Heh, if Christians argue that biblical slavery was so nice and good, then ask them if they would think it'd be okay to bring biblical slavery back in the modern day.
Regardless of how they answer it they will pwn themselves. Because if they say yes, they are pro-slavery. And if they say no, they're admitting their precious biblical slavery IS immoral after all. (Plus you can then also hammer them on why anything else in the bible should be considered moral, and on moral absolutism.)
But religion accounts for IMMORALITY. Religion is all about things like bigotry, genocide, slavery etc. The religious claim it's not, but it so obviously is.
As with the claim that Christianity has presuppositions and begging questions, so does Atheism. Where does it become incumbant that causing no harm IS the correct thing? In ALL the statements made, there is an underlying presupposition in order to continue on the path shown.
@buzzbbird "As with the claim that Christianity has presuppositions and begging questions, so does Atheism. Where does it become incumbant that causing no harm IS the correct thing?"
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. What on earth does this have to do with causing harm, or refraining from it? Also, there are concrete reasons why causing harm generally, but not always, is bad. It is not a presupposition, but a consideration of likely outcomes based on experience.
@buzzbbird Just to take one limited example, if I cause harm to everyone I meet, then they will not want to be around me voluntarily, or cooperate with me, or help me if I get in trouble. I'll also be seen as a threat that they'd likely eliminate if given the chance. There outcomes are a huge loss for me, so there would have to be a huge payoff for me to even consider general violence as an option. And this is purely from an economic evaluation of a situation, not a moral one.
I was talking to Matt Slick the other day and he was complaining about that debate with Matt D felt like it took light years before he pwn'd those dirty atheists. I swear to gawd he did! ^_^
@DemoraX bcuz i acutally care about my existence, i acutally research and try to find what is truth to our world. what is logical and what can be proven, even though i might not have or know all the answers it does become pretty clear. a thinking mind would realize that.
@silverkeen07 yeah, thats the point i was making, i'm an athiest myself but i just noticed most of the callers are christians and they always sound like extremely uneducated hicks with the general argument "i dun no be no monkey!" or "look at da trees!"
but on the rare occasion that an athiest calls in they actually sound like they have a brain in their skull :)
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
In fact atheism is NOT a position at all, so his "prods" aren't going to get much back :). Nice to see such a versed and articulate theologian descending to shifting the burden of proof.
"I don't believe you."
"Defend that unbelief!"
"No. Get out."
Seems like even the best theologians are still theologians...
@JMUDoc Right, he's basically doing what Shock of God did with his "proof & evidence that atheism is accurate and correct" nonsense. He ran out of arguments for the the exisance of god, & can't answer the questions asked of him, so he's in defense mode now.
I wonder when it will happen to William Lane Craig. He's been regurgitating the same tired old arguments for a LONG time now...
Matt Slick is a complete IDIOT! He is a pervert who is addicted to porn and tells anyone who disagrees with him that they have no understanding of logic. Obviously the opposite is true. He likes to have his lovers have abortions. You are a naughty naughty man Mr. Slick. GO SUCK A FUCKING DICK!!!!
Morality evolves or evolution accounts for morality. Religion has evolved. They don't stone people anymore or do they? Slavery, rape and honor killings etc has all been a thing of the past in most religions. This has been the evolution of morality for the good of society. We the people have done this not religion.
@baxtar1963 Oh please, if evolution is the basis of morality how do you bridge Hume's Is-Ought gap? No secular account of morality can seem to answer this.. how do you infer an Ought statement from a fact about the world?
I have got to say that Dillahunty's attempts to refute TAG were sophomoric, but that still doesn't mean TAG is off the hook. It is horrible, it misrepresents the Laws of logic, begs the question, and is contradictory when it is reformulated through predicate calculus. It seems like all these people have not even taken a philosophy class, the lack of academia is self-evident.
I do not blame atheists for getting angry... after all, they are an extreme minority. In times of dire need, they take advantage of support from churches only to turn around and spit back. An animal like that is why atheists are viewed as a person who lives without hope and serenity. They have deeply rooted insecurities. My 15 year old son has a better attitude then many of these "YouTube atheists." What they need is a good dose of church, AMEN!
oh you are on of these types. its ok, your deluded view of atheists and insulting preaching on this video are well noted. however i think you should consider how much of an ignorant coward you make yourself look like my misrepresenting our position and by just claiming that god exists and saying we curse while simultaneously refusing to properly respond to or refute criticisms toward your unsupported claims and assertions. one day the world will be without morons like you.
you talk about debating and yet you have no idea on how to debate. even an 18 year old child like me could easily wreck you. not that i would have to try considering you have committed two logical fallacies including ad hominem and straw man fallacy. i understand you wanting to attack us because you are ignorant and obviously a self righteous asshole with no understanding of even basic intellectual concepts or logic. this is evidenced by your problem with vulgarity.
@aggienostic pwned? C'mon: all I was doing is telling him that cursing in a debate is a sign of weakness... If anyone should agree, it would be you, not that it really matters. JustTrollinAlong is not getting the best of me: if anything I set him off just trying to explain that cursing at someone is not very effective...
@RayTech70 I spoke too soon, my apologies...I still don't believe in your silly myths though (wanna debate on it?) Have you visited JustTrollinAlong profile?Their website?He trashes on a 60 year old woman and is proud of it. What you are dealing with here is a messed-up pube angry at religion because of his sexual preference. I would just leave him alone:it's one thing to trouble an atheist, but a whole other when they are a homosexual atheist...I think you hurt his feelings.
@aggienostic A debate would be great :) On the homo atheist I'll just ignore him/it... I've seen this before. I'll pray for him. He needs to find sex rehabilitation and anger management counselor. Now I feel sorry for him.
im not gay and im not in need of any anger management. i asked how cursing is a sign or weakness and you were unable to provide any evidential or logical justification for your assertion. all you did was commit 2 logical fallacies and constantly insult me, and you think you know how to debate after doing that? i fell bad for you and your self delusion.
@JustTrollinAlong I never called you gay-- I simply said that if you were, then I would have pity on you. I still do... I really don't time to back-and-forth with you-- look up YouTube video: "AronRa on being vitriolic" and you'll see what I mean. Being level-headed and calm in your demeanor will tell your audience that you are comfortable with your views and opinions-- the vitriol, however, works against you. Take it or leave it: I don't care. I find you very dull and boring, sorry.
you did call me gay and you are now a liar. you said "On the homo atheist I'll just ignore him/it" and you also said "He needs to find sex rehabilitation" and then you said you feel sorry for me but that was a different sentence and you made it as its own point. you are a liar and you still havent demonstrated how cursing is a sign or weakness. dull and boring mean the same thing. go back to school or read a dictionary or something. i just proved you are a liar.
@JustTrollinAlong This is the last time I respond: you really need to get some counseling... look above, "aggienostic" said you were gay and I reacted... your beef is with them! It's pointless talking to you obviously do not read or follow through with the topic.How you consider yourself as having above average intelligence is beyond me? Self centered? Egotistic? I highly recommend you swallow your pride and try to learn something. I'm pretty sure you won't but that's you're loss, not mine.
you havent presented anything for me to learn and whether or not aggienostic said anything is irrelevant because you still said that i was gay and i gave quotes to support that and thus proved you are a liar because you did call me gay and then right after that you said you didnt. your reaction still was an assertion that i was gay and was both implied and expressed. again, you havent presented anything for me to learn, you simply make unsupported assertions.
you didnt hurt my feelings at all. you just called me gay and then you said that you didnt and i pointed out thats a lie. if you think you have something you cant teach me then go ahead and teach me. but dont just assert things and then not back them up with evidence or logic and dont say you didnt say something when you did say it.
im not gay, nor am i angry at religion. i do tend to get agressive while i am arguing with people but its my fault and i need to not do that so much. that argument with that women was a while ago. and its not "their website" its mine and mine alone. by the way that women started the argument with me and she was unable to defend her belief. calling me names and trying to make fun of me does nothing. raytech70 does not understand that cursing has nothing to do with weakness.
ray kept saying it was a sign of weakness and even telling me i was a slave and destined to live alone and when i asked ray to prove it was a sign of weakness or give some evidence or logical reason to support that claim, ray was unable to do so and just ignored me. you act like you are superior but all you have done is mock me, how sad.
@RayTech70 That is funny. How would an atheist get a good dose of church of a god in which the atheist does not believe in? LOL swirl that around in your head.
The best debaters do not let their emotions override them as it does atheists. Their weakness (using shortcuts such as expletives to drive a point home) confounds them and it's not their fault. They are habitual liars, frightened in a conversation with a theist... because they know they are wrong and like an animal, they run and hide and pretend that they matter-- which they do-- God will see them take special aim at Christians in the effort to devolve them to the rank of a wounded atheist.
