I want to know what is your definition of ride? this is all one ride and we only get one correct? If so I would like some examples of what would inhance your "ride."
I really liked your video and your channel. If you need any help getting this video or channel exposed I use a site called tubeviews.(net) It has really helped like 20 of my main videos get to the top in position. God Bless!
I really liked your video and your channel. If you need any help getting this video or channel exposed I use a site called tubeviews.(net) It has really helped like 20 of my main videos get to the top in position. God Bless!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This subjective morality claim is so absurdly silly. What if I create a new country and say we must kill anyone who wears a yellow shirt or is above six feet tall because I declare those two things immoral? According to atheists, that would be fine. They preach subjectivity but live objectively - they are a walking contradiction.
Moral subjectivity is just a way to justify our current sinful desires. What is immoral will always be immoral. It does not change with the times.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You have no understanding of Biblical slavery and its different forms. You are applying a 20th century definition of slavery to ancient text that is thousands of years old. Learn the rules of interpretation first before attempting to criticize something you don't understand.
only an insane country would warrant killing anyone over being over six feet tall, or wearing a yellow shirt, or working on the sabath.
right, b/c im sure after your holly texts have been re-authored, edited and re-translated over 1000's of years all of sudden the meaning of slavery just up and changes. no, it doesn't. killing = killing. genocide = genocide. rape = rape. gay sex = gay sex. slavery = slavery. you can't be objective with those things.
Your claim that you can make whatever you want immoral is moronic. Morality is about suffering, you have to think critically and logically in order to arrive at a reasonable state. The bible and other "holy" books are the only source for bigoted based morality. Homosexuality, lust or envy being chief among these shows just how religion doesnt want morality but control, for it is not wrong to do anything if it doesnt harm another.
"Your claim that you can make whatever you want immoral is moronic."
What? Where in the world did you get that? That is NOT my claim. My claim is that morality is based on the character/nature of God - we do not get to decide what is or isn't moral. ATHEISTS are the ones who preach subjective morality, which is the very morality you are here criticizing. Thank you for supporting my position.
That's about as subjective as you can get! Ask ten people what 'god' means to them, and you'll probably get ten very different answers.
Even if you all get it from the same book, that book is still filtered through your subjective interpretation, and the zeitgeist shifts as time moves on.
This is why we're no longer burning people at the stake for heresy.
That is not accurate. The subjective pointing to an objective truth does not make that truth subjective. I grant that the Christian God still needs to be proven in this case, but that is besides the point. The point is there are Christian moral absolutes that do not change with the times, because they are based on the unchanging nature of God's character.
Atheism on the other hand doesn't even have a basis by which to establish morality. Its morality is entirely subjective and meaningless.
People disagreeing about its interpretation does not make the Bible subjective, any more than a man who thinks the moon is made of cheese makes the fact that it isn't subjective. Lack of understanding does not imply subjectivity.
I used "atheism" because I wanted to avoid making the implication that atheists lack morality. The point being, an atheist can not account for his morality in any meaningful way.
Ok, and I go by the 'objective' 'standard' that says "the essence of moral behavior is to maximize happiness and minimize suffering for as many as possible, while simultaneously preserving as much freedom as possible for as many as possible"
...This seems like such a silly conversation to me.
Why is it such a big deal if a person's morality is 'subjective' - again, I emphasize that we're all "subjectivists"!
(sorry if that word has an assigned meaning, philosophers...)
RabidApe....Well said. Its actually funny how little think of morality. Most of the time they just make up whatever they want as morals based on their prejudices.
It is such a big deal because moral relativism is a myth. Nobody is a moral relativist. If moral relativism is true then who cares about your above definition of morality. If moral relativism is true then evil, justice, right, wrong, etc. are all meaningless concepts. But atheists obviously do not think so. They are professing one type and living another.
That is a different topic altogether. My original argument is that Christian morality does not change, so I just need to show internal consistency. I was not making the case for the Bible being the universal source of objective morality. The latter argument involves the authenticity of Christianity itself, which is a wide open topic. Don't think you really want to get into that. If you do then message me with a specific topic because I will need more space then this.
