjusted, the whole thing wouldnt exist. The scientistis discovered that the Universe is so intricately fine-tuned for life,and so astonishingly complex and delicate that the idea it came from nothing is almost impossible
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk I rather feel that when my opponent in a debate can only think to insult me that the debate is already over, but I'll humour your pettiness for the sake of enlightening you. The universe is not fine-tuned for the simple reason that there is no evidence for tuning. It certainly isn't fine-tuned for life, the sumple reason being that Earth is the only place in the entirety of the known universe in which life can exist. We are the exception, not the rule.
Useless2112 11 months ago
@Useless2112 If you would go away and read, you could learn alot from this debate. The Universe is fine-tuned for life,thats the basis of the argument about the Anthropic PrincipleIf As were increased by just 1% all our oxygen would have burned to carbon, even a decrease of one part in a million million (when the temperature of the universe was 1010 degrees) would have resulted in the universe's collapse long ago; a 1% increase would also have destroyed the galaxy
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk ...but under certain circumstances it becomes moral. If it was objectively morally wrong to imprison a fellow human being then the entire concept of a social justice system would be inherently immoral. Similarly, if it was objectively morally wrong to break the law and incur the wrath of the justice system then we would have to consider Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and Gandhi inherently immoral. If killing is inherently immoral we would have to consider everyone who has ever...
Useless2112 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk ...fought in a war inherently immoral, regardless of the reasons for going to war.
I would recommend you also go away and read. There's a lot you could learn from this too.
In case I haven't made this clear, I don't believe in the anthropic principle. I think its central premise falls in on itself and is no match for empirical study. All of the facts you post are lending weight to a presupposition, but they are not evidence for God. Occam's razor.
Useless2112 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk There are many, many different ways in which a universe could exist. To claim that there could be no universe whatsoever if any of the laws of physics were adjusted betrays a monumental mosconception of the nature of physics. Again, show me a single piece of evidence for a tuner, then I will accept the notion that it is tuned. There is also a huge difference between having the intelligence to say that we don't know how the universe came about and claiming it came "from nothing".
Useless2112 11 months ago
@Useless2112 And, of course, all atheists believe in objective moral truth, which is why atheists believe in the principle upon which Western civilisation is founded, which is that there is a universal law which is above power,(hence the concepts of individual rights, international law etc) and thus the powerful must be bound by the same law as the weak, which only makes sense if there are universal, objective moral truths which are above human power to alter.
Do you finally get it??
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk I am an atheist. I don't believe in objective moral truth. Disproved your first statement right there. Believing in equality does not require universal truth and all the insults in the world won't change that fact. You're arguing from a house built on sand; you make a great number of assumptions which are not based on fact. Arguing that all atheists believe in objective morality is an utterly baseless and ridiculous assertion.
"Do you finally get it??" How pathetic.
Useless2112 11 months ago
@Useless2112 But you do believe in objective moral truth, its easily testable,as you couldnt support equal rights, inernational law, or the primacy of law over power if you didnt Only if moral truth is objective, and humans were all created equal, is there any basis for treating us all equally before the law, or for the idea that law is above human power (which it isn't if it isn't objective, and absolute).Atheist philosopher Nietzche said universal rights make no sense without Christianity
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk Everything you say about objective moral truth is pure assertion without a shred of evidence or logic to support it. Yes I can believe in equality without objective moral truth governing it. After all, the very nature of equality - like the nature of objectivity - is subjective, which is why for example we imprison people who commit crimes - their freedom is subject to law, which is subject to society.
Useless2112 11 months ago
@Useless2112 Its not assertion, its obvious truth, read Nietzche!
