I disagree with this atheist. I don't believe it is wrong to have slaves, and I don't believe it was wrong when god killed and raped women and children because I don't believe in the existence of evil. There is no empirical evidence for evil's existence, so there is no reason for me to believe that evil exists. This is not an argument that all atheists make. I personally believe in Nietzsche's position with regards to good and evil: THAT THERE IS NO GOOD OR EVIL!
@kidasterorig111 I do care, I just don't think it is wrong for slavery to exist - because I don't believe that any action is "wrong".
Yes, I would care because I dislike rape and some forms of murder, but I don't believe it's wrong to do either of these - I just dislike them.
God himself didn't rape women, but he ordered the Jews to rape the Canaanites, Amalekites etc. Also, I guess you could call the forced pregnancy of Mary "rape" because she didn't give permission.
Should I be afraid that a Christian who loses his faith will turn into a selfish jerk, if they don't believe immorality still exists if God doesn't exist?
Are God's judgments arbitrary? If not, then mustn't they be based in an idea that would still be valid even if he didn't exist?
Additionally, if an atheist has no basis on which to say an action is evil--on what basis can a Christian say going against the will of God is evil? I suspect there's a rebuttal, but I'd like to know it.
Dr. Craig asks on what basis can we make a value judgment that these things are horrible. I say we do not need to make a "value judgment." Value judgments are superfluous and not terribly meaningful. All we need is to know what suffering is; we can't stand it. Neither can others. If I allowed others to suffer for my benefit, I'd be acting as if their suffering were less important than my own, purely because I didn't feel it. But this would be false.
Slavery, Murder: “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.(Exo,21:20-21)
Child Abuse, Rape: I think the Catholic Church have made it very clear.
Here is the atheist reasoning against murder. I hate murderers. Why? Because murder is wrong. Why? Because culture says so. Why? Because humans got together and decided that murder was wrong. Why? Because murder is wrong. Why? Because culture says so. Why? Because humans got together and decided that murder was wrong. Why? Because murder is wrong. Why? Because culture says so. Why? Because humans got together and decided that murder was wrong. Why? (Repeat)
@Law19157 They would just dodge that question and then revert back to their circular reasoning.
Most rational people understand that circular reasoning is impossible.
Dr. Craig speaks about the "Moral Argument". Basically in a nutshell this argument says that you cannot have morality without some originating source. So the Moral Argument is another point that leads him to believe that there is a God.
If you don't believe that a God exists, you must use circular reasoning for morality.
@karozans Can I just ask why you think there is no other option for why humans have morality..? I find it very depressing that you would rather subject yourself and everyone else to a totalitarian-like authority that you believe gives you morals, what if those morals were changed? If you would happily do anything you believe God says to you, then don't bother replying to me cos I'm quite happy to leave it at that.
Any other reason for human morality leads to infinite regress and circular reasoning.
God is not totalitarian. I do what I want, when I want. I also am a man, and I understand that I must pay the consequences for my actions.
Thankfully the source where I get my morality from hasn't changed since the beginning of the Universe. So I am fairly confident that they won't change in the near future.
Both you and I certainly have the choice to do what God wants or not. Just...
You clearly don't do whatever you want because I'm assuming you live by the morals stated explicitly in the bible, and that moral source hasn't existed since the beginning of the universe. And stop using the phrase 'circular reasoning' because that is exactly what your doing - relying on only one thing in your argument and that is simply 'it can't be disproved or fully proved any other way'.
I go to a Church of England school so I am being forced...
It is apparent that you don't know what morality is.
You are full of crap. I am not using circular reasoning for morality.
My morality starts with God and does not deviate. I choose to follow it or not. If I follow that morality then I am fine. If I choose not to, I am ready to pay the consequences.
You youtube atheists are probably the dumbest people that have ever walked the earth.
@karozans It's fine that you don't care I was simply making the point that many children are brainwashed to believing the tripe that is your 'source of morality'.
You are using circular reasoning - you're following morality rules in the bible because you just assume they're right and don't care about proof.
And you clearly don't know what morality is because you rely on a book to try and understand it.
Same thing could be said about brainwashing children about AGW and evolution.
Sorry but you don't know what circular reasoning is. If you want to know what circular reasoning is look at my very first post at the top of this thread.
Your last sentence is meaningless and carries no weight or validity.
@karozans Circular reasoning is supporting a point with an assumption - that's what I thought anyway.
Children are encouraged to look for evidence regarding AGW and evolution and then decide for themselves whether to believe it, but the evidence is overwhelming so that's why it is taught as scientific fact. They don't get punished for not believing it - if more religious people had that attitude I really wouldn't have such a problem with it.
@karozans It sure would be great to live in such a place. I agree that assumptions are made constantly - sometimes for better and for worse. And atheists and religious people use circular reasoning in that respect. But why is what I said false and why do you follow the morality rules in the bible when you clearly don't care whether your faith is true or not?
Circular reasoning isn't simply using an assumption as a premise. Circular reasoning is more of using an assumption in a premise, and then using the argument to prove your assumption.
That is kinda like starting off trying to prove Pythagorean theorem, and then using Pythagorean theorem later on in the proof to prove Pythagorean theorem.
My faith is not the only foundation for my morality. I use logic and reason just like Dr. WLC to show that relative morality...
I simply cannot accept the fact that beating your wife is neither right or wrong, it just depends on where you live.
Moreover, because I have come to the conclusion that relative morality is false and that there are objective morals, I then look for the source of these objective morals and whether or not they jive with what I believe they are.
Then you get into specific theological arguments for explaining morality.
Atheists simply cannot answer the question when it comes to moral relativism. They always have to regress into circular reasoning. They have no reason or basis to their beliefs.
If we lived in a culture where it was perfectly fine to murder, rape, molest, or enslave, they would be willing participants.
They have absolutely no reason why these things are wrong and why our culture today says it is wrong to do these things.
Pretty hopeless, huh, to show to atheists how relativism has very weak moral force to condemn anything. To them it's completely fine to condemn the Nazis just on the basis of sociocultural difference. Quite easy to say when you're living in a first-world country which has a proper legal system and defends your rights, but if you're living in Sudan or Afghanistan or Myanmar - who's right and who's wrong? Is there any basis to condemn a violent and oppressive government?
@kdcox1205 as a matter of fact.. Hitler's religious veiws clearly indicate him to be an Atheist. Have you talked to many German's lately? 95% of them don't believe in God and are Atheist. and they all believe in Evolution. this clearly indicates and points serious impliments to Hitler being an Atheist, well that and his own confessions and written document evidence of himself admitting so behind closed doors.
@girtkaz Yes, atheism does, but the ATHEIST in this video does not. That's what I meant when I said ATHEIST instead of ATHEISM. I apologize if that was ambiguous. Thanks for the response!
@girtkaz No, I said that the atheist here is making objective claims about morality. You are right that atheism makes subjective claims about morality, but the atheist here is not acting in accordance with a relativistic theory of morality that he affirms.
Unfortunately, Dr. Leikind is a relativist. A better argument against slavery, child abuse etc. would be utilitarianism. Utilitarianism means doing what is right for the overall good--and slavery, etc is not right, nor is it beneficial for the overall good. Societies with slavery for example, has been shown to be less efficient than a free society.
@atheistprophet5760 I could quote some soviet utalitarists and what did they ment by overall good and how killing tens of millions were improoving overall good:-))
@kvash3154 Yes, I used his idea on suffering on my very first comment. I agree with him that there is an universal sense of morality. I can't summarize his points in such small space. I suggest you get the ebook. I suggest you research further, I'm still searching as well.
@esiosan There is no universal morality outside of a higher power, it all becomes relative. Compare what is right morally where you live to any foreign nation of your choosing, and I guarantee that there will be STARK contrast in one area or another. Universal morality does not exist in human form.
@hayakain "no universal morality out of a higher power"?Seems to me you are a theist.So I'm not going to discuss philosophy and science with you. My previous posts speculate that w/ dna research may be possible2find what gives organic life the innate drive to survive. And what is perceived as wrong is a violation of such drive e.g. suffering. I'm speculating, it's an educated guess. So causing suffering is wrong since it violates life hence universal truth would come from life's innate drive.
@hayakain The word "suffering" - which I mentioned, is key here. To experience suffering, certain mental faculties are necessary for one to exercise minimum consciousness, unlike unborn fetuses up to a certain stage of brain development. There is nothing to "admit" to, stop being pretentious. I suggest researching away from your preconceived notions & bias. It's time to move away from iron age mentality. I part with Carl Sagan's quote: "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence".
@hayakain I never mentioned "physical pain", but suffering of conscious beings and violation of life in the sense of when it(life) is conscious. You still haven't read my previous posts. If life is not conscious then there is no wrong otherwise it would be wrong to kill a fly. So long the being is conscious then it would constitute wrong. An unborn fetus is not conscious. Seems to me you are using straw man arguments.
Look up what an informal fallacy is.Study philosophy&science, keep searching.
@esiosan An unborn baby is not conscious in the way you and I are, however it is very much alive and developing, and therefore alive. You need to read up on your medical knowledge.
Under these circumstances killing it IS a violation of life.
Secondly you fail to understand that most people base morals on what can or will make THEM "suffer" as you say, not others. The human mentality is VERY self oriented, and under your ideology you cannot say anything in opposition is truly evil with certainty.
@hayakain There has been a lot of in-depth conversations about the subject of abortion. And as of now abortion still legal in the U.S. meaning pro-life has not yet won the debate. With that in mind, I really am disinterested in trying to go over all the discrepancies involved in this subject. Just remember to keep searching, nothing is as simple as we imagine.
@kvash3154 The books I mentioned discuss suffering and well being of conscious beings. As for the innate drive to survive coded in our DNA is my personal take on the subject of morality. I only began reading "The moral landscape" a couple of days ago, after my answers. No, you cannot see rape and love as the same. Moral relativism is wrong.
@esiosan you read "The End of Faith" and "A Letter to a Christian Nation"? Did you us any of Dr. Harris views in the points you made?