You said that if it were up to atheists that you could justify making height of a person immoral. And I am saying that that would be a stupid persons claim of immorality and not an atheists. The only way you could justify sonething being immoral if it didnt cause some type of suffering would be through ignorance ot the bible o.e. homosexuality, lust, gluttony, drugs.
"Account for" meaning they can't explain where it comes from. They try to say it comes from societal norms but that explanation does not comport with reality. They do not live consistent with that explanation. Their lives belies their explanation.
Explaining "why" someone behaves a certain way is not the same as explaining why someone "ought" to behave a certain way. Atheists can't explain the ought. And that is what morality is based on, the oughts, not the whys.
So I guess the answer to "Do you REALLY mean to tell me you can't explain why you don't rape, rob, or kill without invoking the supernatural?" is "yes", eh?
::facepalm::
You go ahead and hold onto your myths, but stay away from me. People like you scare me.
It appeared rhetorical to me. It's obviously our conscience that restrains us from doing evil. Atheists say it comes from nature, Christians say it comes from God. The atheistic explanation collapses upon inspection because it lacks objectivity, the theistic explanation doesn't.
But you do not seem keen on defending the atheistic explanation and have resorted to rhetoric instead.
Not nice. Two problems at least. You presume, in the absence of belief in God, people would be moral. This is wishful. Two, you say that "religion teaches us that it is ok to sleep through the ride, to ruin the ride for others." Love one another, do good to those who hurt you, clothe the naked, visit the sick etc. etc. is sleeping through and ruining the ride?
Oooo, great video. Just discovered you from another member in the Captnoawesome + WarrenSmash25 chat on Stickam. Great stuff. I'm going to send this video to one of my Christian friends.
So if the Love of Christ is the only thing that is keeping you from going on a rape and murder spree...what is keeping me from doing so? (sorry this is out of order)
Also there is a movement of 'green' evangelicals... as sustainability is THE #1 issue at this point...I would prefer to find common ground there... to attemting to undermine their faith with a toolkit that does not apply by definition in their worldview. DOes that make sense...
Well of course that's what the right has done very successfully for the last thirty years- such that the 'center' in this country is very much to the right of an actual 'center'... still I think you are reacting to fundamentalists and not all people of faith. As an activist - a left one- I have to acknowledge the heavy role of the faith community in progressive change - I think you've lost site of this. RAMEN!
I'm with you up until the end = this eliminate religion from the meme pool is such an authoritarian jerk move - of course you propose to accomplish that by reason and not smashing the heads that carry those ideas. ...But it is still silly. I know plenty of decent helpful useful humans who happen to be 'of faith'.
In fact, I've always thought that fear of the Majical Surveillance Camera -was a poor substitute for empathy as ones moral compass. It's a cheap and chickenshit morality to not do because you fear your OWN skin burning in hell...otherwise you'd do that awful thing.
That is, if you want to claim there is no objective morality (only subjective morality), then you're going to have to bite the bullet and say those things (rape, murder, religion (in your view)) aren't really "bad", just that you don't like them, and there is nothing really (ultimately) "wrong" with someone deciding otherwise.
Watched it. Still unimpressed. I understand that you don't want me to decide that rape and murder aren't "bad" because that belief (or my religious beliefs) may someday affect you, but that still doesn't answer the question I posed below. Why should I care if you don't like something I do?
So it isn't wrong to rape and murder? If I don't agree with your assessment that it is wrong, then it's okay for me to do those things?
If there is no objective "bad", then you can't call religion "bad". If it's just subjectively "bad" (as in "I don't like brussel sprouts"), then why should I care about what you find distasteful? Why should we eradicate it?
Re: "Idea #1" -- please explain why "a quick glance through history or the Old Testament" is enough to so easily dismiss the idea of an objective morality.
It's interesting to note that at the end of your post you say "religion is dangerous" and it "robs life of meaning" -- are these "bad" things? If so, then you have acknowledged an objective standard of morality. If not, then why should I care?