If your such a child that I must tutor you through very basic arguments, then here goes...Universal equality makes no sense without Christianity, as Nietzche wrote, because humans are not equally valuable in any sense, (we aren't equally "useful" to the species, we are not equally strong, intelligent etc) unless you believe we were each created for a unique purpose.Equality isnt "subjective" it is called "freedom within the law"
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk Universal equality does make sense without Christianity (perhaps moreso, considering the outcome promised in the Bible). It is based on a concept you don't seem to understand: empathy. The idea that none of us are more important than the other is based on the fact that we are sensitive creatures who have evolved to the level that we can choose to treat others as we wish to be treated. Children figure this out at an early age without recourse to the Bible or to Nietzsche.
Useless2112 11 months ago
@coolal19 I was a theist until I found my brains! Do I qualify in advertising my atheist propaganda?
thelordmemnoch 10 months ago
@spartan2070 i,ll do that after part 12. if it turns me the same way i,ll send you lots of money. good luck.
userwl2850 11 months ago
What point exactly do Christians think they're making when they point out that there's no such thing as objective morality?
Useless2112 1 year ago 19
@Useless2112 Are you too ignorant to know the answer to that?
Christians do NOT "point out there is no such thing as objective morality".They believe there is.
The point Christians make is if you do not believe in a creator, then you must believe that nothing is inherently "good" or "evil", since the atheistic basis for morality is "intraspecies social cohesion" so rape isnt objectively "wrong" its just bad, at present, for social cohesion, but could become moral in the future, if that changes.
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk Ho hum. You completely missed the point I was making. Let me spell it out for you.
I know that Christians believe in objective morality. The contention of any rational person is that there is not. The fact of there being no objective morality neither denigrates nor eliminates the validity of a moral action or judgment taken by a non-Christian. I thought that was fairly bloody obvious from the context but you still apparently felt the need to take a little shot at a straw man there.
Useless2112 11 months ago
@Useless2112 The contention if any rational person is the opposite. Most rational atheists believe in objective morality, they just dont realise it cant exist without Christianity. For example, most atheists support universal rights, international law, individual freedom, equality, and the idea the powerful must be ruled by the same law as the weak.None of these ideas (including the notion murder etc is absolutely wrong) make any sense unless there are absolute morals above human power to alter
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@Useless2112
Wow, are you and 13 other atheists really that clueless as to what he's saying?
He is saying in an ATHEIST'S UNIVERSE (hypothesizing that in fact God doesn't exist) THEN how could objective morality exist.
If you think Christians are "pointing out" (as in, you are inferring the Christian believes the following to be TRUE) that there is no such thing as objective morality, then you are truly ignorant and I shake my head at the ridiculousness of your comment.
13 bandwagoners SMH
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0 I know that, you fucking moron. Read my comment again. I, like most atheists, do not believe in objective morality. Of course Christians believe that there is. By saying that he is "pointing out" this fact then the inference is not that Christians believe it, it is blatantly that I consider it to be a fact. You completely misunderstood my comment.
As for calling me a "bandwagoner"? Utterly pathetic. Go read a book.
Useless2112 10 months ago
@Useless2112
First of all, I didn't call you a bandwagoner.
I called the people who mindlessly read your comment and agreed, likely not on an intellectual basis but rather the fact that you are an atheist was all they needed to thumbs up your comment.
I inferred that you my friend are the bandwagon itself.
Secondly, you are just wrong.
You can say that's not the inference, but it absolutely is.
Also, re-reading your comment only further solidified this fact.
YOU go read a book.
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0 I see now what you mean about the "bandwagoner" phrase. It's built on an assumption on your part, but we'll let that slide.
So I'm "just wrong"? Yet you can't say why?
I gotcha. ;)
Useless2112 10 months ago
@Useless2112 I said why immediately after I said you were just wrong.
Learn to read you fucking fool.
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0 Hmm, no you didn't. Try harder next time. You're either the lousiest troll ever or simply thick as pig shit. I'm banking on the former, and I would take that as a compliment if I were you.
Useless2112 10 months ago 2
@Useless2112 Hmm, yes I did. Try harder next time.
You ARE the lousiest troll ever, and I care not for whether you are the consistency of animal feces. You do however remind me of the substance.