And does he's view show an error in the point I made in my last comment? If so how? So far, all I can tell is that your stating a belief in something that appeals to you(and me for that matter). But what makes your belief sound? Shouldn't it be more then just a belief? thanks for your time.
Slavery, Child Abuse, Genocide, Molestation, Murder, Rape, etc.
It is immoral because it causes human suffering. Atheistic morals aren't subjective to society's point of view, it regards the feelings of those being wronged. And that is something VERY MORAL. I feel like the atheist on this debate didn't articulate the answer well.
@esiosan Hello I was interested in what you said. Could you please explain why human suffering is wrong? What if a person doesn't believe you, and thinks its okay to cause suffering? Some people believe certain groups/types of people should suffer or be destroyed. Why should I or anyone believe that your "moral absolute" should be obeyed? I guess I'm wondering why you believe that humans are relevant? what proof do you have that humans are relevant? thanks for any time you can spare.
@kvash3154 The notion of right & wrong could be innate of organic life itself. In other words, our notion of self importance may be rooted within life's implicit law of "self preservation". It's something we'd discover written in our DNA. My philosophical & speculative take on morality, & relevance it's life's innate drive toward its own preservation. Perhaps we're here by chance, we have many questions, that's a start. I however disagree with existential nihilism in these matters. All the best.
@esiosan If I understand you correctly, I think all you have done is expressed some beliefs that you feel comfortable with, and there for you're willing to except them. Please don't mistake it for an insult, its simply an observation in a limited amount of information that you've offered. Thanks for your time.
@kvash3154 In a nutshell, our perception on right&wrong, good&evil, may be a subconscious response to what violates, or threatens organic life's innate drive twrd existence(e.g. Nazis perceive others as existential threats). Further DNA research is required to uncover the code responsible for life's innate drive, and why there is one in the first place. A "comfortable" or "acceptable belief" is intellectual dishonesty imo, a scientific answer is valid. 500max chars result in insufficient info :)
@esiosan so the nazis's were just follow the same "program" just in a different application? One person makes love, and another rapes, both follow their sexual desires, the question I pose is one way wrong and one way right? And if so, how?
@kvash3154 Rape is violence, considering all its motives, it still infringes life's innate law/drive for survival. Love, however promotes continuity to life, hate does not. That signifies right&wrong to living beings. The Nazis were on the same "program"(e.g. perceiving an existential threat, nevertheless created by their collective delusions&philosophical limitations/dishonesty). The rest of the world perceived their attitude as a "violation of life" hence "wrongful". Ty for being a gentleman
@esiosan Isn't violence(and hate) a part of DNA's over all "program"? Also isn't violence both a "positive" and a "negative" in regards to survival? As for the nazis's personal views, did they not come from natural means? Wouldn't any philosophical view ultimately be rooted in nature(environment/ DNA)? In other words just a more complex form of what nature does already? How do you determine that the nazis's were using an incorrect application, when the over all "program" allows for it?
@esiosan by the way, thanks for discussing this instead of just throwing insults. Some people can get very upset sometimes when I ask these questions.
@kvash3154 Two days ago I started reading the most recent work of renown neuroscientist Sam Harris PhD. called, "The Moral Landscape". I read both of his earlier works, The End of Faith, and A Letter to a Christian Nation.
In the Moral Landscape, He takes an insightful look at science and morality, moral relativism, and other philosophical/religious topics. So far it's a good read, I suggest you get the audiobook to listen in your car, or ipod.
@esiosan Did your answers come from those books? If so I don't think he will be saying anything new.
If there is no supernatural anything, then all things ultimately come from nature(environment/DNA), and then ultimately all things are natural. Its natural to make love or rape, its natural to save a live or kill, its natural to set free or enslave, its natural to be a theist or an atheist. Ultimately all is natural, simply because there is only nature, in a materialistic reality. thanks.
So what if he doesn't have a "grounding"? Theist morality "anchors" on a belief that is far less certain than what is logically right and wrong. I have a feeling this video is being used to support the theists' viewpoint, but it should, in fact, diminish the theistic argument. The theists have no more factual basis on which to plant their argument than the atheist. Additionally, the atheist is being more reasonable because he does not place an impossible being between himself and the response
There is no such thing as absolute freedom. However there is absolute slavery. Freedom is an illusion. We are only free to the extent that others allows. If our freedom offends others and we lose freedom are we really free? Were we ever free?
75% of this country is christian. 10% is Atheist. 75% of the prison population is christian. .2 % of the prison population is atheist. so please Christians dont bring up this idea that Christians are Always morally right. Most Christians are Christians because mommy and daddy told them what to believe. their weak cunts
@IIIArrow711 Your logic doesn't follow. If 99% of the population has black hair. And 1% has blond hair. Then that means most crimes will be committed by people with black hair. Does that mean that all black haired people are wrong? William Lane Craig did not come from a religious family. Please attempt to grow a brain.
@drcraigvideos The logic follows just fine. He was rude, but percents are percents... in your example, if 1% of the crimes were committed by blondes, then that would mean that blondes commit crimes in equal ratio to black haired people. In his example, he claims that only 0.2% of jailed persons are atheists. It would have to be 10% of jailed atheists to match the ratio of jailed Christians. This means that Christians are 2/100 as good at not being jailed as atheists. You failed.
@IIIArrow711 You are ignorant as whom is a Christian. Hitler claimed to be a Catholic and Catholics claim to be Christians and there are a billion of them; yet they have a completely different gospel & Jesus. They are "professing Christians", which is no Christian at all. It is not a question if morality is relative or not; it is a question is there a moral lawgiver; if so, then all will give an account to the true God of the Bible? The atheist is the proverbial Ostrich w/head in the sand.
@IIIArrow711 what does listing prison population have to do with %'s of associated worldviews. We could just as easily say that theists are just more passionate about life & hence the ups and downs of lving within and beyond the law are more commonplace simply based on passionate/vibrant undertakings.....i mean i could just as easily infer that...but its still garbage.
@IIIArrow711 Aren't you equivocating? According to CUNY, 14% are non-religious, but only .4% identify as atheist. According to a 2008 Pew survey, 21% of self-described ATHEISTS believe in some sort of God. And considering atheists are overwhelmingly middle-to-upper-class white males, the figure you cite isn't that astounding. My advice is to refrain from insults when you reveal yourself to be ignorant.
i think you have both missed the point of the video the man speaking on the other side of the theist, isn't really trying to make the point non theistic values are better, what he is saying is our morals are created and developed by social communities. and the morals all of us use today do not have an anchor and are better because they don't have an anchor.
This is by far the WEAKEST of all theistic arguments. The atheist has a superior mind set for morals, because atheists are free thinkers and do not get their moral system from one single book or set of laws. A book( the bible) that not only never condemns slavery, rape, child abuse, or genocide, but in several places condones those behaviors. Lastly, under a theistic view you cannot condone those actions or call them wrong because they are all Gods plan and he could have stopped them but didn't
1 "( the bible) that not only never condemns slavery"
“Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). "for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers 1Tim 1:10"
"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her," (Deut. 22:25-28).
@RandomNonsence apparently you know little about scripture... the bible doesn't condemn slavery, but suggests freedom, as the bible tells slaves to seek to be free when given the opportunity... child abuse is a very specific term... we obviously are to discipline but not unduly strike our children... rape is implicitly condemned... it is fornication/sexual immorality/adultery (depending on the circumstance), and genocide is murder, which is condemned...
@RandomNonsence However, God can do things that we as humans cant... we didnt author life, he did, so he has the right to take those rights away for whatever righteous reason that he finds to do so.
"They are all Gods plan?" Well, i cant call the conquest of canaan wrong because God did it first of all (agreed), however, that doesnt mean that i should just go and start killing people for God said do not kill. God was ridding the land of paganism... they were burning their children in fires..
@RandomNonsence And in terms of this being a weak theistic argument, i argue that its quite strong because it shows that there is a universal understanding of how we as people expect to be treated. If i just went up to you, didnt like you and punched you in the face, according to relativism, you cant condemn me for that, objectively, it is my opinion that punching you is good because it rids the world of...atheistic thought lol! * No one can make value judgments and complain about mistreatment.
@Limbsy I think the point is that even within Christianity, there is a discrepancy in value judgments. The atheist is being humble when he says that things are relative, because he cannot claim to know what is truly right. Of course he feels strongly about what IS right, but who is he to believe in something and then tell others what to think? That is the whole point and the flaw in the theist perspective. Not that either is right or wrong, but I want to get to the point.
@RandomNonsence On the contrary, the atheist, which doesn't really exist, is a lazy thinker. The atheist has a set of beliefs that has determined the God of the Bible just doesn't exist without any reasonable effort to look at the bible's validity against other religions books against what science affirms. It takes a great deal of "faith" to be an atheist. much more faith that I have as a Christian. The difference is my faith is grounded in all of the above and yours is by what????
@RandomNonsence It does condemn slavery, you just need to do the study and not rely on authors to teach you, you can skip the middle man and go right to the bible itself to know.
@Lichtspielhaus234 You don't really know the scripture. Which version did you read? The KJV, NIV and NASB all say as a "burnt offering". Quit talking about things you don't know.
@Lichtspielhaus234 I haven’t done any special research on the bible other than reason it and looking up a few Hebrew versions to compare but I will gladly admit that I haven’t done very much research on this. That is why I am asking you. That is why I want to hear the opinions from believers. Do you have a problem with the fact that I actually am interested in hearing about your religion? Would you rather that I just rejected it for no reason?
@89Illum To avoid any further quarreling, I am only going to quote scripture for a while. I will try to give the scripture that I feel you are looking for but I won't state my opinions or attempt to interpret anything. From now until the quarreling ends, I won't write a word here that isn't a quote from Scripture.
Okay. First of all, why does an all-knowing God need testing? He would clearly know our thoughts and feelings. A test is useless. Second of all. What did Abraham do in order to pass the test? I am saying that the only moral and correct thing to do is to refuse to go through with it. Son’t you believe human sacrifice and killing is wrong? Perhaps you don’t. Perhaps that’s the problem.