Cursing is the sign of a weak mind that has no creativity, a hopeless soul driven by materialistic things... a HOPELESS slave destined to die with little or no friends.
oh really? and how do you know its a sign of the weak? do you have any evidence or logical reason to support that? if so then present it. if you cannot then you are just making things up and you are a laughable fool.
you say its a sign of the weak well prove it kid. so far you have yet to prove that its a sign of weakness and you have yet to point out any flaw or weakness in my arguments. i have pointed out your weak ground for your assertions which means your lack of evidence. i have pointed out the flaw/weakness in your logic regarding the assessment of statements containing vulgarity, and i am now pointing out the logical fallacy you are committing called ad hominem.
thats 3 weaknesses in your arguments i have pointed out and you have yet to show a single weakness in my arguments. either prove that vulgarity is a sign of weakness or you have will lost the argument completely, i say completely because you have already been logically losing the argument the whole time.
If you have to use profanity to get attention or to get a point across, it simply means that you are not creative enough to express your point clearly... think about it: if the president dropped f-bombs like Matt does, he'd get razzed for it. Biden drops f-bombs all the time and he's a laughing stock. I use cuss words myself, but not in a public forum-- it's a sign of laziness and lack of creativity as well as credibility. "Positive Atheism?" I think not.
cuss words are most often used as exclamations. only an intellectually vacuous fucking moron like you would ignore the main points somebody makes and focus on a bad word they said. im pretty sure that falls under the ad hominem logical fallacy and im also pretty sure that you are a colossal dumbshit because you focus more on the vulgarity rather than the essence of whats being said. and dont claim its not positive atheism when you havent given your defintion of postive atheism.
@JustTrollinAlong Okay, I'm only going to waste my time ONCE responding to your foul mouth, foul minded personality. If a person wants to get through to an opposition, labeling people "morons" and "idiots" and flinging cuss words is only going to drive them further away. Matt admitted this in an interview with Aron Ra (the thinking atheist). When Biden dropped an f-bomb his and Obama's ratings dipped and it's because people do not respect those that curse because it's an indication of weakness
oh yeah? and who are you to decide it indicates weakness? YOU ARE A MORON because you just judged my entire personality off one comment you ignoramus. i dont care to get through to you because somebody like you who hastily judges the entirety of someone based on one comment is obviously too deluded to accept any external views especially when you state your opinions as thought they are fact and yet you give no evidence or logic to support your vacuous and absurd drivel.
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing....For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and the Greeks foolishness....not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called...the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1Corninthians)
Its funny how atheist(in my experience) take the Bible out of context (Mainly from the old testament) to disprove Christianity! Lol anyways there speaking about being cowardly in the beginning but why is it that? Why can Atheist attack Christians on there beliefs and questions them and not the other way around? Not only is it not fair(Which i dont blame you for since your moral values are subjective) but its childish! Lol and you complain about the way we defend our views!? Lol failed reasoning!
@Poxlajetik Christianity can be disproved without taking anything out of context, with just the ascribed properties of the God itself.
Argument from Divine Hiddeness
Omniscience + Omnipotence vs Freewill
Problem of Evil
Euthyphro dilemma against objective morality
The bible verses are just brought up in a bit of fun. It's quite a spectacle watching the mental gymnastics christians go through to try and justify them.
@Poxlajetik Well if these things have debunked countless times, then you should have no trouble with them right?
Start with the first one: Argument from Divine Hiddeness
Probably the single best argument. It is my personal favorite at least. I shouldn't have to lay out the premises right? Since afterall, you claim to know it so well that you know it has been debunked countless times.
@Poxlajetik Only if you are truthful with me. Tell me honestly, did you just gloss over my list and assume that there are refutations out there without actually knowing what they are?
@playerwithfaith truthfully the only one i didnt recognize was Euthyphro Dil. vs Obj. morality. But everything else i have heard there cases and how they have been refuted :\ thats my fault i just saw the 1st 3 and assumed i heard all cases
There can be no "moral law" without a moral law Giver.
Who cares if an Atheist is "immoral" Why are Atheists so hung up on insisting that they are "moral"? If you do not believe that there is an "ultimate" consequence for your actions.. then really!?? what is the big deal?
Call a Spade a Spade.
Everyone of us wants to believe that our "Right" is right, and his or her "Wrong" is wrong. Defending moral relativism without consensus is pointless. You are just wearing out your keyboard!
@n8tron25 There is no moral law as absolute good and evil. However every action has concequences and we can predict them within reasonable limits. Performing actions that generally reduce suffering can be seen as morally correct, while increasing it unnececarily can be considered immoral. This is at a really basic level and Matt already pointed out why not to follow it blindly, but we can consider the morality of actions without a moral law. That is why we have rejected so much of the bible laws
@sharkjack You are kind of taking on two different topics here. First, I still do not understand why an atheist would even care about defending "morality" by any definition ... that was my point in the post. Second, "Bible laws" is very ambiguous. Certainly the message of Jesus is not one that "unnecessarily" increases suffering.
Jesus admonished us to love God, and to love our neighbor as our self.
@n8tron25 I don't like suffering. I know people don't like suffering in general so I can use my own dislike of suffering to get to the conclusion that it would be better to reduce suffering. All I said was that there are no moral laws neccecary for moral behavior. Besides plenty of social animals have morals, so it's no surprise that we do too.
@n8tron25 "First, I still do not understand why an atheist would even care about defending "morality" by any definition."
There's only one definition of morality that I know of, So what assertion are you making? That atheists don't have morals? Or they don't have a right to defend them in the first place? That morals don't take place in atheism whatsoever?....Or is your assertion that morals come from religion, the most common ignorant argument?...
@LurchibaldBioshock Of course science can answer some moral questions. Of course love, passion, emphati and so on are evolutionary feelings that were benefitial to the human spiecy. I was trying to say that the claim that atheists are immoral CAN be tested.
@gulbirk It has been tested. There are several countries with an atheist majority of population. Check their life standard rates, their crime rates, their tolerance rates, etc.
"Why is there something rather than nothing." The question, common though it is, is backwards. Since there obviously is something rather than nothing, it seems to me that we should be asking: Why should there be nothing rather than something.
You know what I think accounts for morality? Sociology. Some people major in it. I bet that there are even whole departments at schools somewhere study The Sociology of Morality. I think that theists should try to find some of them and write to them instead of asking some random atheists to explain it. I'm not a sociology major, but I have search engines in my browser...Damnit! Thanks, had to get that out before I FPFP'd myself.
@trueleroix I would say that Psychology (neuroscience) and sociology, (for example the study of memes, and how they effect the social/moral Zeitgeist), would be the best avenues to take if we want to understand morality.
@trueleroix Morality comes from humanism, and is stolen by religion. Every human being (except sociopaths) has the ability to feel guilty when they do something wrong, empathize when they see other creatures in pain, and help others in need. These are traits humans evolved, because if we never did, we never of would of gotten this far. Our ancestors 50,000 years ago would never of survived if they didn't learn how to cooperate. It's hard to kill a mammoth by yourself lol
@CenkIsAdorable Kind of... Humanism is a name for a modern philosophy. This would be studied in both philosophy and sociology. The empathy and cooperative behaviors that you speak of do account for the origins of it, but it is merely a name that people made up for a very specific philosophy. One would never apply the term humanism to a pod of humpback whales for instance.
I think that theists forcing us to defend our position would result in a much more cogent position on our part. I for one, am happy to defend my position at any time.
At no point in the video did Matt Slick say that the way to talk with Atheists is to attack their beliefs, he said it was to get them to elaborate on why they believe in atheism to try and get them to see that atheism is irrational. At no point did Slick attack atheism when he was debating with Dillahunty. And yet dillahunty wants to question slicks honesty?
@tharip We know that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. You have absolutely no basis for saying it's not eternal. No one is saying the universe came from nothing. You're one the who's saying a a God came into existence from nothing.
@tharip Matter and energy last I read could not be destroyed so they are eternal. Second, because we don't know what happened before the big bang does not mean it came form nothing. That is your uneducated assumption. Those who study these things do not assert that. The only ones saying something came from nothing are those who believe in a god. Cont'd...
@tharip Part2... You say god is eternal, yet you have no proof of a god's existence in the 1st place. You made up a concept of god and then gave it attributes that answer your questions. Anyone can make up attributes as their definition and not back them up. I can say I am god and I control all your actions. Its all meaningless without evidence. Better yet, I can say I believe in a super God that is better than your god and created your god.