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0 Demonstrate it for me again, because I'm failing to see it. All I see when I reread your comments is a jackass misinterpreting a comment I left two months ago and then whining when I point out his mistake. Would you care to pick your toys up, change your underwear and carry on this conversation like adults or did you, as I suggested, just come on here in order to argue with things you don't understand?
Useless2112 10 months ago
@Useless2112 Why should I repeat something you're failing to see?
I told you exactly where it was. Use your fucking eyes.
And to think, you're the one too stupid to fucking READ, yet calling people retards.
Typical atheist, you're pathetic! You actually think ad hominem remarks are helping your case?
How sad for you.
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0 I hate to break this to you buddy, but it is you who launched into the ad hominems. Saying things like "typical atheist" (lol!) aren't exactly helping your case.
I've reread your original comment several times. In it, you blatantly misunderstand my original point and try to argue that my suggestion is that Christians don't believe in objective morality, which any fool could see is not the original point I made. Seriously, reread it again because you clearly didn't understand this.
Useless2112 10 months ago
@Useless2112 A false point :). Whether there are objective moral rules or not, it certainly does not depend on God. There are some moral codes that derive their objectivity from other sources, e.g. reason, human pursuit of happiness. Kant and Mill are two examples that come to mind. Of course, they are not full proof, far from it, but at least we don't take them as set in stone and we are still looking.
ahmedeox 10 months ago
@ahmedeox But reason and the pursuit of happiness are both contingent on each individual human's subjective understanding of the concepts, which differ from person to person. I'm not well-versed enough in Kant or Mill to argue their positions. I don't believe in God and I don't believe in objective morality; I personally think that the subjective nature of morality is plainly visible and I am slightly baffled by the fact that some people can't see it.
Useless2112 10 months ago
@Useless2112 What reason and pursuit of happiness ARE, is completely independent from somebody understanding the concepts. If I say that all human beings have reason, then each individual has reason, even though he doesn't know the concept,i.e. he cannot give me a definition. Just like if I tell someone he has a disease called QWERTY, he has the disease, even though he has no clue what it does or what caused it.
ahmedeox 10 months ago
@ahmedeox Of course reason itself as a concept is seperate from human inderstanding of it, but it only exists insomuch as humans experience it. We don't have to know it exists for us to use it, but we do have to use it in order for us to know it exists. Same goes for the pursuit of happiness.
Useless2112 10 months ago
@Useless2112 There are several problems with subjective morality. 1.We could never agree on moral issues. X believes stealing is bad,Y believes otherwise, and they cannot reach an agreement. Moreover, they are both "right" so to speak.2.Where does the normativity of the moral rules come from? WHY should I respect my own moral rules? Just because I gave them?Doesn't seem enough.3 We do seem to have common moral rules(don't kill,steal, etc.),if morality is subjective,then this is a big coincidence
ahmedeox 10 months ago
@ahmedeox 1. We never CAN all agree on moral issues. This is why democracy exists, so that a compromise could be reached. If you sit two people down with a long enough list of moral conundrums, eventually they will disagree with something. Besides which, if morality was objective then there would be no argument ever - people would always understand that a certain action was wrong and they would all react the same way to it.
Useless2112 10 months ago
@Useless2112 Good point.
writersblock26 9 months ago
@ahmedeox 2. It's entirely up to you whether or not you respect your own moral views. I'm sorry if it 'doesn't seem enough' to you, but from an atheistic point of view there is nowhere else for morality to come from (taking the 'nurture' argument as leading into one's own moral views).
3. We do have largely common moral rules. This isn't a coincidence, it's a combination of childhood learning and social evolutionary traits.
Useless2112 10 months ago
when you realize its all relative. then all make sense.