@Lichtspielhaus234 1 Kings 20: 35-36 has nothing to do with anything? Sure it does, it shows that god is not about morality but rather his personal opinion by demand. IT NEVER ONCE STATES what God says or does or even THINKS? Sure it does. I told you, a lion was send to slay him, and who but God could have done that? God send a lion to kill a man who listened to his intellect and realized that to kill another man for no good reason is immoral. For that God killed him.
@Lichtspielhaus234 The entire conversation you have been saying that that was the Old Testament law, and that wasn’t meant forever, and we have changed that, and Jesus made the laws go away, and however it was intended in the old days, that has changed now. And now all of a sudden you turn it 180 and say that we should stick to the original intend. And God is not limited to the intend of his creation. Was hell ever created for man? That’s not the story I have heard.
@Lichtspielhaus234 No, homosexuals cannot reproduce together. I know that many donate sperm, but no, a man and a man can’t have children together. So what? Is that a bad thing? What harm is done when nothing is done? And if it’s a harm to you, then tell me why you spend time on Youtube when you could use that time making more children. He doesn't like it, BECAUSE he didn't create man to lay with another? Since when has that been a limit to God or yourself for that matter? Cont.
@89Illum A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts. Song of Songs 1:13
Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies. Song of Songs 4:5
Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue; and the smell of thy garments is like the smell of Lebanon. Song of Songs 4:11
My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him. Song of Songs 5:4
@89Illum I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock. Song of Songs 5:5
His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem. Song of Songs 5:16
This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes. Song of Songs 7:7
@89Illum My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praise her. Song of Song 6:9
I am a wall, and my breasts like towers: then was I in his eyes as one that found favour. Song of Songs 8:10
I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, that ye stir not up, nor awake love, until it pleases. Song of Songs 8:4
@89Illum Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame. Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it: if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would be contemned. Song of Songs 8:6-7
@89Illum We know love by this, that he laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 1 John 3:16
Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him. John 14:23
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women. 2 Samuel 1:26
@89Illum Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. Proverbs 27:17
Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss. 1 Thessalonians 5:26
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21
For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost. Luke 19:10
@bejjinks "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21" That must not be referring to atheists, because as an atheist myself, i always thank ANYONE who is to blame, even if it IS god, i still thank him, even if i don't believe in him, i believe his existence is very well possible, so i thank him too.
@Lichtspielhaus234 However, God is, as seen in this passage, pleased to hear that people see him as a blood thirsty. And we know that he is, we can just look at other verses. You know of course of Jephthah, who’s sacrifice was accepted. You know of course of the rituals of burned offerings, which I would not myself like, since I am not that blood thirst, but apparently God is. And we might also look to the real world and not just the book. Why doesn’t God stop people who sacrifice humans to him?
@89Illum God never said anything to Jephthah and the Bible doesn't say whether God was pleased or not. The story of Jephthah was included, not to be a role model to Christians, but to illustrate the way the Israelites thought at that time. Therefore, we can understand when God sent Samuel what kind of people Samuel had to deal with. The Israelites themselves were bloodthirsty with or without God.
@Lichtspielhaus234 On blood thirst. Yes. God blessed him because Abraham obeyed. God commanded a blood sacrifice. IF blood sacrifice is NOT in God’s character, then the correct response from Abr. Is NO, you will not make me do an evil deed. You are either testing me or you are the devil trying to deceive me. I know the lord and he is good, and he would never ask anyone of such a thing. And if blood sacrifice is NOT in God’s character, God would be pleased to hear this.
@Lichtspielhaus234 And that is actually just what he is. 1 Kings 20:35-36. This moral lesson from god is very interesting. A completely immoral, unnecessary, meaningless evil deed has been asked in the name of the lord. And you can laugh and the guy asking a friend to strike him, but he couldn’t have controlled the lion. God is here delivering the message that if we don’t obey no matter what he commands he will slay us. He is truly the essence of a classic Walt Disney villain.
@89Illum Abraham really DID believe that God had ordered him to sacrifice his son. Abraham thought that he might actually have to kill his son. But he also believed that God could and would intervene either to prevent the killing or to raise Isaac from the dead. This story isn't about who God is. God was acting completely out of character for God. This story is about Abraham and everything Abraham thought is not just relevant, but the heart of the story. cont
@89Illum As Abraham got closer and closer to the deed, he got slower and slower. He knew God would intervene but he wanted to give God every chance he could to intervene. I'm sure he was fervently praying and crying the whole time, especially when he raised the knife ready to make the cut. But after God intervened, Abraham knew himself better and that was the point of the story, not to demonstrate God, but to teach Abraham about himself. And to teach us about ourselves.
@89Illum What is your highest priority? money? Would you sacrifice your children for money? Many people do. They might not kill their children but they sacrifice their children in more abstract ways.
@bejjinks On things being worse than sin and on living hell etc. I understand that. But a good life and a living hell, these are loaded, subjective judgments we make individually. If you think it would be a living hell not living through the Bible, fine, I would force you not to. But I think it would be a living hell for me to do. :)
Gays often blind themselves to the negative and they even get violently defensive against anyone exposing the negative? There’s room for that in the next comment.
@bejjinks I am gay myself. And I don’t see anything wrong with being gay. So when people tell me something is wrong with it, of course I will defend my case. You are assuming that there is something wrong with being gay and therefore we make ourselves blind to the bad things about it. But that is not the case. Haven’t you ever thought about the possibility that there isn’t anything wrong with being gay? In the same way, people assume we make ourselves blind to God. Same thing.
@89Illum Remember that I'm the ex-gay. Don't lump me in with Licht. The more he talks the less I like him. I'm not here to force my opinions down your throat. I'm just stating that to me, my time in the gay community was a living hell and when you get older, in my opinion, it will become a living hell for you too. Sin is very fun for a season.
@bejjinks God never said anything to Jephthah and the Bible doesn't say whether God was pleased or not. True. But if God was against a human sacrifice, he has a weird way of handling it. If someone was about to sacrifice a human in my name I would stop them immediately. And apparently he strikes on a lot of other things in the Bible, like being gay, blasphemy, etc, but killing in his name is apparently not an issue with God. Which is odd if he is truly the author of morality.
@89Illum God respects our will. If you had six billion people and they were all trying to kill each other, who would you save? Would you intervene and save Mr. Smith knowing that Mr. Smith was going to murder Mr. Jones. So overall, God stays out of it. He does intervene when it's important. He will accomplish his goals despite us. But in trivial little squabbles such as between you and Licht, he'll let you kill each other if that's what you decide to do.
@Lichtspielhaus234 This is the danger of just accepting a command. This verse has basis in a personal dislike or fear that is not rational, yet you cling to it because you are afraid to stand up and say This law is wrong. And if god has thinks he knows so much that he can control our lives and throw us to hell, he must take the responsibility and explain to why he thinks these things are wrong. If he does not, he is no different from a mafia boss, saying Do as I say or I’ll break you.
@Lichtspielhaus234 The laws were not meant for today? Hmm. Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. That means the law is permanent and will never change.
On homosexuality. I think you are saying something very important here. The law against homosexuality is in fact not useful, because homosexuality has no negative effects on society. But God just doesn’t like it. Cont.
@89Illum Homosexuality has hidden negative effects on the individual. Let me be the one to explain since Licht doesn't have any personal experience with that. He only has freinds who have personal experience with that. Those that are involved with homosexuality often blind themselves to the negative and they even get violently defensive against anyone exposing the negative. But I will not go back to wallow in that mud. I will not go back to partake of that vomit.
@Lichtspielhaus234 "Christ spoke about the moral and ceremonial laws." Yes, you're right. He fulfilled instead of abolished. And now repentance and forgiveness of sins is preached and is to be preached in his name.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Matthew 22:40 (not 24). But the point was that if we love as those first two commandments say, we will obey all the other commandments out of love, not because "I told you to." We won't murder because you can't murder if you love. We'll refrain from fleshly desires so that we can give more to those who we love. We won't harm ourselves because we are loved. (Psalms 119:97,113,163, and 165)
I remember watching this and thinking the atheist was a very lazy thinker. I can only imagine how frustrating it was talking with him. It was frustrating just watching him.
@Lichtspielhaus234 "You are wasting your time, are you not?" I'm afraid you have got me there. I thought you or the others defending this video might respond to reason. I thought if I pressed at hypocrisies you might see them. I thought maybe that you and the others cared enough to defend whether any of it were true. I was wrong. The last thing I'll say is that apparently everyone can't be saved.
@IamtheMADman24 On this, I will agree wholeheartedly with Lichtspielhaus234. You were questioning the validity of the Bible. I don't care to argue that. I trust the Bible completely and I don't trust relativism. And God will defend his word so I don't have to. I'll just warn you that many people throughout history have tried to discredit the Bible and they all failed and the Bible is still held in high regard by millions.
@bejjinks argumentum ad populum, argument from popularity is a common logical fallacy which asserts that because something is popular it must be true. Even using that logic that Christians make up about 33% of the world which means overall most people don't believe it. You can believe whatever you want but the idea the bible need not be justified with evidence by man is an exception I bet you don't give to the Qur'an or the Vedas but is ok as long as this faith is not used to make social policy.
@IamtheMADman24 I wasn't asserting that. I'm familiar with logic fallacies myself. My assertion was not that Christianity is popular. My assertion was that you won't be able to stamp Christianity out. GOD WILL DEFEND HIS WORD. He'll let you disbelieve because he doesn't want to force anyone against their will. But if you want to attack the Bible, you will fail. You want to discuss morality and social policy, I'll discuss those. You want to question the validity of the Bible, God will answer you.
@IamtheMADman24 As far as the Quran or the Vedas: The Vedas are very vague about morality. I've read some of them. Essentially, all they teach is that wanting is a sin. The Quran is even more bloodthirsty than the Bible. The Muslims essentially kept the bloodthirsty part (OT), threw out the grace part (NT) and then added more bloodthirsty part (Quran). I prefer the Bible, not just because it's more just and merciful, but also because I believe it is true.
