I think your presentation was solid, you made many good points, which i happen to agree with you on. As i look around, i am not really sure where anyone would come out and say "you are a very bad thinnker and on the verge of being nuts." there didnt seem to be a single thing objectionable in your speach at all... it makes sense; different peoples cherry pick, find what they like, and justify what they find with "God said its ok". i mean look at slavery! slavers used the bible as justification!
Apparently it's got more to do with their language than any inherent ability to be good at maths. Something to do with less silly-balls >8^p so its easier to remember and quicker to do calculations when thinking about the numbers, the words for numbers remains simple and logical when in double figures and beyond or something.... read it in a book called outliers.
Remove tithing, Remove taxes, Remove oil and you will remove war. Simple. Or we could quit conforming to these things of this world and transform the world into a peaceful and safe place for future generations
I haven't checked the reference you gave in the side bar, so i am sure you have many other examples if you were being exhaustive. But the example you gave of 'eye for an eye' and 'turn the other cheek' is a little of a bad comparison. 'Eye for an eye' being a measure of punishment for a crime by a civil authority, and 'turning the other cheek' is a matter of person to person interaction.
But as I said, I do realize you were by no means being exhaustive, and may have many other examples.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You can tell when a person knows nothing about religion when they say religion is about extracting money from people. What a simpleton... the rest of his rant is just nonsense on stilts.
I'd love to hook a guy like this up to an fMRI alongside a Muslim who passionately screams 'down with America'. Im sure the EXACT same parts of their brains light up.
@stefbot Christianity - or rather the heresy of Christian Zionism - is truly forceful at raising cash, but has little to do with Christ except in the most skewed terms.
@stefbot You refute nothing with that response, merely restate your beliefs, which do not make them any more simpleton.
I found your lecture somewhat childish in the way you present everything in a way where you must be right! By that I mean you refute things obviously false as obviously true by complicating a simple matter with a simpleton as guidance to which you branch.
@stefbot@stefbot You refute nothing with that response, merely restate your beliefs, which do not make them any more simpleton.
I found your lecture somewhat childish in the way you present everything in a way where you must be right! By that I mean you refute things obviously false as obviously true by complicating a simple matter with a simpleton as guidance to which you branch.
@stefbot I agree with the flaws you indentify in religion, however i'd be wary of saying that (all) religions are created to for money and manipulation. I dont think any indvidual (or at least very few) within a religion, wether it priest or parent try to manipulate people on the basis of monetary gain. The motivation i think is most certainly moral. Yet the uncritical religous has created these contradictions. however, if it is all a money grabbing scheme, please share you're proofs or evidence
oh I see you wanted me to rebut your 15 mins ramble in a 500 word comment. You want me to proved evidence when you provide none in this video? besides, I'm an atheist, why would I defend religion? I mostly agree with your points on religion. Although, there is such a thing as post modern religion (re;gnostic). And you don't come to any conclusion on moral relativity in general. you simply like to bash it (which is easy to do) without adding anything constructive (which is not).
you are a very bad thinker on the verge of being nuts.
One of the first times I agree with you.
You seem to fit your description of religiosity the way you approach politics. Free markets and volunteerism are your gods and the state is your Satan.
a rubuttal to whom? yourboycal or the vid.? Neither really warrant a rebuttal with logic and evidence. Ridicule is a much more appropriate. I usually don't bother.
@stefbot Actually he does make a good point (yes i realize this was posted a yr ago). Largely the state is viewed as "evil", by many, and free markets "good".
OK, first please learn the difference between your and you're. Just because you may not be the brightest bulb in the package doesn't mean you have to advertise it.
Well I have no idea who stefbot is. Sorry to disappoint you, but you must be a Muslim based on your statements thus far. And if so, then I ask you to renounce the authority of the Hadith. Since it most certainly condemns apostates to death. Repeatedly. And on what grounds do you reject it?
you talk about contradictions when you dont even know the subject your studying mr. stefbot . How can i take truth from a man so close minded ? how you going to tell me the purpose of religion when you barley know anything about it . besides your pre concieved notions .. please mr stef bot if you dont know about a topic dont make shit up just to fit your bs philosophy ....how do you sleep at night ?
StefBOT .. please do research and not talk out your ass about a topic you clearly know nothing about . SHOW ME ONE VERSE IN THE QURAN THAT DEALS WITH APOSTASY JUST ONE VERSE PLEASE. I accuse you of lying mr stefbot . You either ignorant and dont care to research before opening your mouth . Or you have a pre concieved notion of religions which is a big fail for a philospher . STEFBOT please no more making up things ..just to make your youtube videos pretty . I challenge you show me the verse
yea yea insult my intelligence to make your self feel more intelligent .. hey whatever helps you sleep at night .. and as for stefbot ... one day your also gonna climb that mountain of probability ..and find your selfs a bunch of theologians waiting for you saying .. hey what took you so long =p ... remember were creatures ... "can a creation explain its creation"? NO... it cant .. you can only reverse engineer so far .. and stef bot's philisohpical view is blurred =(
you dont claim to be created? so one day you just appeared out of nothing right? loool
you dont claim to be created ? even though you here talking to me .. you just appeared out of no where? remember sparky we can only reverse engineer so far back .. untill we reach the end of the box .. now we have to find a way to step out of the box and see how the box and its contents were created and that involves a relm our 3 pounds brains cant comprehend my friend ..
I claim to exist. Do I even have to point that out to you?
Ok well I have to admit I don't know what happened to create space and time. You are quite right that my 3 pounds of gray matter isn't sufficient for that.
That's a logical position to take.
But your position seems to be that "I was created and I know who did it!" What a fantastically arrogant claim.
And if your creator created you, where did all the material of the universe come from? Or did your god just conjure up this material?
Actually the ignorant claim is people who think we can explain life universe without god , see i believe the why who what question of life hasnt been answered yet therefore i cant turn my back on the oldest theory of creationism ... once we have a better understanding of the structure make up of the universe and can be demonstrated through parralels , dimensions , dark matter ,, whatever it is .. were not there yet .. and to dismiss a creator is just blind logic .
as for your question about where he got all the material .. now your bringing the creator into the relative world of time space and matter .. now if there is a creator he must be outside the boundries of time space and matter inorder to create it .. he must be outside the box .. and this is our problem we cant get that far yet ... and we think we can answer all the questions inside the box .. can you describe a computer components and how it was put together without saying a person did it ?
Earth ... perfect distance from the sun .. not to close not to far ... the atmosphere a shield against toxic radioactive activity in space .. jupiter used as a giant magnet to attract most of the astriods so it doesnt hit earth ...all the beautiufl life we have on earth .. if man didnt interven earth would be a beatuiful paradise of species .. but if it were natural selection then it made a big boo boo by giving us such critical thinking abilities ... we not dominate earth and are earths cancer
If you want to postulate a deistic god (creator but not interventionist) your case would be much stronger.
You take Earth as being perfect. Do you not see the trapdoor under your feet? How then to explain the volcanoes that burn people alive? The earthquakes that destroy buildings.....The tsunamis that slowly drag humans to a watery grave.....
You seem like a smarter guy than your first comment seemed to suggest. There are many creation stories that have existed long before your birth.
volcanos burning people ? dont live near one :p .. earthquakes? how about we check out military testing for underground missels and bombs? how about we get nuclear subs out of the water? how about we stop blowing earth up in wars?? tsunamis again .... a mega ton bomb under water would cause numerous tsunamies .. everything has a opposite or equal reaction .. you cant blame that on god .. for humans misuse and destructiion of earth
All the previous creation stories have long since died....
And as for the creator being "outside the box", then who designed god? And before you go saying that god always existed, keep in mind that I can say that a multiverse has always existed and our universe sits at the singularity of a black hole within that multiverse. Hard to believe? It seems no more difficult than a creator god who has always existed.
And thank you for the nice compliment. I wish to return the favor.
i cant say god has always exsisted ... because right now im in the box ... i cant say anything till i meet him and then find out the whole story .. show me how it all went down .. but for now .. all i know is were in the box .. hes outside .. we will meet the creator as we are a creation .. and perhaps then we can both ask him how he was to be
So because you don't live near a volcano, that means they don't burn people? You think earthquakes are the result of military testing? And nuclear subs contribute as well? And tsunamis are caused by megaton bombs?
As Keanu Reeves would say - whoa
We can agree that humans are causing terrible destruction on the earth. OK we agree on that totally.
But you must be sadly ignorant of science to think that these terrible climatic events didn't happen before humans began using these technologies.
Im saying our presence has greatly increased the serverity , size , and reptition of such events .. theres two choices when it comes down to it a) evolution be true and were nothing more special then evolved species with common ancestor with apes .. flying through space 66,000mph on a rock with nobody in charge ... or b) there is a god we need to knwo who he is and what he wants
you have to look at evidence for both sides and ask your self .. what am i doing ? do i really know?
i will be trying to fun for office with gods will of course in the near future .. and i promise you my friend if i get into parliment .. one of my main things is a full investagations to all theese military tests going on underneath the surface of the earth .. inside our oceans .. in the atmosphere with the haarp project .. and finding out the true effects it has on the planet .. and im sure we both know nothing good comes out of destruction with weapons but choas for earth
purpose of religion to extract money" - for a philospher you fail mr stefbot =) your pretty smart man with your history and all but when it comes to theology its very clear your going off pre concieved notions .. fail
how easily how can dismiss shows me not an open mind .. but a pre concieved notion of religion .. espically when you started talking about quran .. and the mistakes you made were what christians make about islam ....least do a little just a tad of homework on the quran before bringing up points thats really level one understanding...im sure you can fool the athiest fans .. but im not a athiest fan good sir =p so please cut the crap ..... was dissapointed in this video
According to "yourboycal" I have apparently been "on your dick" just because I have criticized him. I do apologize sir, for treading on your nether regions. I shall remove myself promptly.