MugenTJ 1 year ago
Beauty is truth and that is all we need to know? Why? We are all plummeting towards heat death one day. All truth will be wiped out as if it never existed. So why is it beautiful? Who cares. Truth from his worldview is meaningless. It is amazing, that even if atheism were true I would still stay a Christian because there is more evolutionary benefit to me. Even if atheism wins the argument its worldview is so bankrupt it does me no good. Christianity provided me more benefit.
theocratickingdom30 1 year ago
The theistic moral landscape is typically populated by imaginary archetypal dichotomies; Godly/ungodly, holy/unholy, moral/immoral, sacred/profane etc. These archetypes, though simple and stereotypical, must appear real enough to be believable and to be correctly applied. The question is, who, what and where are the ungodly, unholy, profane? Here’s the sinister bit, what exactly is supposed to be done to them?
ritchloui 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The uncaused cause MUST be God
owengroen101 1 year ago
Where did these laws and natural forces come from?
Everything that exists has an initial cause
There cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to things that exist. There must be a final uncaused-cause of all things.
1. Things exist
2. It is possible for those things to not exist
3. Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist
There cannot be an infinite number of causes since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical
owengroen101 1 year ago
@owengroen101 Uhm, why must there be an initial cause? Many things in our universe are infinite.
Ch3mG33k 1 year ago
@Ch3mG33k There has to be an initial cause, because our world did not just pop into existence from nothing... something had to cause the universe to exist. What things in our universe are infinite?
owengroen101 1 year ago
@owengroen101 Are you joking?
How many numbers are there? Time is also infinite which is why the universe need not have a beginning.
And on that note, I am finished speaking with you. I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Ch3mG33k 1 year ago
@owengroen101 Your claim is pretty much something could not have come out of nothing, which I agree with and I am assuming that you claim god started the whole deal. I need to stop you there and ask the infamous question, if god is something and he made more somethings then you must first answer where did god come from and if you say he is infinite then you must explain how you concluded that with some sort of evidence. We created god not the other way around.
dsmrider 1 year ago
@owengroen101 I'm going to pop into this debate. How do you know that our universe didn't pop into existence from nothing? How do you know something had to cause it to exist? And even if a cause was required, where is the proof that such cause need be intelligent? Even if it were, how do we know this must be an all-powerful God all-knowing all-good God, and finally even if it were--how does this prove Christianity?
DandAinTac 1 year ago
sorry...this guy does not make sense........I find beauty in alot of things others don't.....Like i like the smell of a skunk from a distance...where most don't....so Mr.Wilson does not make any sense,as far as saying... if there is no god,you cant judge beauty
chucka59 1 year ago
@chucka59 you must not have a brain maybe
latelydown 1 year ago
@latelydown shows you can't think ,or understand what you read..
if your going to insult someone,at least think it out what your going to say
MAYBE...dumb ass!!!
its a example of the differences in people on what they like,or find beauty in,no need for a god to see it....I don't like the color green,and you might,I also don't like shit heads like you,and you do,because you are obviously still living with yourself!!
trouble making troll!
chucka59 1 year ago
@chucka59 sorry wrong choice of words... you're a FOOL!! you contradict yourself ... you are a skunk and people smells you from a distant ..sigh .. another waste of space
latelydown 5 months ago
@latelydown,
Umm,ok? Where did I contradict myself? Nevermind,I wouldnt listen to you anyways,for you can't understand a simple point.
chucka59 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@latelydown,
Why don't you go and look up what happens to you when you call someone a fool in your Bible once.You hyprocrite!
chucka59 5 months ago
@latelydown ,
Here you go if your to lazy to read your own Book.
Matt 5:22.-But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
Your Bible,not mine :P
chucka59 5 months ago 7
@chucka59 In the context, that's talking about calling a fellow brother in Christ a fool.
StevieWonder501 2 weeks ago
@chucka59 "angry with his brother"
As a hint for the future, make sure you read the whole passage, looking into the context before making an assertion.
StevieWonder501 2 weeks ago
@latelydown Ahh shit you''re going to hell son! You called someone a fool!
theBartone9119 2 months ago
I just realized how pointless this all is. I've known it before, but for some reason looking outside listening to this made me see it in yet more depth.
