You see how spiritual pride and blindness works here. The biggest problem with humans is not with how much or little intelligence they have. Nor is the biggest problem with humans with how smart or dumb they are. The biggest problem with the nature of humans is their sinful nature condition and their need for forgiveness from God through Jesus Christ and a whole new spiritual heart and conscience transplant by Jesus Christ through regeneration from the Holy Spirit of God.
It is only through a human lense that we can devise objectivley better ways in preventing the worst possible misery for everyone. Simply because there is no god, or a rock has no stance on what u do, does not mean that anything goes, and that theres nothing wrong with killing and raping. It is wrong, because the alternative would lead more twoards the worse possible misery for everyone than not. Any ideology devised to protect us from that is objectively better, and thus objectivley moral.
I don't really see how anyone could say that societal stability and individual happiness could be anything but good. If the case were ever to be made that they are neither good nor bad, I would refer them to what they themselves feel. More often than not, they will say they personally would rather live in a free society than an unfree one. The reason being because they know its simply a better way to live and the obvious choice. If a person were to choose otherwise, it would be wholey illogical.
There are many objective facts that support the idea that there is a better and that there is a worse in terms of the ethics of actions. If we can agree, that the worst possible missery for everyone IS not good, then we can accept a whole host of behavioural ideologies that are objectivaly better in preventing that outcome.Freedom of speech and individual equality are examples of ideas desinged to prevent abuses of the individual, which in turn promote societal stability and individual identity
By the way, the rejection of moral relativism does not require a belief in the unquestionable moral laws of a deity. I for one buy Sam Harris' argument that morality can be boiled down to the well being of conscious creatures. We can indeed measure empirical facts about which cause people to flourish...
There can never be an objective moral truth simply because of time. Even the interpretation of absolute moral systems like the bible, quran, talmud, zarathrustrian texts, change over time. Time ensures moral relativism.
@thegatheringdenver No, because the statement "time ensures moral relativism" is not a normative statement on morals, but rather a descriptive statement. Of course, my statement could be wrong, but I have yet to come across any moral system that consistent. I would also like to detract the statement there can be no moral truth, but rather state that one can't make an absolute moral system that is objective and fully consistent.
@shockoflogic Okay, lets say that the other guy proved that relativism is true. This means that relativism is false. He might claim that relativism is true only for himself. However, if what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false? 1) If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. 2) If you say yes, then relativism is false. Relativism seems to defy the very nature of truth; namely, that truth is not self-contradictory.
Its always subjective when you're talking in sense of you doing it to someone else. Sure you may think that murder is only wrong if thats your opinion but if someone were to kill your family you would feel as though that was wrong. Moral Law is absolute. Written on the heart of all of mankind
@bammc19 - You're biologically primed to want to protect your family and encourage the survival of your species. The emotional attachment is merely an offset of our evolved brain.
@thegatheringdenver That guy is not the status quo, the status quo is people thinking their moral values are absolute. Most people adhere to a religion that is absolute, and very few people understand the concept of moral relativism. Just like most people don't understand the concepts like theory, validity, truth, belief, etc.
Flesh is powerless to have or know perfectly law or morality. Why do we try to connect man to morality even if we can they are not Spirit life.The worse person in the world to wittness too is the moral person of law. Even if you prove they break law they by flesh cannot sustain a Spirit life necessary for eternal life. Spirit gives life, the words I give you, Jesus said, are Spirit and are life.Not one Bible verse but plenty of reason.? I did not hear a truth from scripture to surpress.?
Actually I think that last question before the video ended wasn't fair. You asked a very prolonged and segmented question. It seemed as if he was stalling because he forgot what you asked. So, just to not be bothered with your persistence, he just said, "Sort of..."
At that point, he probably didn't give a fuck about you anymore...
@shockoflogic - forgive me for intruding on the question for the other 2 YouTube users, but the answer is both, since God made the sense of morality. It's simple logic, but I don't mean to offend when I state that it's simple. If you want to know the truth behind everything, invest 10.5 hrs in watching the "Know Your Enemy" series here on YouTube. Godspeed.
For some reason this guy reminds me of a character on sesame street, and I also am appalled at how biased this audience is... you guys have a very limited view of religion..
Anyone who thinks someone would have a right to harm a child is an Idiot.They are just as guilty as the one who does it.I am so grateful this man does not belong to my family.
Most of the religions of the world agree that there is something wrong with human beings--that we have some kind of disorder. Most of these religions point to the innate evil or sinfulness within us. They came to the conclusion that those characteristics of human beings were ultimately hurting humanity as a whole, which is why they believe certain attitudes and actions are wrong.
@123andflick You realize you just projected your own opinions of what is morally right onto the statement you just made? According to the statement you just made yourself, you just did something wrong against everyone else. From what you just said, who are you to tell me if me choosing to affect someone else's beliefs are wrong?
I'm not a moral relativist, but neither interviewer nor interviewee has the slightest clue what moral relativists say. Sure, if they saw someone molesting a child, they would try to stop them, just as anyone else probably would. That doesn't mean it's objectively wrong, it just means that the person prefers that children not get molested. So does almost everyone in society, so tough shit for the child molester. A society that allows child molesters will die out, because it's unstable.
Aristotele's law of non-contradiction: A cannot be A and non A at the same time and in the same way. Application: truth is or it isn't. There is no room for many truths .
@rationalresponder No I do not. That doesn't mean, however, that I believe that people "should" rape, because that would imply the existence of an objective good, would it not? Anyway, I asked for someone to demonstrate that there are objective moral parameters. Asking a loaded question is not a demonstration that a moral parameter is objective.
@shockoflogic I've never seen any coherent argument for objective morality. It always seems to come down to the fear of living in an amoral, indifferent Universe.
@Emanresu56 if you want a coherent argument, you need to stop talking to apologists! =P
if you want to check something funny out, watch chad's buddy, ray comfort, get his ass handed to him by the hosts of the atheist experience! it's golden.
@Kinosis79 claims need at LEAST some kind of rational justification for them to be believed... something a little more than "oh, this belief makes me feel warm and fuzzy so it MUST be true!"
@Emanresu56 The next time that you actually stop someone from being harmed, or vote your conscience, or grieve at the fact that a person not only raped but murdered a five year old, you will have demonstrated it yourself, by the very fact that your inner being is completely and utterly against those acts. if your kid is murdered, you don't say "i disagree with your right to do that, and it is only my opinion, but i don't like that" no - you demand JUSTICE and say that it was wrong!
"Do you acknowledge that rape is objectively wrong?"
objectively wrong in terms of what?
- it's definetly wrong in terms of my SUBJECTIVE standardard and the OBJECTIVE standard of most societies, however what you really seem to be asking is whether it's wrong in terms of your unevidenced ABSOLUTIST standard (that i've already said i reject)
"Do you acknowledge that rape is objectively wrong?"
objectively wrong in terms of what?
- it's definetly wrong in terms of my SUBJECTIVE standardard and the OBJECTIVE standard of most societies, however what you really seem to be asking is whether it's wrong in terms of your unevidenced ABSOLUTIST standard (that i've already said i reject)
"Do you acknowledge that rape is objectively wrong?"
objectively wrong in terms of what?