Wasn't it Obi-Wan who said "Only the Sith deal in absolutes" when Anakin went dark-side? :P When I saw that I was scratching my head over the contradiction.
Yes I am an atheist, but I don't see anything particularly special about it. I am very glad to say I have never been even remotely tempted to credit my existence to a supernatural force. I just consider myself almost obscenely fortunate to exist at all.
lol your earths cancer if there is no god .. that means natural selection made a mistake making humans.. we eat all the resources . dig through the earth .. are dominate species.. are a threat to earth and every other speices on earth .. your nothing more then earths cancer mr atheist =) ..
When you say that it is a contradiction for relativists to not believe in absolutes, one has to wonder what you mean by "absolute". I'm assuming you mean "absolute/objective moral values" (or something along those lines.
How is that a contradiction? How is it contradictory to not believe in moral absolutes?
Isn't it supposed to be "it is a contradiction for relativists to believe in absolutes"?
I don't know what a relativist is, but i feel rather relativistic myself, and I would say that I can form moral rules without being absolute in my definitions, absolute being the opposite of subjective in this case.
A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
Does your god intervene in human affairs? You said you are a monotheist, but I'm curious of the process by which you arrived at this conclusion.
And although non-belief might be a "belief", it's objectively more rational than a belief in a personal god.
On what reason is deism based on exactly? The lack of proof and any kind of possible ability to know and discover? Well then it's not reason, but solely superstition.
"Knowing a mythical religion doesn't require you to believe it."
Right but I think we are lost in our common language on this point. You can know about a particular religion (its dogmas, ceremonies, etc.) without knowing if that religion is true.
And since none of us can prove any religious doctrine (or disprove it), the only rational choice is agnosticism. But in practice I can't walk around saying "I don't know if Apollo is real", so I take a practical position and say he isn't.
You're right about the agnosticism in your previous comment, since there are quite a few different approaches to it. Wikipedia lists six definitions.
I'd still say you're more of an atheist, since we actually can, to some degree see how unlikely a personal god is the case, and we can disprove quite a lot of the religious claims. In fact, quite a lot has been disproved already, that's why you see religions evolve, to fit into the modern view of the world around us.
It has been pointed out countless times that we are all agnostic. Atheism is simply practical agnosticism. We can't walk around claiming to "not know" about the infinite gods that have been claimed by history.
Not being a deist I'll leave any question regarding that for someone else.
And agnosticism is not belief in the supernatural. It's simply a big word for "I don't know" or possibly "I can't know" might be better in some cases.
I was with you and can follow some of your theories on religion till you decided to start throwing the theists (not to be confused with religious) under the bus some time after 14:29. ::sigh:: I hope some day you will be able to separate the two. For the by definition are not the same thing. You do not have to be Religious to be a Theist.
Just curious what your idea is of the difference between religious and theistic. Its quite easy to see the difference between deistic and religious, but thats a different story.
Religion is established organization that promotes specific ideas. Theism is a belief in God or gods that created everything. I am a monotheist. A theist need not be specifically religious. I personally have a problem with most organized religion but do believe in a God. So there for you can be a theists with out being religious (i.e. agnostic). But this idea falls under belief, just as atheism does, and none have being proved or disproved empirically. I count myself closer to agnostic.
Theism is a belief in God or gods that created everything? No that's deism.
Theism requires an interventionist figure. And I don't think agnostics would appreciate being lumped in with theists. In fact it seems rather insulting.
And atheism is not a belief, it's a rejection of belief.
........And yes, though I do not indend to offend, you are correct about lumping agnostics in. Thank you for pointing that out. The best tool to learn with is the facts : )
It was a rather interesting video as a fond supporter for getting rid of these cults and there rather messed up morals and one would say in some circumstances some of these cults like the Christian church are rather dangerous it is rather good to know that more and more people are starting to go "Hey wait a minute i planted a field and it turns out that all that work i did, I did". Referring to people that use to thank god that are now starting to realize that they did the work not him.
Wow! These are some things I've always tried to explain to people, but I think you've managed to come across more clearly on some important points. Well done. Good video!
Its funny how religious folks believe that if your not "tied down" with religion, you'll be a psychotic maniac without any morals. ha ha Just because they need to create a prison in their life does not mean I need to.
That's my argument as well - Hit the nail right on the head.
Well it's the Hatfields & McCoys isn't it. Really it's the religious cheerleaders Vs the atheist cheerleaders.
The atheist & evolutionist wants to have his cake & eat it too. What's Your basis for ethics or "morals"? Can there be such a thing as "child abuse" or "murder"? Where is the root for such terms?
Oh I know it's the same thing the government says regarding legal plunder when you take away the argument of lawlessness; JUST BECAUSE.
I don't know what your talking about. I live my life the way I see fit. Period. Its not necessary to have fear (religion) in my life to appreciate mutual respect. Quite making a straw man argument, its not working.
So what is the root basis for having mutual respect? Why should I or anyone have it, aside from just because? Gee I wonder where ethical terms or words like "stealing", "rape" and "murder" come from?
I guess if they end up having a "religious" influence or root you'll have to come up with some other terms.
What have I argued? I'm making a "straw man argument" JUST BECAUSE you wrote so? In fact that was your answer to my questions; just because. Sounds "religious" to me.
1)Atheism is just the lack of a belief in God. There is nothing contradictory about it. Arguements for atheism might by contradictory (which I have yet to encounter) but atheism itself is not contradictory.
2)Atheism is not a religion. IReligion is a set of practices for worshiping a God. You would be acting in complete contradiction if you worshipped a God you didn't believe exists.
1) Belief in a Creator is just belief in a Creator. There is nothing contradictory about it. Arguments are always contradictory. Actually you have encountered contradiction, but cheerleaders never face those.
2) Merriam Webster online. religion 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
You do have faith, beliefs, a cause & arguments for Atheism.
You worship "nothing", don't you?! Ah I couldn't resist.
1)Right. There is nothing contradictory about believing in a Creator. Christianity is not the merely belief in a Creator, but an attempt to know the unknowable.
Arguements are just statements that attempt to affirm or negate a particular proposition. Not all of them are contradictory.
Argueing with me about whether I've encountered contradictory arguements for atheism is like argueing with someone about whether they dreamth of an elephant last night. There's no point in argueing.
1) "If" there is a Creator He could choose to reveal Himself or not or just so in a limited way. Just like anyone that creates something the Creator is owner and not accountable to its creature. In fact He can do no wrong.
Arguments are what lawyers do. You have no conclusive or factual evidence that something comes from nothing. In a universe of cause & effect you propose that something came into being all by itself?! That is the contradiction you've encountered but not faced rationally.
The cause doesn't need to be a personal god. By putting god into equation you've managed to explain exactly nothing. How do you then explain the existence of god? If you say it's the beginning of everything and such, you're just making stuff up. It's fair to simply say - we don't know yet, and we might never know for sure. Evolution is for one an explanation of how something improbable came into existence by pure chance, by a very random and simple process.
The cause doesn't need to be but "could be" a personal God. Well from my point of view the Creator is the reason for my self-evident rights. These are not a matter of a evolutionary society if I already own them much like the color of my eyes and hair; already there.
To me the existence of a Creator is self-evident. Now an "understandable" argument may be made to reject the "God" of the Bible. If true would still not negate the presence of a Creator. I'm looking at it not from my point of view.
The "rights" is the concept in your mind, and much the effect of moral thinking. However, keep in mind that there are scientific explanations of how morality and altruism has evolved. It falls between moral philosophy, cognitive science and evolutionary processes. Thus those not need be the effect of intelligent design, and as evidence piles up as we speak, it contradicts your case.
DaveDoggOwns has not confronted the reality of "evolutionary processes". If there is no Creator of intelligent design, there is no real right or wrong. Whatever is, just is. Just like the bigger bird eating the smaller bird or lions killing another lion to establish a new stronger pride, there is nothing wrong or right about it.
Take that further there is no real right to anything. Just the hope for some existence.
This is a typical misunderstanding of evolution. I'm sorry, but you are unaware of the ways, the evolution justifies moral behaviour. Evolution is not all about natural selection, and there are altruistic ways of interaction between non-human animals. We just went a bit further, and history will show you, we weren't always perfect with that. It's still an ongoing process, and evolution explains how this process works. It's got nothing to do with a creator of any sort.
Did you just make "evolution" a god? How can an unknown process justify anything? Does "evolution" have a moral compass? Where did it come from?
I would say that from your point of view "morality" is the concept by people trying to survive or evolve. Used as a defense to continue on existing and evolving based on the gods they created to promote the concepts of "morality".
It seems to me there is no root to this reasoning other than what I call "JUST BECAUSE"; just a big gap in reasoning.
Well, did you actually attempt to read the things I have mentioned?
A good book on the matter: Daniel C. Dennet "Breaking the Spell", cognitive science right there.