Oh well. Time to get drunk.
Kan2209 1 year ago
Respect also to the theologian, he is actually rather a good speaker as well, very cordial and sincere.
BritishArrow 1 year ago
I do wish atheists would just try thinking for five seconds about the horrible implications of their belief in a meaningless Universe <= "buhuhuhu I am afraid to be alone in the universe and having to think for myself! mummy..god help meeee!"
trannyniggr 1 year ago
@trannyniggr It's not about being afraid of having to think for yourself. Rather, there is no purpose to "thinking", nor is thought itself anything other than an illusion, if you understand the implications of atheism. But I don't expect you have troubled yourself to actually think about it too much. Most people don't. Its not a very pleasant thought
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk Here....let's put it in terms you can understand.
Assume my mother and your mother are in a car crash and die. (Sorry for the horrible imagery) To you your mother's death is painful. The meaning you assign to it is that it was God's will and you will meet again. The meaning I assign is that Mom was always a terrible driver and it was bound to happen someday especially since she refused to wear glasses and to not text while driving.
Meaning is human made.
Prove me wrong.
CityzenJane 1 year ago
I of course should add that I would be grief stricken that my mother's terrible judgment and habits had cost her her life and your mothers as well...
CityzenJane 1 year ago
@CityzenJane Meaning is "human made" if God did not create us, thats the whole point! But this means it only exists in your mind and not in reality...therefore its not real meaning!
Yet most Western atheists live their life as if there is real morality and objective meaning,otherwise they wouldnt believe passionately in equality?human rights etc.
Yet they have borrowed these beliefs from Christian ideas because they make no sense without belief in a created Universe. now do you get it??
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
Jesus... Wilson is like nails on a chalkboard with his constructive.
ChrisZimny 1 year ago
wtf is he talking about. Wilson is lost on his own trail
timbersoccer10 1 year ago 2
Wow. Wilson's argument is pretty much the definition of a 'straw man'. What a load of rubbish.
jif99 1 year ago
Fascinating bit about the World Series.
endunamis 1 year ago
Things within the confines of art, music or literature are set by man made rules (laws) once a person memorised these rules/laws within their field they are considered 'good' at it. Once they have memorised these rules/laws and can now play with the rules or step outset the laws whilst still adhering to them then we enter the realms of being a great practitioner.
sum1otosh1 1 year ago
he spend almost 5 minute just talking about nothing with the audience hehe
lulumousie 1 year ago
hitchens looks younger than wilson
farerse 1 year ago
God is man-made control, nothing more, nothing less.
- Nathan Charles Gagné
nat6660 1 year ago
I'm surprised how Hitchens even considers this guy worthy of a debate. I have seen better theist arguments. It's only an apologist professor could invite such an ass to a debate. Such people deserve to spend their life with a belief in god, that is their best treatment.
iluvparixit 1 year ago
The teleological argument is redundant "without god there would be no reason.." A reason cannot exist without being attributed to something, so "before" the universe where/when/how would the reason exist? Do christians have a god function in their excel spreadsheets? Logic does not permit it.
breaneainn 1 year ago
I never get tired of listening to Hitchens.
Resenbrink 1 year ago 5
Wilson insists that God must exist for objective standards for beauty? Really??
OKAY THEN!
Can ANYONE tell me what the OBJECTIVE standard for beauty is? If it's objective, then it should be explainable in such a way that we can all look at it and agree on what is beautiful.
Is this standard to be found in the Bible? It must be, for how else can one claim that God sets the standard for beauty? Please supply the Book, chapter and verse(s).
DandAinTac 1 year ago
@DandAinTac It is objective. Do some reading on "The Beauty Equation". As it turns out, people tend to find things attractive when they are built in certain proportions. However, I think you have misapprehended Mr. Wilson's argument.
the13thof12 1 year ago
@the13thof12 Being fat, and a male, used to be a sign of attractiveness and wealth a few hundred years ago.