- it's definetly wrong in terms of my SUBJECTIVE standard and the OBJECTIVE standard of most societies, however what you really seem to be asking is whether it's wrong in terms of your unevidenced ABSOLUTIST standard (that i've already said i reject)
Rape is *Shock! Le gasp* not _objectively_ wrong. I say this because I, like Emanresu here, have no basis for saying that something is _objectively_ wrong. (You could have an empirical way of determining ideal living behaviors in accordance with an arbitrary set of ideals, but...)
However, I personally consider rape to be wrong. Never acceptable. Many others do, too, though the basis for that can be different from my own. That is where laws come from.
@StormZephyr Prove that raping a child isn't objectively moral by providing a logical argument or circumstance in which this act would be at least morally decent or neutral. Subjective morals must be justified.
@rationalresponder No he does not. Theists have tried to say that atheists think rape is ok because they acknowledge that rape played a heavy hand in evolution. The difference between animals and humans raping each other is that we have a stronger ability to place ourselves in others' shoes and resist doing things that would make us very unhappy if they happened to us..
@thegatheringdenver I did not make that up. Animals don't have much of that ability. Even if it isn't "instinct", people to learn from their peers the importance of caring about others. Not bullshit.
@rationalresponder "Do you acknowledge that rape is objectively wrong?" lol are you seriously asking this to a moral relativist? Is there any further point to this question once he/she answers "no", or was that argument as vacuous as it looks?
@rationalresponder - Do you agree that teenagers should be killed for having relationships? It seems wrong, right? In Saudi Arabia, that's not very extreme. In fact, the families WANT it because they feel it will restore honor lost by the children having a relationship. Society in general has rules about not killing and such because killing each other serves no purpose and only hinders the group's survival. Of course, thanks to religion, killing for God is a-okay.
@rationalresponder Asking a person for their subjective opinion is nowhere near a proof. I do agree that there is a core set of values (I don't know how many) which are objectively good or bad. However, I don't see the proof that it was ordained. Perhaps we got them from the billions of years (I guess...if you believe in that sort of thing) we've been evolving. I can't think of a species that doesn't seem to obey a moral code.
@thegatheringdenver if things are moral because he commands them, then morals are not objective, but arbitrary, and god could say, tomorrow, that rape and torture is morally correct.
@Emanresu56 Prove that skinning someone alive isn't objectively moral by providing a logical argument or circumstance in which this act would be at least morally decent or neutral. Subjective morals must be justified.
@Emanresu56 LOL... piece of cake! Once you receive a gratuitous punch of right in the face you will immediately discover the existence of objective moral parameters! :-))) I bet... Or else if someone take pull you from your motorcycle and take it... Oh, it's so easy!!
The objectivity of whether something is good or bad cannot be measured in a universal sense, since the universe is devoid of consiousness and therefor cannot decide between a "right" or a "wrong". Only humans can concive of moral absolutes because we have a consiousness that allows us to. So applying a unviersal standerd to morality is ilogical. This does not mean that moral absolutes do not exist, but rather shift the responsibility from a "god" to a society in determining morality
the argument cuts both ways though. God told Abraham to sacrifice his only son, according to the book of Genesis 22. We lock people in prison when they hear God telling them to kill their children (and usually, God's angel is not there to stop them, like Abraham was allegedly stopped by an angel).
LOL... aren't we human beings funny? I mean... the guy perfectly knows what is right and wrong, but he insists on the idea that relativism is true just not to... admit it!
Humans have the right to use their freedom of consciousness and freedom of choice, any way they want to, BUT that does not mean they are not responsible to collective moral law. If you murder a person in any country, by the LAW, you will be held accountable for it. THE 10 COMMANDMENTS is the LAW OF THE UNIVERSE, like it or not, all humans are responsible before God, and will be required to give an account for their thoughts, expressions and actions. THERE IS FORGIVENESS IN JESUS IF YOU REPENT.
@feanando well, if a claim bears no evidence, but only arguments, then it's considered rhetoric, persuasive speech.
religions revolve around sin and guilt. they take characteristics of human nature, such as lust for example, and try to convince you that it's something "bad" or "wrong" and that you need whatever religion it is that's trying to proselytize you in order to gain "salvation," which there is no evidence for.
without the threat of damnation, religions would lose their followers.
@AvariceLovesVanity Read the title of the video again, pal. Then, see the (poor) guy's (twisted) reasoning. Do I have to explain to you what moral relativism is, and that it comes from Relativism (capital letter)?
Besides, according to your subjective definition, the statement "lust does not exist" is rhetoric, for there is no evidence...
read the title of the video again, pal. it's about MORAL relativism. nobody said that everything is relative or subjective. the guy in this video never says anything about GENERAL relativism.
btw, guess who titled the video... i'll give you a hint, it wasn't the guy being interviewed. ;)
@AvariceLovesVanity Oh, and please remember that a loving God finds nothing wrong with eternal (yes, ETERNAL) torture of anyone who does not believe in him. How can anyone claim to have a high moral standard when the deity which allegedly gave said standard sees nothing wrong with eternal torture of nonbelievers? What kind of morality is this?
@BigVK19 Well, well... the old story... Somebody here wants to use freedom in a twisted way but doesn't want to hold responsibility for his own choices! It's so... easier to blame somebody else... just like little kids who do wrong, or thieves, or adulterers, or lustful people, or murderers, etc. The list is endless... but not even one of them is really guilty, of course! LOL... AND YET YOU ASKED: "What kind of morality is this????" (SHAMELESS!!! SHAME ON YOU, BRAT!!!)
@AvariceLovesVanity Oh! I've accidentaly came back here 2 months later and.. alas!... I missed your defense of moral objective parameters!! Please, wise full of vanity man... enlighten me... Does lust exist?
@xchampx "My sole purpose here is to glorify Jesus and to engage in MEANINGFUL dialogue with Atheists and Nonbelievers of all faiths." - interesting way to spark a meaningful conversation... he makes valid points and you display your immaturity.
if he would stop someone who is entitled to do something then that would either mean that he is not entilted and would be wronging hitler or hitler is not entiltled and is wrong
what makes rape, murder, child molestation, theft, and all other "sins" bad isn't the act itself, it's the negative effect it has on another person's life without their control, consent or permission, that makes it "wrong". Much like being "created". What your God has done is selfishly create me when I was fine and content on not exsisting. But now I will apparently have to live for eternity whether it be in heaven or hell. What a selfish power-hungy God.
This is so great! It's like what CS Lewis said when talking about natural law. The problem here is that people, and not just younger people, are bombarded daily with this modernist propaganda, but when you confront them like you did, they do realise it's all rubbish.
is NOT a moral absolute. Emotions have nothing to do with morality. They are in themselves not a moral standard or basis.
"Torturing babies" is a proper moral absolute proposition. BUT one could conceive a scenario where "torturing babies" is morally acceptable. Such as administering vaccines or how about this- CIRCUMCISION. Gosh there's so much relativism in religion.
What i think is so interesting is that christians just assumes that god is a moral absolutist. Of course, the "christian" CHURCHES are all about moral absolutism because it helps them maintain power. However, if you look at what jesus actually taught, it sounds a LOT more like moral relativism. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" means that morality really IS "what you prefer".
@squirc I dont think Jesus was talking about morality here. He meant basicly treat others like you want to be treated, which is just a good way of keeping the peace. Eh, idk, i'll have to look into it more...