WRONG, We have over 5,686 greek manuscripts, based on eye-witness accounts, claiming that Jesus was revealing God in human form! and his perfect miraculous lifestsyle was a testimony to his claims! if rising from the dead after being crucified isn't enough proof, then I would advise you review your criterea for criticism!
@tharip First off your numbers are wrong. Second if "eye witness" testimony was valid on these things, we'd have "proof" of psychics and EVERY religion in the world! Not to mention you are talking about 2000 year old testimonies when people thought the world was flat and we were the center of the universe. Also please produce ONE document from Jesus' time. The oldest of any writing we have are way past the time Jesus supposedly lived.
@tharip Cont'd.. Plus a growing number of historians are agreeing that Jesus was an allegorical character anyway most likely created by Paul and is an amalgam of many stories. Plus do you have any idea how many characters in history and literature are resurrected and perform "miracles"? If you believe everything you read in 2000 year old books, why not believe Islam or Buddism or ancient Greek religions? What makes your book more reliable?
@tharip i think what you fail to understand,is that even if god came here and presented himself personally to me,i wouldn't worship him if he were the god from the bible,that god is a disgusting,egotistical,sadistic monster. If i did believe in god,i wouldn't be able to help thinking that the bible were a book written by the bad guy,as a smear job on the good guy...god killed millions,satan killed what,10? nice divine being
@ThieleM thats sort of my argument,when you read all of the things god did,and all of the things Lucifer did,Lucifer really comes out smelling like roses. don't get me wrong,i don't believe any of it happened,but the devil seems like a much nicer guy even in gods autobiography.
@ThieleM I would argue that it was less permission,than encouragement....the way i took it was god said,hey check out my homie Job,that dude loves me,look,even if you kill his family he'll still love me,go ahead,try it and see
@ThieleM where can i find this in the bible. info like this helps me convince theists they are retarded.. strike that they are to retarded to change,.. no really where can i find this?
@ThieleM thx and you know i will .. right now. i have read most of the bible over a few times.. skipping some do to how much is just repeated but it is hard to remember things sometimes or it is missunderstood from the meanings. thx again
No need for richard dawkins quotes, for he gives the most perverted explanations of the Bible, and fails to understand/accept the true value of Christ, I wouldn't learn about the value of a Jew from a nazi, hence why it is a bad Idea to learn about Christ from Dawkins!
@ViralMessiah - you talk as if there is an absolute ethical standard. Very telling...but to be clear, there is nothing wrong with killing millions in your worldview, except of course, that it may be against YOUR personal standard. Very subjective to say the least. By raising the point that there is something wrong with murder, you assume the very worldview which you attempt to deny. AMAZING - ROMANS 1:22
@jsktheflash there IS an absolute ethical standard,or at least there is for serious ethical infractions,we call it the LAW....but since god was so good as to give you a moral compass,why didn't he ever condemn child molesting? it seems like maybe our current society is more moral than the alleged giver of morals. now should we take God,and his son,and the entire biography of the aforementioned gods lack of comment on child molesting to mean that it's alright to molest children?
I would suggest that utilitarianism or social contract theory can be seen as "compatible' with atheism, although those explanations for morality are not being derived from atheism itself. Ie. They are secular models for morality.
@tharip Really? So how many parents do you know, who once their kids were born, completely abandoned them and left them to their own devices for the rest of their lives?
@tharip Um... sorry? An all powerful, omnipotent, omniscient being that created the universe and humans "cannot" force us to do anything? Did I read you correctly?
"unfortuantaley, GOD cannot force us to make decisions against our free will, however we will be held acountable for our decisions on judgement day!"
@tharip It's not just some coincidence. Hell is the punishment because God created it and orders people to go there. If you're going to be disingenuous, why bother talking to people?
@tharip - I always suspected that the notion of a god coming out of nowhere and randomly deciding to create a world to toy with was very much like a big selfish game-- thanks for confirming it!
@tharip Also you are dead wrong. By all that we know, energy IS eternal. Unless you can demonstrate and prove that it isn't, you are simply wrong.
By the way NO ONE states something came from nothing but religion. You claim god made something from nothing. Big bang does not claim that in any way shape or form, you need to do some research on this shit.
@tharip So you consider a healthy relationship with your children to tell them they are sinners and aren't worth your time or even good enough to be near you, and that you are so perfect and because of that you will slaughter one of your other kids so they can come with you? You consider a healthy relationship with your children is torturing a great many of them? If your god exists, his relationship with man is cruel, abusive, and evil...far from healthy.
@AtheistExperience in regards to Mr Slick's false dichotomy..Matt, your making an error by not recognizing both claims, A and B. All your saying is not A. If you want to say not A and not B, then there must in fact be SOME other option. YET, you know of no other option. If you want to deny either claim then you must have a reason to, and not just for the sake of denying.. simply denying both claims DOES NOT suggest false dichotomy.
@EmbraceDorkhood - "a human" is subjective...": SUBJECTIVE: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal — (compare objective). Objecive truths are not person relative...I do not believe that you know the difference. In any sense, this will be my last post...and I will allow you to have the last word if you would like.
@EmbraceDorkhood - I do not see the logic because you are irrational. All a human is in your worldview is advanced protoplasm and a mistake..and as a result, there is no authority except the culture, that binds me to respect this advanced protoplasm. In your worldview, YOU may feel that something is wrong, but I may not. Who is right and who is wrong? I know, it is what culture states and empathy...subjective nonsense...without an "ought" you lose and you have no ought so you lose.
@EmbraceDorkhood - if the laws of logic are "conceptual abstractions...dependant upon the mind" - Then I will just create my own laws right now that claim that everything you say is nonsense. Is that acceptable? Of course not...because the laws of logic are just that, LAWS...universals and particulars my friend...you can account for the one but not the other...you are speaking about conventions and not laws...conventions are mind relivant...laws are not. Logical LAWS are true w/o minds
@EmbraceDorkhood - First, if you claim immaterials, as you just did, then you lose because all that exists in your universe is the material. Second, sure I can prove it...the laws of logic are abstract and the reflective thinking of God. Being abstract, they are immaterial and universals...since your worldview cannot account for abstractions, you lose...PERIOD...also, since all other world religions and worldviews cannot account for these, then the Bible is true. Please account for immaterials..
@EmbraceDorkhood - Empathy is subjective and person relivant...you must be kidding...also, I could care less if you agree with my stances on objectives because (1) you cannot account for them and (2) your explination was about subjective feelings. I am speaking about an objective standard because of moral absolutes...you are speaking of subjective empathy. Since there are moral absolutes, which constitute the objective standard, then that standard must have come from a transcendent being.
@EmbraceDorkhood - That has always been your stance, yet, in a previous post you stated; "Morals are subjective, even if you can;t see this". Sorry, but I am just going by what you have told me. It is only later that you attempted to tie an objective aspect to your subjective standard...so, there is no straw man...besides, your account of objective is nonsense because objective is accounted for outside of the person. All you are claiming is utilitarian standards...btw, I just stated it once...
@EmbraceDorkhood - who cares if I affect the emotional attachments of protoplasm? This is subjective nonsense. Are you honestly maintaining that the collective sum of subjective opinion can become an objective truth. Man, I guess the world was at one time flat...after all, that was the subjective opinion that must have, according to your standard, become the objective truth. "Most normal thinking..." What is normal in a random universe? "Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world"
@EmbraceDorkhood - because abstraction are immaterial and you are a materialist...hence, you lose and the God of the Bible wins.
LOL...it has been fun speaking with you on these issues. I do hope that you will reflect on the nonsense that you call a worldview. You claim abstractions, an immaterial, and cannot account for them...wow. Regardless, I do hope that the Lord brings you to the point of understanding. Trust in Christ, if He wills to draw you...have a nice life and I mean that...
@EmbraceDorkhood - the evidence is that MY worldview can account for immaterial abstractions and yours cannot. Also, how do you know that I do not know how these things came about? Do you have universal experience? How do you know that I have zero evidence? This is getting even more foolish. Of course I have evidence to present, but you do not accept it because of your dead condition and your presuppositions. Good day...
@EmbraceDorkhood - ahhh...yes and you have no real objection against such a thing except for your opinion. You are in your Intellectual underwear again.
@EmbraceDorkhood - "That's genocidal, infantcidal, homocidal. But you refuse to call something what it is." Wow, you are acting like there is some sort of objective standard that exists...You should have stated "According to MY subjective opinion, that's genocidal, infantcidal, homocidal." The sad thing is that you cannot even see your error. By you claiming an objective standard, and evil, you prove my worldview once again. Thank you sir for affirming an objective standard.