In the middle ages, women with FLAT chests were seen as more beautiful.
There is no objective view of what is or isn't beautiful.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
@Averagegamer100 Again, I think you've missed the point.
the13thof12 1 year ago
@the13thof12 There are no objective standards of beauty, it's all subjective.
Your post was pretty clear.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
@Averagegamer100 heh a universal moral giver gives out universal attraction.. i like it
lukeism2 1 year ago
@DandAinTac what a bizarre question. The point Lane Craig made was that, if God exists, then there is such a thing as objective truth, and objective morality, which never changes, and objective beauty because,if there is a God, these things exist OUTSIDE OF OURSELVES, and were not just created by our minds.
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk Are you talking about the question I posted 5 months ago asking what the objective standard of beauty is? Why is that bizarre? Craig claims there is one--please tell me what it is. There are a number of mistakes Craig (and you I guess) make with this argument. First, you are trying to claim an objective standard exists to begin with, when these things may be fundamentally subjective. Just because you WANT it to be objective does not make it so. (cont)
DandAinTac 1 year ago
@DandAinTac No, we are not "trying to claim an objective standard of beauty exists", what we are claiming is two things. First, that most atheists actually believe there is objective morality and objective truth, but they don't realise that such things couldn't exist if there is no creator.(If morality is just a by-product of evolutionary social mechanisms, there is no reason for atheists to get so worked up about "human rights") Secondly,without a designer, there is no meaning outside our minds
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk So, you have evidence that most atheists actually believe there is objective morality and truth? I don't. Provide evidence for this contention please. And please provide some evidence, or even logic, that these things require a creator in order to be objective. This is merely your assertion. You seem to be assuming that we are unable to set rational standards of morality. Maybe there is no meaning outside of conscious minds. "Meaning" is a subjective word we create.
DandAinTac 1 year ago
@DandAinTac I certainly do have evidence that most atheists think there is objective truth,and objective morality... their behaviour confirms it. Most atheists strongly denounce immoral acts (Chris Hitchens thunderously denounces the actions of many regimes) and most atheists believe in science (which pursues truth).None of these actions make any sense unless there is objective morality and objective truth. Why passionately denounce a crime if its not objectively "wrong"?
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk Prove to me that most atheists believe in objective morality. Do you have a link to a study or survey? You are merely making an assertion (again) without producing evidence. Sure we denounce immoral acts, but this does not prove that morality is objective. We can certainly denounce immorality even if it is subjective. You don't understand science. Science is not about finding truth. We can denounce a crime because people get hurt, and it breaks the laws we agree to live by.
DandAinTac 1 year ago
@DandAinTac I can prove to you that atheists believe in objective morality, simply because nothing they say or do would make any sense without it. For example, all decent atheists believe rape is objectively, absolutely wrong, and would strongly punish it, regardless of the circumstances of the perpetrator. Yet, if morality is not objective, but is simply a by-product of evolutionary social mechanism, rape is not inherently "wrong" its just bad for social cohesion within the species at present
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk There is also evidence that Christians are more likely to commit violent crimes, know less about religion in general than atheists and are less intelligent than atheists. None of these things has anything to do with whether or not Christianity is correct though, and I wouldn't insult you by suggesting that they did.
We believe rape is wrong not because there is an objective morality telling us to believe so, but because we are thoughtful empathic creatures who learn at a young age
Useless2112 11 months ago
@Useless2112 There is no such evidence whatsover, but many studies show Christianity is associated with longer, healthier, happier lives, and that many tenets of Christian morality (specifically support for lifelong marraige/opposition to abortion and contraception and pornography) also happen to be, what is best for human happiness, and health.
All empathy does is pretend you are feeling what your victim feels,it doesnt tell you something is objectively wrong, which most atheists believe it is.