Just as some of the thought processes which we employ, but we by default do not understand or are aware of (such as pattern seeking of the mind), morality is a process which might mean to us something a little bit different that what it was originally designed for. Such as music or poetry. A very simple recognitions evolved to art.
.. Designed by evolution, but that's a bit misleading phrase. By definition evolution does not design anything. It's just a random, blind process of the good ideas being more equipped towards survival, thus they exist as they are today., while other perish.
The chances of god existing or not are not 50-50. If by Creator you mean some kind of a process, not necessarily intelligent or personal in any way, then you're much more likely by chance and evidence to stumble upon a correct answer. While we can't be sure, we do have evidence to show that God and concept of the creator is simply a human made assumption, which is not backed up by any kind of evidence. I will hear gladly from you to prove me wrong.
I see it as more like 100% that there is intelligent design. At least you're honest with respect to the contradictions "we can't be sure".
I too see contradictions on my side. I don't get the impression you're trying to one up me; just sharing information and reasonable discussion.
This will cover another post. But on either side of the debate I am skeptical. Science today is not that respectable to me. It is just like almost every human institution a political organization trying to thrive.
By all means, be sceptical. What makes you so inclined to the intelligent design approach, however? What are the arguments for the intelligent design?
Go to nytimes(dot)com and make a search for "New Glimpses of Lifes Puzzling Origins". We're getting there, slowly, but surely. And please, do watch some interviews Richard Dawkins has made, quite insightful on the subject.
Once again, I appreciate your respect. But, I don't want to trade tit for tat. One of the least trusted news papers to me is the New York Times.
To me the argument for "morality" as an evolutionary process seems to give "evolution" the characteristics of a god. It seems a weak argument to me.
Even if you were to say as Voltaire did in so many words, "If there was no God people would invent one", I could see a rational argument even if I disagreed. It would seen to be consistent with Atheism.
You might see evolution as a similar explanation to god, because it attempts to explain similar questions. The difference is, evolution is backed up by evidence, such as fossils and social observations. It is logical, simple, and the only answer we have so far.
Aren't there still "missing links in evolution"? Now be honest with your answer! I'm not trying to be a pain, but So often I get people who lie in their comments! If there weren't "gaps" in evolution I suspect many, many more people would come to accept it!
Gaps? Could you be more specific about that? While there might be some gaps, which systematically tend to get smaller and absorbed by new evidence, those do not work against evolution. You're free to prove any other theory that will compete with evolution in means of scientific proof.
There's nothing better than knowing your "enemy". I suggest you read a bit more about it. Go to wikipedia and do a search for "Objections to evolution". Lots of interesting answers there.
I just want to add something to reply to ifreemantoo's challenging question about codes and languages which are not designed. A good example is the evolution of the languages we use to communicate. They have emerged in many places and groups independently, yet they are not designed. They appear because of our predispositions and needs to communicate. It's a unguided process, only after that fact we step in and try to maintain it.
What do you think about the idea I have been reading about where ET came to earth and created us as a result of genetic altering(probably with apes)? Is that possible or not? I find that pretty interesting, but more believable than Creation!
It could be possible, however not by DNA altering. Our DNA is very similar to those of some of the apes - chimps actually, since we have a common ancestor. It could be the case of life being seeded to Earth, but it's more likely that it has originated here. Besides, you're still left with explaining how aliens came to being.
I can understand why so many people believe in Creation. It doesn't require much brain power! I'm trying to understand the basics of evolution and my brain is starting to melt! o.O I'll try again in the morning lol!
there are missing links, but we have so much information, that Evolution is already a fact. You may not find all fossils (missing links) but you already see a picture. Furthermore it is impossible to find all fossils. But we have enough information, how I said, so... learn about it.
There is no evidence for intelligent design. While we do not know some things yet, it does not point us ultimately to a god. It's a simple assumption and a non-answer. You're still left with explaining what god is, how it came into being and such. There are many fallacies to this approach, an thus it's VERY unlikely. Definitely disprovable in the case of a god that intervenes.
Well just one more response. That which creates does not exist by the environment of its creature. I make a paper doll I do not become paper thin and an inanimate object.
From you point of view. If there were a Creator it would then be possible that this being always existed. I didn't say a certainty only a possibility.
If you don't know if something exists or not, why assume it does and connect it with properties, which you may not know either.
Again, there is nothing that points us into any kind of intelligent design. The universe exists. We experience it, so it had a beginning, which was first observed by Hubble. Theorized by many. Whether it was a designed process, we don't know. And if you claim it was, prove it.
DNA is complex. The complex comes from simple beginnings - the only true observation we have
Yes, as I pointed once out, you might find more about the artificial RNA and the early development of life at nytimes(dot)com. Make a search for "New Glimpses of Lifes Puzzling Origins".
You must have a hate complex. Hatfields & McCoys. So you're going to win me over by kicking the shit out of me. Not likely.
Generally speaking I try to treat other as I would like to be treated. If that doesn't work then I usually assume that if you treat me like an ass that's how you want to be treated. Fair enough?!
I'm not offended personally by those that don't believe as I do. I have three known atheist friends. We haven't come to blows nor do we anticipate that.
I would encourage you to study a bit more about the current state of evolution theory. I know it seems rather empty to some people.
If I can give you a few pointers - search for Richard Dawkins' videos around here, he even has his own channel. While he often does criticise religion, try to put that aside and listen to the factual data instead, even if it doesn't come easily. He does have quite a nice lot of interviews with the big heads of the current world, so you might want to check it out.
caltrop69, I do understand what you mean. I know I probably have no chance of making someone's beliefs shift easily, but I'm not necessarily setting it as my goal. I do feel for your frustration, but let's say that for the moment I don't share it. Maybe someone will find it beneficial, to read the stuff we input here. Cheers.
Frustration? Hmmm...Maybe I oughtta go back to using emoticons. I'm hardly frustrated..."bored" would be a better description of my current mood.
I wouldn't seriously attack someone...The point I was trying to make was simply that it's not an invisible deity that is preventing me from doing so...And I don't think it's preventing religionists from doing so, either, regardless of their claims.
2)Surely there are atheists that ascribe to atheism for bad reasons but that doesn't make atheism a "religion". I like most atheists use the scientific method to justify our lack in a belief in God.
If I worship no God it does not logically that I worship nothing. That is a non sequitor and you know it. I don't think God would appreciate you debating so corruptly.
3)Evolution is a scientific theory and not an ideology so there is not point in calling one that accepts evolution theory an "evolutionist".
4)"Faith" in certain ethical codes is not the same thing as having faith that something which you cannot see, taste, touch, or smell exists. Saying that "Murder is wrong" is not the same thing as saying "Evolutionary Theory is wrong". Preference is not the same thing as faith in existence.
5)It is very hypocritical and corrupt to attack atheism because it's just another religion. You yourself are religious so what the point in labeling atheism a religion like that somehow makes
Actually I think all "religion" as practice is corrupt including atheism. If by shear numbers or believers atheism has validity, then certainly Christianity has its legitimacy.
Stebot argues that "religion" is the root of all evil, so to speak. I factually maintain that relationships would be great if not for people. You can substitute any word you like for "relationships" but you still have people to screw up "The garden of Eden". About 95% of the Bible say that.
Stefbot makes a very good point I do, that people can pick & choose what they read or believe to suit their "politics", if they can read at all in fact.
He misses the obvious, that it takes people to create man made religion. It takes sheeple to follow & make it grow. But the problem started with people. Without people there is no religion. Blaming religion is like blaming the gun for killing people. It takes people to pull the trigger.
The absence of religion is not the absence of a Creator.
3) Science is full of political mischief as is now practiced as a religion too. One of the other characteristics of a religion is to have a following of cheerleaders that have no clue. Internet infidels showed me there are just as many on the evolutionary argument. Evolution has serious backtracking & missteps just like Stefbot characterized religion.
4) What is the root basis for "ethical codes" other than "just because" from an atheist point of view? Why is it "murder" instead of "kill"?
3)Science rejects the supernatural and the unfalsifieable so it can't possibly be religious and really evolution has nothing to do with atheism. People should not blindly accept evolution and even if I couldn't prove evolution that wouldn't provide one ounce of reason to be a Christiany.
4)The Golden Rule, instinct, cost-benifit analysis, greater good for the greater number, universality and logical consistency. There are a thousand basis's for ethical codes.
And even if atheism lead to more crime(which it doesn't) and more moral relativism that would still gives you no reason to believe that there is a God. I'd rather live in a dystopia of truth than in a utopia of lies!
This is laughable. The "Golden Rule" is based in "religion". You like having your cake & eating it too. You like the benefit but deny the source; typical.
Now this one really gets me. "greater good for the greater number". Sounds like socialism to me. Again who makes that decision?
Well those in power right now feel they are providing "greater good for the greater number". Why don't you just comply with evolution?!
4)I allready told you whether or not I can provide you with objective ethics is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to whether or not God exists or not. I'd rather live in a dystopia of truth than live in a utopia of lies.
In more atheistic countries there tends to be less crime so if you're going to appeal to consequences you'd better off be an atheist.
I wouldn't necessarily credit the decrease in crime and such directly to atheism alone. The nordic countries are much more secular than, say, America when it comes to population in general. That might mean people there are simply better educated, posses more knowledge and are able to process that knowledge in a better, more efficient manner. Thus the lack of religious beliefs is evident.
I have made no such comment as to what atheism will lead to. Why are you arguing something I've not spoke of instead of answering questions I made? Is that a distraction or side stepping.