@EmbraceDorkhood - Deut. 25:12...yes, I'm good with that because it is in God's Law and all that He does is good...He's the standard of good. See, I have a standard of good...an objective standard. Also, you are good with Deut. 25:12 also because hay, everyone has the right to have their own subjective standard. So, I guess we both agree. "It's the fool that says in his heart, there is no God" Your arguments are shown to be nonsense. Flee from the wrath to come...and I say that in love.
@EmbraceDorkhood - I do not have to prove God is immaterial, exists or not reliant on reality because I presuppose God's word & you would not accpet my evidence (see Rom. 1:18). Also, I again notice that you claim immaterial concepts...please account for the immaterial in your worldview. Again, you prove my point. Every thought shows that you are wrong as an atheist. Thoughts are dependent indeed (except God's thoughts), but logical laws are not. They are LAWS not dependent on the human mind. TY
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:18-20, ESV)
@EmbraceDorkhood - Abstractions are material in nature?...can you please show me where I can see or touch a law of logic. What you are speaking of is electro-chemical brain gas and conventions...laws of logic are not dependent on the human mind - THEY ARE LAWS. The law of NC is true regardless of a mind there to notice it. If logical laws are dependent on the mind, then we can simply make some new laws here in our debate now, can't we. Look out, I'm setting you up! Jesus is Lord brother...
@EmbraceDorkhood - You just conceded the debate if you grant that logic is immaterial...because you cannot account for abstractions. And no, that is not my stance (& TY for granting the immaterial, as if there was a doubt). My stance is that there is only one worldview that can account for universal, abstract invariants such as the laws of logic, and we find the basis of that worldview in the Bible via the revealed character and attributes of God. Logical Laws are not dependent on humans btw...
@EmbraceDorkhood - In your worldview, it is wrong, or not wrong, depending on the subjective opinion of the person...but it is NEVER really wrong because there is no authority behind the ethics claim. Next, in your universe, who cares if it causes pain...that child is simply a bag of stuff that came about by chance. And again, you seem to be implying that there is a moral standard...please demonstrate this in an objective way. Until you do so, you are simply telling me your opinion on morals. TY
@EmbraceDorkhood Your question is a non-question because it does not assume my worldview…and you are asking it of me and my God. (1) Revelation has ceased with the close of the New Testament Canon so your question fails there, (2) the Christian is to test the Spirits against the written word of God as the normative standard and (3) the Law of God reflects His character and hence, is holy -please show me why rape is wrong given the subjective standard that the rapist chooses...demonstrate this.
@EmbraceDorkhood - “Ought is morraly repugnant” – OPINION and EVALUATION…Next, you are going to send yourself to Hell, unless you repent. Also, Hell is just for you because God’s Law is objective and immutable. The “murderer” has his penalty paid through Jesus and His atonement. “Ought is the easy way out” – OPINION. Next you bring up things being “wrong.” Why is something objectively wrong in your worldview…demonstrate it please.
@EmbraceDorkhood - Straw-Man...God could not do such a thing because it is against His holy character...and His character is the source of objective ethics...not His decree. However, in your universe, there is nothing wrong with molesting the 5 yr/old girl, because you have no standard of good, no standard of objective ethics. In your universe, is there anything wrong with that outside of the laws of the land...if so, please show me this. Instruct this poor Christian theist on ethics please.
Heh, if Christians argue that biblical slavery was so nice and good, then ask them if they would think it'd be okay to bring biblical slavery back in the modern day.
Regardless of how they answer it they will pwn themselves. Because if they say yes, they are pro-slavery. And if they say no, they're admitting their precious biblical slavery IS immoral after all. (Plus you can then also hammer them on why anything else in the bible should be considered moral, and on moral absolutism.)
TheSkunkCat 1 month ago
Sure atheism doesn't account for morality.
But religion accounts for IMMORALITY. Religion is all about things like bigotry, genocide, slavery etc. The religious claim it's not, but it so obviously is.
TheSkunkCat 1 month ago
As with the claim that Christianity has presuppositions and begging questions, so does Atheism. Where does it become incumbant that causing no harm IS the correct thing? In ALL the statements made, there is an underlying presupposition in order to continue on the path shown.
buzzbbird 3 months ago
@buzzbbird "As with the claim that Christianity has presuppositions and begging questions, so does Atheism. Where does it become incumbant that causing no harm IS the correct thing?"
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. What on earth does this have to do with causing harm, or refraining from it? Also, there are concrete reasons why causing harm generally, but not always, is bad. It is not a presupposition, but a consideration of likely outcomes based on experience.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@buzzbbird Just to take one limited example, if I cause harm to everyone I meet, then they will not want to be around me voluntarily, or cooperate with me, or help me if I get in trouble. I'll also be seen as a threat that they'd likely eliminate if given the chance. There outcomes are a huge loss for me, so there would have to be a huge payoff for me to even consider general violence as an option. And this is purely from an economic evaluation of a situation, not a moral one.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
matt slick was crushed when asked to defend his absolutes here:
fatfist hubpages com/hub/There-are-NO-Absolutes-There-is-NO-Absolute-Truth
see the comments at the bottom
tsixles 3 months ago
I was talking to Matt Slick the other day and he was complaining about that debate with Matt D felt like it took light years before he pwn'd those dirty atheists. I swear to gawd he did! ^_^
jamesejudy3 4 months ago
notice how the athiest callers (as few as they are) always sound intellectual? :)
DemoraX 5 months ago
@DemoraX bcuz i acutally care about my existence, i acutally research and try to find what is truth to our world. what is logical and what can be proven, even though i might not have or know all the answers it does become pretty clear. a thinking mind would realize that.
silverkeen07 4 months ago
@silverkeen07 yeah, thats the point i was making, i'm an athiest myself but i just noticed most of the callers are christians and they always sound like extremely uneducated hicks with the general argument "i dun no be no monkey!" or "look at da trees!"
but on the rare occasion that an athiest calls in they actually sound like they have a brain in their skull :)
DemoraX 4 months ago
I think a moral action is one which accords with virtue.
yatter1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (Donated) For Debates And Governance
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
:43 "...to keep proding the atheist to defend their position".
My position is this: I don't believe you.
Where do we go from here?
Zentz29 6 months ago
Comment removed
Zentz29 6 months ago
@Zentz29
In fact atheism is NOT a position at all, so his "prods" aren't going to get much back :). Nice to see such a versed and articulate theologian descending to shifting the burden of proof.
"I don't believe you."
"Defend that unbelief!"
"No. Get out."
Seems like even the best theologians are still theologians...
JMUDoc 6 months ago
@JMUDoc Right, he's basically doing what Shock of God did with his "proof & evidence that atheism is accurate and correct" nonsense. He ran out of arguments for the the exisance of god, & can't answer the questions asked of him, so he's in defense mode now.
I wonder when it will happen to William Lane Craig. He's been regurgitating the same tired old arguments for a LONG time now...
Zentz29 6 months ago
@Zentz29
Martin called those arguments "PRATT" - previously refuted a thousand times.
WLC, acknowledged by Xians to be their finest apologist, usually uses
Kalam (points to no specific theistic god - incomplete)
Fine-tuning (points to no specific theistic god - self-refuting)
Moral (points to no specific theistic god - based on an unfounded premise)
Five Es (apparently an empty tomb is ALWAYS evidence of resurrection)
You have to wonder why they keep making these corpses of arguments...
JMUDoc 6 months ago 7
@JMUDoc
Because there is an empty tomb for these arguments :P
Of course being an empty tomb proves that they must be correct and keep coming back
WaltonSauce 2 months ago
@Zentz29 You have to believe me or I´ll kill you and send you to hell for all eternity. How´s that?
yatter1 5 months ago
Matt Slick is just today's version of Jesus: "Now everyone go forth and spread the bullshit"
berner 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Matt Slick is a complete IDIOT! He is a pervert who is addicted to porn and tells anyone who disagrees with him that they have no understanding of logic. Obviously the opposite is true. He likes to have his lovers have abortions. You are a naughty naughty man Mr. Slick. GO SUCK A FUCKING DICK!!!!
MrSupernova890 7 months ago
Morality evolves or evolution accounts for morality. Religion has evolved. They don't stone people anymore or do they? Slavery, rape and honor killings etc has all been a thing of the past in most religions. This has been the evolution of morality for the good of society. We the people have done this not religion.
baxtar1963 8 months ago 15
@baxtar1963 Oh please, if evolution is the basis of morality how do you bridge Hume's Is-Ought gap? No secular account of morality can seem to answer this.. how do you infer an Ought statement from a fact about the world?
meeene4 1 month ago
@meeene4 Worried about writings in a book from 1749? LMAO!! Get with the times, man.