@IamtheMADman24 I may have overstated that when I said, "God will answer you." I was running out of room for comments. What I meant was, I won't answer you. You'll have to ask God. Because until you have an encounter with God and believe him to be, no amount of evidence can answer the question of whether the Bible is valid or not. So for you, the Bible will remain just literature.
@IamtheMADman24 How about we stick to the main question this video addresses: Which is the better basis for morality, a written law code which is clear and not relative or personal opinions which are relative and vague.
@IamtheMADman24 And the secondary question: Can a culture come up with a moral standpoint that is not relative or vague? Can a relative or vague cultural morality be better than an established moral code?
@bejjinks If you watch sports: Micheal Jordan might not universally be considered the best player ever but an overwhelmingly percentage if not everyone would agree that he was better than almost everyone. The lack of absolutes does not make all morals completely relative and proof of this is the EU. The absolute last thing I'll say: Jainism is better morally than most religions but this isn't just grounds to say these rules should be taken as better than morals which were admittedly cont.
@IamtheMADman24 So a plague is wiping out millions of people and a Jainists only hope of saving people from the plague is to violently raid the hospitals and steal the medicine. The Jainists will choose to just let everyone die. I'll say again that there are worse things than death but since I know you won't understand that, to you, death is the worst thing, I'll stick with this scenario. Let's openly think it out. What moral ground from the Bible do you have a problem with?
@bejjinks Ok you made me out to be a liar... I replied... Anyway i must say you put forth quite an unlikely and absurd scenario. The "only hope of saving people from the plague is to violently raid the hospitals and steal the medicine"... This is worse than the ticking time bomb scenario in probability of actually occurring and in fact I've never heard of a more unlikely hypothetical situation which are already known for not necessarily being plausible but good thought games. cont.
@bejjinks Cont. May I also add I did not mean to endorse complete pacifism but was suggesting that the order "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." Which came from Mahavira of Jainism is superior to most moral commands. "To you, death is the worst thing." While this generally holds true for atheist I'd have to say I'd personally choose death over spending the rest of my life in prison. cont.
@bejjinks "What moral ground from the Bible do you have a problem with?" Almost too many to name but I'll try: violence in the name of God, slavery, sex slavery, sexism, homophobia, the death penalty (in general and but specifically for such non-crimes as witch craft, disobeying your parents, working on the Sabbath, not believing in God, believing in a different god), torture (stoning is torture) and the eye-for-an-eye mentality. cont.
@bejjinks cont. Even the golden rule can at times crumble in the face of psychopaths. I’m sure I left some out but you get the gist and I am going to point out that the biblical god never gave people the freedom to follow the commandments we like and neglect the rest. Nor did he tell people that we can relax the penalties he has imposed for breaking them. You may reply I'm in no position to judge god's actions but if you are exempting god's actions by definition that is special pleading. cont.
@bejjinks cont. Lastly I don't think I will ever agree with you on all of these topics about what is and isn't moral but that's not the point. The point is that the believer is in no better position, I would argue worse, than me. You may get your morals from a bronze-age book with little to no evidence if you want but just know that believing the book and then attempting to justify it's morals based on the truth of that book is not a sound way to determine morals. cont.
@bejjinks cont. Saying "I believe in God - God said behave this way- so behave this way" is not a sound way of determining morals. And again I point out you wouldn't accept this logic from other religions.
@IamtheMADman24 I believe in God. But my obedience is not because "God said so". Honestly, I used to fight God. I read the Vedas and the Quran during a time in my life when I thought that all religions had truth and I tried to blend all religions together. I was a scientist and I tried to put God under the microscope. I have a 136 I.Q. I went to college and hung out with the intelligent. I used to believe that masturbation was a great way to release sexual energy and keep my libido in check.cont
@IamtheMADman24 I tried to use my intelligence to rationally understand morality. I thought I could come up with a system that would make the most people happy. I went with the model that good was whatever satisfied the most people and evil was what satisfied only a few. I tried a few other models of morality as well. Buddhism had some appeal. Many of my friends were Wiccan. I know all the propaganda from the gay community attempting to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. cont
@IamtheMADman24 I spread that propaganda myself. I was even a member of the Gay Christian Network. I tried a Unitarian Church, a Metropolitan Church, a Wiccan Church, a Metaphysical Church, a Spiritualist Church, a Muslim Mosque, and a Buddhist Ceremony. I never stuck with any of these Churches because I wanted to know the truth and all they could do was scold me. I tried many denominations of Christian Churches and they weren't any better than the non-christian. cont
@IamtheMADman24 So I tended toward Agnosticism. I couldn't go full Atheist because I knew there had to be something going on. But everyone was confused and so busy arguing with everyone else and keeping secrets that I couldn't trust anyone. I was lonely. Everyone I met tried to use me to promote their little agendas. The homosexuals wanted me to fight for homosexual rights and the Religious Right wanted me to be on their side. But no one actually cared about anyone. cont
@IamtheMADman24 There was no love anywhere. I began to believe that love didn't exist. I began to believe that love was just a fantasy of someone's imagination made up to hold out like a carrot in order to entice and manipulate people. I began to believe that God was a sadists who only made people so he could torture us. I became extremely cynical. You ever want to know what cynicism looks like, just read some of my old writings. I also became suicidal. cont
@IamtheMADman24 I was in the hospital twice under suicide watch. I was amazed I went their the second time because I had swore the first time that if I felt suicidal again, I wouldn't bother seeking help. I would just end it then and there. After all, if the only thing after death is oblivion, that sounded so wonderful to me. But instead, I cried out, "If there is a God anywhere out there, change me or put me out of my misery."
@IamtheMADman24 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever: the judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Psalms 19:7-10
@bejjinks cont. thought out. That is a fallacy called the argument from authority. Just because the rules are written in "sacred" texts does not by definition make them superior to morals which we openly think out.
@Lichtspielhaus234 So, you reject all laws in Leviticus unless Jesus adapts them also? Like homosexuality? I think that’s what you are saying. Okay. But as you say, At that time it was a useful law. Is the law against homosexuality useful today? And tell me why you think so. I know Jesus says it, I know of his teachings. They just tend to be better, so I don’t have as many objections to them. But on homosexuality, please tell me why you think Jesus kept that.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Truly I say to you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17-19
I saw this whole debate and the atheist in this debate was far outmatched and having to deal with Dr. Craig and Ravi Zacharias was just unfair. I honestly felt sorry for the guy. There are many more atheists who could have fared better.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Okay, maybe we're on the same side. My main disagreement with you is that you keep saying that Christ abolished the Mosaic Law and you talk as if the Old Testament was irrelevant. I agree with you that the NT is probably more important than the OT and that Christ has conquered death. But the OT is still relevant within its context. As far as legalism, many of these laws have no point except in light of love. (Matthew
I disagree with this atheist. I don't believe it is wrong to have slaves, and I don't believe it was wrong when god killed and raped women and children because I don't believe in the existence of evil. There is no empirical evidence for evil's existence, so there is no reason for me to believe that evil exists. This is not an argument that all atheists make. I personally believe in Nietzsche's position with regards to good and evil: THAT THERE IS NO GOOD OR EVIL!
DoctorSynthetic 1 month ago 4
@DoctorSynthetic
So you don't care if slavery wasn't banned anymore? Would you care if the laws that is against murder and rape is repealed?
Also GOD didn't rape women. Where did you read that?
kidasterorig111 1 month ago
@kidasterorig111 I do care, I just don't think it is wrong for slavery to exist - because I don't believe that any action is "wrong".
Yes, I would care because I dislike rape and some forms of murder, but I don't believe it's wrong to do either of these - I just dislike them.
God himself didn't rape women, but he ordered the Jews to rape the Canaanites, Amalekites etc. Also, I guess you could call the forced pregnancy of Mary "rape" because she didn't give permission.
DoctorSynthetic 1 month ago
LOL 2:00, I nearly forget this was back in the day.
RomaZeal 1 month ago
OMG have a look at Dr. WLC face on 3:57 his like, what the heck are you talking about crazy man.
ArthurTheChristian 2 months ago
Should I be afraid that a Christian who loses his faith will turn into a selfish jerk, if they don't believe immorality still exists if God doesn't exist?
Are God's judgments arbitrary? If not, then mustn't they be based in an idea that would still be valid even if he didn't exist?
Additionally, if an atheist has no basis on which to say an action is evil--on what basis can a Christian say going against the will of God is evil? I suspect there's a rebuttal, but I'd like to know it.
Megaritz 2 months ago
Dr. Craig asks on what basis can we make a value judgment that these things are horrible. I say we do not need to make a "value judgment." Value judgments are superfluous and not terribly meaningful. All we need is to know what suffering is; we can't stand it. Neither can others. If I allowed others to suffer for my benefit, I'd be acting as if their suffering were less important than my own, purely because I didn't feel it. But this would be false.
Megaritz 2 months ago
Genocide: Adolf Hitler was a baptised christian.
Slavery, Murder: “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.(Exo,21:20-21)
Child Abuse, Rape: I think the Catholic Church have made it very clear.
TheDingiso 5 months ago
ahhh this atheists are so lost but with their madness exposed, some of them will turn to Christ :)
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
karozans 8 months ago
@karozans lol! that's a good point...I would ask the question, how do you know murder is wrong? how do know its not right ?
Law19157 8 months ago
@Law19157 They would just dodge that question and then revert back to their circular reasoning.
Most rational people understand that circular reasoning is impossible.
Dr. Craig speaks about the "Moral Argument". Basically in a nutshell this argument says that you cannot have morality without some originating source. So the Moral Argument is another point that leads him to believe that there is a God.
If you don't believe that a God exists, you must use circular reasoning for morality.
karozans 8 months ago
@karozans Can I just ask why you think there is no other option for why humans have morality..? I find it very depressing that you would rather subject yourself and everyone else to a totalitarian-like authority that you believe gives you morals, what if those morals were changed? If you would happily do anything you believe God says to you, then don't bother replying to me cos I'm quite happy to leave it at that.
ScottMcGregor10 7 months ago
@ScottMcGregor10
Any other reason for human morality leads to infinite regress and circular reasoning.
