What a lovely, charming, eloquent and thoroughly decent man Mr. Lennox is. Even if you don't agree with a single word he says, how could you disrespect a man who expresses himself with such dignity???
If all Christians were like John Lennox, but that´s not the case, is it?. I think if there is a God, an absolute source of morality it is accessible for the ones that are willing to explore themselves for themselves alone, but people are so far from this fact that they need 2 thousand years old scriptures, filled with anachronisms and absurd to tell them of what is in them and all around them, if in fact there is, but we are so lost that no one will see farther than their own noses.
@am101171 To be fair, in my country most believers are not half as imposing and bigot as in the US. Though Atheist are somewhat almost as aggressive, in general. This is why I like the most Sam Harris and Lennox as the ones who are really exchanging understanding, sharing their ideas with respect and an small grade of understanding of the other, at least comparatively.
@am101171 If you think Sam Harris is respectful, then you haven't seen his debate with William Lane Craig. He practically refused to address any of Craig's arguments, instead spending the entire debate flinging cheap insults at Christians.
@benjaminfair1 maybe he is not, it is the impression I got from a couple of videos I have seen of him debating. I did see the debate you mention, and even though I think Craig is a very intelligent man, He is just playing philosophy games ( that I personally like), and Harris would not play the game, it seems to me because his focus is on denouncing what is wrong and needs to be changed, I do not agree with everything he says by far, but I think I might understand what he is trying to do.
Richard Dawkins ist Francesco Schettino des Wissenschaftsbetriebs, der das Schiff der exakten Naturwissenschaften in die Havarie der atheistischen Halbwissenschaften zusteuert. Mit seinem waghalsigen Manöver eines Hasardeurs wird er die unzähligen Passanten der "Costa Scienza" in die unmoralische Vernunftlosigkeit kentern.
Arkthos, you don't get the point about the cake, do you. It's that there can be a purpose and a maker without ANYONE being able to do anything but believe they might know about that but the maker. Look at what Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett come up with at the drop of a hat to invent "behaviors" in support of their alleged science WITH NO ABILITY TO CONFIRM THEY ARE TRUE They're among the most accomplished fable makers alive today. Of course, they're atheists so "that's different".
Well put, Arkthos. But Christians do claim they have evidence: the Bible. They just have to get you then to believe their interpretation of it. Of course, anyone who reads the Bible analytically and intelligently (rather than devotionally) recognizes without much effort that it is nothing but a set a self-serving tribal fables—a dreadful first draft of science, medicine, politics, and morality that, fortunately most of the world has grown away from.
@LoGos7891 I dont understand how you can even come CLOSE to saying that if you have read the Bible "analytically and intelligently".... are you a troll? :)
We haven't seen aunt Matilda, we don't know is she made the cake alone or with other friends, we don't know if she made the cake or if she bought it, we don't know even if her name is Matilda or Marie or George. WE JUST DON'T KNOW!
What we have instead is a cake and millions of people claming to know who made it, why and how the cake was made all without any shread of evidence so we have to take their word for it in every single case.
(My english might be bad but I think you get the point)
This is really great stuff rfvidz. thank you. I think Lennox is a mathematician not a scientist. I think he teaches philosophy of science and math at oxford. just thought i'd keep you up to date :).
@gmacdonald87 Mathematics is the main language of science. If you want to understand quantum mechanics, general relativity, electromagnetism, string theory and many others you need to understand mathematics and not just superficially. So I am not sure what entails that Lennox is a mathematician and not a scientist.Just saying :)
He says we have to watch out for any linguistic sleight of hand - yet bases virtually his entire argument on just such word play. What's frustrating to me, as someone who speaks 2 languages, which I appreciate is rare in the UK/USA, is how lame such an exercise is. Try translating most of what this guy is saying into a different language and you realize it doesn't make any real sense; it's just playing with words.