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk Your first assertion is both incorrect and irrelevant. It is also entirely based on your opinion. "Most atheists" do NOT believe in objective morality, obviously, because they don't believe in a force which can create an objective morality. Empathy tells us that certain actions are wrong; the fact that this isn't objective means absolutely nothing and does not denigrate the validity of the judgment. Your description of what empathy is is also inaccurate.
Useless2112 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk how to interact withour fellow humans. Not all "decent" atheists believe that rape is objectively wrong because most atheists don't believe in objective morality. The implication that the subjective nature of morality somehow denigrates or weakens it is a Christian lie and logically absurd, so you have in fact proved nothing. I could just as well argue that English is the universe's objective form of communication because so many people speak it.
Useless2112 11 months ago
@Useless2112 Subjective morality does'nt "weaken" morality, it completely destroys it. If morality isnt objective, we can make it up as we go along, to suit ourselves, and, in that case, we can justify any crime,if circumstances are altered, and the powerful can bend the moral rules to suit themselves, at the expense of the weak.
All decent atheists believe in objective morality, which is why they assert moral truth with a certainty that is baseless unless morality is absolute and objective.
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk "If morality isnt objective, we can make it up as we go along, to suit ourselves, and, in that case, we can justify any crime,if circumstances are altered, and the powerful can bend the moral rules to suit themselves, at the expense of the weak."
All of that comes purely from the viewpoint of a single creature. Humans are social animals, which is why subjective morality tends to work. You have in fact described only a sociopath's view of the world.
Useless2112 11 months ago
@Useless2112 Atheism leads to tyranny because,when there is no higher authority, human power becomes the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.Subjective morality leads to tyranny because,when morality is subjective,and there is no authority above humans the interests of the strong prevail over the weak. That is why abortion/euthanasia are rising as atheism grows,the unborn and elderly are voiceless and weak, and no longer protected by the Christian idea all life is sacred,and law is above power.
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk "All decent atheists believe in objective morality, which is why they assert moral truth with a certainty that is baseless unless morality is absolute and objective."
Obviously not. Case in point: I am a "decent" atheist, and I try always to do right for my fellow humans. I don't believe in objective morality. I know many people who are exactly the same as me in this regard and none of them behave the way you assert that such a person would. Look around you and you'll see this too.
Useless2112 11 months ago
@Useless2112 Your so stupid that you've just proved my point, without realizing it. "I always do right for my fellow humans" who decides what is "right" if it isnt objective? How do we know your version of "right" isnt wrong, or might not become "wron"g tomorrow? Why bother doing "right" to other humans, if you and they are just purposeless, undesigned clusters of cells in a meaningless Universe, with no objective right and wrong, outside your own mind?
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk I decide what's right! My knowledge of what's right comes from the judgments I make about what will provide the greatest happiness for me and those around me! I don't need anyone to TELL me what's right! And you have the nerve to call me "stupid". You make so many assumptions, you use so little evidence. I honestly suggest you actually research this, because seeing all your comments I expected you to be able to make even a single point on the subject. You said nothing of substance.
Useless2112 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk Your "proof" fails. Just because you assert something, does not make it so. It might help if I explain "objective" vs "subjective". "Objective" means that which is an object. It can be sensed, measured, or at least demonstrated in a lab in some way. "Subjective" means that which is an idea--a human concept. (continued)
DandAinTac 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk Now as far as rape and "objective morality". If it's objectively wrong, we need a clear definition. I challenge you to come up with a definition of rape that is universal in all human cultures. In some cultures, a husband by definition cannot rape his wife, for example. You will find in every culture, there are variances in how rape is defined, and also how bad it is. If it were objective, every culture would have the exact same definition, and the same idea of how serious it is.
DandAinTac 11 months ago
Respond to this video... Oh, and you ask me to provide evidence that these things require a creator? Do you not know what subjective and objective mean? Logically, there cannot be objective truth if there is no source of truth outside of our minds.Similarly, there cannot be objective standards of "right" and "wrong" (morality) if morality is simply invented by humans, and can therefore be changed by humans.
relarerfhjk 1 year ago