Karma is the idea that what you do affects your future not just in this life but your next: Live a moral life you get good Karma and thus get a better life in your next existance viceversa with bad karma. The evidence for this is overwhelming in the practical perceptional sences, but profound in the transcental sences. Why suppose that religion says it is ok to ignore your existence when it obviously teaches you how to have a better future existence.
True if this life is all we have we mush cerish it, but without god how can we draw the line between good and bad, our brains have guilt thats all that tells us, however when you are young your parents tell you what is good and bad, these are opinions from others about this based on what doesnt give gilt, however were did these opinions start and where did the starters draw the line? (I have no idea what I just said!:P)
Right and wrong are made up concepts. There are only helpful or harmful actions and thoughts. We, as living beings, have a genetic morality that dictates what is helpful or harmful for our species. That's why we all feel empathy for the pain of a loved one, or even a stranger when we can't deny them. Evil is either a pathology (psychological disorder), or morality gone wrong (selfishness is helpful to you but harmful to mankind, etc).
On your statement that religion does not add morality to our lives Im going to have to disagree with you. Now Im not imposing on your beleifs I am simply stating that before I found Jesus I was a wretched vegabound who cared for only one person, myself. Now I don't imply that all athiests do the same I am simply stating that through the love that Jesus brought me, and applying the bible to my life, I take pleasure in serving others and humbling myself to the uplifting of another being.
It's a dying God that's the problem. There He lies, gasping his last, too weak to help us. What are we 6.5 billion very unequal people to do? Have a town meeting?
I had this same frustrating debate with a Christian on my Yahoo group/anti-apologetics. He seriously could not understand in anyway, how there could be any meaning to life at all if there was no afterlife. There are dozens of exchanges between us there - seriously frustrating.
Well Templar, you're not really trying to talk sense into a Christian looney, are you? If you are, you just might be more mad than him. I would imagine that if you were really trying to talk sense to a Christian apologetic you would be doing it for entertainment value, in which case I don't see why it would be frustrating.
I concede the joke but not the point, do you disagree with me assessment of religion? And there is nothing indecent about dicks and johnsons, or else God has one very dirty mind creating 3 billion of them.
I agree that humanity has the capability to be decent without religion. i do not agree that all religious people claim a monopoly on morality. this dudes arguments are flawed in this sense, because there are a broad spectrum of religious persons, with different ideas about morality.
Within a religion, there is not a broad spectrum of "doctrine", which is what this guy is addressing. The deep and broad spectrum of humananity involved, usually represents a departure from the dogmatism, rather than an endorsement of it.
Of course another complaint is that the moderate religious people who aren't governed by such medieval mentalities lend credibility to the extremists by indirectly endorsing the doctrine by a blanket defense of religion.
I'm not aware of any Christian doctrine outlined in the Bible which states that only Christians are capable of moral decisions. If you are, I challenge you to direct me to it. I would argue that it is Extremists who are those who represent a departure from doctrine by putting a spin on things not originally present in the religious teachings, and as such, moderates justifably distance themselves from Extremists by labeling them as such. I offer them no 'blanket defense'.
Extremists don't represent a departure from "original teachings." This is a common tactic used by apologetics when trying to explain away the notion that they are providing indirect support for extremists. The fact is that the extremists simply ACTUALLY BELIEVE all the teachings in their entirety, and not cherry pick like the moderates. But they are in no way in departure from the teachings.
An example (provided by RabidApe) of a departure from Christian teachings and hence an extremist point of view: The Christian who told him that if one didn't believe in God, life had no meaning and they might as well kill themselves. On a side note I take offense to your labels of apologetic and cherry picking moderate. if you can not engage in civil debate I will cease to reply to you.
if you truly see it that way, i believe your perception is skewed. it would be like if i called him a pot smoking liberal. and why would i keep kosher? I'm not a Jew. what does that have to do with anything?
Extremists are the people who take the pre-Dark Age doctrine literally. Moderate religious who understand the ancient fables are insightful, but full of shit, still for some reason, protect the idea of beleif in such nonsensical tales for entirely different reasons.