@CoryTheRaven OK, between 2:45 and 05:15, 'can we be good without god' - he spends 31/2 minutes waffling on, where he accepts atheists CAN point to the basis of morals without the need for a god (evolution of group behavior) admits atheists are often better behaved than theists and then states without god there is no "absolute" basis for morality. That's meaningless, unless Christian morality IS absolute? Then go stone anyone who works on a Sunday then, as that's in the bible. Yes or no?
@bigglyguy I dunno', what he said seemed to make sense to me. First he circumscribed the topic and then quite generously and accurately said that atheists can be good, followed by asking "but what is good?" Atheists can only be deemed good by comparison to an absolute (I prefer the term "external" because so many people, like yourself, misundertsand what "absolute" means) moral system. New Atheism on its own does not and cannot furnish an external moral system. What didn't you get about it?
@CoryTheRaven Why does "absolute" suddenly mean "external"? More word games. Good CAN be deemed very easily - that which benefits the individual or the group over the long term will be favored by natural selection. A primate living in a society will be "sociable". Raw evolution. All societies are the same in the basics; sociable means NOT killing, stealing, lying etc. Eg: a 'satanic society' favoring lying makes no sense because lying makes no sense in the absence of the *expectation* of truth.
@bigglyguy THe reason I clarify "absolute" to mean "external" is that too many critics ASSUME "absolute" to mean "universal". The issue is not that there is some moral code binding on all humanity as that there is a basis for any kind of moral criticism at all, regardless of how many people adhere to it. The counter-argument is that by denying an absolute (external) basis for morality, New Atheists ultimately render their own moral criticism of religion moot...
@bigglyguy ...You're also making an elementary error about evolution as well as morality. First of all, "good" is not an objective value. You're looking at group survival and ASSIGNING to that the value of "goodness". Secondly, if we are completely products of evolution, then not only did morality evolve, but SO DID IMMORALITY. That means that there is some kind of evolutionary advantage to all of our immoral behaviours like war, genocide, murder, rape, theft, etc...
@bigglyguy ...And it makes sense that immorality evolved because you make the same error that the other person I'm chatting with did. Evolution is not about survival. It is about reproductive success. Those are two different things. If going to war to exterminate a competing group, hauling back their women to rape, benefits my reproductive success, then the argument could be made that this is "good" from an evolutionary perspective.
@bigglyguy And dude, if you have not seen the benefits to reproductive success to be accrued by lying, you should go to more bars. Remember, lying ALSO evolved as a strategy to improve reproductive success. In fact, I've heard it argued that the reason we developed Reason is so that we could become more effective liars.
@CoryTheRaven Did you not understand how lying it pointless without the EXPECTATION of truth? Sure, breaking the rules can bring short-term advantage but how did the rules get there in the first place? They're inherent to successful groups. You also failed to answer my point about stoning workers on the Sabbath? Adultery? Gays? If you pick and choose what parts of the bible you follow then what's the difference your 'absolute/external' morality and the gut instinct of an atheist? Mmm?
@bigglyguy You're mistaking an orientation towards trust for an expectation of truth. Again, those are two different things.
"If you pick and choose what parts of the bible..."
This is another one of those common arguments that atheists and fundamentalists share that betrays a deep lack of understanding concerning Christian theology. For Christians, Jesus Himself is the definitive revelation of God to humanity. The Bible is subordinate to Him.
@CoryTheRaven Subordinate eh? So how do you know anything Jesus said, did, thought or figured without it? You're just playing word games again - 'I know the bible is true cos the bible sez so'. Yeah but the bible says.. "Oh silly, we don't take no notice of that old bible thing! heheh". No, either you DO follow the bible and know the trinity via it, or you DON'T. Which is it? I'll happily debate but if you weasel out of your own damn bible then what's the point?
@bigglyguy "I'll happily debate but if you weasel out of your own damn bible then what's the point?"