Back to 4) Did the word "murder" evolve from atheism? When lions kill each other it's not murder. Why is it "murder" when people kill each other for gain or existence? Who said so? Why do I have to pay attention to some evolve term? Perhaps murder or killing is actually more natural? (Devil's Advocate)
Of course I expect the silent but deafening mantra or JUST BECAUSE to be the answer. Sounds religious to me.
You seem to be lacking some bits and pieces of knowledge about evolution and it's mechanics, which also can be applied to altruistic behaviour. Why do we feel respect for each other? Because it helps the survival of our species.
Atheism is not a religion. By definition it's a lack of any kind of religious belief. Atheist do no believe there is no god. There simply is no evidence of god's existence. Atheists are very sceptical towards unlikely propositions. Rational thinking is the word.
It requires extraordinary integrity and self honesty to understand why one believes in something. Atheist or not, if hard evidence revealed that there is some kind of god then a rational person would have to face it. There are thousands of religions claiming to be "the truth" and they all require faith but experience will tell you that if you jump off of a cliff you will fall.
In True News 42: Morality, Atheism and Child Abuse I made some points which apply here as well.
Once again, all you really say is that people can read anything in a way they want to support what they want to believe. If that applies to religion only, atheism is also a religion; full of contradictions & back stepping as well.
RE religion Stefbot I see you like a divorce attorney inciting the parties to go hard at each other. Also like the preacher preying on the ignorance of those in the pews
atheism is not full of contradiction because it's not all one work, each atheist draws his/her conclusions based on individual experience of a multitude of influences, while religion circles around text with the motto 'one size fits all'. Philosophers contradict each other, but that's because they're not all part of one and the same big philosophy.
Great timing Stef. Just yesterday I was making my own case for ethics and morality without the "help" of religion. It's amazing how even secular media outlets equate the idea of immorality with the absence of religion. It's one of the most frustrating topics for me to discuss with religious people I know.
I must admit, I have very little rebuttal (as a Christian) that I am able to do, but this point I would make: men cherry-pick any philosophy, religion, science, etc to make absolute and justify their bigotries. It is a universal problem with humanity, and not specific to religion. I would absolutely agree its ethically wrong, and I condemn the guilty on this matter within my religion; but you have bigotries against religion, based on a limited exp. and a cherry-picking of only indicting evidence
I think you're dead on about the bible being a bad guide to morality... most people believe the bible is a philosophical book, when in reality it's a collection of books that are historical, not philosophic in nature.
The only philosophy in the bible comes indirectly from studying the history of Christ and ideals he aspoused (many of which contradicted the old testament Jewish law).
Do a search on google for "jesus was an anarchist by redford". I'm curious what you're take is on it.
know loads of religions are corrupt but then so are loads of companies and both "fiddle with the books". But logically just because some businesses are bad that means all of them are bad, the same goes for religion. And time and time again you only pick on the heavily corrupted western religions who in most cases for most of them dont even follow their own sciptures.
I think if you are trying to equate the morality of questionable accounting with the wholesale promotion of genocide, rape and murder, I think you're going to have a tough time making the case...
no i meant the they edit their books in the same way for their own gains leaving them light on truth and full of thehypocrisy and contradictions, and end up with non practising devotees.The hare krishna movement has good philosophy and doesnt seem to have contradictory/hypocricical. Open mind = good philosopher. Look in their library for faults as I do, you so sure shouldnt take you long to find faults all over the place in their advice.
I wasnt talking about the murder and religious wars, which has been done by all people not just religions anyway im not sticking up for christianity or judaism or muslims. I am speaking specifically about a philosophy that talks about life after death and the construction of the universe which has many rock solid points and videos all over the internet with stuff it would be very difficult for you to refute if you would only look at it, Again if you are so sure then you should not have a problem
ahh wtf stef, always picking on the contradictory religious texts. You are as bad in some ways as the governments you do a good job of philosophically ripping to shreds. They ignore the difficult stuff and take the easy targets to bully.
I'm not religious but I pretty sure morality, for most religious people, is about the traditions of their community and church first and the bible a distant second. If you take that tradition away you Stefan believe there is still a rational ethics to fall back on. Please prove this by addressing some of the many ehtical issues surrounding biotechnology. Please.
I think your presentation was solid, you made many good points, which i happen to agree with you on. As i look around, i am not really sure where anyone would come out and say "you are a very bad thinnker and on the verge of being nuts." there didnt seem to be a single thing objectionable in your speach at all... it makes sense; different peoples cherry pick, find what they like, and justify what they find with "God said its ok". i mean look at slavery! slavers used the bible as justification!
ItsEasyIfYouThink 10 months ago
this is exactly right.
AndrewBell 10 months ago
Apparently it's got more to do with their language than any inherent ability to be good at maths. Something to do with less silly-balls >8^p so its easier to remember and quicker to do calculations when thinking about the numbers, the words for numbers remains simple and logical when in double figures and beyond or something.... read it in a book called outliers.
OneMove33 1 year ago
this guy is crazy
cjrod01 1 year ago
14:41
Definitely.
xxSilverPhinxx 1 year ago
Serious question - what do you make of Leo Tolstoy, the "Christian-Anarchist"? I would appreciate your time with a pithy answer.
augustustoplady1 1 year ago
Typical mistake originating from non-Catholic and rightous, false understanding of Holy Bible.
And of course, no every religion resolve problem of relatyvism, which is religion itself, but only Catholic Church who's obtained TRUE.
metal87power 2 years ago
Remove tithing, Remove taxes, Remove oil and you will remove war. Simple. Or we could quit conforming to these things of this world and transform the world into a peaceful and safe place for future generations
apetrowsky1 2 years ago
He is soooo right!
apetrowsky1 2 years ago
I haven't checked the reference you gave in the side bar, so i am sure you have many other examples if you were being exhaustive. But the example you gave of 'eye for an eye' and 'turn the other cheek' is a little of a bad comparison. 'Eye for an eye' being a measure of punishment for a crime by a civil authority, and 'turning the other cheek' is a matter of person to person interaction.
But as I said, I do realize you were by no means being exhaustive, and may have many other examples.
benhuey 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You can tell when a person knows nothing about religion when they say religion is about extracting money from people. What a simpleton... the rest of his rant is just nonsense on stilts.
I'd love to hook a guy like this up to an fMRI alongside a Muslim who passionately screams 'down with America'. Im sure the EXACT same parts of their brains light up.
badbuddhist 2 years ago
wellll, religion brings in $100 Billion in the USA alone annually...
stefbot 2 years ago 8
wellll, religion brings in $100 Billion in the USA alone annually...
That has no meaning. You seem like a nice guy, but if youre going to talk about something you should spend some time honestly trying to understand it.
badbuddhist 2 years ago
@stefbot Christianity - or rather the heresy of Christian Zionism - is truly forceful at raising cash, but has little to do with Christ except in the most skewed terms.
augustustoplady1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@augustustoplady1 Christ does not exist.
Sivels 1 year ago
@stefbot You refute nothing with that response, merely restate your beliefs, which do not make them any more simpleton.
I found your lecture somewhat childish in the way you present everything in a way where you must be right! By that I mean you refute things obviously false as obviously true by complicating a simple matter with a simpleton as guidance to which you branch.
Syron96 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stefbot @stefbot You refute nothing with that response, merely restate your beliefs, which do not make them any more simpleton.
I found your lecture somewhat childish in the way you present everything in a way where you must be right! By that I mean you refute things obviously false as obviously true by complicating a simple matter with a simpleton as guidance to which you branch.
Syron96 1 year ago
@stefbot I agree with the flaws you indentify in religion, however i'd be wary of saying that (all) religions are created to for money and manipulation. I dont think any indvidual (or at least very few) within a religion, wether it priest or parent try to manipulate people on the basis of monetary gain. The motivation i think is most certainly moral. Yet the uncritical religous has created these contradictions. however, if it is all a money grabbing scheme, please share you're proofs or evidence
NeMzoNer 4 months ago
its like you're a blind man trying to say that rainbows dont exist when you've been told that they are.
LocustsAreSwarming 2 years ago
I've read your sentence 5 times and still have no clue what you're trying to say.
badbuddhist 2 years ago
it was very late, what i means was its like trying to have a conversation with a blind man about the colour of the rainbow.
LocustsAreSwarming 2 years ago
oh I see you wanted me to rebut your 15 mins ramble in a 500 word comment. You want me to proved evidence when you provide none in this video? besides, I'm an atheist, why would I defend religion? I mostly agree with your points on religion. Although, there is such a thing as post modern religion (re;gnostic). And you don't come to any conclusion on moral relativity in general. you simply like to bash it (which is easy to do) without adding anything constructive (which is not).
verstwo2 2 years ago
you are a very bad thinker on the verge of being nuts.
One of the first times I agree with you.
You seem to fit your description of religiosity the way you approach politics. Free markets and volunteerism are your gods and the state is your Satan.
~from your friendly neighborhood atheist.
verstwo2 2 years ago
haha whew for a moment there i thought you were going to make a rational rebuttal with logic and evidence- sooo close! :)
stefbot 2 years ago 3
a rubuttal to whom? yourboycal or the vid.? Neither really warrant a rebuttal with logic and evidence. Ridicule is a much more appropriate. I usually don't bother.