This may define one specific type of extremist, but it is not a complete or accurate definition by any means. Your statement on 'moderates' is disrespectful. A Christian would never regard a Bible story as 'full of shit', it would be 'metaphorical'.
Ashop was metaphorical and insightful, but anyone who believes the "grasshopper and the ant" is facual history, has no limit to their insanity and if their defense is "it's a good moral", then my first statement applies once again.
Anyone who believes the moral or message of the metaphors came from God gives undeserved credibility to the dangerous lunatics who actually believe in parting seas, talking snakes, virgin births and resurrecting supermen.
I think when religious people tell you your life would have no meaning without God, they are referring to meaning that goes beyond our lifetime. I'm trying to weigh the logical implications, though, of your belief that there is no afterlife. Are all our efforts in this life just a dutiful service to the evolution of the species? I don't know, it just seems like we wouldn't be so conscious of it.
i completely agree with what this guy has to say.
slightlyst0o0pid 7 months ago
I want to know what is your definition of ride? this is all one ride and we only get one correct? If so I would like some examples of what would inhance your "ride."
TheCanuck09 9 months ago
Completely true! Although, I believe we were
'dead' 'forever' before we were born, and not
just for 13 billion years. I also believe the
universe is a lot older then 13 billion years.
paulusmagirl 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I really liked your video and your channel. If you need any help getting this video or channel exposed I use a site called tubeviews.(net) It has really helped like 20 of my main videos get to the top in position. God Bless!
ps. I really liked your style of Video!
Franciscodfg 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I really liked your video and your channel. If you need any help getting this video or channel exposed I use a site called tubeviews.(net) It has really helped like 20 of my main videos get to the top in position. God Bless!
Very Lovely!
Sabrynaqa 2 years ago
Comment removed
caseisclosed94 3 years ago
For scientific evidence of a second intelligence within yourself search YT for LAY GNOSIS 1 BEGIN HERE.website truebluehealerDOTcom
10 mins you have proof of something NEW in YOU.
kimbo99 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This subjective morality claim is so absurdly silly. What if I create a new country and say we must kill anyone who wears a yellow shirt or is above six feet tall because I declare those two things immoral? According to atheists, that would be fine. They preach subjectivity but live objectively - they are a walking contradiction.
Moral subjectivity is just a way to justify our current sinful desires. What is immoral will always be immoral. It does not change with the times.
INTJ22 4 years ago
"What is immoral will always be immoral. It does not change with the times."
Really INTJ22?
Well then tell god that he was wrong when he didn't denounce slavery for over 4000 years.
djosephallen 4 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You have no understanding of Biblical slavery and its different forms. You are applying a 20th century definition of slavery to ancient text that is thousands of years old. Learn the rules of interpretation first before attempting to criticize something you don't understand.
INTJ22 4 years ago
INTJ22,
only an insane country would warrant killing anyone over being over six feet tall, or wearing a yellow shirt, or working on the sabath.
right, b/c im sure after your holly texts have been re-authored, edited and re-translated over 1000's of years all of sudden the meaning of slavery just up and changes. no, it doesn't. killing = killing. genocide = genocide. rape = rape. gay sex = gay sex. slavery = slavery. you can't be objective with those things.
agentorange20 4 years ago 3
Your claim that you can make whatever you want immoral is moronic. Morality is about suffering, you have to think critically and logically in order to arrive at a reasonable state. The bible and other "holy" books are the only source for bigoted based morality. Homosexuality, lust or envy being chief among these shows just how religion doesnt want morality but control, for it is not wrong to do anything if it doesnt harm another.
UcanbeGOD 3 years ago
"Your claim that you can make whatever you want immoral is moronic."
What? Where in the world did you get that? That is NOT my claim. My claim is that morality is based on the character/nature of God - we do not get to decide what is or isn't moral. ATHEISTS are the ones who preach subjective morality, which is the very morality you are here criticizing. Thank you for supporting my position.
INTJ22 3 years ago
"based on the character/nature of God"
That's about as subjective as you can get! Ask ten people what 'god' means to them, and you'll probably get ten very different answers.