I think this pinpoints the very problem. How exactly do you think you have any wherewithal to dictate to someone what THEIR faith is supposed to be based on YOUR assumptions? You've jumped to a very narrow set of conclusions about how the BIble is to be interpreted (which, perhaps uncoincidentally, matches quite well with fundamentalism) and seem to be quite upset with anyone who deviates...
@bigglyguy ...Part of the problem with an all-or-nothing approach is that the Bible is not a single book by a single author in a single genre. It is a collection of books written in a multitude of genres by 40-some different authors over the course of 1 or 2,000 years. At first blush, the very minimal interpretive approach should be contextual: what does each book mean based on the genre, historical context and possible intention of the author?...
@CoryTheRaven Yes, each book is to be understood in context (history is history, poetry is poetry, prophecy is prophecy). It should further not be wrenched out of its timeframe. The amazing thing, however, is to find the 66 books telling an overarching story - in a variety of voices and styles, yes - but the whole is greater than its parts.
@bigglyguy ...Christianity further contextualizes that interpretation by giving primacy to the person of Jesus and to His teachings as shared in the four Gospels. Here's the thing though: those Gospels are themselves documents recording an oral history (Luke even says exactly that in his introduction). The tradition of Christ's identity was something conducted by the Church before any part of the NT was even written. Your Bible-or-not ignores the whole dimension of authoritative Church tradition
@CoryTheRaven I ask again, HOW do you know which bits of scripture are moral and good, and which bits are "subordinate to Jesus"? What is the criteria? Also orientation towards or expectation, what's the difference? Word games again. If people EXPECT others to lie then talking becomes pointless. We expect truth most of the time etc etc. You know stoning someone for working on Sunday is cruel, stupid and unnecessary - but how do you know? Your built-in morality tells you so, no Jesus needed.
@bigglyguy The difference between expectation of truth and an orientation towards trust is that "truth" is an abstract category whereas "trust" is directly relational. Lots of truth is functionally useless, but someone being trustworthy has ramifications for their reproductive success. That is also why lying developed: there is a direct evolutionary advantage in being able to fake trustworthiness. I've also seen it argued that Reason developed moreso to enhance our ability to lie.
@CoryTheRaven There are debates by Lennox (or Michael Ramsden or Ravi Zacharias) that attack this evolutionary model of morality directly. They are pretty easy to find, and Lennox (?) points out that there are core contradictions in this model.
@quakerman7 There is a basic fallacy in looking to nature (or evolution) to determine values. Just because something does or does not happen in nature casts no light on whether it ought to happen for humans. Besides, the way most atheists appeal to evolution or human nature really just sneaks theism back into it, with some vague idea that evolution is an effectively progressive system breeding us towards moral goodness as defined by Western liberal democracies.
@CoryTheRaven Correct. There is no particular reason to believe that even the thought 'morality is just my genes getting a leg up', is not just your genes lying to you in order to 'get a leg up'. Evolutionary morality/reason is actually a destroyer of both reason and free will. I quote from Lennox, Ramsden and Zacharias here.
@bigglyguy "You know stoning someone for working on Sunday is cruel, stupid and unnecessary - but how do you know? Your built-in morality tells you so, no Jesus needed."
Now this is just silly. Naive trust in humanity's innate moral compass an archaic holdover of the Enlightenment, utterly untenable in the wake of the 20th century's genocide, war and brutality. If there is ANY fact that sane, sober, rational reflection should make clear, it's that humans are innately quite monsterous.
@CoryTheRaven "rational reflection should make clear.., humans are innately quite monsterous." BY WHAT CRITERIA!? Stop playing word games and answer the question. 'Humans are inhumane' is not a rational response; it's an oxymoron. Feminists do the same, when trapped in a corner of their own absurdity "Oh I'm not THAT kind of feminist" BS! The ONLY thing Christians have to support their dogma is the damn bible, which you just admitted is outdated and corrupt beyond use, so why be a Christian?