God is not totalitarian. I do what I want, when I want. I also am a man, and I understand that I must pay the consequences for my actions.
Thankfully the source where I get my morality from hasn't changed since the beginning of the Universe. So I am fairly confident that they won't change in the near future.
Both you and I certainly have the choice to do what God wants or not. Just...
karozans 7 months ago
@ScottMcGregor10
...don't be too surprised when you have to face the consequences of your choice.
No one is forcing you to do or believe anything that you don't want to. God included.
karozans 7 months ago
@karozans
You clearly don't do whatever you want because I'm assuming you live by the morals stated explicitly in the bible, and that moral source hasn't existed since the beginning of the universe. And stop using the phrase 'circular reasoning' because that is exactly what your doing - relying on only one thing in your argument and that is simply 'it can't be disproved or fully proved any other way'.
I go to a Church of England school so I am being forced...
ScottMcGregor10 7 months ago
@ScottMcGregor10
It is apparent that you don't know what morality is.
You are full of crap. I am not using circular reasoning for morality.
My morality starts with God and does not deviate. I choose to follow it or not. If I follow that morality then I am fine. If I choose not to, I am ready to pay the consequences.
You youtube atheists are probably the dumbest people that have ever walked the earth.
I never said anything about "proof".
I don't care about what school you attend....
karozans 7 months ago
Comment removed
ScottMcGregor10 7 months ago
@karozans It's fine that you don't care I was simply making the point that many children are brainwashed to believing the tripe that is your 'source of morality'.
You are using circular reasoning - you're following morality rules in the bible because you just assume they're right and don't care about proof.
And you clearly don't know what morality is because you rely on a book to try and understand it.
ScottMcGregor10 7 months ago
@ScottMcGregor10
Same thing could be said about brainwashing children about AGW and evolution.
Sorry but you don't know what circular reasoning is. If you want to know what circular reasoning is look at my very first post at the top of this thread.
Your last sentence is meaningless and carries no weight or validity.
karozans 7 months ago
@karozans Circular reasoning is supporting a point with an assumption - that's what I thought anyway.
Children are encouraged to look for evidence regarding AGW and evolution and then decide for themselves whether to believe it, but the evidence is overwhelming so that's why it is taught as scientific fact. They don't get punished for not believing it - if more religious people had that attitude I really wouldn't have such a problem with it.
And why was it meaningless? It's what your doing.
ScottMcGregor10 7 months ago
@ScottMcGregor10
Circular reasoning is using an argument to prove your premise. Assumptions are made all the time in science. Dr. WLC speaks about this.
And EVERYTHING after your first sentence is false. You must live in atheist Utopia land if you believe that crap.
karozans 7 months ago
@karozans It sure would be great to live in such a place. I agree that assumptions are made constantly - sometimes for better and for worse. And atheists and religious people use circular reasoning in that respect. But why is what I said false and why do you follow the morality rules in the bible when you clearly don't care whether your faith is true or not?
ScottMcGregor10 7 months ago
@ScottMcGregor10
Circular reasoning isn't simply using an assumption as a premise. Circular reasoning is more of using an assumption in a premise, and then using the argument to prove your assumption.
That is kinda like starting off trying to prove Pythagorean theorem, and then using Pythagorean theorem later on in the proof to prove Pythagorean theorem.
My faith is not the only foundation for my morality. I use logic and reason just like Dr. WLC to show that relative morality...
karozans 7 months ago
@ScottMcGregor10
...doesn't ring true.
I simply cannot accept the fact that beating your wife is neither right or wrong, it just depends on where you live.
Moreover, because I have come to the conclusion that relative morality is false and that there are objective morals, I then look for the source of these objective morals and whether or not they jive with what I believe they are.
Then you get into specific theological arguments for explaining morality.
I believe just as many other...
karozans 7 months ago
@ScottMcGregor10
...do that I have found the correct source for objective morality.
karozans 7 months ago
@ScottMcGregor10
...If you don't like your school, then quit. I don't care in the least.
karozans 7 months ago
Atheists simply cannot answer the question when it comes to moral relativism. They always have to regress into circular reasoning. They have no reason or basis to their beliefs.
If we lived in a culture where it was perfectly fine to murder, rape, molest, or enslave, they would be willing participants.
They have absolutely no reason why these things are wrong and why our culture today says it is wrong to do these things.
The culture argument is a means, and not an end.
karozans 8 months ago
@ drcraigvideos. Can you help me out? do you think utilitarianism, is just a another form of moral relavitism?
gunner23 9 months ago
Pretty hopeless, huh, to show to atheists how relativism has very weak moral force to condemn anything. To them it's completely fine to condemn the Nazis just on the basis of sociocultural difference. Quite easy to say when you're living in a first-world country which has a proper legal system and defends your rights, but if you're living in Sudan or Afghanistan or Myanmar - who's right and who's wrong? Is there any basis to condemn a violent and oppressive government?
physphilmusic 9 months ago
@7801croc you need to research the religion of Hitler!...he definitely was not a christian!
kdcox1205 11 months ago
@kdcox1205 as a matter of fact.. Hitler's religious veiws clearly indicate him to be an Atheist. Have you talked to many German's lately? 95% of them don't believe in God and are Atheist. and they all believe in Evolution. this clearly indicates and points serious impliments to Hitler being an Atheist, well that and his own confessions and written document evidence of himself admitting so behind closed doors.
LordEli 8 months ago
Comment removed
empreme 1 year ago
Atheist = Affirms moral relativism.
Atheist = Makes objective claims about morality.
Did I miss some type of axiomatic nexus between those two competing ideas? =/
MarkThisWayAfter 1 year ago
@MarkThisWayAfter yes, you did miss something. Atheism = Makes subjective claims about morality :-))
girtkaz 1 year ago
Comment removed
MarkThisWayAfter 1 year ago
@girtkaz Yes, atheism does, but the ATHEIST in this video does not. That's what I meant when I said ATHEIST instead of ATHEISM. I apologize if that was ambiguous. Thanks for the response!
MarkThisWayAfter 1 year ago
@girtkaz No, I said that the atheist here is making objective claims about morality. You are right that atheism makes subjective claims about morality, but the atheist here is not acting in accordance with a relativistic theory of morality that he affirms.
MarkThisWayAfter 1 year ago
Unfortunately, Dr. Leikind is a relativist. A better argument against slavery, child abuse etc. would be utilitarianism. Utilitarianism means doing what is right for the overall good--and slavery, etc is not right, nor is it beneficial for the overall good. Societies with slavery for example, has been shown to be less efficient than a free society.
atheistprophet5760 1 year ago
@atheistprophet5760 I could quote some soviet utalitarists and what did they ment by overall good and how killing tens of millions were improoving overall good:-))
girtkaz 1 year ago
@kvash3154 Yes, I used his idea on suffering on my very first comment. I agree with him that there is an universal sense of morality. I can't summarize his points in such small space. I suggest you get the ebook. I suggest you research further, I'm still searching as well.
esiosan 1 year ago
@esiosan There is no universal morality outside of a higher power, it all becomes relative. Compare what is right morally where you live to any foreign nation of your choosing, and I guarantee that there will be STARK contrast in one area or another. Universal morality does not exist in human form.
hayakain 1 year ago
@hayakain "no universal morality out of a higher power"?Seems to me you are a theist.So I'm not going to discuss philosophy and science with you. My previous posts speculate that w/ dna research may be possible2find what gives organic life the innate drive to survive. And what is perceived as wrong is a violation of such drive e.g. suffering. I'm speculating, it's an educated guess. So causing suffering is wrong since it violates life hence universal truth would come from life's innate drive.
esiosan 1 year ago
@esiosan Then by your own admission, abortion would be wrong, correct?
hayakain 1 year ago
@hayakain The word "suffering" - which I mentioned, is key here. To experience suffering, certain mental faculties are necessary for one to exercise minimum consciousness, unlike unborn fetuses up to a certain stage of brain development. There is nothing to "admit" to, stop being pretentious. I suggest researching away from your preconceived notions & bias. It's time to move away from iron age mentality. I part with Carl Sagan's quote: "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence".
esiosan 1 year ago
@esiosan So because no physical pain is felt, it isn't a violation of life?
Clarify.
hayakain 1 year ago
@hayakain I never mentioned "physical pain", but suffering of conscious beings and violation of life in the sense of when it(life) is conscious. You still haven't read my previous posts. If life is not conscious then there is no wrong otherwise it would be wrong to kill a fly. So long the being is conscious then it would constitute wrong. An unborn fetus is not conscious. Seems to me you are using straw man arguments.
Look up what an informal fallacy is.Study philosophy&science, keep searching.
esiosan 1 year ago
@esiosan An unborn baby is not conscious in the way you and I are, however it is very much alive and developing, and therefore alive. You need to read up on your medical knowledge.
Under these circumstances killing it IS a violation of life.
Secondly you fail to understand that most people base morals on what can or will make THEM "suffer" as you say, not others. The human mentality is VERY self oriented, and under your ideology you cannot say anything in opposition is truly evil with certainty.
hayakain 1 year ago
@hayakain There has been a lot of in-depth conversations about the subject of abortion. And as of now abortion still legal in the U.S. meaning pro-life has not yet won the debate. With that in mind, I really am disinterested in trying to go over all the discrepancies involved in this subject. Just remember to keep searching, nothing is as simple as we imagine.
Thanks for your questions.
esiosan 1 year ago
@esiosan Whomever won the debate is irrelevant, many, such as yourself, choose to hide behind inert rationalization.
Consider the following story by Ravi Zacharias. 100 people are in a plane crash, 90 die and 10 remain.
"How evil your God must be, to take the lives of the 90 and only spare the 10." your kind might say to the theist.
But then, when YOU get the chance to play God, it suddenly becomes a moral right of the mother to choose if her baby lives or dies.