"'Do unto others as they do unto you' is not moral relativism. Moral relativism is 'whats good for you is good for you.'"
- it could be, what if the way you want to be treated is different to the way someone else wants to be treated.
'Treat others as you would like to be treated' contrasts greatly with 'Treat others as God would like you to treat them' and the core of the issue does seem to be a relativist standard vs an absolutist standard.
@squirc ...Jesus was simply saying.."treat others the way that you would want to be treated." I don't know many people who want to be treated wrongly...c'mon man..how could you twist this into something it's not?
Lol Bill Maher when he was young. TE whole time I was like what was wondering what he was thinking. You would fight against Hitler because he's wrong dummy. Aghh.
You don't believe in right and wrong? So would it be right for me to perform a human sacrifice in your lawn? Would it be right for me to rob your house?
That's what I say when I argue about moral relativism
@ajsaccount1991 Just like CS Lewis said when he was talking about right and wrong. The people who claim that there is no right or wrong, would be the first to complain if you try to rob them or treat them unfairly.
"The people who claim that there is no right or wrong, would be the first to complain if you try to rob them or treat them unfairly."
- very few people would claim 'right' and 'wrong' DONT EXIST.
- Many however WOULD claim they do not exist as absolutes and are simply words used to refer to things we as individuals subjectively like or do not like.
Calling God the ultimate moral imperative still makes morality relative, it's relative to whatever God wills. And since we don't know what God's say or want, we have no idea. There are plenty of things God says in the Bible that we should do that we consider evil, so obviously our morality isn't taken from God.
This is extremely interesting. This guy was not prepared to defend his views, as he grew up believing in them without questioning. This is the reverse, and somehwat similar, to what Christian school kids were subjected to in the 60's (or ever since the 60's) by the tactics developed by the Frankfurt School. Those kids then, found it difficult to defend themselves and gave in to moral subjectivism, as they were not equiped to defend themselves from the devious Cultural Marxists.
check out theoreticalb*****ts treatise on morality. now i don't consider myself an atheist, more like a seeker, but do check it out, it does clear this stuff up to an extent.
@vidfreak56 All one has to do to learn God is read His word and apply it to one's live. We can know truth in other ways than simply seeing before the eyes.
@USCreenwriter You cant know the truth by just thinking of it. I cant know santa claus to exist just by thinking or believing he exists. Therefore you cant know god just by learning what was written about him, visualizing him in your mind, and applying what you think is his law. All one has to do is realize that you cant know the truth when it comes to god and that your belief and the "truth" arent the same. Only god knows...you dont.
@USCreenwriter But YOU dont know its true lol. Again you fail. Even if GOD KNOWS, YOU DONT! Get it? You can put your faith in god that he knows all, but that still doesnt mean you know him. That also doesnt mean you know the truth since you cant know what he thinks. You can only perceive god truth or law, but you cant know it. Why? Because you cant verify it. All you can do is listen to others and just blindly believe it w/o proof. Sad.
@vidfreak56 No. I have not proved your point my dear. If the tree HAS fallen, despite whether or not one believes it or has seen it, the TRUTH is that the tree has fallen.
@USCreenwriter But you cant know that w/o having seen it. Sorry but you fail. Even if a third party, such as god, knows it....you do not know it. You only surmise what you think is true. You cant know something has happened w/o having seen it or confirmed it to be true, regardless of what you want to believe. Your just taking contrarian stances to try to make yourself sound smart. In short...DONT because you only keep yourself in your fantasy world instead of being free of it.
@USCreenwriter Exactly so you dont continue to post because you want me to know the truth. You post because you want me to know your feelings ("because I feel" your words) of what i should feel. Realize that I dont care what your feelings are and as posted again and again, I DONT ARGUE WITH PEOPLE WHO QUOTE GOD. K? Those are my feelings.
@vidfreak56 My proof is more than just a book, my dear. God has proved Himself in my life time and time again. I have a personal relationship with Jesus and you can too. And yes, I use God's word to understand Him. It's rational. I do know the truth and that truth is the Gospel message. Truth is NOT subjective. Truth exists outside of ourselves. I may believe that a tree has not fallen down, but if that tree has indeed fallen down, then the TRUTH is that the tree has fallen.
@USCreenwriter You just contradicted yourself and proved me right.So if the tree has fallen and you believed the opposite, then the TRUTH only comes about if you see the fallen tree.This is precisely the same as reading about god, or learning about god, but not seeing the truth of his existence (like seeing the fallen tree), or whether or not the bible properly interprets his law.Has he proved himself?Or do you just want him to have? See you cant know this for sure. Hence you cant know TRUTH.
@vidfreak56 I could only care less about proving myself right. In order for someone to argue about the God of the Bible then they have to use proof found within the Bible. God is the truth. Psalm 33:4 For the word of the Lord is right; and all his works are done in truth. And God is no respecter of man-- we haven't made Him anything.
@USCreenwriter LOL so your proof is a book. Get it? A BOOK. Someone wrote or interpreted gods "law" and then wrote it down. Thats not proof of anything. Its proof that someone believes they wrote gods words down. The truth is that you dont know what the "truth" really is. God and the truth are two different concepts. God is your perception of the truth, but thats all. You cant know the truth of what really happened or who god really is and that just kills you.
@USCreenwriter You care less about proving yourself right? Then why do you keep posting when you know fully well what my stance is? Accept that we dont agree and move on. Oh wait you cant. So this means that either your an idiot troll, a desperate person who's trying to convince themselves not to commit suicide, or a fundamentalist who can only spew out whats he/she was taught, but cant really think about it him/herself. Which one are you (2 and 3 maybe?)?
@bogusnachos In order to understand it, there's probably a lot of historically relevant circumstances to consider. Either way, God always judges righteously. He promises.
@vidfreak56 It's not about proving that I'm right; that's just a consequence of following God's law. It's not about ME, it's about Him. Following God's law is a subjective choice but His law being the absolute standard of morality is not. Following is a choice, yes, which is why we're all held accountable on Judgement Day.
@USCreenwriter Again, your using god to prove yourself right. Saying its about "Him" is using "Him" to prove yourself right. As ive said before, I dont argue with people who use god as proof they are right about god. LOL slice it anyways you have to in order for you to sleep at night. If you want to follow god, fine. Ill follow the truth. And to get ya before you say so, no god isnt the truth. Gods what man made him to be. 1000s of years and you think man didnt fudge gods law? Riiiiight.
@vidfreak56 There's not a possibility that I'm wrong because God's moral code is absolute and that's what I adhere to. His code is the truth. Whether or not one believes in God's law is besides the point. Choosing to believe or not is subjective; the truth of the moral code being all-encompassing is not. You can say "I believe morality is relative." That's a subjective interpretation but that doesn't change the nature of morality being absolute.
@USCreenwriter Then you use god to prove you are right. Dont skirt the issue by trying to make it metaphysical. "what I adhere to....His code is the truth"...this proves you are using god to prove yourself right because you adhere to gods teachings, or what you believe to be his teachings(man could have altered it). This is the subjective! "Choosing to believe or not is subjective;" But you choose to believe what has been taught to you, or that its right w/o question.
@USCreenwriter LOL lets look at what you just said. if you aren't saying your right then possibly you're wrong. Or you dont believe your wrong either meaning you lack a belief all together. However this is not correct because then you could take an affirmative belief in gods law. You therefore and state explicitly that you do believe that god is right. So you do believe that gods "law" is objective, hence you think you are right about that. This is using god to prove you are right.