Even if you all get it from the same book, that book is still filtered through your subjective interpretation, and the zeitgeist shifts as time moves on.
This is why we're no longer burning people at the stake for heresy.
...Which I hope we all think is a good thing.
RabidApe 3 years ago
That is not accurate. The subjective pointing to an objective truth does not make that truth subjective. I grant that the Christian God still needs to be proven in this case, but that is besides the point. The point is there are Christian moral absolutes that do not change with the times, because they are based on the unchanging nature of God's character.
Atheism on the other hand doesn't even have a basis by which to establish morality. Its morality is entirely subjective and meaningless.
INTJ22 3 years ago
"The point is there are Christian moral absolutes that do not change with the times"
And MY point is that you (collectively) can't even agree on what something as simple as "Thou shalt not kill" actually means.
Let alone something like "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".
If it makes you feel better to call that objective - hey, whatever melts your butter, bro.
Atheists don't get their morality from 'atheism' - we get it from the same place you do: our brains doing the best they can!
RabidApe 3 years ago
That is an error that Atheists constantly make.
People disagreeing about its interpretation does not make the Bible subjective, any more than a man who thinks the moon is made of cheese makes the fact that it isn't subjective. Lack of understanding does not imply subjectivity.
I used "atheism" because I wanted to avoid making the implication that atheists lack morality. The point being, an atheist can not account for his morality in any meaningful way.
INTJ22 3 years ago
Ok, and I go by the 'objective' 'standard' that says "the essence of moral behavior is to maximize happiness and minimize suffering for as many as possible, while simultaneously preserving as much freedom as possible for as many as possible"
...This seems like such a silly conversation to me.
Why is it such a big deal if a person's morality is 'subjective' - again, I emphasize that we're all "subjectivists"!
(sorry if that word has an assigned meaning, philosophers...)
RabidApe 3 years ago
RabidApe....Well said. Its actually funny how little think of morality. Most of the time they just make up whatever they want as morals based on their prejudices.
BTW Hope all is well with school.
UcanbeGOD 3 years ago
It is such a big deal because moral relativism is a myth. Nobody is a moral relativist. If moral relativism is true then who cares about your above definition of morality. If moral relativism is true then evil, justice, right, wrong, etc. are all meaningless concepts. But atheists obviously do not think so. They are professing one type and living another.
INTJ22 3 years ago
"Nobody is a moral relativist."
EVERYBODY is a moral relativist, some of us are just more comfortable admitting it than others.
"If moral relativism is true then who cares about your above definition of morality."
I do. It's the one I live by. Who cares about yours? See, I can play that game too. Nurny-nurny-nur-nur...
"evil, justice, right, wrong, etc. are all meaningless concepts."
Our definitions of those words may be different, but that doesn't make them meaningless.
RabidApe 3 years ago
So Hitler was within his rights to murder millions of innocent people? If everyone's moral code is equally valid then so was his.
INTJ22 3 years ago
"They are professing one type and living another."
I know you are, but what am I? :P
Please tell me your OBJECTIVE reason for using the Bible in particular as your 'moral foundation', WHICH VERSION of the Bible you go by, and why.
(inb4 circular reasoning)
RabidApe 3 years ago
That is a different topic altogether. My original argument is that Christian morality does not change, so I just need to show internal consistency. I was not making the case for the Bible being the universal source of objective morality. The latter argument involves the authenticity of Christianity itself, which is a wide open topic. Don't think you really want to get into that. If you do then message me with a specific topic because I will need more space then this.
INTJ22 3 years ago
You said that if it were up to atheists that you could justify making height of a person immoral. And I am saying that that would be a stupid persons claim of immorality and not an atheists. The only way you could justify sonething being immoral if it didnt cause some type of suffering would be through ignorance ot the bible o.e. homosexuality, lust, gluttony, drugs.
UcanbeGOD 3 years ago
"an atheist can not account for his morality in any meaningful way"
What do you mean by 'account for'?