Here, I'll address your issue......In order for agent A to achieve goal B, A reasonably ought to do C. DONE! No problems and no errors.
gvman3670 1 month ago
I have got to say that Dillahunty's attempts to refute TAG were sophomoric, but that still doesn't mean TAG is off the hook. It is horrible, it misrepresents the Laws of logic, begs the question, and is contradictory when it is reformulated through predicate calculus. It seems like all these people have not even taken a philosophy class, the lack of academia is self-evident.
meeene4 8 months ago
Hmmm Matt would I be wrong to think maybe you had a few drinks before the show?
jklein17 8 months ago
As an atheist myself, I found this video rather interesting:
watch?v=Gx-s6zY9vP4
What are your thoughts on this my fellow atheists?
goldenram27 9 months ago
I do not blame atheists for getting angry... after all, they are an extreme minority. In times of dire need, they take advantage of support from churches only to turn around and spit back. An animal like that is why atheists are viewed as a person who lives without hope and serenity. They have deeply rooted insecurities. My 15 year old son has a better attitude then many of these "YouTube atheists." What they need is a good dose of church, AMEN!
RayTech70 9 months ago
@RayTech70
oh you are on of these types. its ok, your deluded view of atheists and insulting preaching on this video are well noted. however i think you should consider how much of an ignorant coward you make yourself look like my misrepresenting our position and by just claiming that god exists and saying we curse while simultaneously refusing to properly respond to or refute criticisms toward your unsupported claims and assertions. one day the world will be without morons like you.
JustTrollinAlong 9 months ago
@RayTech70
the second part
you talk about debating and yet you have no idea on how to debate. even an 18 year old child like me could easily wreck you. not that i would have to try considering you have committed two logical fallacies including ad hominem and straw man fallacy. i understand you wanting to attack us because you are ignorant and obviously a self righteous asshole with no understanding of even basic intellectual concepts or logic. this is evidenced by your problem with vulgarity.
JustTrollinAlong 9 months ago
@RayTech70 LOL you are getting pwned by an 18 year old that knows more than you do! LOL you need to get a good dose of "reality."
aggienostic 9 months ago
@aggienostic pwned? C'mon: all I was doing is telling him that cursing in a debate is a sign of weakness... If anyone should agree, it would be you, not that it really matters. JustTrollinAlong is not getting the best of me: if anything I set him off just trying to explain that cursing at someone is not very effective...
RayTech70 9 months ago
@RayTech70 I spoke too soon, my apologies...I still don't believe in your silly myths though (wanna debate on it?) Have you visited JustTrollinAlong profile?Their website?He trashes on a 60 year old woman and is proud of it. What you are dealing with here is a messed-up pube angry at religion because of his sexual preference. I would just leave him alone:it's one thing to trouble an atheist, but a whole other when they are a homosexual atheist...I think you hurt his feelings.
aggienostic 9 months ago
@aggienostic A debate would be great :) On the homo atheist I'll just ignore him/it... I've seen this before. I'll pray for him. He needs to find sex rehabilitation and anger management counselor. Now I feel sorry for him.
RayTech70 9 months ago
@RayTech70
im not gay and im not in need of any anger management. i asked how cursing is a sign or weakness and you were unable to provide any evidential or logical justification for your assertion. all you did was commit 2 logical fallacies and constantly insult me, and you think you know how to debate after doing that? i fell bad for you and your self delusion.
JustTrollinAlong 9 months ago
@JustTrollinAlong I never called you gay-- I simply said that if you were, then I would have pity on you. I still do... I really don't time to back-and-forth with you-- look up YouTube video: "AronRa on being vitriolic" and you'll see what I mean. Being level-headed and calm in your demeanor will tell your audience that you are comfortable with your views and opinions-- the vitriol, however, works against you. Take it or leave it: I don't care. I find you very dull and boring, sorry.
RayTech70 9 months ago
@RayTech70
you did call me gay and you are now a liar. you said "On the homo atheist I'll just ignore him/it" and you also said "He needs to find sex rehabilitation" and then you said you feel sorry for me but that was a different sentence and you made it as its own point. you are a liar and you still havent demonstrated how cursing is a sign or weakness. dull and boring mean the same thing. go back to school or read a dictionary or something. i just proved you are a liar.
JustTrollinAlong 9 months ago
@JustTrollinAlong This is the last time I respond: you really need to get some counseling... look above, "aggienostic" said you were gay and I reacted... your beef is with them! It's pointless talking to you obviously do not read or follow through with the topic.How you consider yourself as having above average intelligence is beyond me? Self centered? Egotistic? I highly recommend you swallow your pride and try to learn something. I'm pretty sure you won't but that's you're loss, not mine.
RayTech70 9 months ago
@RayTech70
you havent presented anything for me to learn and whether or not aggienostic said anything is irrelevant because you still said that i was gay and i gave quotes to support that and thus proved you are a liar because you did call me gay and then right after that you said you didnt. your reaction still was an assertion that i was gay and was both implied and expressed. again, you havent presented anything for me to learn, you simply make unsupported assertions.
JustTrollinAlong 9 months ago
@JustTrollinAlong I am sorry I hurt your feelings... I really didn't mean to...
RayTech70 9 months ago
@RayTech70
you didnt hurt my feelings at all. you just called me gay and then you said that you didnt and i pointed out thats a lie. if you think you have something you cant teach me then go ahead and teach me. but dont just assert things and then not back them up with evidence or logic and dont say you didnt say something when you did say it.
JustTrollinAlong 9 months ago
@aggienostic
im not gay, nor am i angry at religion. i do tend to get agressive while i am arguing with people but its my fault and i need to not do that so much. that argument with that women was a while ago. and its not "their website" its mine and mine alone. by the way that women started the argument with me and she was unable to defend her belief. calling me names and trying to make fun of me does nothing. raytech70 does not understand that cursing has nothing to do with weakness.
JustTrollinAlong 9 months ago
@aggienostic
part 2 of my comment
ray kept saying it was a sign of weakness and even telling me i was a slave and destined to live alone and when i asked ray to prove it was a sign of weakness or give some evidence or logical reason to support that claim, ray was unable to do so and just ignored me. you act like you are superior but all you have done is mock me, how sad.
JustTrollinAlong 9 months ago
@RayTech70 That is funny. How would an atheist get a good dose of church of a god in which the atheist does not believe in? LOL swirl that around in your head.
oericsylla 9 months ago
The best debaters do not let their emotions override them as it does atheists. Their weakness (using shortcuts such as expletives to drive a point home) confounds them and it's not their fault. They are habitual liars, frightened in a conversation with a theist... because they know they are wrong and like an animal, they run and hide and pretend that they matter-- which they do-- God will see them take special aim at Christians in the effort to devolve them to the rank of a wounded atheist.
RayTech70 9 months ago
Cursing is the sign of a weak mind that has no creativity, a hopeless soul driven by materialistic things... a HOPELESS slave destined to die with little or no friends.
RayTech70 9 months ago
@RayTech70
oh really? and how do you know its a sign of the weak? do you have any evidence or logical reason to support that? if so then present it. if you cannot then you are just making things up and you are a laughable fool.
JustTrollinAlong 9 months ago
@RayTech70
part 2 of my comment.
you say its a sign of the weak well prove it kid. so far you have yet to prove that its a sign of weakness and you have yet to point out any flaw or weakness in my arguments. i have pointed out your weak ground for your assertions which means your lack of evidence. i have pointed out the flaw/weakness in your logic regarding the assessment of statements containing vulgarity, and i am now pointing out the logical fallacy you are committing called ad hominem.
JustTrollinAlong 9 months ago
@RayTech70
part 3 of my comment.
thats 3 weaknesses in your arguments i have pointed out and you have yet to show a single weakness in my arguments. either prove that vulgarity is a sign of weakness or you have will lost the argument completely, i say completely because you have already been logically losing the argument the whole time.
JustTrollinAlong 9 months ago
If you have to use profanity to get attention or to get a point across, it simply means that you are not creative enough to express your point clearly... think about it: if the president dropped f-bombs like Matt does, he'd get razzed for it. Biden drops f-bombs all the time and he's a laughing stock. I use cuss words myself, but not in a public forum-- it's a sign of laziness and lack of creativity as well as credibility. "Positive Atheism?" I think not.
RayTech70 9 months ago
@RayTech70
cuss words are most often used as exclamations. only an intellectually vacuous fucking moron like you would ignore the main points somebody makes and focus on a bad word they said. im pretty sure that falls under the ad hominem logical fallacy and im also pretty sure that you are a colossal dumbshit because you focus more on the vulgarity rather than the essence of whats being said. and dont claim its not positive atheism when you havent given your defintion of postive atheism.