@mrschnuffs Wrong. Believing something doesn't make it right. The fact is, what I believe is true. God's moral standard is objective, incorruptible, and pristine. That is a fact. Now, whether you believe that or not, doesn't make it any less true. Whether I choose to follow it or not, acknowledge it or not, doesn't make it untrue.
@USCreenwriter Whether god's laws are objective or not doesn't even enter the question. The simple fact of the matter is that you believe that they are objective subjectively, or in other words, you make the decision to accept those laws as infallible in your own mind. It's your interpretation. Everyone believes their morals are objective or self-evident, but this makes you no different from any other culture or society. It's relative to your belief.
Morality is relative. Torturing a baby isnt just relative to the person doing it...Its relative to the baby aswell. Its immoral relative to the baby and moral relative to the person doing it (if you assume expressed actions to be moral). Most people confuse moral relativity with moral subjectivity. Moral relativity is the objective view of moral subjectivity, or that everyone has a moral stance when behaving the way they do.
you go Chad.. spread the Gospel
obikelaulbai 4 days ago
You see how spiritual pride and blindness works here. The biggest problem with humans is not with how much or little intelligence they have. Nor is the biggest problem with humans with how smart or dumb they are. The biggest problem with the nature of humans is their sinful nature condition and their need for forgiveness from God through Jesus Christ and a whole new spiritual heart and conscience transplant by Jesus Christ through regeneration from the Holy Spirit of God.
BBQFanNo1 1 week ago
Comment removed
BBQFanNo1 1 week ago
It is only through a human lense that we can devise objectivley better ways in preventing the worst possible misery for everyone. Simply because there is no god, or a rock has no stance on what u do, does not mean that anything goes, and that theres nothing wrong with killing and raping. It is wrong, because the alternative would lead more twoards the worse possible misery for everyone than not. Any ideology devised to protect us from that is objectively better, and thus objectivley moral.
Casper892 1 week ago
I don't really see how anyone could say that societal stability and individual happiness could be anything but good. If the case were ever to be made that they are neither good nor bad, I would refer them to what they themselves feel. More often than not, they will say they personally would rather live in a free society than an unfree one. The reason being because they know its simply a better way to live and the obvious choice. If a person were to choose otherwise, it would be wholey illogical.
Casper892 1 week ago
There are many objective facts that support the idea that there is a better and that there is a worse in terms of the ethics of actions. If we can agree, that the worst possible missery for everyone IS not good, then we can accept a whole host of behavioural ideologies that are objectivaly better in preventing that outcome.Freedom of speech and individual equality are examples of ideas desinged to prevent abuses of the individual, which in turn promote societal stability and individual identity
Casper892 1 week ago
Take care of the babies, why questions it?
MnRProdMariolaur 1 month ago
DUUUUUUUUUUUDE!!!
neoarcadezr 1 month ago
The guy in this video is confused and crazy as a fruit bat.
Vebrotube 1 month ago
The guy being interviewed in this video has obviously suffered from liberal indoctrination of moral relativism.
BT3701 1 month ago
Why does rational responder keep on sending me these shitty videos?
globalchaos1984 1 month ago
Good question what is right or wrong and ware do you draw the line
bcnewsvideo 1 month ago
By the way, the rejection of moral relativism does not require a belief in the unquestionable moral laws of a deity. I for one buy Sam Harris' argument that morality can be boiled down to the well being of conscious creatures. We can indeed measure empirical facts about which cause people to flourish...
JDillaDudas 1 month ago
Every opinion is not equal.
JDillaDudas 1 month ago
@JDillaDudas and truth is not relative to opinion.
OnlyJesusSaves 1 month ago in playlist My Vlog
There can never be an objective moral truth simply because of time. Even the interpretation of absolute moral systems like the bible, quran, talmud, zarathrustrian texts, change over time. Time ensures moral relativism.
astroboomboy 2 months ago
@astroboomboy You just negated your own remark. So your statement, "Time ensures moral relativism" according to you just as well could be false.
thegatheringdenver 2 months ago
@thegatheringdenver No, because the statement "time ensures moral relativism" is not a normative statement on morals, but rather a descriptive statement. Of course, my statement could be wrong, but I have yet to come across any moral system that consistent. I would also like to detract the statement there can be no moral truth, but rather state that one can't make an absolute moral system that is objective and fully consistent.
astroboomboy 2 months ago
@shockoflogic Okay, lets say that the other guy proved that relativism is true. This means that relativism is false. He might claim that relativism is true only for himself. However, if what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false? 1) If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. 2) If you say yes, then relativism is false. Relativism seems to defy the very nature of truth; namely, that truth is not self-contradictory.
polaroidsky 2 months ago
Its always subjective when you're talking in sense of you doing it to someone else. Sure you may think that murder is only wrong if thats your opinion but if someone were to kill your family you would feel as though that was wrong. Moral Law is absolute. Written on the heart of all of mankind
bammc19 2 months ago
@bammc19 - You're biologically primed to want to protect your family and encourage the survival of your species. The emotional attachment is merely an offset of our evolved brain.
851852093114208513 2 months ago
@851852093114208513 Are you absolutely sure?
thegatheringdenver 2 months ago
This poor guy demonstrates how when pressed to find answers the status quo falls woefully flat.
thegatheringdenver 2 months ago
@thegatheringdenver That guy is not the status quo, the status quo is people thinking their moral values are absolute. Most people adhere to a religion that is absolute, and very few people understand the concept of moral relativism. Just like most people don't understand the concepts like theory, validity, truth, belief, etc.
astroboomboy 2 months ago
@astroboomboy Does it make you feel good about yourself to use the term, "most people" in a negative sense.
thegatheringdenver 2 months ago
@thegatheringdenver I have no feelings toward most people, and do not consider myself morally or intellectually superior to any of them.
astroboomboy 2 months ago
Flesh is powerless to have or know perfectly law or morality. Why do we try to connect man to morality even if we can they are not Spirit life.The worse person in the world to wittness too is the moral person of law. Even if you prove they break law they by flesh cannot sustain a Spirit life necessary for eternal life. Spirit gives life, the words I give you, Jesus said, are Spirit and are life.Not one Bible verse but plenty of reason.? I did not hear a truth from scripture to surpress.?
polopowers1 2 months ago
Actually I think that last question before the video ended wasn't fair. You asked a very prolonged and segmented question. It seemed as if he was stalling because he forgot what you asked. So, just to not be bothered with your persistence, he just said, "Sort of..."