What kind of rebuttal where you looking for?
verstwo2 2 years ago
@stefbot Actually he does make a good point (yes i realize this was posted a yr ago). Largely the state is viewed as "evil", by many, and free markets "good".
vidfreak56 8 months ago
"Terminator in a vat of lava" hahaha
Now, seriously: 5 stars.
stoikiometry 2 years ago
OK, first please learn the difference between your and you're. Just because you may not be the brightest bulb in the package doesn't mean you have to advertise it.
Well I have no idea who stefbot is. Sorry to disappoint you, but you must be a Muslim based on your statements thus far. And if so, then I ask you to renounce the authority of the Hadith. Since it most certainly condemns apostates to death. Repeatedly. And on what grounds do you reject it?
nysguy27 2 years ago
you talk about contradictions when you dont even know the subject your studying mr. stefbot . How can i take truth from a man so close minded ? how you going to tell me the purpose of religion when you barley know anything about it . besides your pre concieved notions .. please mr stef bot if you dont know about a topic dont make shit up just to fit your bs philosophy ....how do you sleep at night ?
yourboycal 2 years ago
StefBOT .. please do research and not talk out your ass about a topic you clearly know nothing about . SHOW ME ONE VERSE IN THE QURAN THAT DEALS WITH APOSTASY JUST ONE VERSE PLEASE. I accuse you of lying mr stefbot . You either ignorant and dont care to research before opening your mouth . Or you have a pre concieved notion of religions which is a big fail for a philospher . STEFBOT please no more making up things ..just to make your youtube videos pretty . I challenge you show me the verse
yourboycal 2 years ago
I think yourboycal "failed" grammar class.
If you make a coherent argument then we can have a discussion. Otherwise.....
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
nysguy27 2 years ago
yea yea insult my intelligence to make your self feel more intelligent .. hey whatever helps you sleep at night .. and as for stefbot ... one day your also gonna climb that mountain of probability ..and find your selfs a bunch of theologians waiting for you saying .. hey what took you so long =p ... remember were creatures ... "can a creation explain its creation"? NO... it cant .. you can only reverse engineer so far .. and stef bot's philisohpical view is blurred =(
yourboycal 2 years ago
get off stefbots dick .. he got schooled =)
yourboycal 2 years ago
OK these ad hominem attacks are good sport but not productive.
So "a creation cannot explain its creation"? Is that your position? Well I don't claim to be "created". So I don't have anything to prove.
You on the other hand, are claiming to be created. So it seems you have to explain your creation. Not the other way around.
And I'm afraid while I am climbing the mountain of probability, you will be lying in the abyss of certainty.
nysguy27 2 years ago
you dont claim to be created? so one day you just appeared out of nothing right? loool
you dont claim to be created ? even though you here talking to me .. you just appeared out of no where? remember sparky we can only reverse engineer so far back .. untill we reach the end of the box .. now we have to find a way to step out of the box and see how the box and its contents were created and that involves a relm our 3 pounds brains cant comprehend my friend ..
yourboycal 2 years ago
I claim to exist. Do I even have to point that out to you?
Ok well I have to admit I don't know what happened to create space and time. You are quite right that my 3 pounds of gray matter isn't sufficient for that.
That's a logical position to take.
But your position seems to be that "I was created and I know who did it!" What a fantastically arrogant claim.
And if your creator created you, where did all the material of the universe come from? Or did your god just conjure up this material?
nysguy27 2 years ago
Actually the ignorant claim is people who think we can explain life universe without god , see i believe the why who what question of life hasnt been answered yet therefore i cant turn my back on the oldest theory of creationism ... once we have a better understanding of the structure make up of the universe and can be demonstrated through parralels , dimensions , dark matter ,, whatever it is .. were not there yet .. and to dismiss a creator is just blind logic .
yourboycal 2 years ago
as for your question about where he got all the material .. now your bringing the creator into the relative world of time space and matter .. now if there is a creator he must be outside the boundries of time space and matter inorder to create it .. he must be outside the box .. and this is our problem we cant get that far yet ... and we think we can answer all the questions inside the box .. can you describe a computer components and how it was put together without saying a person did it ?
yourboycal 2 years ago
Earth ... perfect distance from the sun .. not to close not to far ... the atmosphere a shield against toxic radioactive activity in space .. jupiter used as a giant magnet to attract most of the astriods so it doesnt hit earth ...all the beautiufl life we have on earth .. if man didnt interven earth would be a beatuiful paradise of species .. but if it were natural selection then it made a big boo boo by giving us such critical thinking abilities ... we not dominate earth and are earths cancer
yourboycal 2 years ago
If you want to postulate a deistic god (creator but not interventionist) your case would be much stronger.
You take Earth as being perfect. Do you not see the trapdoor under your feet? How then to explain the volcanoes that burn people alive? The earthquakes that destroy buildings.....The tsunamis that slowly drag humans to a watery grave.....
You seem like a smarter guy than your first comment seemed to suggest. There are many creation stories that have existed long before your birth.
nysguy27 2 years ago
volcanos burning people ? dont live near one :p .. earthquakes? how about we check out military testing for underground missels and bombs? how about we get nuclear subs out of the water? how about we stop blowing earth up in wars?? tsunamis again .... a mega ton bomb under water would cause numerous tsunamies .. everything has a opposite or equal reaction .. you cant blame that on god .. for humans misuse and destructiion of earth
yourboycal 2 years ago
ha ha ha ha.....you are such a loyal follower of Freedomain radio....and no wonder.
verstwo2 2 years ago
All the previous creation stories have long since died....
And as for the creator being "outside the box", then who designed god? And before you go saying that god always existed, keep in mind that I can say that a multiverse has always existed and our universe sits at the singularity of a black hole within that multiverse. Hard to believe? It seems no more difficult than a creator god who has always existed.
And thank you for the nice compliment. I wish to return the favor.
Peace
nysguy27 2 years ago
i cant say god has always exsisted ... because right now im in the box ... i cant say anything till i meet him and then find out the whole story .. show me how it all went down .. but for now .. all i know is were in the box .. hes outside .. we will meet the creator as we are a creation .. and perhaps then we can both ask him how he was to be
yourboycal 2 years ago
So because you don't live near a volcano, that means they don't burn people? You think earthquakes are the result of military testing? And nuclear subs contribute as well? And tsunamis are caused by megaton bombs?
As Keanu Reeves would say - whoa
We can agree that humans are causing terrible destruction on the earth. OK we agree on that totally.
But you must be sadly ignorant of science to think that these terrible climatic events didn't happen before humans began using these technologies.
nysguy27 2 years ago
Im saying our presence has greatly increased the serverity , size , and reptition of such events .. theres two choices when it comes down to it a) evolution be true and were nothing more special then evolved species with common ancestor with apes .. flying through space 66,000mph on a rock with nobody in charge ... or b) there is a god we need to knwo who he is and what he wants
you have to look at evidence for both sides and ask your self .. what am i doing ? do i really know?
yourboycal 2 years ago
i will be trying to fun for office with gods will of course in the near future .. and i promise you my friend if i get into parliment .. one of my main things is a full investagations to all theese military tests going on underneath the surface of the earth .. inside our oceans .. in the atmosphere with the haarp project .. and finding out the true effects it has on the planet .. and im sure we both know nothing good comes out of destruction with weapons but choas for earth
yourboycal 2 years ago
ha ha ha lolz. you are a perfect fit here. thanks for sharing. keep up the good work. the state is the work of satan right brother?? speak it! lolz.
verstwo2 2 years ago
purpose of religion to extract money" - for a philospher you fail mr stefbot =) your pretty smart man with your history and all but when it comes to theology its very clear your going off pre concieved notions .. fail
yourboycal 2 years ago
Saying the word 'fail' does not make it so.
stefbot 2 years ago 4
how easily how can dismiss shows me not an open mind .. but a pre concieved notion of religion .. espically when you started talking about quran .. and the mistakes you made were what christians make about islam ....least do a little just a tad of homework on the quran before bringing up points thats really level one understanding...im sure you can fool the athiest fans .. but im not a athiest fan good sir =p so please cut the crap ..... was dissapointed in this video
yourboycal 2 years ago
According to "yourboycal" I have apparently been "on your dick" just because I have criticized him. I do apologize sir, for treading on your nether regions. I shall remove myself promptly.
Good day sir.
nysguy27 2 years ago
Wasn't it Obi-Wan who said "Only the Sith deal in absolutes" when Anakin went dark-side? :P When I saw that I was scratching my head over the contradiction.
NoobixCube 2 years ago
I loved that part, I laughed and everybody looked at me weird.
BAGADOOBLE 2 years ago
Yes I am an atheist, but I don't see anything particularly special about it. I am very glad to say I have never been even remotely tempted to credit my existence to a supernatural force. I just consider myself almost obscenely fortunate to exist at all.
nysguy27 2 years ago
lol your earths cancer if there is no god .. that means natural selection made a mistake making humans.. we eat all the resources . dig through the earth .. are dominate species.. are a threat to earth and every other speices on earth .. your nothing more then earths cancer mr atheist =) ..
yourboycal 2 years ago
It's funny how you say all that, and then beg for money yourself.
Stephen5000 2 years ago
And what is meant by the word "spiritual"? How does Holmes define that?
ChaoticAnarchist 2 years ago
When you say that it is a contradiction for relativists to not believe in absolutes, one has to wonder what you mean by "absolute". I'm assuming you mean "absolute/objective moral values" (or something along those lines.