@bigglyguy By what criteria? Well, I'm making a value judgement on the fact that humans are quite adept at sexual and physical violence, deception, exploitation and oppression, and so on. The basis for that value judgement is, of course, my Christian faith, but nevertheless, the fact of these occurances tends to disprove your faith in the innate moral compass of humanity.
And oh dear, you have a problem with feminists to, eh? Frustrated, angry, atheist and misogynist... probably a neckbeard.
@CoryTheRaven "sexual and physical violence, deception, exploitation and oppression, and so on". Again I have to ask, on what BASIS? All those things are openly condoned in your damn bible, especially the original version. You certainly can't use the bible as a guide AGAINST those things! So again, on what BASIS do YOU decide such things are wrong? Why is sexual violence wrong, yet it's good when Lott offers up his daughters, for rape, as just one example? Answer the effing question why doncha?
@CoryTheRaven WHAT teachings of Jesus? The only place you're getting them from is from your damn bible. Now you claim your damn bible is the "person" of Christ? Isn't that supposed to be your crackers? You one of them fruitcakes that think a sneaky snifter of wine means your actually drinking the blood of Jesus? Admit it, you're making this BS up as you go along, while your god shrinks ever smaller, with science removing all traces of it. Eventually all you'll have left is more word games.
@bigglyguy Well, I can see that you've lost all control of yourself. Please feel free to resume this conversation once you've finished puberty and have your anger issues under control.
@bigglyguy "you one of them fruitcakes that think a sneaky snifter of wine means your actually drinking the blood of Jesus?"
This is your assumption, Jesus said "This is my blood of the new covenant." The new covenant is forgiveness, we honor and remember Him when we eat and drink, we don't eat and drink and think it is His flesh and blood. I think this is the intepretation most christians have.
@bigglyguy "which you just admitted is outdated and corrupt beyond use"
LoL, when did I say that? What I SAID was that Christ is the interpretive lens through which I, as a Christian, read the Bible.
I could attempt to answer your question, but the prevalence of rantish cussing suggests to me that it was more of a rhetorical question. I suspect you already think you know the answer to that, and will judge my answer based on how well it fits your strawmen.
@CoryTheRaven "Christ is the interpretive lens through which I... read the Bible." Explain how? More words games and twisting logic till it breaks! Your only source of info on the "lens" IS the bible, dumbass! I happily insult you because, just like fembots, when confronted with the absurdity of your own dogma you follow the exact same pattern, including the ad-hom insults, distractions and torturing of logic. You're a dumbass, either deliberately or retarded but the result is the same. Go away.
@bigglyguy Actually, the Church is a more potent source of the traditions of Christianity than the Bible. The Bible itself is an expression of that tradition.
Nevertheless, I would be curious to see where you fit on the Aspergers-Autism spectrum. It seems that you have a pretty consistent problem with lots of different people in which you tell them what you think they think, and when they tell you they don't think that, you get frustrated, angry, insulting and accuse them of "word games"...
@CoryTheRaven The CHURCH!? Hahahahah! You really think your church is LESS corrupt that the bible you just admitted is corrupt as all buggery? DUMBASS!
@bigglyguy ...That suggests to me, not that you're just so logical that the rest of the world can't handle you, but rather than you have a chronic inability to really empathize with or understand other people. It's exactly that capacity that Aspergers-Austism stunts.
It also tends to make one reflect poorly on their own behaviour. I suggest you take a pause, have a tea, and review your own insulting, accusatory, dismissive antics towards me from the start.
Lennox doesn't get it. The point is not that non-religious regimes can't be totalitarian. The point is that religious regimes will be totalitarian by default. Just look at all those countries with Islamic regimes to see what I mean. Only secular governments can be truly democratic.
Stating that some totalitarian leaders might have been atheistic is therefore completely irrelevant, even disregarding fact that such leaders often impose pseudo-religions with themselves as object of worship.
So the fact that we can do science points to a god?? I think the fact that we evolved big brains will billions of neuron connections might have more to do with it.