At that point, he probably didn't give a fuck about you anymore...
phester061594452 3 months ago
@shockoflogic - forgive me for intruding on the question for the other 2 YouTube users, but the answer is both, since God made the sense of morality. It's simple logic, but I don't mean to offend when I state that it's simple. If you want to know the truth behind everything, invest 10.5 hrs in watching the "Know Your Enemy" series here on YouTube. Godspeed.
nosajresarf 3 months ago
For some reason this guy reminds me of a character on sesame street, and I also am appalled at how biased this audience is... you guys have a very limited view of religion..
mikeytheaznking 3 months ago
Anyone who thinks someone would have a right to harm a child is an Idiot.They are just as guilty as the one who does it.I am so grateful this man does not belong to my family.
mamy101 3 months ago
Most of the religions of the world agree that there is something wrong with human beings--that we have some kind of disorder. Most of these religions point to the innate evil or sinfulness within us. They came to the conclusion that those characteristics of human beings were ultimately hurting humanity as a whole, which is why they believe certain attitudes and actions are wrong.
pautpy 3 months ago
@123andflick You realize you just projected your own opinions of what is morally right onto the statement you just made? According to the statement you just made yourself, you just did something wrong against everyone else. From what you just said, who are you to tell me if me choosing to affect someone else's beliefs are wrong?
pautpy 3 months ago
I'm not a moral relativist, but neither interviewer nor interviewee has the slightest clue what moral relativists say. Sure, if they saw someone molesting a child, they would try to stop them, just as anyone else probably would. That doesn't mean it's objectively wrong, it just means that the person prefers that children not get molested. So does almost everyone in society, so tough shit for the child molester. A society that allows child molesters will die out, because it's unstable.
ianmathwiz7 3 months ago
Aristotele's law of non-contradiction: A cannot be A and non A at the same time and in the same way. Application: truth is or it isn't. There is no room for many truths .
RanchRoadShow 3 months ago
Good Job. Keep it up!
landrypoole 3 months ago
What a liberal egghead
BT3701 3 months ago
AWESOME.
SerpentStomper 3 months ago
3:26 hahaha two morrons
startxxx1991 3 months ago
Demonstrate the existence of objective moral parameters. Until someone does that, I'm going to assume that there are no objective moral parameters.
Emanresu56 3 months ago
@Emanresu56
Do you acknowledge that rape is objectively wrong?
rationalresponder 3 months ago
@rationalresponder No I do not. That doesn't mean, however, that I believe that people "should" rape, because that would imply the existence of an objective good, would it not? Anyway, I asked for someone to demonstrate that there are objective moral parameters. Asking a loaded question is not a demonstration that a moral parameter is objective.
Emanresu56 3 months ago 3
@Emanresu56 i guess chad doesn't know how to answer when he realizes that he's talking to an intelligent person.
@rationalresponder evidence goes a lot further than rhetoric, chad. =P
shockoflogic 3 months ago 4
@shockoflogic I've never seen any coherent argument for objective morality. It always seems to come down to the fear of living in an amoral, indifferent Universe.
Emanresu56 3 months ago
@Emanresu56 if you want a coherent argument, you need to stop talking to apologists! =P
if you want to check something funny out, watch chad's buddy, ray comfort, get his ass handed to him by the hosts of the atheist experience! it's golden.
/watch?v=zyzF8SMQOxU
shockoflogic 3 months ago
@shockoflogic You call that intelligent? lol
Kinosis79 1 month ago
@Kinosis79 disbelieving things that aren't proven??
yes, i would call that intelligent. i would even go so far as to call it wise. :)
shockoflogic 1 month ago
@Kinosis79 claims need at LEAST some kind of rational justification for them to be believed... something a little more than "oh, this belief makes me feel warm and fuzzy so it MUST be true!"
shockoflogic 1 month ago
@Emanresu56 The next time that you actually stop someone from being harmed, or vote your conscience, or grieve at the fact that a person not only raped but murdered a five year old, you will have demonstrated it yourself, by the very fact that your inner being is completely and utterly against those acts. if your kid is murdered, you don't say "i disagree with your right to do that, and it is only my opinion, but i don't like that" no - you demand JUSTICE and say that it was wrong!
Follower172 1 month ago
@rationalresponder
I think a rapist being RAPED in prison is getting his just deserts. So no rape ISN'T objectively wrong.
Leadman1989 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rationalresponder
"Do you acknowledge that rape is objectively wrong?"
objectively wrong in terms of what?
- it's definetly wrong in terms of my SUBJECTIVE standardard and the OBJECTIVE standard of most societies, however what you really seem to be asking is whether it's wrong in terms of your unevidenced ABSOLUTIST standard (that i've already said i reject)
types10000 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rationalresponder
"Do you acknowledge that rape is objectively wrong?"
objectively wrong in terms of what?
- it's definetly wrong in terms of my SUBJECTIVE standardard and the OBJECTIVE standard of most societies, however what you really seem to be asking is whether it's wrong in terms of your unevidenced ABSOLUTIST standard (that i've already said i reject)
types10000 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rationalresponder
"Do you acknowledge that rape is objectively wrong?"
objectively wrong in terms of what?
- it's definetly wrong in terms of my SUBJECTIVE standard and the OBJECTIVE standard of most societies, however what you really seem to be asking is whether it's wrong in terms of your unevidenced ABSOLUTIST standard (that i've already said i reject)
types10000 3 months ago
@rationalresponder does god command things because they're moral or are they moral because he commands them??
shockoflogic 3 months ago
Rape is *Shock! Le gasp* not _objectively_ wrong. I say this because I, like Emanresu here, have no basis for saying that something is _objectively_ wrong. (You could have an empirical way of determining ideal living behaviors in accordance with an arbitrary set of ideals, but...)
However, I personally consider rape to be wrong. Never acceptable. Many others do, too, though the basis for that can be different from my own. That is where laws come from.
StormZephyr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StormZephyr Prove that raping a child isn't objectively moral by providing a logical argument or circumstance in which this act would be at least morally decent or neutral. Subjective morals must be justified.
ubermechazillatron 3 months ago
@rationalresponder No he does not. Theists have tried to say that atheists think rape is ok because they acknowledge that rape played a heavy hand in evolution. The difference between animals and humans raping each other is that we have a stronger ability to place ourselves in others' shoes and resist doing things that would make us very unhappy if they happened to us..
Daghead 3 months ago
You just made that up. There is no "placing ourselves in other's shoes" instinct.
thegatheringdenver 2 months ago
@thegatheringdenver I did not make that up. Animals don't have much of that ability. Even if it isn't "instinct", people to learn from their peers the importance of caring about others. Not bullshit.
Daghead 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rationalresponder "Do you acknowledge that rape is objectively wrong?" lol are you seriously asking this to a moral relativist? Is there any further point to this question once he/she answers "no", or was that argument as vacuous as it looks?
seblasian 2 months ago
@rationalresponder - Do you agree that teenagers should be killed for having relationships? It seems wrong, right? In Saudi Arabia, that's not very extreme. In fact, the families WANT it because they feel it will restore honor lost by the children having a relationship. Society in general has rules about not killing and such because killing each other serves no purpose and only hinders the group's survival. Of course, thanks to religion, killing for God is a-okay.
851852093114208513 2 months ago
@rationalresponder Asking a person for their subjective opinion is nowhere near a proof. I do agree that there is a core set of values (I don't know how many) which are objectively good or bad. However, I don't see the proof that it was ordained. Perhaps we got them from the billions of years (I guess...if you believe in that sort of thing) we've been evolving. I can't think of a species that doesn't seem to obey a moral code.
bgiv2010 1 month ago
@Emanresu56 Is the sum of 2 and 2 subject to relativism? No. You will always get 4. Then that is an ABSOLUTE, 4 is absolutely the TRUE answer.
The Bible Says that All Liars will have their place in the Lake of Fire. Why? Because to Lie is a sin, a violation of God's commands.
Now, is what I just said TRUE?
Will you be judged by God if you have ever lied?
The Bible says, "Yes."
You say, "No."