Think it over sometime.Good day.
hayakain 1 year ago
@kvash3154 The books I mentioned discuss suffering and well being of conscious beings. As for the innate drive to survive coded in our DNA is my personal take on the subject of morality. I only began reading "The moral landscape" a couple of days ago, after my answers. No, you cannot see rape and love as the same. Moral relativism is wrong.
esiosan 1 year ago
@esiosan you read "The End of Faith" and "A Letter to a Christian Nation"? Did you us any of Dr. Harris views in the points you made?
And does he's view show an error in the point I made in my last comment? If so how? So far, all I can tell is that your stating a belief in something that appeals to you(and me for that matter). But what makes your belief sound? Shouldn't it be more then just a belief? thanks for your time.
kvash3154 1 year ago
Slavery, Child Abuse, Genocide, Molestation, Murder, Rape, etc.
It is immoral because it causes human suffering. Atheistic morals aren't subjective to society's point of view, it regards the feelings of those being wronged. And that is something VERY MORAL. I feel like the atheist on this debate didn't articulate the answer well.
esiosan 1 year ago
Comment removed
esiosan 1 year ago
Comment removed
esiosan 1 year ago
Comment removed
esiosan 1 year ago
@esiosan Hello I was interested in what you said. Could you please explain why human suffering is wrong? What if a person doesn't believe you, and thinks its okay to cause suffering? Some people believe certain groups/types of people should suffer or be destroyed. Why should I or anyone believe that your "moral absolute" should be obeyed? I guess I'm wondering why you believe that humans are relevant? what proof do you have that humans are relevant? thanks for any time you can spare.
kvash3154 1 year ago
@kvash3154 The notion of right & wrong could be innate of organic life itself. In other words, our notion of self importance may be rooted within life's implicit law of "self preservation". It's something we'd discover written in our DNA. My philosophical & speculative take on morality, & relevance it's life's innate drive toward its own preservation. Perhaps we're here by chance, we have many questions, that's a start. I however disagree with existential nihilism in these matters. All the best.
esiosan 1 year ago
@esiosan If I understand you correctly, I think all you have done is expressed some beliefs that you feel comfortable with, and there for you're willing to except them. Please don't mistake it for an insult, its simply an observation in a limited amount of information that you've offered. Thanks for your time.
kvash3154 1 year ago
@kvash3154 In a nutshell, our perception on right&wrong, good&evil, may be a subconscious response to what violates, or threatens organic life's innate drive twrd existence(e.g. Nazis perceive others as existential threats). Further DNA research is required to uncover the code responsible for life's innate drive, and why there is one in the first place. A "comfortable" or "acceptable belief" is intellectual dishonesty imo, a scientific answer is valid. 500max chars result in insufficient info :)
esiosan 1 year ago
@esiosan so the nazis's were just follow the same "program" just in a different application? One person makes love, and another rapes, both follow their sexual desires, the question I pose is one way wrong and one way right? And if so, how?
kvash3154 1 year ago
@kvash3154 Rape is violence, considering all its motives, it still infringes life's innate law/drive for survival. Love, however promotes continuity to life, hate does not. That signifies right&wrong to living beings. The Nazis were on the same "program"(e.g. perceiving an existential threat, nevertheless created by their collective delusions&philosophical limitations/dishonesty). The rest of the world perceived their attitude as a "violation of life" hence "wrongful". Ty for being a gentleman
esiosan 1 year ago
@esiosan Isn't violence(and hate) a part of DNA's over all "program"? Also isn't violence both a "positive" and a "negative" in regards to survival? As for the nazis's personal views, did they not come from natural means? Wouldn't any philosophical view ultimately be rooted in nature(environment/ DNA)? In other words just a more complex form of what nature does already? How do you determine that the nazis's were using an incorrect application, when the over all "program" allows for it?
kvash3154 1 year ago
@esiosan by the way, thanks for discussing this instead of just throwing insults. Some people can get very upset sometimes when I ask these questions.
kvash3154 1 year ago
@kvash3154 Two days ago I started reading the most recent work of renown neuroscientist Sam Harris PhD. called, "The Moral Landscape". I read both of his earlier works, The End of Faith, and A Letter to a Christian Nation.
In the Moral Landscape, He takes an insightful look at science and morality, moral relativism, and other philosophical/religious topics. So far it's a good read, I suggest you get the audiobook to listen in your car, or ipod.
esiosan 1 year ago
@esiosan Did your answers come from those books? If so I don't think he will be saying anything new.
If there is no supernatural anything, then all things ultimately come from nature(environment/DNA), and then ultimately all things are natural. Its natural to make love or rape, its natural to save a live or kill, its natural to set free or enslave, its natural to be a theist or an atheist. Ultimately all is natural, simply because there is only nature, in a materialistic reality. thanks.
kvash3154 1 year ago
So what if he doesn't have a "grounding"? Theist morality "anchors" on a belief that is far less certain than what is logically right and wrong. I have a feeling this video is being used to support the theists' viewpoint, but it should, in fact, diminish the theistic argument. The theists have no more factual basis on which to plant their argument than the atheist. Additionally, the atheist is being more reasonable because he does not place an impossible being between himself and the response
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
There is no such thing as absolute freedom. However there is absolute slavery. Freedom is an illusion. We are only free to the extent that others allows. If our freedom offends others and we lose freedom are we really free? Were we ever free?
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
good physics professor, but he doesn't get the question Dr. Craig is asking. He is not attempting to think beyond the surface whatsoever.
helpmetony 1 year ago
75% of this country is christian. 10% is Atheist. 75% of the prison population is christian. .2 % of the prison population is atheist. so please Christians dont bring up this idea that Christians are Always morally right. Most Christians are Christians because mommy and daddy told them what to believe. their weak cunts
IIIArrow711 1 year ago
@IIIArrow711 Your logic doesn't follow. If 99% of the population has black hair. And 1% has blond hair. Then that means most crimes will be committed by people with black hair. Does that mean that all black haired people are wrong? William Lane Craig did not come from a religious family. Please attempt to grow a brain.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago 14
@drcraigvideos The logic follows just fine. He was rude, but percents are percents... in your example, if 1% of the crimes were committed by blondes, then that would mean that blondes commit crimes in equal ratio to black haired people. In his example, he claims that only 0.2% of jailed persons are atheists. It would have to be 10% of jailed atheists to match the ratio of jailed Christians. This means that Christians are 2/100 as good at not being jailed as atheists. You failed.
ghilliemaster 1 year ago 2
@drcraigvideos His stats are off btw. 19% of the US prison population are atheists not 0.2%.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@IIIArrow711 You are ignorant as whom is a Christian. Hitler claimed to be a Catholic and Catholics claim to be Christians and there are a billion of them; yet they have a completely different gospel & Jesus. They are "professing Christians", which is no Christian at all. It is not a question if morality is relative or not; it is a question is there a moral lawgiver; if so, then all will give an account to the true God of the Bible? The atheist is the proverbial Ostrich w/head in the sand.
7801Croc 1 year ago
@IIIArrow711 what does listing prison population have to do with %'s of associated worldviews. We could just as easily say that theists are just more passionate about life & hence the ups and downs of lving within and beyond the law are more commonplace simply based on passionate/vibrant undertakings.....i mean i could just as easily infer that...but its still garbage.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@IIIArrow711 Aren't you equivocating? According to CUNY, 14% are non-religious, but only .4% identify as atheist. According to a 2008 Pew survey, 21% of self-described ATHEISTS believe in some sort of God. And considering atheists are overwhelmingly middle-to-upper-class white males, the figure you cite isn't that astounding. My advice is to refrain from insults when you reveal yourself to be ignorant.
winstondavis6020 11 months ago
Why do Christians need someone holding their hand all the time and showing them what's wrong and right?!
billfred51 1 year ago 2
@billfred51 because if you dont stand for something you'll fall for anything
kickinwayne45 1 year ago
i think you have both missed the point of the video the man speaking on the other side of the theist, isn't really trying to make the point non theistic values are better, what he is saying is our morals are created and developed by social communities. and the morals all of us use today do not have an anchor and are better because they don't have an anchor.
9numbers 1 year ago 2
This is by far the WEAKEST of all theistic arguments. The atheist has a superior mind set for morals, because atheists are free thinkers and do not get their moral system from one single book or set of laws. A book( the bible) that not only never condemns slavery, rape, child abuse, or genocide, but in several places condones those behaviors. Lastly, under a theistic view you cannot condone those actions or call them wrong because they are all Gods plan and he could have stopped them but didn't
RandomNonsence 1 year ago
@RandomNonsence Your username speaks wonders about you. Please, deal with the topic of the video.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago 10
@drcraigvideos thanks god I am an atheist you religious people are nuts
Veringetorix 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos hehehe /applaud
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@RandomNonsence ~
1 "( the bible) that not only never condemns slavery"
“Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). "for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers 1Tim 1:10"
sunergos7 1 year ago
@RandomNonsence ~
2 rape
"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her," (Deut. 22:25-28).
sunergos7 1 year ago
@RandomNonsence apparently you know little about scripture... the bible doesn't condemn slavery, but suggests freedom, as the bible tells slaves to seek to be free when given the opportunity... child abuse is a very specific term... we obviously are to discipline but not unduly strike our children... rape is implicitly condemned... it is fornication/sexual immorality/adultery (depending on the circumstance), and genocide is murder, which is condemned...
Limbsy 1 year ago
@RandomNonsence However, God can do things that we as humans cant... we didnt author life, he did, so he has the right to take those rights away for whatever righteous reason that he finds to do so.
"They are all Gods plan?" Well, i cant call the conquest of canaan wrong because God did it first of all (agreed), however, that doesnt mean that i should just go and start killing people for God said do not kill. God was ridding the land of paganism... they were burning their children in fires..
Limbsy 1 year ago
@RandomNonsence And in terms of this being a weak theistic argument, i argue that its quite strong because it shows that there is a universal understanding of how we as people expect to be treated. If i just went up to you, didnt like you and punched you in the face, according to relativism, you cant condemn me for that, objectively, it is my opinion that punching you is good because it rids the world of...atheistic thought lol! * No one can make value judgments and complain about mistreatment.