JustTrollinAlong 9 months ago in playlist atheism
@JustTrollinAlong Okay, I'm only going to waste my time ONCE responding to your foul mouth, foul minded personality. If a person wants to get through to an opposition, labeling people "morons" and "idiots" and flinging cuss words is only going to drive them further away. Matt admitted this in an interview with Aron Ra (the thinking atheist). When Biden dropped an f-bomb his and Obama's ratings dipped and it's because people do not respect those that curse because it's an indication of weakness
RayTech70 9 months ago
@RayTech70
oh yeah? and who are you to decide it indicates weakness? YOU ARE A MORON because you just judged my entire personality off one comment you ignoramus. i dont care to get through to you because somebody like you who hastily judges the entirety of someone based on one comment is obviously too deluded to accept any external views especially when you state your opinions as thought they are fact and yet you give no evidence or logic to support your vacuous and absurd drivel.
JustTrollinAlong 9 months ago
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing....For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and the Greeks foolishness....not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called...the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1Corninthians)
missionarymayn 10 months ago
Disclaimer: The callers voice sounds like me. I want to state that it is not.
memsinan 10 months ago
Still waiting on the premise buddy :\
Poxlajetik 10 months ago
Its funny how atheist(in my experience) take the Bible out of context (Mainly from the old testament) to disprove Christianity! Lol anyways there speaking about being cowardly in the beginning but why is it that? Why can Atheist attack Christians on there beliefs and questions them and not the other way around? Not only is it not fair(Which i dont blame you for since your moral values are subjective) but its childish! Lol and you complain about the way we defend our views!? Lol failed reasoning!
Poxlajetik 10 months ago
@Poxlajetik Christianity can be disproved without taking anything out of context, with just the ascribed properties of the God itself.
Argument from Divine Hiddeness
Omniscience + Omnipotence vs Freewill
Problem of Evil
Euthyphro dilemma against objective morality
The bible verses are just brought up in a bit of fun. It's quite a spectacle watching the mental gymnastics christians go through to try and justify them.
playerwithfaith 10 months ago
@playerwithfaith All those have been refuted countless times ever heard of a man named Dr. William Lane Craig? Im sure you have
Poxlajetik 10 months ago
@Poxlajetik Have they now? Well then, why don't you start from the top?
As I'm sure you are well versed in all of these, and are not just making an appeal to authority.
playerwithfaith 10 months ago
@playerwithfaith ugh... cant you just youtube it? Its not appeal to authority if link you is it? Lol jk where do you wanna start?
Poxlajetik 10 months ago
@Poxlajetik Well if these things have debunked countless times, then you should have no trouble with them right?
Start with the first one: Argument from Divine Hiddeness
Probably the single best argument. It is my personal favorite at least. I shouldn't have to lay out the premises right? Since afterall, you claim to know it so well that you know it has been debunked countless times.
playerwithfaith 10 months ago
@playerwithfaith Would you be kind enough to lay out the premise for me? Im currently sleep deprived :) thx and God bless
Poxlajetik 10 months ago
@Poxlajetik Only if you are truthful with me. Tell me honestly, did you just gloss over my list and assume that there are refutations out there without actually knowing what they are?
playerwithfaith 10 months ago
@playerwithfaith truthfully the only one i didnt recognize was Euthyphro Dil. vs Obj. morality. But everything else i have heard there cases and how they have been refuted :\ thats my fault i just saw the 1st 3 and assumed i heard all cases
Poxlajetik 10 months ago
@Poxlajetik I'll be sending it to you in message form since expanding on it is too big for just one comment.
playerwithfaith 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The original debate in a nutshell:
MS: "There are only two possiblities: conceptual or physical"
MD: "That's a false dichotomy. Prove to me there's only two possiblities."
MS: "So what's the other posssiblity?"
MD: "Non-conceptual."
MS: "So what's non-conceptual, if not physical?"
MD: "I don't know -- my great answer."
MS: "Well, if you don't know, how do you know there's a third option?"
MD: "Time for the next caller. Sorry we ran out of time."
namesameasu 11 months ago
Most Christians I've encountered are of the grocery store variety, they pick and choose what to accept or ignore and they can't be reasoned with.
TheDano1947 11 months ago
@TheDano1947 Funny...that has been my experience with atheists...
n8tron25 11 months ago
what was the opening music for this episode?
MrDevilBunny 1 year ago
There can be no "moral law" without a moral law Giver.
Who cares if an Atheist is "immoral" Why are Atheists so hung up on insisting that they are "moral"? If you do not believe that there is an "ultimate" consequence for your actions.. then really!?? what is the big deal?
Call a Spade a Spade.
Everyone of us wants to believe that our "Right" is right, and his or her "Wrong" is wrong. Defending moral relativism without consensus is pointless. You are just wearing out your keyboard!
n8tron25 1 year ago
@n8tron25 There is no moral law as absolute good and evil. However every action has concequences and we can predict them within reasonable limits. Performing actions that generally reduce suffering can be seen as morally correct, while increasing it unnececarily can be considered immoral. This is at a really basic level and Matt already pointed out why not to follow it blindly, but we can consider the morality of actions without a moral law. That is why we have rejected so much of the bible laws
sharkjack 11 months ago
@sharkjack You are kind of taking on two different topics here. First, I still do not understand why an atheist would even care about defending "morality" by any definition ... that was my point in the post. Second, "Bible laws" is very ambiguous. Certainly the message of Jesus is not one that "unnecessarily" increases suffering.
Jesus admonished us to love God, and to love our neighbor as our self.
n8tron25 11 months ago
@n8tron25 I don't like suffering. I know people don't like suffering in general so I can use my own dislike of suffering to get to the conclusion that it would be better to reduce suffering. All I said was that there are no moral laws neccecary for moral behavior. Besides plenty of social animals have morals, so it's no surprise that we do too.
sharkjack 11 months ago
@n8tron25 "First, I still do not understand why an atheist would even care about defending "morality" by any definition."
There's only one definition of morality that I know of, So what assertion are you making? That atheists don't have morals? Or they don't have a right to defend them in the first place? That morals don't take place in atheism whatsoever?....Or is your assertion that morals come from religion, the most common ignorant argument?...
KittyzKatterz 10 months ago
yup, atheism has absolotely no morality in it. Still doesnt mean that an atheist is immoral. This is actually a claim that can be tested.
gulbirk 1 year ago
@gulbirk watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww watch it and learn something
LurchibaldBioshock 1 year ago
@LurchibaldBioshock Of course science can answer some moral questions. Of course love, passion, emphati and so on are evolutionary feelings that were benefitial to the human spiecy. I was trying to say that the claim that atheists are immoral CAN be tested.
gulbirk 1 year ago
@gulbirk i see
LurchibaldBioshock 1 year ago
@gulbirk It has been tested. There are several countries with an atheist majority of population. Check their life standard rates, their crime rates, their tolerance rates, etc.
LesPaul2006 10 months ago
@LesPaul2006 I know.
gulbirk 10 months ago
Where can I get one of those sacred cows?
nosajj12345 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nosajj12345 "Where can I get one of those sacred cows?"
They look like Ty Beanie Babies, specifically, Daisy the Cow.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
"Why is there something rather than nothing." The question, common though it is, is backwards. Since there obviously is something rather than nothing, it seems to me that we should be asking: Why should there be nothing rather than something.
Kailoa36 1 year ago
You know what I think accounts for morality? Sociology. Some people major in it. I bet that there are even whole departments at schools somewhere study The Sociology of Morality. I think that theists should try to find some of them and write to them instead of asking some random atheists to explain it. I'm not a sociology major, but I have search engines in my browser...Damnit! Thanks, had to get that out before I FPFP'd myself.
trueleroix 1 year ago 25
@trueleroix I would say that Psychology (neuroscience) and sociology, (for example the study of memes, and how they effect the social/moral Zeitgeist), would be the best avenues to take if we want to understand morality.
pillsareyummy 1 year ago
@trueleroix Morality comes from humanism, and is stolen by religion. Every human being (except sociopaths) has the ability to feel guilty when they do something wrong, empathize when they see other creatures in pain, and help others in need. These are traits humans evolved, because if we never did, we never of would of gotten this far. Our ancestors 50,000 years ago would never of survived if they didn't learn how to cooperate. It's hard to kill a mammoth by yourself lol
CenkIsAdorable 8 months ago
@CenkIsAdorable Kind of... Humanism is a name for a modern philosophy. This would be studied in both philosophy and sociology. The empathy and cooperative behaviors that you speak of do account for the origins of it, but it is merely a name that people made up for a very specific philosophy. One would never apply the term humanism to a pod of humpback whales for instance.
trueleroix 8 months ago
@trueleroix No...because humpback whales aren't human.....