Are you right or is the Bible right, and by extension God?
What is true?
Decide.
OnlyJesusSaves 3 months ago
@OnlyJesusSaves does god command things because they're moral or are they moral because he commands them??
shockoflogic 3 months ago
@shockoflogic Great question. I would have to say the latter.
thegatheringdenver 2 months ago
@thegatheringdenver if things are moral because he commands them, then morals are not objective, but arbitrary, and god could say, tomorrow, that rape and torture is morally correct.
shockoflogic 2 months ago
@Emanresu56 Prove that skinning someone alive isn't objectively moral by providing a logical argument or circumstance in which this act would be at least morally decent or neutral. Subjective morals must be justified.
ubermechazillatron 3 months ago
Comment removed
thegatheringdenver 2 months ago
@Emanresu56 Is that statement a moral truth? Do you see the problem?
thegatheringdenver 2 months ago
@Emanresu56 "There are no objective moral parameters" very funny, making an absolute moral judgement to negate moral judgements.
thegatheringdenver 2 months ago
@Emanresu56 LOL... piece of cake! Once you receive a gratuitous punch of right in the face you will immediately discover the existence of objective moral parameters! :-))) I bet... Or else if someone take pull you from your motorcycle and take it... Oh, it's so easy!!
feanando 1 month ago
@Emanresu56 objecticve moral parameters are found in the Ten Commandments.
celal777 1 month ago
@celal777 , You're not serious are you?
knowthetruth1492 1 month ago
The objectivity of whether something is good or bad cannot be measured in a universal sense, since the universe is devoid of consiousness and therefor cannot decide between a "right" or a "wrong". Only humans can concive of moral absolutes because we have a consiousness that allows us to. So applying a unviersal standerd to morality is ilogical. This does not mean that moral absolutes do not exist, but rather shift the responsibility from a "god" to a society in determining morality
Casper892 1 week ago
the argument cuts both ways though. God told Abraham to sacrifice his only son, according to the book of Genesis 22. We lock people in prison when they hear God telling them to kill their children (and usually, God's angel is not there to stop them, like Abraham was allegedly stopped by an angel).
BigVK19 3 months ago
He is confused, and watching this video is a waste of time.
stmaryanacortes 3 months ago
Tell me which is worse, a man that will not hear truth or a lire? If a lie is told long enough, and loud enough, it will be believed.
buckbeak1965 3 months ago
I PERFECT EXAMPLE? OF A POSSES PERSON! AND HE OVER EDUCTED
joetalk100 3 months ago
LOL... aren't we human beings funny? I mean... the guy perfectly knows what is right and wrong, but he insists on the idea that relativism is true just not to... admit it!
feanando 3 months ago
Humans have the right to use their freedom of consciousness and freedom of choice, any way they want to, BUT that does not mean they are not responsible to collective moral law. If you murder a person in any country, by the LAW, you will be held accountable for it. THE 10 COMMANDMENTS is the LAW OF THE UNIVERSE, like it or not, all humans are responsible before God, and will be required to give an account for their thoughts, expressions and actions. THERE IS FORGIVENESS IN JESUS IF YOU REPENT.
ANATEMASLGDBGMCL1 3 months ago
wow.....this dummy better get saved or wind up in hell with his moral opinion
humbleyoself 3 months ago
the guy who was questioning his view point appeared to be on some type of mind altering drugs!
bloodhive 3 months ago
religion is nothing, but rhetoric and guilting.
i would love to talk to this interviewer.
HuyerPercussive 3 months ago
@HuyerPercussive Sure... you have some space here... try to convince the world you are right...
feanando 3 months ago
@feanando well, if a claim bears no evidence, but only arguments, then it's considered rhetoric, persuasive speech.
religions revolve around sin and guilt. they take characteristics of human nature, such as lust for example, and try to convince you that it's something "bad" or "wrong" and that you need whatever religion it is that's trying to proselytize you in order to gain "salvation," which there is no evidence for.
without the threat of damnation, religions would lose their followers.
HuyerPercussive 3 months ago 9
@HuyerPercussive could not have said it better... n_n
AvariceLovesVanity 3 months ago
@HuyerPercussive
Quite bs... if you are afraid to go to hell, I am not, and I am a religious man.
According to your definition, the statement "lust does not exist" is rhetoric, for there is no evidence...
I don't think you really proved anything.
feanando 3 months ago
@feanando *STRAWMAN FALLACY ALERT*
nobody said that lust does not exist... try again.
AvariceLovesVanity 3 months ago
@AvariceLovesVanity If everything is relative, nothing really exists, for everything is just opinion.
The very statement "everything is relative" is self-contradictory, for even the statement would be relative.
Therefore, once again, according to your subjective definition, the statement "lust does not exist" is rhetoric, for there is no evidence...
I don't think you really proved anything.
feanando 3 months ago
@feanando *STRAWMAN FALLACY ALERT*
nobody said that everything is relative. also, once again, nobody said that lust does not exist.
let's try staying on topic. ;)
try again?
AvariceLovesVanity 3 months ago
@AvariceLovesVanity Read the title of the video again, pal. Then, see the (poor) guy's (twisted) reasoning. Do I have to explain to you what moral relativism is, and that it comes from Relativism (capital letter)?
Besides, according to your subjective definition, the statement "lust does not exist" is rhetoric, for there is no evidence...
feanando 3 months ago
@feanando *STRAWMAN FALLACY ALERT*
read the title of the video again, pal. it's about MORAL relativism. nobody said that everything is relative or subjective. the guy in this video never says anything about GENERAL relativism.
btw, guess who titled the video... i'll give you a hint, it wasn't the guy being interviewed. ;)
AvariceLovesVanity 3 months ago
@AvariceLovesVanity
This is endless... relativism, Relativism, moral relativism = false.
God bless you.
Bye.
feanando 3 months ago
@feanando typical christian strategy: if you don't have a rational argument, just run away. lol.
reason and logic never fail.
AvariceLovesVanity 3 months ago
@AvariceLovesVanity Sure...
feanando 3 months ago
@AvariceLovesVanity Oh, and I had not noticed your nickname! It explains all your answers, and everything else...
feanando 1 month ago
@AvariceLovesVanity Oh, and please remember that a loving God finds nothing wrong with eternal (yes, ETERNAL) torture of anyone who does not believe in him. How can anyone claim to have a high moral standard when the deity which allegedly gave said standard sees nothing wrong with eternal torture of nonbelievers? What kind of morality is this?
BigVK19 3 months ago
@BigVK19 exactly! not only does he condone eternal torture for the ones he "loves," but he also advocates things like slavery, rape and murder...
ya gotta respect everyone's beliefs, though, right?? hahaha fuck that >.<
i'll tolerate religion, but that's fucked up that people actually think it should be respected...
AvariceLovesVanity 3 months ago
@BigVK19 Well, well... the old story... Somebody here wants to use freedom in a twisted way but doesn't want to hold responsibility for his own choices! It's so... easier to blame somebody else... just like little kids who do wrong, or thieves, or adulterers, or lustful people, or murderers, etc. The list is endless... but not even one of them is really guilty, of course! LOL... AND YET YOU ASKED: "What kind of morality is this????" (SHAMELESS!!! SHAME ON YOU, BRAT!!!)
feanando 1 month ago
@AvariceLovesVanity Oh! I've accidentaly came back here 2 months later and.. alas!... I missed your defense of moral objective parameters!! Please, wise full of vanity man... enlighten me... Does lust exist?
feanando 1 month ago
this interviewer is so incredibly dumb...