Evolution can explain the tendency towards empathy, reciprocal altruism, and other behavior that leads to stability/safety for the individual/group.
Do you REALLY mean to tell me you can't explain why you don't rape, rob, or kill without invoking the supernatural?
RabidApe 3 years ago
"Account for" meaning they can't explain where it comes from. They try to say it comes from societal norms but that explanation does not comport with reality. They do not live consistent with that explanation. Their lives belies their explanation.
Explaining "why" someone behaves a certain way is not the same as explaining why someone "ought" to behave a certain way. Atheists can't explain the ought. And that is what morality is based on, the oughts, not the whys.
INTJ22 3 years ago
So I guess the answer to "Do you REALLY mean to tell me you can't explain why you don't rape, rob, or kill without invoking the supernatural?" is "yes", eh?
::facepalm::
You go ahead and hold onto your myths, but stay away from me. People like you scare me.
Good day/night to you.
RabidApe 3 years ago
It appeared rhetorical to me. It's obviously our conscience that restrains us from doing evil. Atheists say it comes from nature, Christians say it comes from God. The atheistic explanation collapses upon inspection because it lacks objectivity, the theistic explanation doesn't.
But you do not seem keen on defending the atheistic explanation and have resorted to rhetoric instead.
INTJ22 3 years ago
"Atheists say it comes from nature"
Isn't it funny how we can construct a natural theory via simple logical conjecture based on observable evidence?
We know that 'nature' exists.
You need to explain how you know this 'God' thing exists AND the mechanism it used to 'give' us a conscience.
"it comes from God" isn't a very informative theory.
"collapses upon inspection because it lacks objectivity, the theistic explanation doesn't."
Who said objectivity was a criterion? Not me.
RabidApe 3 years ago
Because without objectivity it is self-refuting. And for someone who is proud of espousing logical reasoning that should be of much concern to you.
INTJ22 3 years ago
Don't waste your life.
Go find a Mrs.RabidApe.
PennyRoyaleTea 4 years ago
So true Rabidape. So true. I'm with you brother!
RoseThorns1 4 years ago 3
good video
SunscreenAndVitamins 4 years ago
Not nice. Two problems at least. You presume, in the absence of belief in God, people would be moral. This is wishful. Two, you say that "religion teaches us that it is ok to sleep through the ride, to ruin the ride for others." Love one another, do good to those who hurt you, clothe the naked, visit the sick etc. etc. is sleeping through and ruining the ride?
Xpistos2007 4 years ago
Oooo, great video. Just discovered you from another member in the Captnoawesome + WarrenSmash25 chat on Stickam. Great stuff. I'm going to send this video to one of my Christian friends.
marcosdoliva 4 years ago
w00t the Flying Spaghetti Monster, by his Noodly Appendage shall we find solace!
aPaThEiSt 5 years ago
So if the Love of Christ is the only thing that is keeping you from going on a rape and murder spree...what is keeping me from doing so? (sorry this is out of order)
CityzenJane 5 years ago
Also there is a movement of 'green' evangelicals... as sustainability is THE #1 issue at this point...I would prefer to find common ground there... to attemting to undermine their faith with a toolkit that does not apply by definition in their worldview. DOes that make sense...
CityzenJane 5 years ago
Well of course that's what the right has done very successfully for the last thirty years- such that the 'center' in this country is very much to the right of an actual 'center'... still I think you are reacting to fundamentalists and not all people of faith. As an activist - a left one- I have to acknowledge the heavy role of the faith community in progressive change - I think you've lost site of this. RAMEN!
CityzenJane 5 years ago
I'm with you up until the end = this eliminate religion from the meme pool is such an authoritarian jerk move - of course you propose to accomplish that by reason and not smashing the heads that carry those ideas. ...But it is still silly. I know plenty of decent helpful useful humans who happen to be 'of faith'.
CityzenJane 5 years ago
In fact, I've always thought that fear of the Majical Surveillance Camera -was a poor substitute for empathy as ones moral compass. It's a cheap and chickenshit morality to not do because you fear your OWN skin burning in hell...otherwise you'd do that awful thing.