CenkIsAdorable 8 months ago
I think that theists forcing us to defend our position would result in a much more cogent position on our part. I for one, am happy to defend my position at any time.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
At no point in the video did Matt Slick say that the way to talk with Atheists is to attack their beliefs, he said it was to get them to elaborate on why they believe in atheism to try and get them to see that atheism is irrational. At no point did Slick attack atheism when he was debating with Dillahunty. And yet dillahunty wants to question slicks honesty?
seanhall2006 1 year ago
Actually, chemisty does account for physics. Chemistry is fundamentally based on quantum mechanics, kinetic theory and thermodynamics :-)
fermista 1 year ago
I came twice };)
1980albatros 1 year ago
Comment removed
tharip 1 year ago
@tharip We know that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. You have absolutely no basis for saying it's not eternal. No one is saying the universe came from nothing. You're one the who's saying a a God came into existence from nothing.
reasonformirrors 1 year ago
@tharip Matter and energy last I read could not be destroyed so they are eternal. Second, because we don't know what happened before the big bang does not mean it came form nothing. That is your uneducated assumption. Those who study these things do not assert that. The only ones saying something came from nothing are those who believe in a god. Cont'd...
burnlaugh 1 year ago
@tharip Part2... You say god is eternal, yet you have no proof of a god's existence in the 1st place. You made up a concept of god and then gave it attributes that answer your questions. Anyone can make up attributes as their definition and not back them up. I can say I am god and I control all your actions. Its all meaningless without evidence. Better yet, I can say I believe in a super God that is better than your god and created your god.
burnlaugh 1 year ago
@burnlaugh
WRONG, We have over 5,686 greek manuscripts, based on eye-witness accounts, claiming that Jesus was revealing God in human form! and his perfect miraculous lifestsyle was a testimony to his claims! if rising from the dead after being crucified isn't enough proof, then I would advise you review your criterea for criticism!
tharip 1 year ago
@tharip First off your numbers are wrong. Second if "eye witness" testimony was valid on these things, we'd have "proof" of psychics and EVERY religion in the world! Not to mention you are talking about 2000 year old testimonies when people thought the world was flat and we were the center of the universe. Also please produce ONE document from Jesus' time. The oldest of any writing we have are way past the time Jesus supposedly lived.
burnlaugh 1 year ago
@burnlaugh - there are at least 12 MSS that date within 100 yrs of the death of Jesus. Do your homework...
jsktheflash 1 year ago
@jsktheflash hey,i started writing this manuscript today,about the flying spaghetti monster and he's still alive,that definately makes it more true
ViralMessiah 1 year ago
@tharip Cont'd.. Plus a growing number of historians are agreeing that Jesus was an allegorical character anyway most likely created by Paul and is an amalgam of many stories. Plus do you have any idea how many characters in history and literature are resurrected and perform "miracles"? If you believe everything you read in 2000 year old books, why not believe Islam or Buddism or ancient Greek religions? What makes your book more reliable?
burnlaugh 1 year ago
@tharip i think what you fail to understand,is that even if god came here and presented himself personally to me,i wouldn't worship him if he were the god from the bible,that god is a disgusting,egotistical,sadistic monster. If i did believe in god,i wouldn't be able to help thinking that the bible were a book written by the bad guy,as a smear job on the good guy...god killed millions,satan killed what,10? nice divine being
ViralMessiah 1 year ago
@ViralMessiah
If God does exist then Lucifer and t he other angels that rebelled were probably the good guys
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM thats sort of my argument,when you read all of the things god did,and all of the things Lucifer did,Lucifer really comes out smelling like roses. don't get me wrong,i don't believe any of it happened,but the devil seems like a much nicer guy even in gods autobiography.
ViralMessiah 1 year ago
@ViralMessiah
Satan killed members of Job's family AFTER getting permission from God.
ThieleM 1 year ago 51
@ThieleM I would argue that it was less permission,than encouragement....the way i took it was god said,hey check out my homie Job,that dude loves me,look,even if you kill his family he'll still love me,go ahead,try it and see
ViralMessiah 1 year ago
@ThieleM so what.....god doesnt exist, right?
MrMrfearofthedark 10 months ago
@MrMrfearofthedark
I dont know if God exists...I seriously doubt it could be the one in charge of the big 3 monotheisms.
Christians like to ovrelook the little bit about Satan getting permission to kill from God.
ThieleM 10 months ago
@ThieleM where can i find this in the bible. info like this helps me convince theists they are retarded.. strike that they are to retarded to change,.. no really where can i find this?
tainted705 8 months ago
@tainted705
Read the book of Job, then read the rest of the bible....lots of immorality is preached in there
ThieleM 8 months ago
@ThieleM thx and you know i will .. right now. i have read most of the bible over a few times.. skipping some do to how much is just repeated but it is hard to remember things sometimes or it is missunderstood from the meanings. thx again
tainted705 8 months ago
@tainted705
Cheers.
Go to the Iron Chariots wiki
ThieleM 8 months ago
@ThieleM Actually, Satan was SENT by god to put Job through all that shit. It was god's idea, not Satan's.
ciaochowbella 4 months ago
@ciaochowbella
Either way, God is responsible.
ThieleM 4 months ago
Comment removed
tharip 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ViralMessiah
No need for richard dawkins quotes, for he gives the most perverted explanations of the Bible, and fails to understand/accept the true value of Christ, I wouldn't learn about the value of a Jew from a nazi, hence why it is a bad Idea to learn about Christ from Dawkins!
tharip 1 year ago
@ViralMessiah - you talk as if there is an absolute ethical standard. Very telling...but to be clear, there is nothing wrong with killing millions in your worldview, except of course, that it may be against YOUR personal standard. Very subjective to say the least. By raising the point that there is something wrong with murder, you assume the very worldview which you attempt to deny. AMAZING - ROMANS 1:22
jsktheflash 1 year ago
@jsktheflash there IS an absolute ethical standard,or at least there is for serious ethical infractions,we call it the LAW....but since god was so good as to give you a moral compass,why didn't he ever condemn child molesting? it seems like maybe our current society is more moral than the alleged giver of morals. now should we take God,and his son,and the entire biography of the aforementioned gods lack of comment on child molesting to mean that it's alright to molest children?
ViralMessiah 1 year ago
Comment removed
tharip 1 year ago
I would suggest that utilitarianism or social contract theory can be seen as "compatible' with atheism, although those explanations for morality are not being derived from atheism itself. Ie. They are secular models for morality.
PatzerKing 1 year ago
God created humans, for the same reason Good parents have kid's, A HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP!
tharip 1 year ago
@tharip Really? So how many parents do you know, who once their kids were born, completely abandoned them and left them to their own devices for the rest of their lives?
eurisko67 1 year ago
@eurisko67
unfortuantaley, God cannot force us to make decisions against our free will, however we will be held acountable for our decisions on judgement day!
tharip 1 year ago
@tharip Um... sorry? An all powerful, omnipotent, omniscient being that created the universe and humans "cannot" force us to do anything? Did I read you correctly?
eurisko67 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eurisko67
Glad you asked, and the answer is NO!
"unfortuantaley, GOD cannot force us to make decisions against our free will, however we will be held acountable for our decisions on judgement day!"
tharip 1 year ago
Comment removed
tharip 1 year ago
Comment removed
tharip 1 year ago
@tharip Worship me or burn forever is not a healthy relationship.
reasonformirrors 1 year ago
@reasonformirrors
Live life inclusive of me, or seperate from me, you choose! Good or Evil?
tharip 1 year ago
@tharip Don't be disingenuous. It's love me or burn forever. This is terrorism.
reasonformirrors 1 year ago
@reasonformirrors
it's live life inclusive of me, or seperate from me, it just so happens that life seperate from God is Hell!
tharip 1 year ago
@tharip It's not just some coincidence. Hell is the punishment because God created it and orders people to go there. If you're going to be disingenuous, why bother talking to people?
reasonformirrors 1 year ago
Comment removed
tharip 1 year ago
@tharip - I always suspected that the notion of a god coming out of nowhere and randomly deciding to create a world to toy with was very much like a big selfish game-- thanks for confirming it!
P0weredByPie 1 year ago
Comment removed
tharip 1 year ago
@P0weredByPie
God is eternal, an uncaused cause!
matter and energy is not eternal therefore, you to have to believe the mriacle of something coming from nothing!
God the eternal creator?
or
A self creating universe that comes into existance from nothing?
tharip 1 year ago
@tharip Also you are dead wrong. By all that we know, energy IS eternal. Unless you can demonstrate and prove that it isn't, you are simply wrong.
By the way NO ONE states something came from nothing but religion. You claim god made something from nothing. Big bang does not claim that in any way shape or form, you need to do some research on this shit.