How is that a contradiction? How is it contradictory to not believe in moral absolutes?
Is it contradictory to not believe in unicorns?
Where's the contradiction?
ChaoticAnarchist 2 years ago
Isn't it supposed to be "it is a contradiction for relativists to believe in absolutes"?
I don't know what a relativist is, but i feel rather relativistic myself, and I would say that I can form moral rules without being absolute in my definitions, absolute being the opposite of subjective in this case.
So, yeah, I don't see any contradiction either.
Enleuk 2 years ago
Definition:
rel·a·tiv·ism (rl-t-vzm)
n. Philosophy
A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.
Ah, its all relative isn't it?
jadam914 2 years ago
Deism:
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
Does your god intervene in human affairs? You said you are a monotheist, but I'm curious of the process by which you arrived at this conclusion.
And although non-belief might be a "belief", it's objectively more rational than a belief in a personal god.
nysguy27 2 years ago
On what reason is deism based on exactly? The lack of proof and any kind of possible ability to know and discover? Well then it's not reason, but solely superstition.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
"Knowing a mythical religion doesn't require you to believe it."
Right but I think we are lost in our common language on this point. You can know about a particular religion (its dogmas, ceremonies, etc.) without knowing if that religion is true.
And since none of us can prove any religious doctrine (or disprove it), the only rational choice is agnosticism. But in practice I can't walk around saying "I don't know if Apollo is real", so I take a practical position and say he isn't.
nysguy27 2 years ago
You're right about the agnosticism in your previous comment, since there are quite a few different approaches to it. Wikipedia lists six definitions.
I'd still say you're more of an atheist, since we actually can, to some degree see how unlikely a personal god is the case, and we can disprove quite a lot of the religious claims. In fact, quite a lot has been disproved already, that's why you see religions evolve, to fit into the modern view of the world around us.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
It has been pointed out countless times that we are all agnostic. Atheism is simply practical agnosticism. We can't walk around claiming to "not know" about the infinite gods that have been claimed by history.
nysguy27 2 years ago
Knowing a mythical history of a region does not require you to believe it. Atheism is far from agnosticism.
Atheism - the lack of any kind of religious belief.
Agnosticism - belief in supernatural and its property to stay hidden, no matter what we do.
Although there are many things in the universe which are still blurry at best to us, it doesn't make us automatically agnostic.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
Not being a deist I'll leave any question regarding that for someone else.
And agnosticism is not belief in the supernatural. It's simply a big word for "I don't know" or possibly "I can't know" might be better in some cases.
nysguy27 2 years ago
I was with you and can follow some of your theories on religion till you decided to start throwing the theists (not to be confused with religious) under the bus some time after 14:29. ::sigh:: I hope some day you will be able to separate the two. For the by definition are not the same thing. You do not have to be Religious to be a Theist.
jadam914 2 years ago
Just curious what your idea is of the difference between religious and theistic. Its quite easy to see the difference between deistic and religious, but thats a different story.
nysguy27 2 years ago
Religion is established organization that promotes specific ideas. Theism is a belief in God or gods that created everything. I am a monotheist. A theist need not be specifically religious. I personally have a problem with most organized religion but do believe in a God. So there for you can be a theists with out being religious (i.e. agnostic). But this idea falls under belief, just as atheism does, and none have being proved or disproved empirically. I count myself closer to agnostic.
jadam914 2 years ago
Theism is a belief in God or gods that created everything? No that's deism.
Theism requires an interventionist figure. And I don't think agnostics would appreciate being lumped in with theists. In fact it seems rather insulting.
And atheism is not a belief, it's a rejection of belief.
nysguy27 2 years ago
Not beliving in something is a belief in and of it self.
Definition:
theism
1. a belief in the existence of God or gods.
2. a belief in one god as creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of special revelation.
ag·nos·tic
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
...........
jadam914 2 years ago
........And yes, though I do not indend to offend, you are correct about lumping agnostics in. Thank you for pointing that out. The best tool to learn with is the facts : )
jadam914 2 years ago
It was a rather interesting video as a fond supporter for getting rid of these cults and there rather messed up morals and one would say in some circumstances some of these cults like the Christian church are rather dangerous it is rather good to know that more and more people are starting to go "Hey wait a minute i planted a field and it turns out that all that work i did, I did". Referring to people that use to thank god that are now starting to realize that they did the work not him.
Jerrycosyweegirl 2 years ago
Wow! These are some things I've always tried to explain to people, but I think you've managed to come across more clearly on some important points. Well done. Good video!
bb1televator 2 years ago
Comment removed
bb1televator 2 years ago
stefbot what's the different between your mother and another woman ?
backtublive 2 years ago
A friend posted this as a bulletin on Myspace. Excellent video. Subbed+5 stars.
quinn2469 2 years ago
Thanks! :)
stefbot 2 years ago
14:28
Its funny how religious folks believe that if your not "tied down" with religion, you'll be a psychotic maniac without any morals. ha ha Just because they need to create a prison in their life does not mean I need to.
That's my argument as well - Hit the nail right on the head.
boosuff 2 years ago
Well it's the Hatfields & McCoys isn't it. Really it's the religious cheerleaders Vs the atheist cheerleaders.
The atheist & evolutionist wants to have his cake & eat it too. What's Your basis for ethics or "morals"? Can there be such a thing as "child abuse" or "murder"? Where is the root for such terms?
Oh I know it's the same thing the government says regarding legal plunder when you take away the argument of lawlessness; JUST BECAUSE.
Oh the faith of "JUST BECAUSE".
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
I don't know what your talking about. I live my life the way I see fit. Period. Its not necessary to have fear (religion) in my life to appreciate mutual respect. Quite making a straw man argument, its not working.
boosuff 2 years ago
So what is the root basis for having mutual respect? Why should I or anyone have it, aside from just because? Gee I wonder where ethical terms or words like "stealing", "rape" and "murder" come from?
I guess if they end up having a "religious" influence or root you'll have to come up with some other terms.
What have I argued? I'm making a "straw man argument" JUST BECAUSE you wrote so? In fact that was your answer to my questions; just because. Sounds "religious" to me.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
@ifreemantoo
What I said is not too difficult to understand. Here, I'll say it again:
Its not necessary to have fear (religion) in my life to appreciate mutual respect.
boosuff 2 years ago
1)Atheism is just the lack of a belief in God. There is nothing contradictory about it. Arguements for atheism might by contradictory (which I have yet to encounter) but atheism itself is not contradictory.
2)Atheism is not a religion. IReligion is a set of practices for worshiping a God. You would be acting in complete contradiction if you worshipped a God you didn't believe exists.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
1) Belief in a Creator is just belief in a Creator. There is nothing contradictory about it. Arguments are always contradictory. Actually you have encountered contradiction, but cheerleaders never face those.
2) Merriam Webster online. religion 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
You do have faith, beliefs, a cause & arguments for Atheism.
You worship "nothing", don't you?! Ah I couldn't resist.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
he worships cricisim
backtublive 2 years ago
1)Right. There is nothing contradictory about believing in a Creator. Christianity is not the merely belief in a Creator, but an attempt to know the unknowable.
Arguements are just statements that attempt to affirm or negate a particular proposition. Not all of them are contradictory.
Argueing with me about whether I've encountered contradictory arguements for atheism is like argueing with someone about whether they dreamth of an elephant last night. There's no point in argueing.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
1) "If" there is a Creator He could choose to reveal Himself or not or just so in a limited way. Just like anyone that creates something the Creator is owner and not accountable to its creature. In fact He can do no wrong.
Arguments are what lawyers do. You have no conclusive or factual evidence that something comes from nothing. In a universe of cause & effect you propose that something came into being all by itself?! That is the contradiction you've encountered but not faced rationally.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
The cause doesn't need to be a personal god. By putting god into equation you've managed to explain exactly nothing. How do you then explain the existence of god? If you say it's the beginning of everything and such, you're just making stuff up. It's fair to simply say - we don't know yet, and we might never know for sure. Evolution is for one an explanation of how something improbable came into existence by pure chance, by a very random and simple process.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
The cause doesn't need to be but "could be" a personal God. Well from my point of view the Creator is the reason for my self-evident rights. These are not a matter of a evolutionary society if I already own them much like the color of my eyes and hair; already there.
To me the existence of a Creator is self-evident. Now an "understandable" argument may be made to reject the "God" of the Bible. If true would still not negate the presence of a Creator. I'm looking at it not from my point of view.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
The "rights" is the concept in your mind, and much the effect of moral thinking. However, keep in mind that there are scientific explanations of how morality and altruism has evolved. It falls between moral philosophy, cognitive science and evolutionary processes. Thus those not need be the effect of intelligent design, and as evidence piles up as we speak, it contradicts your case.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
Only a couple more responses.
DaveDoggOwns has not confronted the reality of "evolutionary processes". If there is no Creator of intelligent design, there is no real right or wrong. Whatever is, just is. Just like the bigger bird eating the smaller bird or lions killing another lion to establish a new stronger pride, there is nothing wrong or right about it.
Take that further there is no real right to anything. Just the hope for some existence.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
This is a typical misunderstanding of evolution. I'm sorry, but you are unaware of the ways, the evolution justifies moral behaviour. Evolution is not all about natural selection, and there are altruistic ways of interaction between non-human animals. We just went a bit further, and history will show you, we weren't always perfect with that. It's still an ongoing process, and evolution explains how this process works. It's got nothing to do with a creator of any sort.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
Did you just make "evolution" a god? How can an unknown process justify anything? Does "evolution" have a moral compass? Where did it come from?