CityzenJane 5 years ago
That is, if you want to claim there is no objective morality (only subjective morality), then you're going to have to bite the bullet and say those things (rape, murder, religion (in your view)) aren't really "bad", just that you don't like them, and there is nothing really (ultimately) "wrong" with someone deciding otherwise.
dsbikes 5 years ago
Watched it. Still unimpressed. I understand that you don't want me to decide that rape and murder aren't "bad" because that belief (or my religious beliefs) may someday affect you, but that still doesn't answer the question I posed below. Why should I care if you don't like something I do?
dsbikes 5 years ago
That was an excellent video. Thank you, you have very similar attitudes to my own.
shemjaza 5 years ago
So it isn't wrong to rape and murder? If I don't agree with your assessment that it is wrong, then it's okay for me to do those things?
If there is no objective "bad", then you can't call religion "bad". If it's just subjectively "bad" (as in "I don't like brussel sprouts"), then why should I care about what you find distasteful? Why should we eradicate it?
dsbikes 5 years ago
Re: "Idea #1" -- please explain why "a quick glance through history or the Old Testament" is enough to so easily dismiss the idea of an objective morality.
It's interesting to note that at the end of your post you say "religion is dangerous" and it "robs life of meaning" -- are these "bad" things? If so, then you have acknowledged an objective standard of morality. If not, then why should I care?
dsbikes 5 years ago
Karma is the idea that what you do affects your future not just in this life but your next: Live a moral life you get good Karma and thus get a better life in your next existance viceversa with bad karma. The evidence for this is overwhelming in the practical perceptional sences, but profound in the transcental sences. Why suppose that religion says it is ok to ignore your existence when it obviously teaches you how to have a better future existence.
yadsik 5 years ago
Or how to be quiet and to submit to injustice in the present? Obediance being the most important meme.
CityzenJane 5 years ago
True if this life is all we have we mush cerish it, but without god how can we draw the line between good and bad, our brains have guilt thats all that tells us, however when you are young your parents tell you what is good and bad, these are opinions from others about this based on what doesnt give gilt, however were did these opinions start and where did the starters draw the line? (I have no idea what I just said!:P)
yadsik 5 years ago
Right and wrong are made up concepts. There are only helpful or harmful actions and thoughts. We, as living beings, have a genetic morality that dictates what is helpful or harmful for our species. That's why we all feel empathy for the pain of a loved one, or even a stranger when we can't deny them. Evil is either a pathology (psychological disorder), or morality gone wrong (selfishness is helpful to you but harmful to mankind, etc).
distortingjack 5 years ago
On your statement that religion does not add morality to our lives Im going to have to disagree with you. Now Im not imposing on your beleifs I am simply stating that before I found Jesus I was a wretched vegabound who cared for only one person, myself. Now I don't imply that all athiests do the same I am simply stating that through the love that Jesus brought me, and applying the bible to my life, I take pleasure in serving others and humbling myself to the uplifting of another being.
Timinator15 5 years ago
Great, great, great response!!! Well done!! I loved it. Keep the pwnage coming!!!!
wrekk 5 years ago
I'm keen to chat to you about this. R u on skype? call me: robocopnz
robocopnz 5 years ago
It's a dying God that's the problem. There He lies, gasping his last, too weak to help us. What are we 6.5 billion very unequal people to do? Have a town meeting?
Ricaticaticky 5 years ago
I had this same frustrating debate with a Christian on my Yahoo group/anti-apologetics. He seriously could not understand in anyway, how there could be any meaning to life at all if there was no afterlife. There are dozens of exchanges between us there - seriously frustrating.
templarart 5 years ago
Well Templar, you're not really trying to talk sense into a Christian looney, are you? If you are, you just might be more mad than him. I would imagine that if you were really trying to talk sense to a Christian apologetic you would be doing it for entertainment value, in which case I don't see why it would be frustrating.
matriculated01 5 years ago
i agree
but i believe in God and Jesus
time is coming to an end
geuzer 5 years ago
Where can I get my own FSM tee-shirt?
ooglabosh 5 years ago
It is beyond sleazy when religion attempts to hijack basic human decency.