HuyerPercussive 3 months ago
@HuyerPercussive yeah because you think torturing babies for the fun of it is a good thing in your opinion you sicko!
xchampx 3 months ago
@xchampx "My sole purpose here is to glorify Jesus and to engage in MEANINGFUL dialogue with Atheists and Nonbelievers of all faiths." - interesting way to spark a meaningful conversation... he makes valid points and you display your immaturity.
sad.
FurtherDriven 3 months ago
@xchampx did i say something offensive?? if so, i apologize. i didn't mean to make any waves, i was just stating my understanding.
HuyerPercussive 3 months ago
@HuyerPercussive both of these guys are dumb
apohl215 3 months ago
so you are trying to prove a point, but neither wrong or right. o.o
theradworldofchad1 3 months ago
I BELIEVE THERES MEANING NO I BELIEVE THERES NOTHING
du4316 5 months ago
truth= jesus lol
wertguy 5 months ago
youtube- "Richard Dawkins vs audience member". Please watch.
mjfraser04 5 months ago
if he would stop someone who is entitled to do something then that would either mean that he is not entilted and would be wronging hitler or hitler is not entiltled and is wrong
woods8870 5 months ago
what makes rape, murder, child molestation, theft, and all other "sins" bad isn't the act itself, it's the negative effect it has on another person's life without their control, consent or permission, that makes it "wrong". Much like being "created". What your God has done is selfishly create me when I was fine and content on not exsisting. But now I will apparently have to live for eternity whether it be in heaven or hell. What a selfish power-hungy God.
mjfraser04 5 months ago
This is so great! It's like what CS Lewis said when talking about natural law. The problem here is that people, and not just younger people, are bombarded daily with this modernist propaganda, but when you confront them like you did, they do realise it's all rubbish.
theantisauronist 5 months ago
"Torturing babies for fun."
is NOT a moral absolute. Emotions have nothing to do with morality. They are in themselves not a moral standard or basis.
"Torturing babies" is a proper moral absolute proposition. BUT one could conceive a scenario where "torturing babies" is morally acceptable. Such as administering vaccines or how about this- CIRCUMCISION. Gosh there's so much relativism in religion.
wutdaFU3K 6 months ago
OWND
Gfmaster9998 6 months ago
What i think is so interesting is that christians just assumes that god is a moral absolutist. Of course, the "christian" CHURCHES are all about moral absolutism because it helps them maintain power. However, if you look at what jesus actually taught, it sounds a LOT more like moral relativism. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" means that morality really IS "what you prefer".
squirc 6 months ago
@squirc I dont think Jesus was talking about morality here. He meant basicly treat others like you want to be treated, which is just a good way of keeping the peace. Eh, idk, i'll have to look into it more...
camthejock 6 months ago
@camthejock And that is not morality?
theantisauronist 5 months ago
@theantisauronist "Do unto others as they do unto you" is not moral relativism. Moral relativism is "whats good for you is good for you."
camthejock 5 months ago
@camthejock
"'Do unto others as they do unto you' is not moral relativism. Moral relativism is 'whats good for you is good for you.'"
- it could be, what if the way you want to be treated is different to the way someone else wants to be treated.
'Treat others as you would like to be treated' contrasts greatly with 'Treat others as God would like you to treat them' and the core of the issue does seem to be a relativist standard vs an absolutist standard.
types10000 5 months ago
@camthejock Did I say it were? You must be replying to someone else's comment.
theantisauronist 5 months ago in playlist Liked
@squirc No, it isn't. Not at all.
theantisauronist 5 months ago
@squirc ...Jesus was simply saying.."treat others the way that you would want to be treated." I don't know many people who want to be treated wrongly...c'mon man..how could you twist this into something it's not?
KmKzxKiSaMexAkatsuki 5 months ago
Lol Bill Maher when he was young. TE whole time I was like what was wondering what he was thinking. You would fight against Hitler because he's wrong dummy. Aghh.
MarineGuild 7 months ago
You don't believe in right and wrong? So would it be right for me to perform a human sacrifice in your lawn? Would it be right for me to rob your house?
That's what I say when I argue about moral relativism
ajsaccount1991 7 months ago
@ajsaccount1991 Just like CS Lewis said when he was talking about right and wrong. The people who claim that there is no right or wrong, would be the first to complain if you try to rob them or treat them unfairly.
theantisauronist 5 months ago
@theantisauronist most insightful post i've seen in a long ass time. you are so right
ajsaccount1991 5 months ago
@ajsaccount1991 Not words from my mind but from CS Lewis'. Check out my video "CS Lewis on Natural Law" for a more thorough explanation of that idea.
theantisauronist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theantisauronist
"The people who claim that there is no right or wrong, would be the first to complain if you try to rob them or treat them unfairly."
- very few people would claim 'right' and 'wrong' DONT EXIST.
- Many however WOULD claim they do not exist as absolutes and are simply words used to refer to things we as individuals subjectively like or do not like.
types10000 5 months ago
Calling God the ultimate moral imperative still makes morality relative, it's relative to whatever God wills. And since we don't know what God's say or want, we have no idea. There are plenty of things God says in the Bible that we should do that we consider evil, so obviously our morality isn't taken from God.
TheBiddleMan 7 months ago
@TheBiddleMan That's just the good old Euthyphro Dilemma.
streetapologetics(.)com/2011/04/what-is-euthyphros-dilemma/
CarlosMarti123 7 months ago
This is sad
Nashhinton 7 months ago
This is extremely interesting. This guy was not prepared to defend his views, as he grew up believing in them without questioning. This is the reverse, and somehwat similar, to what Christian school kids were subjected to in the 60's (or ever since the 60's) by the tactics developed by the Frankfurt School. Those kids then, found it difficult to defend themselves and gave in to moral subjectivism, as they were not equiped to defend themselves from the devious Cultural Marxists.
theantisauronist 8 months ago
check out theoreticalb*****ts treatise on morality. now i don't consider myself an atheist, more like a seeker, but do check it out, it does clear this stuff up to an extent.
StrummingSparrow 9 months ago
this is the most pretentious faggot.
wildstrawberriez 9 months ago
@vidfreak56 Is that last statement you wrote the truth?
trustandrepent 9 months ago 2
@trustandrepent What ive said is the truth and nothing but the truth. Cant handle it?
vidfreak56 9 months ago
"I would've stopped Hitler, but he had the right to do what he did."
He reminds me of a pretentious 16 year old.
BloggerMusicMan 9 months ago
@vidfreak56 All one has to do to learn God is read His word and apply it to one's live. We can know truth in other ways than simply seeing before the eyes.
USCreenwriter 9 months ago
@USCreenwriter You cant know the truth by just thinking of it. I cant know santa claus to exist just by thinking or believing he exists. Therefore you cant know god just by learning what was written about him, visualizing him in your mind, and applying what you think is his law. All one has to do is realize that you cant know the truth when it comes to god and that your belief and the "truth" arent the same. Only god knows...you dont.
vidfreak56 9 months ago
@vidfreak56 Just because one can't know it without seeing it doesn't change the fact that the tree fell and that is true.