Limbsy 1 year ago
@Limbsy I think the point is that even within Christianity, there is a discrepancy in value judgments. The atheist is being humble when he says that things are relative, because he cannot claim to know what is truly right. Of course he feels strongly about what IS right, but who is he to believe in something and then tell others what to think? That is the whole point and the flaw in the theist perspective. Not that either is right or wrong, but I want to get to the point.
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
@RandomNonsence that's just a misinterpretation of what theism is. My goodness....the idiots sure come out on youtube.
Prolific85 1 year ago
@RandomNonsence On the contrary, the atheist, which doesn't really exist, is a lazy thinker. The atheist has a set of beliefs that has determined the God of the Bible just doesn't exist without any reasonable effort to look at the bible's validity against other religions books against what science affirms. It takes a great deal of "faith" to be an atheist. much more faith that I have as a Christian. The difference is my faith is grounded in all of the above and yours is by what????
7801Croc 1 year ago
@RandomNonsence It does condemn slavery, you just need to do the study and not rely on authors to teach you, you can skip the middle man and go right to the bible itself to know.
stephjh2006 11 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 You don't really know the scripture. Which version did you read? The KJV, NIV and NASB all say as a "burnt offering". Quit talking about things you don't know.
bejjinks 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 I haven’t done any special research on the bible other than reason it and looking up a few Hebrew versions to compare but I will gladly admit that I haven’t done very much research on this. That is why I am asking you. That is why I want to hear the opinions from believers. Do you have a problem with the fact that I actually am interested in hearing about your religion? Would you rather that I just rejected it for no reason?
89Illum 1 year ago
@89Illum To avoid any further quarreling, I am only going to quote scripture for a while. I will try to give the scripture that I feel you are looking for but I won't state my opinions or attempt to interpret anything. From now until the quarreling ends, I won't write a word here that isn't a quote from Scripture.
bejjinks 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 There is NOT ONE example of a human sacrifice given unto God, by way of killing a human to offer up to God.
---
Jesus Christ.
89Illum 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 BINGO, GOD WAS TESTING HIM, AND ABRAHAM PASSED.
---
Okay. First of all, why does an all-knowing God need testing? He would clearly know our thoughts and feelings. A test is useless. Second of all. What did Abraham do in order to pass the test? I am saying that the only moral and correct thing to do is to refuse to go through with it. Son’t you believe human sacrifice and killing is wrong? Perhaps you don’t. Perhaps that’s the problem.
89Illum 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 1 Kings 20: 35-36 has nothing to do with anything? Sure it does, it shows that god is not about morality but rather his personal opinion by demand. IT NEVER ONCE STATES what God says or does or even THINKS? Sure it does. I told you, a lion was send to slay him, and who but God could have done that? God send a lion to kill a man who listened to his intellect and realized that to kill another man for no good reason is immoral. For that God killed him.
89Illum 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 The entire conversation you have been saying that that was the Old Testament law, and that wasn’t meant forever, and we have changed that, and Jesus made the laws go away, and however it was intended in the old days, that has changed now. And now all of a sudden you turn it 180 and say that we should stick to the original intend. And God is not limited to the intend of his creation. Was hell ever created for man? That’s not the story I have heard.
89Illum 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 No, homosexuals cannot reproduce together. I know that many donate sperm, but no, a man and a man can’t have children together. So what? Is that a bad thing? What harm is done when nothing is done? And if it’s a harm to you, then tell me why you spend time on Youtube when you could use that time making more children. He doesn't like it, BECAUSE he didn't create man to lay with another? Since when has that been a limit to God or yourself for that matter? Cont.
89Illum 1 year ago
@89Illum A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts. Song of Songs 1:13
Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies. Song of Songs 4:5
Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue; and the smell of thy garments is like the smell of Lebanon. Song of Songs 4:11
My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him. Song of Songs 5:4
bejjinks 1 year ago
@89Illum I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock. Song of Songs 5:5
His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem. Song of Songs 5:16
This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes. Song of Songs 7:7
bejjinks 1 year ago
@89Illum My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praise her. Song of Song 6:9
I am a wall, and my breasts like towers: then was I in his eyes as one that found favour. Song of Songs 8:10
I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, that ye stir not up, nor awake love, until it pleases. Song of Songs 8:4
bejjinks 1 year ago
@89Illum Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame. Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it: if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would be contemned. Song of Songs 8:6-7
bejjinks 1 year ago
@89Illum Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 1 Corinthians 13:6
Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good. Romans 12:9
Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
The love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; 2 Corinthians 5:14
I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; Galatians 2:20a
bejjinks 1 year ago
@89Illum We know love by this, that he laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 1 John 3:16
Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him. John 14:23
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women. 2 Samuel 1:26
bejjinks 1 year ago
@89Illum Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. Proverbs 27:17
Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss. 1 Thessalonians 5:26
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21
For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost. Luke 19:10
bejjinks 1 year ago
@bejjinks "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21" That must not be referring to atheists, because as an atheist myself, i always thank ANYONE who is to blame, even if it IS god, i still thank him, even if i don't believe in him, i believe his existence is very well possible, so i thank him too.
IronicAtheist 1 year ago
keep the vids rolling!
necr0sys 1 year ago
Good video! Thanks!!
shizfergus27 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 However, God is, as seen in this passage, pleased to hear that people see him as a blood thirsty. And we know that he is, we can just look at other verses. You know of course of Jephthah, who’s sacrifice was accepted. You know of course of the rituals of burned offerings, which I would not myself like, since I am not that blood thirst, but apparently God is. And we might also look to the real world and not just the book. Why doesn’t God stop people who sacrifice humans to him?
89Illum 1 year ago
@89Illum God never said anything to Jephthah and the Bible doesn't say whether God was pleased or not. The story of Jephthah was included, not to be a role model to Christians, but to illustrate the way the Israelites thought at that time. Therefore, we can understand when God sent Samuel what kind of people Samuel had to deal with. The Israelites themselves were bloodthirsty with or without God.
bejjinks 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 On blood thirst. Yes. God blessed him because Abraham obeyed. God commanded a blood sacrifice. IF blood sacrifice is NOT in God’s character, then the correct response from Abr. Is NO, you will not make me do an evil deed. You are either testing me or you are the devil trying to deceive me. I know the lord and he is good, and he would never ask anyone of such a thing. And if blood sacrifice is NOT in God’s character, God would be pleased to hear this.
89Illum 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 And that is actually just what he is. 1 Kings 20:35-36. This moral lesson from god is very interesting. A completely immoral, unnecessary, meaningless evil deed has been asked in the name of the lord. And you can laugh and the guy asking a friend to strike him, but he couldn’t have controlled the lion. God is here delivering the message that if we don’t obey no matter what he commands he will slay us. He is truly the essence of a classic Walt Disney villain.
89Illum 1 year ago
@89Illum Abraham really DID believe that God had ordered him to sacrifice his son. Abraham thought that he might actually have to kill his son. But he also believed that God could and would intervene either to prevent the killing or to raise Isaac from the dead. This story isn't about who God is. God was acting completely out of character for God. This story is about Abraham and everything Abraham thought is not just relevant, but the heart of the story. cont
bejjinks 1 year ago
@89Illum As Abraham got closer and closer to the deed, he got slower and slower. He knew God would intervene but he wanted to give God every chance he could to intervene. I'm sure he was fervently praying and crying the whole time, especially when he raised the knife ready to make the cut. But after God intervened, Abraham knew himself better and that was the point of the story, not to demonstrate God, but to teach Abraham about himself. And to teach us about ourselves.
bejjinks 1 year ago
@89Illum What is your highest priority? money? Would you sacrifice your children for money? Many people do. They might not kill their children but they sacrifice their children in more abstract ways.
bejjinks 1 year ago
@bejjinks On things being worse than sin and on living hell etc. I understand that. But a good life and a living hell, these are loaded, subjective judgments we make individually. If you think it would be a living hell not living through the Bible, fine, I would force you not to. But I think it would be a living hell for me to do. :)
Gays often blind themselves to the negative and they even get violently defensive against anyone exposing the negative? There’s room for that in the next comment.
89Illum 1 year ago
@bejjinks I am gay myself. And I don’t see anything wrong with being gay. So when people tell me something is wrong with it, of course I will defend my case. You are assuming that there is something wrong with being gay and therefore we make ourselves blind to the bad things about it. But that is not the case. Haven’t you ever thought about the possibility that there isn’t anything wrong with being gay? In the same way, people assume we make ourselves blind to God. Same thing.
89Illum 1 year ago
@89Illum Remember that I'm the ex-gay. Don't lump me in with Licht. The more he talks the less I like him. I'm not here to force my opinions down your throat. I'm just stating that to me, my time in the gay community was a living hell and when you get older, in my opinion, it will become a living hell for you too. Sin is very fun for a season.
bejjinks 1 year ago
@bejjinks God never said anything to Jephthah and the Bible doesn't say whether God was pleased or not. True. But if God was against a human sacrifice, he has a weird way of handling it. If someone was about to sacrifice a human in my name I would stop them immediately. And apparently he strikes on a lot of other things in the Bible, like being gay, blasphemy, etc, but killing in his name is apparently not an issue with God. Which is odd if he is truly the author of morality.
89Illum 1 year ago
@89Illum God respects our will. If you had six billion people and they were all trying to kill each other, who would you save? Would you intervene and save Mr. Smith knowing that Mr. Smith was going to murder Mr. Jones. So overall, God stays out of it. He does intervene when it's important. He will accomplish his goals despite us. But in trivial little squabbles such as between you and Licht, he'll let you kill each other if that's what you decide to do.
bejjinks 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 This is the danger of just accepting a command. This verse has basis in a personal dislike or fear that is not rational, yet you cling to it because you are afraid to stand up and say This law is wrong. And if god has thinks he knows so much that he can control our lives and throw us to hell, he must take the responsibility and explain to why he thinks these things are wrong. If he does not, he is no different from a mafia boss, saying Do as I say or I’ll break you.
89Illum 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 The laws were not meant for today? Hmm. Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. That means the law is permanent and will never change.
On homosexuality. I think you are saying something very important here. The law against homosexuality is in fact not useful, because homosexuality has no negative effects on society. But God just doesn’t like it. Cont.