I would say that from your point of view "morality" is the concept by people trying to survive or evolve. Used as a defense to continue on existing and evolving based on the gods they created to promote the concepts of "morality".
It seems to me there is no root to this reasoning other than what I call "JUST BECAUSE"; just a big gap in reasoning.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
Well, did you actually attempt to read the things I have mentioned?
A good book on the matter: Daniel C. Dennet "Breaking the Spell", cognitive science right there.
Just as some of the thought processes which we employ, but we by default do not understand or are aware of (such as pattern seeking of the mind), morality is a process which might mean to us something a little bit different that what it was originally designed for. Such as music or poetry. A very simple recognitions evolved to art.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
.. Designed by evolution, but that's a bit misleading phrase. By definition evolution does not design anything. It's just a random, blind process of the good ideas being more equipped towards survival, thus they exist as they are today., while other perish.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
And once again I made a blooper. Not all "good ideas" are better equipped. The case is, what is better at surviving and replicating, does so.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
Well, what is good today could very well vanish tomorrow couldn't it? Which is my very point?
I'm now retiring from this discussion. I appreciate your patience, indulgence and kindness.
My best to you.
Creature of the Creator
Discoverer of self-evident truth
Not a man born of man's legalized stealing or legal mischief.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
The chances of god existing or not are not 50-50. If by Creator you mean some kind of a process, not necessarily intelligent or personal in any way, then you're much more likely by chance and evidence to stumble upon a correct answer. While we can't be sure, we do have evidence to show that God and concept of the creator is simply a human made assumption, which is not backed up by any kind of evidence. I will hear gladly from you to prove me wrong.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
I see it as more like 100% that there is intelligent design. At least you're honest with respect to the contradictions "we can't be sure".
I too see contradictions on my side. I don't get the impression you're trying to one up me; just sharing information and reasonable discussion.
This will cover another post. But on either side of the debate I am skeptical. Science today is not that respectable to me. It is just like almost every human institution a political organization trying to thrive.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
By all means, be sceptical. What makes you so inclined to the intelligent design approach, however? What are the arguments for the intelligent design?
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
If you want an "argument" here is one. I don't want to argue.
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.
Perry Marshall
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
Go to nytimes(dot)com and make a search for "New Glimpses of Lifes Puzzling Origins". We're getting there, slowly, but surely. And please, do watch some interviews Richard Dawkins has made, quite insightful on the subject.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
Once again, I appreciate your respect. But, I don't want to trade tit for tat. One of the least trusted news papers to me is the New York Times.
To me the argument for "morality" as an evolutionary process seems to give "evolution" the characteristics of a god. It seems a weak argument to me.
Even if you were to say as Voltaire did in so many words, "If there was no God people would invent one", I could see a rational argument even if I disagreed. It would seen to be consistent with Atheism.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
You might see evolution as a similar explanation to god, because it attempts to explain similar questions. The difference is, evolution is backed up by evidence, such as fossils and social observations. It is logical, simple, and the only answer we have so far.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
Aren't there still "missing links in evolution"? Now be honest with your answer! I'm not trying to be a pain, but So often I get people who lie in their comments! If there weren't "gaps" in evolution I suspect many, many more people would come to accept it!
99minerkc 2 years ago
Gaps? Could you be more specific about that? While there might be some gaps, which systematically tend to get smaller and absorbed by new evidence, those do not work against evolution. You're free to prove any other theory that will compete with evolution in means of scientific proof.
There's nothing better than knowing your "enemy". I suggest you read a bit more about it. Go to wikipedia and do a search for "Objections to evolution". Lots of interesting answers there.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
"You're free to prove any other theory that will compete with evolution in means of scientific proof." I have NOTHING to prove!
There's nothing better than knowing your "enemy". "I don't have any enemy"
99minerkc 2 years ago
I have only made an attempt at answering your question.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
I just want to add something to reply to ifreemantoo's challenging question about codes and languages which are not designed. A good example is the evolution of the languages we use to communicate. They have emerged in many places and groups independently, yet they are not designed. They appear because of our predispositions and needs to communicate. It's a unguided process, only after that fact we step in and try to maintain it.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
What do you think about the idea I have been reading about where ET came to earth and created us as a result of genetic altering(probably with apes)? Is that possible or not? I find that pretty interesting, but more believable than Creation!
99minerkc 2 years ago
It could be possible, however not by DNA altering. Our DNA is very similar to those of some of the apes - chimps actually, since we have a common ancestor. It could be the case of life being seeded to Earth, but it's more likely that it has originated here. Besides, you're still left with explaining how aliens came to being.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
I can understand why so many people believe in Creation. It doesn't require much brain power! I'm trying to understand the basics of evolution and my brain is starting to melt! o.O I'll try again in the morning lol!
99minerkc 2 years ago
there are missing links, but we have so much information, that Evolution is already a fact. You may not find all fossils (missing links) but you already see a picture. Furthermore it is impossible to find all fossils. But we have enough information, how I said, so... learn about it.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
There is no evidence for intelligent design. While we do not know some things yet, it does not point us ultimately to a god. It's a simple assumption and a non-answer. You're still left with explaining what god is, how it came into being and such. There are many fallacies to this approach, an thus it's VERY unlikely. Definitely disprovable in the case of a god that intervenes.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
Well just one more response. That which creates does not exist by the environment of its creature. I make a paper doll I do not become paper thin and an inanimate object.
From you point of view. If there were a Creator it would then be possible that this being always existed. I didn't say a certainty only a possibility.
Certainly you can argue what that Creator is.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
If you don't know if something exists or not, why assume it does and connect it with properties, which you may not know either.
Again, there is nothing that points us into any kind of intelligent design. The universe exists. We experience it, so it had a beginning, which was first observed by Hubble. Theorized by many. Whether it was a designed process, we don't know. And if you claim it was, prove it.
DNA is complex. The complex comes from simple beginnings - the only true observation we have
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
Chemists produced RNA in a test-tube in May, by using stuff that was in the early atmosphere. Feel free to Google it and be astounded.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Yes, as I pointed once out, you might find more about the artificial RNA and the early development of life at nytimes(dot)com. Make a search for "New Glimpses of Lifes Puzzling Origins".
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
I disagree with much of so-called evolution theory. To me it requires far more faith then to believe in a Creator apart from religion.
You have been respectful of me and I appreciate that even if we disagree.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
Why would an atheist be respectful?
Surely they won't be, if they don't believe in your god thingy.
caltrop69 2 years ago
You must have a hate complex. Hatfields & McCoys. So you're going to win me over by kicking the shit out of me. Not likely.
Generally speaking I try to treat other as I would like to be treated. If that doesn't work then I usually assume that if you treat me like an ass that's how you want to be treated. Fair enough?!
I'm not offended personally by those that don't believe as I do. I have three known atheist friends. We haven't come to blows nor do we anticipate that.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
ifreemantoo: Why do you lie so much?
You are a scary individual. The only thing that keeps you from torturing cats is the hullucination of an invisible man who shoots lightning bolts.
I "PRAY" that you continue to be deluded, so you don't become a serial killer.
caltrop69 2 years ago
I would encourage you to study a bit more about the current state of evolution theory. I know it seems rather empty to some people.
If I can give you a few pointers - search for Richard Dawkins' videos around here, he even has his own channel. While he often does criticise religion, try to put that aside and listen to the factual data instead, even if it doesn't come easily. He does have quite a nice lot of interviews with the big heads of the current world, so you might want to check it out.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
Excuse me...
fr3nzylogic: Why are you bothering with an, obviously, subjectivist, troll?
You think facts (such as a broken nose) mean anything to a sociopath such as this?
He/She is only prevented from being violent out of fear of his/her delusion of an invisible man in the sky. I find the idea frightening and amoral.
caltrop69 2 years ago
caltrop69, I do understand what you mean. I know I probably have no chance of making someone's beliefs shift easily, but I'm not necessarily setting it as my goal. I do feel for your frustration, but let's say that for the moment I don't share it. Maybe someone will find it beneficial, to read the stuff we input here. Cheers.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
Frustration? Hmmm...Maybe I oughtta go back to using emoticons. I'm hardly frustrated..."bored" would be a better description of my current mood.
I wouldn't seriously attack someone...The point I was trying to make was simply that it's not an invisible deity that is preventing me from doing so...And I don't think it's preventing religionists from doing so, either, regardless of their claims.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Comment removed
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
fr3nzylogic:
D'oh.
Occasionally, you just have to be shocking, rather than spew poorly memorized Objectivist, Randian points.
Anyways...I've gotta go...Apparently, my daughter is in serious need of showing me something called "i Carly" (?)
You carry on talking to the sociopath who worships invisible men.
caltrop69 2 years ago
There's nothing objectivist-like in what I'm saying.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
Fair enough. I do agree with you on that part absolutely. And I am aware of the the religious mechanisms, as well as the fallacies.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
2)Surely there are atheists that ascribe to atheism for bad reasons but that doesn't make atheism a "religion". I like most atheists use the scientific method to justify our lack in a belief in God.
If I worship no God it does not logically that I worship nothing. That is a non sequitor and you know it. I don't think God would appreciate you debating so corruptly.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
3)Evolution is a scientific theory and not an ideology so there is not point in calling one that accepts evolution theory an "evolutionist".