You fail grade school science. F-.
Delinexwow 1 year ago
@tharip So you consider a healthy relationship with your children to tell them they are sinners and aren't worth your time or even good enough to be near you, and that you are so perfect and because of that you will slaughter one of your other kids so they can come with you? You consider a healthy relationship with your children is torturing a great many of them? If your god exists, his relationship with man is cruel, abusive, and evil...far from healthy.
Delinexwow 1 year ago
@AtheistExperience in regards to Mr Slick's false dichotomy..Matt, your making an error by not recognizing both claims, A and B. All your saying is not A. If you want to say not A and not B, then there must in fact be SOME other option. YET, you know of no other option. If you want to deny either claim then you must have a reason to, and not just for the sake of denying.. simply denying both claims DOES NOT suggest false dichotomy.
RlCHART 1 year ago
Comment removed
RlCHART 1 year ago
@EmbraceDorkhood - "a human" is subjective...": SUBJECTIVE: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal — (compare objective). Objecive truths are not person relative...I do not believe that you know the difference. In any sense, this will be my last post...and I will allow you to have the last word if you would like.
jsktheflash 1 year ago
@EmbraceDorkhood - I do not see the logic because you are irrational. All a human is in your worldview is advanced protoplasm and a mistake..and as a result, there is no authority except the culture, that binds me to respect this advanced protoplasm. In your worldview, YOU may feel that something is wrong, but I may not. Who is right and who is wrong? I know, it is what culture states and empathy...subjective nonsense...without an "ought" you lose and you have no ought so you lose.
jsktheflash 1 year ago
@EmbraceDorkhood - if the laws of logic are "conceptual abstractions...dependant upon the mind" - Then I will just create my own laws right now that claim that everything you say is nonsense. Is that acceptable? Of course not...because the laws of logic are just that, LAWS...universals and particulars my friend...you can account for the one but not the other...you are speaking about conventions and not laws...conventions are mind relivant...laws are not. Logical LAWS are true w/o minds
jsktheflash 1 year ago
@EmbraceDorkhood - First, if you claim immaterials, as you just did, then you lose because all that exists in your universe is the material. Second, sure I can prove it...the laws of logic are abstract and the reflective thinking of God. Being abstract, they are immaterial and universals...since your worldview cannot account for abstractions, you lose...PERIOD...also, since all other world religions and worldviews cannot account for these, then the Bible is true. Please account for immaterials..
jsktheflash 1 year ago
@EmbraceDorkhood - Empathy is subjective and person relivant...you must be kidding...also, I could care less if you agree with my stances on objectives because (1) you cannot account for them and (2) your explination was about subjective feelings. I am speaking about an objective standard because of moral absolutes...you are speaking of subjective empathy. Since there are moral absolutes, which constitute the objective standard, then that standard must have come from a transcendent being.
jsktheflash 1 year ago
@EmbraceDorkhood - That has always been your stance, yet, in a previous post you stated; "Morals are subjective, even if you can;t see this". Sorry, but I am just going by what you have told me. It is only later that you attempted to tie an objective aspect to your subjective standard...so, there is no straw man...besides, your account of objective is nonsense because objective is accounted for outside of the person. All you are claiming is utilitarian standards...btw, I just stated it once...
jsktheflash 1 year ago
@EmbraceDorkhood - who cares if I affect the emotional attachments of protoplasm? This is subjective nonsense. Are you honestly maintaining that the collective sum of subjective opinion can become an objective truth. Man, I guess the world was at one time flat...after all, that was the subjective opinion that must have, according to your standard, become the objective truth. "Most normal thinking..." What is normal in a random universe? "Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world"
jsktheflash 1 year ago
@EmbraceDorkhood - because abstraction are immaterial and you are a materialist...hence, you lose and the God of the Bible wins.
LOL...it has been fun speaking with you on these issues. I do hope that you will reflect on the nonsense that you call a worldview. You claim abstractions, an immaterial, and cannot account for them...wow. Regardless, I do hope that the Lord brings you to the point of understanding. Trust in Christ, if He wills to draw you...have a nice life and I mean that...
jsktheflash 1 year ago
@EmbraceDorkhood - the evidence is that MY worldview can account for immaterial abstractions and yours cannot. Also, how do you know that I do not know how these things came about? Do you have universal experience? How do you know that I have zero evidence? This is getting even more foolish. Of course I have evidence to present, but you do not accept it because of your dead condition and your presuppositions. Good day...
jsktheflash 1 year ago
@EmbraceDorkhood - ahhh...yes and you have no real objection against such a thing except for your opinion. You are in your Intellectual underwear again.
jsktheflash 1 year ago
@EmbraceDorkhood - "That's genocidal, infantcidal, homocidal. But you refuse to call something what it is." Wow, you are acting like there is some sort of objective standard that exists...You should have stated "According to MY subjective opinion, that's genocidal, infantcidal, homocidal." The sad thing is that you cannot even see your error. By you claiming an objective standard, and evil, you prove my worldview once again. Thank you sir for affirming an objective standard.
jsktheflash 1 year ago
@EmbraceDorkhood - Deut. 25:12...yes, I'm good with that because it is in God's Law and all that He does is good...He's the standard of good. See, I have a standard of good...an objective standard. Also, you are good with Deut. 25:12 also because hay, everyone has the right to have their own subjective standard. So, I guess we both agree. "It's the fool that says in his heart, there is no God" Your arguments are shown to be nonsense. Flee from the wrath to come...and I say that in love.
jsktheflash 1 year ago
@EmbraceDorkhood - I do not have to prove God is immaterial, exists or not reliant on reality because I presuppose God's word & you would not accpet my evidence (see Rom. 1:18). Also, I again notice that you claim immaterial concepts...please account for the immaterial in your worldview. Again, you prove my point. Every thought shows that you are wrong as an atheist. Thoughts are dependent indeed (except God's thoughts), but logical laws are not. They are LAWS not dependent on the human mind. TY
jsktheflash 1 year ago
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:18-20, ESV)
jsktheflash 1 year ago
@EmbraceDorkhood - Abstractions are material in nature?...can you please show me where I can see or touch a law of logic. What you are speaking of is electro-chemical brain gas and conventions...laws of logic are not dependent on the human mind - THEY ARE LAWS. The law of NC is true regardless of a mind there to notice it. If logical laws are dependent on the mind, then we can simply make some new laws here in our debate now, can't we. Look out, I'm setting you up! Jesus is Lord brother...
jsktheflash 1 year ago
@EmbraceDorkhood - You just conceded the debate if you grant that logic is immaterial...because you cannot account for abstractions. And no, that is not my stance (& TY for granting the immaterial, as if there was a doubt). My stance is that there is only one worldview that can account for universal, abstract invariants such as the laws of logic, and we find the basis of that worldview in the Bible via the revealed character and attributes of God. Logical Laws are not dependent on humans btw...
jsktheflash 1 year ago
@EmbraceDorkhood - In your worldview, it is wrong, or not wrong, depending on the subjective opinion of the person...but it is NEVER really wrong because there is no authority behind the ethics claim. Next, in your universe, who cares if it causes pain...that child is simply a bag of stuff that came about by chance. And again, you seem to be implying that there is a moral standard...please demonstrate this in an objective way. Until you do so, you are simply telling me your opinion on morals. TY
jsktheflash 1 year ago
@EmbraceDorkhood Your question is a non-question because it does not assume my worldview…and you are asking it of me and my God. (1) Revelation has ceased with the close of the New Testament Canon so your question fails there, (2) the Christian is to test the Spirits against the written word of God as the normative standard and (3) the Law of God reflects His character and hence, is holy -please show me why rape is wrong given the subjective standard that the rapist chooses...demonstrate this.
jsktheflash 1 year ago
@EmbraceDorkhood - “Ought is morraly repugnant” – OPINION and EVALUATION…Next, you are going to send yourself to Hell, unless you repent. Also, Hell is just for you because God’s Law is objective and immutable. The “murderer” has his penalty paid through Jesus and His atonement. “Ought is the easy way out” – OPINION. Next you bring up things being “wrong.” Why is something objectively wrong in your worldview…demonstrate it please.
jsktheflash 1 year ago
Matt sort of skirted why I support the death penalty, that it is sometimes necessary to eliminate a few to protect many.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@EmbraceDorkhood - Straw-Man...God could not do such a thing because it is against His holy character...and His character is the source of objective ethics...not His decree. However, in your universe, there is nothing wrong with molesting the 5 yr/old girl, because you have no standard of good, no standard of objective ethics. In your universe, is there anything wrong with that outside of the laws of the land...if so, please show me this. Instruct this poor Christian theist on ethics please.
jsktheflash 1 year ago