89Illum 1 year ago
@89Illum Homosexuality has hidden negative effects on the individual. Let me be the one to explain since Licht doesn't have any personal experience with that. He only has freinds who have personal experience with that. Those that are involved with homosexuality often blind themselves to the negative and they even get violently defensive against anyone exposing the negative. But I will not go back to wallow in that mud. I will not go back to partake of that vomit.
bejjinks 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 "Christ spoke about the moral and ceremonial laws." Yes, you're right. He fulfilled instead of abolished. And now repentance and forgiveness of sins is preached and is to be preached in his name.
bejjinks 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Matthew 22:40 (not 24). But the point was that if we love as those first two commandments say, we will obey all the other commandments out of love, not because "I told you to." We won't murder because you can't murder if you love. We'll refrain from fleshly desires so that we can give more to those who we love. We won't harm ourselves because we are loved. (Psalms 119:97,113,163, and 165)
bejjinks 1 year ago
LOL @ WLC's facial expression at 3:53
hawke123 1 year ago
I remember watching this and thinking the atheist was a very lazy thinker. I can only imagine how frustrating it was talking with him. It was frustrating just watching him.
KBrimstone 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 "You are wasting your time, are you not?" I'm afraid you have got me there. I thought you or the others defending this video might respond to reason. I thought if I pressed at hypocrisies you might see them. I thought maybe that you and the others cared enough to defend whether any of it were true. I was wrong. The last thing I'll say is that apparently everyone can't be saved.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 On this, I will agree wholeheartedly with Lichtspielhaus234. You were questioning the validity of the Bible. I don't care to argue that. I trust the Bible completely and I don't trust relativism. And God will defend his word so I don't have to. I'll just warn you that many people throughout history have tried to discredit the Bible and they all failed and the Bible is still held in high regard by millions.
bejjinks 1 year ago
@bejjinks argumentum ad populum, argument from popularity is a common logical fallacy which asserts that because something is popular it must be true. Even using that logic that Christians make up about 33% of the world which means overall most people don't believe it. You can believe whatever you want but the idea the bible need not be justified with evidence by man is an exception I bet you don't give to the Qur'an or the Vedas but is ok as long as this faith is not used to make social policy.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 I wasn't asserting that. I'm familiar with logic fallacies myself. My assertion was not that Christianity is popular. My assertion was that you won't be able to stamp Christianity out. GOD WILL DEFEND HIS WORD. He'll let you disbelieve because he doesn't want to force anyone against their will. But if you want to attack the Bible, you will fail. You want to discuss morality and social policy, I'll discuss those. You want to question the validity of the Bible, God will answer you.
bejjinks 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 As far as the Quran or the Vedas: The Vedas are very vague about morality. I've read some of them. Essentially, all they teach is that wanting is a sin. The Quran is even more bloodthirsty than the Bible. The Muslims essentially kept the bloodthirsty part (OT), threw out the grace part (NT) and then added more bloodthirsty part (Quran). I prefer the Bible, not just because it's more just and merciful, but also because I believe it is true.
bejjinks 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 I may have overstated that when I said, "God will answer you." I was running out of room for comments. What I meant was, I won't answer you. You'll have to ask God. Because until you have an encounter with God and believe him to be, no amount of evidence can answer the question of whether the Bible is valid or not. So for you, the Bible will remain just literature.
bejjinks 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 How about we stick to the main question this video addresses: Which is the better basis for morality, a written law code which is clear and not relative or personal opinions which are relative and vague.
bejjinks 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 And the secondary question: Can a culture come up with a moral standpoint that is not relative or vague? Can a relative or vague cultural morality be better than an established moral code?
bejjinks 1 year ago
@bejjinks If you watch sports: Micheal Jordan might not universally be considered the best player ever but an overwhelmingly percentage if not everyone would agree that he was better than almost everyone. The lack of absolutes does not make all morals completely relative and proof of this is the EU. The absolute last thing I'll say: Jainism is better morally than most religions but this isn't just grounds to say these rules should be taken as better than morals which were admittedly cont.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 So a plague is wiping out millions of people and a Jainists only hope of saving people from the plague is to violently raid the hospitals and steal the medicine. The Jainists will choose to just let everyone die. I'll say again that there are worse things than death but since I know you won't understand that, to you, death is the worst thing, I'll stick with this scenario. Let's openly think it out. What moral ground from the Bible do you have a problem with?
bejjinks 1 year ago
@bejjinks Ok you made me out to be a liar... I replied... Anyway i must say you put forth quite an unlikely and absurd scenario. The "only hope of saving people from the plague is to violently raid the hospitals and steal the medicine"... This is worse than the ticking time bomb scenario in probability of actually occurring and in fact I've never heard of a more unlikely hypothetical situation which are already known for not necessarily being plausible but good thought games. cont.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@bejjinks Cont. May I also add I did not mean to endorse complete pacifism but was suggesting that the order "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." Which came from Mahavira of Jainism is superior to most moral commands. "To you, death is the worst thing." While this generally holds true for atheist I'd have to say I'd personally choose death over spending the rest of my life in prison. cont.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@bejjinks "What moral ground from the Bible do you have a problem with?" Almost too many to name but I'll try: violence in the name of God, slavery, sex slavery, sexism, homophobia, the death penalty (in general and but specifically for such non-crimes as witch craft, disobeying your parents, working on the Sabbath, not believing in God, believing in a different god), torture (stoning is torture) and the eye-for-an-eye mentality. cont.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@bejjinks cont. Even the golden rule can at times crumble in the face of psychopaths. I’m sure I left some out but you get the gist and I am going to point out that the biblical god never gave people the freedom to follow the commandments we like and neglect the rest. Nor did he tell people that we can relax the penalties he has imposed for breaking them. You may reply I'm in no position to judge god's actions but if you are exempting god's actions by definition that is special pleading. cont.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@bejjinks cont. Lastly I don't think I will ever agree with you on all of these topics about what is and isn't moral but that's not the point. The point is that the believer is in no better position, I would argue worse, than me. You may get your morals from a bronze-age book with little to no evidence if you want but just know that believing the book and then attempting to justify it's morals based on the truth of that book is not a sound way to determine morals. cont.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@bejjinks cont. Saying "I believe in God - God said behave this way- so behave this way" is not a sound way of determining morals. And again I point out you wouldn't accept this logic from other religions.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 I believe in God. But my obedience is not because "God said so". Honestly, I used to fight God. I read the Vedas and the Quran during a time in my life when I thought that all religions had truth and I tried to blend all religions together. I was a scientist and I tried to put God under the microscope. I have a 136 I.Q. I went to college and hung out with the intelligent. I used to believe that masturbation was a great way to release sexual energy and keep my libido in check.cont
bejjinks 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 I tried to use my intelligence to rationally understand morality. I thought I could come up with a system that would make the most people happy. I went with the model that good was whatever satisfied the most people and evil was what satisfied only a few. I tried a few other models of morality as well. Buddhism had some appeal. Many of my friends were Wiccan. I know all the propaganda from the gay community attempting to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. cont
bejjinks 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 I spread that propaganda myself. I was even a member of the Gay Christian Network. I tried a Unitarian Church, a Metropolitan Church, a Wiccan Church, a Metaphysical Church, a Spiritualist Church, a Muslim Mosque, and a Buddhist Ceremony. I never stuck with any of these Churches because I wanted to know the truth and all they could do was scold me. I tried many denominations of Christian Churches and they weren't any better than the non-christian. cont
bejjinks 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 So I tended toward Agnosticism. I couldn't go full Atheist because I knew there had to be something going on. But everyone was confused and so busy arguing with everyone else and keeping secrets that I couldn't trust anyone. I was lonely. Everyone I met tried to use me to promote their little agendas. The homosexuals wanted me to fight for homosexual rights and the Religious Right wanted me to be on their side. But no one actually cared about anyone. cont
bejjinks 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 There was no love anywhere. I began to believe that love didn't exist. I began to believe that love was just a fantasy of someone's imagination made up to hold out like a carrot in order to entice and manipulate people. I began to believe that God was a sadists who only made people so he could torture us. I became extremely cynical. You ever want to know what cynicism looks like, just read some of my old writings. I also became suicidal. cont
bejjinks 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 I was in the hospital twice under suicide watch. I was amazed I went their the second time because I had swore the first time that if I felt suicidal again, I wouldn't bother seeking help. I would just end it then and there. After all, if the only thing after death is oblivion, that sounded so wonderful to me. But instead, I cried out, "If there is a God anywhere out there, change me or put me out of my misery."
bejjinks 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever: the judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Psalms 19:7-10
bejjinks 1 year ago
@bejjinks
Thats my parents song that they taught me when I was a girl. I love that chapter. It is absolutely, wholly and perfectly true.
ladyEulaelie 1 year ago
@bejjinks cont. thought out. That is a fallacy called the argument from authority. Just because the rules are written in "sacred" texts does not by definition make them superior to morals which we openly think out.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 He corrected the Pharisees misinterpretations of the old laws.
bejjinks 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 So, you reject all laws in Leviticus unless Jesus adapts them also? Like homosexuality? I think that’s what you are saying. Okay. But as you say, At that time it was a useful law. Is the law against homosexuality useful today? And tell me why you think so. I know Jesus says it, I know of his teachings. They just tend to be better, so I don’t have as many objections to them. But on homosexuality, please tell me why you think Jesus kept that.
89Illum 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Truly I say to you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17-19
bejjinks 1 year ago
I saw this whole debate and the atheist in this debate was far outmatched and having to deal with Dr. Craig and Ravi Zacharias was just unfair. I honestly felt sorry for the guy. There are many more atheists who could have fared better.
98nafets 1 year ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Okay, maybe we're on the same side. My main disagreement with you is that you keep saying that Christ abolished the Mosaic Law and you talk as if the Old Testament was irrelevant. I agree with you that the NT is probably more important than the OT and that Christ has conquered death. But the OT is still relevant within its context. As far as legalism, many of these laws have no point except in light of love. (Matthew