DickJohnson3434 5 years ago
i find it amusing that a man who references himself as dick johnson claims decency & accuses others of being sleazy. ;)
MattyPasta 5 years ago
I concede the joke but not the point, do you disagree with me assessment of religion? And there is nothing indecent about dicks and johnsons, or else God has one very dirty mind creating 3 billion of them.
DickJohnson3434 5 years ago
I agree that humanity has the capability to be decent without religion. i do not agree that all religious people claim a monopoly on morality. this dudes arguments are flawed in this sense, because there are a broad spectrum of religious persons, with different ideas about morality.
MattyPasta 5 years ago
Within a religion, there is not a broad spectrum of "doctrine", which is what this guy is addressing. The deep and broad spectrum of humananity involved, usually represents a departure from the dogmatism, rather than an endorsement of it.
DickJohnson3434 5 years ago
Of course another complaint is that the moderate religious people who aren't governed by such medieval mentalities lend credibility to the extremists by indirectly endorsing the doctrine by a blanket defense of religion.
DickJohnson3434 5 years ago
I'm not aware of any Christian doctrine outlined in the Bible which states that only Christians are capable of moral decisions. If you are, I challenge you to direct me to it. I would argue that it is Extremists who are those who represent a departure from doctrine by putting a spin on things not originally present in the religious teachings, and as such, moderates justifably distance themselves from Extremists by labeling them as such. I offer them no 'blanket defense'.
MattyPasta 5 years ago
Extremists don't represent a departure from "original teachings." This is a common tactic used by apologetics when trying to explain away the notion that they are providing indirect support for extremists. The fact is that the extremists simply ACTUALLY BELIEVE all the teachings in their entirety, and not cherry pick like the moderates. But they are in no way in departure from the teachings.
matriculated01 5 years ago
An example (provided by RabidApe) of a departure from Christian teachings and hence an extremist point of view: The Christian who told him that if one didn't believe in God, life had no meaning and they might as well kill themselves. On a side note I take offense to your labels of apologetic and cherry picking moderate. if you can not engage in civil debate I will cease to reply to you.
MattyPasta 5 years ago
Do you really think cherry picking is an insult? It's simply straightforward description to me. You don't keep kosher do you?
CityzenJane 5 years ago
if you truly see it that way, i believe your perception is skewed. it would be like if i called him a pot smoking liberal. and why would i keep kosher? I'm not a Jew. what does that have to do with anything?
MattyPasta 5 years ago
Extremists are the people who take the pre-Dark Age doctrine literally. Moderate religious who understand the ancient fables are insightful, but full of shit, still for some reason, protect the idea of beleif in such nonsensical tales for entirely different reasons.
DickJohnson3434 5 years ago
And when those reasons resemble things like "Jesus' teachings were virtuous", then thet most certainly meets the criteria of my original statement.
DickJohnson3434 5 years ago
This may define one specific type of extremist, but it is not a complete or accurate definition by any means. Your statement on 'moderates' is disrespectful. A Christian would never regard a Bible story as 'full of shit', it would be 'metaphorical'.
MattyPasta 5 years ago
Ashop was metaphorical and insightful, but anyone who believes the "grasshopper and the ant" is facual history, has no limit to their insanity and if their defense is "it's a good moral", then my first statement applies once again.
DickJohnson3434 5 years ago
Anyone who believes the moral or message of the metaphors came from God gives undeserved credibility to the dangerous lunatics who actually believe in parting seas, talking snakes, virgin births and resurrecting supermen.
DickJohnson3434 5 years ago
I think when religious people tell you your life would have no meaning without God, they are referring to meaning that goes beyond our lifetime. I'm trying to weigh the logical implications, though, of your belief that there is no afterlife. Are all our efforts in this life just a dutiful service to the evolution of the species? I don't know, it just seems like we wouldn't be so conscious of it.
rmrss 5 years ago
nice t-shirt.
stickhorse1134 5 years ago