USCreenwriter 9 months ago
@USCreenwriter But YOU dont know its true lol. Again you fail. Even if GOD KNOWS, YOU DONT! Get it? You can put your faith in god that he knows all, but that still doesnt mean you know him. That also doesnt mean you know the truth since you cant know what he thinks. You can only perceive god truth or law, but you cant know it. Why? Because you cant verify it. All you can do is listen to others and just blindly believe it w/o proof. Sad.
vidfreak56 9 months ago
@vidfreak56 No. I have not proved your point my dear. If the tree HAS fallen, despite whether or not one believes it or has seen it, the TRUTH is that the tree has fallen.
USCreenwriter 9 months ago
@USCreenwriter But you cant know that w/o having seen it. Sorry but you fail. Even if a third party, such as god, knows it....you do not know it. You only surmise what you think is true. You cant know something has happened w/o having seen it or confirmed it to be true, regardless of what you want to believe. Your just taking contrarian stances to try to make yourself sound smart. In short...DONT because you only keep yourself in your fantasy world instead of being free of it.
vidfreak56 9 months ago
@vidfreak56 I continue to post because I feel like you should know the truth.
USCreenwriter 9 months ago
@USCreenwriter Exactly so you dont continue to post because you want me to know the truth. You post because you want me to know your feelings ("because I feel" your words) of what i should feel. Realize that I dont care what your feelings are and as posted again and again, I DONT ARGUE WITH PEOPLE WHO QUOTE GOD. K? Those are my feelings.
vidfreak56 9 months ago
@vidfreak56 My proof is more than just a book, my dear. God has proved Himself in my life time and time again. I have a personal relationship with Jesus and you can too. And yes, I use God's word to understand Him. It's rational. I do know the truth and that truth is the Gospel message. Truth is NOT subjective. Truth exists outside of ourselves. I may believe that a tree has not fallen down, but if that tree has indeed fallen down, then the TRUTH is that the tree has fallen.
USCreenwriter 9 months ago
@USCreenwriter You just contradicted yourself and proved me right.So if the tree has fallen and you believed the opposite, then the TRUTH only comes about if you see the fallen tree.This is precisely the same as reading about god, or learning about god, but not seeing the truth of his existence (like seeing the fallen tree), or whether or not the bible properly interprets his law.Has he proved himself?Or do you just want him to have? See you cant know this for sure. Hence you cant know TRUTH.
vidfreak56 9 months ago
@vidfreak56 I could only care less about proving myself right. In order for someone to argue about the God of the Bible then they have to use proof found within the Bible. God is the truth. Psalm 33:4 For the word of the Lord is right; and all his works are done in truth. And God is no respecter of man-- we haven't made Him anything.
USCreenwriter 10 months ago
@USCreenwriter LOL so your proof is a book. Get it? A BOOK. Someone wrote or interpreted gods "law" and then wrote it down. Thats not proof of anything. Its proof that someone believes they wrote gods words down. The truth is that you dont know what the "truth" really is. God and the truth are two different concepts. God is your perception of the truth, but thats all. You cant know the truth of what really happened or who god really is and that just kills you.
vidfreak56 10 months ago
@USCreenwriter You care less about proving yourself right? Then why do you keep posting when you know fully well what my stance is? Accept that we dont agree and move on. Oh wait you cant. So this means that either your an idiot troll, a desperate person who's trying to convince themselves not to commit suicide, or a fundamentalist who can only spew out whats he/she was taught, but cant really think about it him/herself. Which one are you (2 and 3 maybe?)?
vidfreak56 10 months ago
@bogusnachos In order to understand it, there's probably a lot of historically relevant circumstances to consider. Either way, God always judges righteously. He promises.
USCreenwriter 10 months ago
@vidfreak56 It's not about proving that I'm right; that's just a consequence of following God's law. It's not about ME, it's about Him. Following God's law is a subjective choice but His law being the absolute standard of morality is not. Following is a choice, yes, which is why we're all held accountable on Judgement Day.
USCreenwriter 10 months ago
@USCreenwriter Again, your using god to prove yourself right. Saying its about "Him" is using "Him" to prove yourself right. As ive said before, I dont argue with people who use god as proof they are right about god. LOL slice it anyways you have to in order for you to sleep at night. If you want to follow god, fine. Ill follow the truth. And to get ya before you say so, no god isnt the truth. Gods what man made him to be. 1000s of years and you think man didnt fudge gods law? Riiiiight.
vidfreak56 10 months ago
@vidfreak56 There's not a possibility that I'm wrong because God's moral code is absolute and that's what I adhere to. His code is the truth. Whether or not one believes in God's law is besides the point. Choosing to believe or not is subjective; the truth of the moral code being all-encompassing is not. You can say "I believe morality is relative." That's a subjective interpretation but that doesn't change the nature of morality being absolute.
USCreenwriter 10 months ago
@USCreenwriter Then you use god to prove you are right. Dont skirt the issue by trying to make it metaphysical. "what I adhere to....His code is the truth"...this proves you are using god to prove yourself right because you adhere to gods teachings, or what you believe to be his teachings(man could have altered it). This is the subjective! "Choosing to believe or not is subjective;" But you choose to believe what has been taught to you, or that its right w/o question.
vidfreak56 10 months ago
@vidfreak56 I'm not saying I'm right; I'm saying God's right. That's different.
USCreenwriter 10 months ago
@USCreenwriter LOL lets look at what you just said. if you aren't saying your right then possibly you're wrong. Or you dont believe your wrong either meaning you lack a belief all together. However this is not correct because then you could take an affirmative belief in gods law. You therefore and state explicitly that you do believe that god is right. So you do believe that gods "law" is objective, hence you think you are right about that. This is using god to prove you are right.
vidfreak56 10 months ago
@USCreenwriter That should say "However this is not correct because then you COULDN'T take an affirmative belief in gods law." Youtube needs editing.
vidfreak56 10 months ago
@mrschnuffs Wrong. Believing something doesn't make it right. The fact is, what I believe is true. God's moral standard is objective, incorruptible, and pristine. That is a fact. Now, whether you believe that or not, doesn't make it any less true. Whether I choose to follow it or not, acknowledge it or not, doesn't make it untrue.
USCreenwriter 10 months ago
@vidfreak56 God's law is not subjective. His law applies to all.
USCreenwriter 10 months ago
@USCreenwriter Sorry I dont argue with people who use god as an excuse to be right.
vidfreak56 10 months ago
@USCreenwriter Whether god's laws are objective or not doesn't even enter the question. The simple fact of the matter is that you believe that they are objective subjectively, or in other words, you make the decision to accept those laws as infallible in your own mind. It's your interpretation. Everyone believes their morals are objective or self-evident, but this makes you no different from any other culture or society. It's relative to your belief.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
2:54 liar
zragisha 10 months ago
Morality is relative. Torturing a baby isnt just relative to the person doing it...Its relative to the baby aswell. Its immoral relative to the baby and moral relative to the person doing it (if you assume expressed actions to be moral). Most people confuse moral relativity with moral subjectivity. Moral relativity is the objective view of moral subjectivity, or that everyone has a moral stance when behaving the way they do.
vidfreak56 10 months ago
@vidfreak56 There's a right and there's a wrong. No use trying to be smart and arguing that torturing a baby is somehow right. It just isn't.
USCreenwriter 10 months ago