4)"Faith" in certain ethical codes is not the same thing as having faith that something which you cannot see, taste, touch, or smell exists. Saying that "Murder is wrong" is not the same thing as saying "Evolutionary Theory is wrong". Preference is not the same thing as faith in existence.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
5)It is very hypocritical and corrupt to attack atheism because it's just another religion. You yourself are religious so what the point in labeling atheism a religion like that somehow makes
Christianity more legitimate.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Actually I think all "religion" as practice is corrupt including atheism. If by shear numbers or believers atheism has validity, then certainly Christianity has its legitimacy.
Stebot argues that "religion" is the root of all evil, so to speak. I factually maintain that relationships would be great if not for people. You can substitute any word you like for "relationships" but you still have people to screw up "The garden of Eden". About 95% of the Bible say that.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
Stefbot makes a very good point I do, that people can pick & choose what they read or believe to suit their "politics", if they can read at all in fact.
He misses the obvious, that it takes people to create man made religion. It takes sheeple to follow & make it grow. But the problem started with people. Without people there is no religion. Blaming religion is like blaming the gun for killing people. It takes people to pull the trigger.
The absence of religion is not the absence of a Creator.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
3) Science is full of political mischief as is now practiced as a religion too. One of the other characteristics of a religion is to have a following of cheerleaders that have no clue. Internet infidels showed me there are just as many on the evolutionary argument. Evolution has serious backtracking & missteps just like Stefbot characterized religion.
4) What is the root basis for "ethical codes" other than "just because" from an atheist point of view? Why is it "murder" instead of "kill"?
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
3)Science rejects the supernatural and the unfalsifieable so it can't possibly be religious and really evolution has nothing to do with atheism. People should not blindly accept evolution and even if I couldn't prove evolution that wouldn't provide one ounce of reason to be a Christiany.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Oh I see just more of the JUST BECAUSE. Why science is never wrong of course and never influenced by politics.
So you go to the Church of the "JUST BECAUSE"?
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
Science can be influenced by politics but that doesn't make it "religious". You are seriously abusing the English language.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Those in the scientific community might be wrong but the scientific method is still the best way to accumulate knowledge.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
4)The Golden Rule, instinct, cost-benifit analysis, greater good for the greater number, universality and logical consistency. There are a thousand basis's for ethical codes.
And even if atheism lead to more crime(which it doesn't) and more moral relativism that would still gives you no reason to believe that there is a God. I'd rather live in a dystopia of truth than in a utopia of lies!
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
4) More of the "JUST BECAUSE" worship.
This is laughable. The "Golden Rule" is based in "religion". You like having your cake & eating it too. You like the benefit but deny the source; typical.
Now this one really gets me. "greater good for the greater number". Sounds like socialism to me. Again who makes that decision?
Well those in power right now feel they are providing "greater good for the greater number". Why don't you just comply with evolution?!
(continued)
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
4)I allready told you whether or not I can provide you with objective ethics is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to whether or not God exists or not. I'd rather live in a dystopia of truth than live in a utopia of lies.
In more atheistic countries there tends to be less crime so if you're going to appeal to consequences you'd better off be an atheist.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
I wouldn't necessarily credit the decrease in crime and such directly to atheism alone. The nordic countries are much more secular than, say, America when it comes to population in general. That might mean people there are simply better educated, posses more knowledge and are able to process that knowledge in a better, more efficient manner. Thus the lack of religious beliefs is evident.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
ifreemantoo: For some reason you lack the ability to see human beings as being part of the environment in which you live.
To help you understand WHY ethics don't rely on an invisible boogie man, I would suggest you allow me to punch you in the face.
We could then discuss whether it "hurt," or whether that was just your god thingy punishing you.
caltrop69 2 years ago
I have made no such comment as to what atheism will lead to. Why are you arguing something I've not spoke of instead of answering questions I made? Is that a distraction or side stepping.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
Back to 4) Did the word "murder" evolve from atheism? When lions kill each other it's not murder. Why is it "murder" when people kill each other for gain or existence? Who said so? Why do I have to pay attention to some evolve term? Perhaps murder or killing is actually more natural? (Devil's Advocate)
Of course I expect the silent but deafening mantra or JUST BECAUSE to be the answer. Sounds religious to me.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
You seem to be lacking some bits and pieces of knowledge about evolution and it's mechanics, which also can be applied to altruistic behaviour. Why do we feel respect for each other? Because it helps the survival of our species.
Atheism is not a religion. By definition it's a lack of any kind of religious belief. Atheist do no believe there is no god. There simply is no evidence of god's existence. Atheists are very sceptical towards unlikely propositions. Rational thinking is the word.
fr3nzylogic 2 years ago
It requires extraordinary integrity and self honesty to understand why one believes in something. Atheist or not, if hard evidence revealed that there is some kind of god then a rational person would have to face it. There are thousands of religions claiming to be "the truth" and they all require faith but experience will tell you that if you jump off of a cliff you will fall.
DCLugi 2 years ago
The author of this video has written a book on a rational proof of secular ethics called Universally Preferable Behavior. Check it out.
If you still have issues, I'm sure he'd be open to talk to you on skype. Debating on youtube will never get anyone anywhere.
nexalacer 2 years ago
In True News 42: Morality, Atheism and Child Abuse I made some points which apply here as well.
Once again, all you really say is that people can read anything in a way they want to support what they want to believe. If that applies to religion only, atheism is also a religion; full of contradictions & back stepping as well.
RE religion Stefbot I see you like a divorce attorney inciting the parties to go hard at each other. Also like the preacher preying on the ignorance of those in the pews
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
atheism is not full of contradiction because it's not all one work, each atheist draws his/her conclusions based on individual experience of a multitude of influences, while religion circles around text with the motto 'one size fits all'. Philosophers contradict each other, but that's because they're not all part of one and the same big philosophy.
Enleuk 2 years ago
atheism morality: watch?v=UJmyHyRiGFI
watergaia 2 years ago
Try being more focused. Religion can be anything from Christianity to paganism.
Belief systems provide a refined set of rules rather than a cavalier attitude toward them.
wormer105 2 years ago
love the terminator refernece
BaKer312213 2 years ago
Great timing Stef. Just yesterday I was making my own case for ethics and morality without the "help" of religion. It's amazing how even secular media outlets equate the idea of immorality with the absence of religion. It's one of the most frustrating topics for me to discuss with religious people I know.
codyjohnle 2 years ago
I must admit, I have very little rebuttal (as a Christian) that I am able to do, but this point I would make: men cherry-pick any philosophy, religion, science, etc to make absolute and justify their bigotries. It is a universal problem with humanity, and not specific to religion. I would absolutely agree its ethically wrong, and I condemn the guilty on this matter within my religion; but you have bigotries against religion, based on a limited exp. and a cherry-picking of only indicting evidence
nathanjonessr 2 years ago
Awesome! Religion evolved to be cherry pickable.
The problem is the enourmous false self that is created by these contradictions.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
I think you're dead on about the bible being a bad guide to morality... most people believe the bible is a philosophical book, when in reality it's a collection of books that are historical, not philosophic in nature.
The only philosophy in the bible comes indirectly from studying the history of Christ and ideals he aspoused (many of which contradicted the old testament Jewish law).
Do a search on google for "jesus was an anarchist by redford". I'm curious what you're take is on it.
AdamSLovell 2 years ago
Great topic Stef. I can always count on you to have original topics on religion......well as original as one can be on this topic heh.
Mahoivlich 2 years ago
know loads of religions are corrupt but then so are loads of companies and both "fiddle with the books". But logically just because some businesses are bad that means all of them are bad, the same goes for religion. And time and time again you only pick on the heavily corrupted western religions who in most cases for most of them dont even follow their own sciptures.
HealthyAnarchy 2 years ago
I think if you are trying to equate the morality of questionable accounting with the wholesale promotion of genocide, rape and murder, I think you're going to have a tough time making the case...
stefbot 2 years ago
no i meant the they edit their books in the same way for their own gains leaving them light on truth and full of thehypocrisy and contradictions, and end up with non practising devotees.The hare krishna movement has good philosophy and doesnt seem to have contradictory/hypocricical. Open mind = good philosopher. Look in their library for faults as I do, you so sure shouldnt take you long to find faults all over the place in their advice.
esotericteaching-org-content-Vedabase2003.zip
HealthyAnarchy 2 years ago
I wasnt talking about the murder and religious wars, which has been done by all people not just religions anyway im not sticking up for christianity or judaism or muslims. I am speaking specifically about a philosophy that talks about life after death and the construction of the universe which has many rock solid points and videos all over the internet with stuff it would be very difficult for you to refute if you would only look at it, Again if you are so sure then you should not have a problem
HealthyAnarchy 2 years ago
ahh wtf stef, always picking on the contradictory religious texts. You are as bad in some ways as the governments you do a good job of philosophically ripping to shreds. They ignore the difficult stuff and take the easy targets to bully.
HealthyAnarchy 2 years ago
Great work Stef.
Deathinmusic 2 years ago
I'm not religious but I pretty sure morality, for most religious people, is about the traditions of their community and church first and the bible a distant second. If you take that tradition away you Stefan believe there is still a rational ethics to fall back on. Please prove this by addressing some of the many ehtical issues surrounding biotechnology. Please.
iPlantChannel 2 years ago