At that point I really had to stop watching the video; I just couldn't take this guy's momentous stupidity anymore. Why do people take this fool serious again? I don't see it. It's all the same vapid, puerile, ill-informed, laughable nonsense you hear theists spout all the time, delivered with an arrogance that's downright asinine
One more thing about morality: objective morality doesn't exist. Even if a god would exist, then its morality would still be subjective. Morality is linked to minds.
Human morality is a result of their evolution as a social species. It is based on deeply ingrained instincts such as sympathy and empathy, which are also observable in other social animals, such as chimpanzees.
So yes, we have a rational explanation for morality, however much Lennox and his ilk want to deny it.
First and foremost, old testament slavery was a punishment for whatever sin that nation had committed. Also, every 10 years God commanded the Israelites to set all of their slaves free. Your definition of slavery is skewed by what you know of U.S. slavery which was indeed wrong because it was born out of racism. Not once in the bible did it say that the Israelite's slaves were't considered people. Once again God was punishing them for their sons.
"old testament slavery was a punishment for whatever sin that nation had committed."
What sin would a nation have to commit to have all their innocent women and children killed as well? It's more a matter of that the winners write the history books. Those other nations probably didn't do anything more wrong that just believing in different gods.
God has no right to condemn or judge the masses, as he is inexorably condemning at least some innocent.
Regardless of how you view slavery, or how often your lazy God freed the slaves, it is wrong and inexcusable. You make a special case for your God, but if a human made these choices, you would have him jailed. It doesn't matter if they were considered people, they don't even have basic human freedoms.
@YetAnotherInfidel If God has no right to judge. Then who has the right to judge. If we kick out the ultimate judge (who is God) then what measures are we gonna use to judge. So if there is no God, then we are nothing but just material, which means we have no value. That implies that slavery and suffering is not bad at all coz evolution states we are nothing but just matter. So if evolution is true, when does being human become so important? Your argument is problematic.
Here you have fooled youself into thinking morality neccesitates a God.
This is untrue, as we are, simply put, sentient. Evolution says nthing about what we are made of, the fact that we are made of matter is validated elsewhere in science.
Slavery is bad because we can think and feel, and we can assess a given situation's consequences. This allows a morality seperate from scripture.
Besides, your God isn't even as civil as you are, ordering all sorts of disgusting things.
@YetAnotherInfidel@YetAnotherInfidel If there is no God, then anything is permissible. The slave owners never thought is was bad to beat up their slaves, so if there is no objective moral law, what basis are you judging from? Your view will be just relative and nothing more if evolution is true. Science cant even explain itself because it has a lot of unprovable assumptions. All I'm saying is that if we kick God out, then anything is permissible which means slavery is fully justified.
Look, you have only repeated yourself and ignored my previous statements.
Your ground for judging puts at its head a God who allows other's freedoms to be stolen away.
The moral law you are looking for doesn't exist. It never has and never will. We judge based on what is best for the individual and the society, and those nations that don't (specifically places where Sharia Law is in effect) fail miserably.
Science has made no assumptions, and your God says slavery is OK. lol.
In regards to morals this is something philosophers have said.If there is no absolute or objective moral law then relative morality in itself can either right nor wrong.Because to say its right is to make an objective absolute statement of relative morality being absolutely correct, how then do we know if moral relativism exists unless we absolutely believe relativism is real?If everything is relative, then what makes you say relativism is right?You don't have to reply :) Have a ice day.
Not really sure what it is you are saying, but I am not a moral relatavist on a person to person basis. I am a consequecialist, and personally think that morals depend on the situation. Everything can be right or wrong except for something that is neccesarily baseless.
That said, I would rather have a moveable grounds for morality based on situation rather than a fragmented, set-in-stone morality that is generally flawed and morally reprehensible.
@YetAnotherInfidel Consequencalism still relies on fundamental moral principles. Lets go full-on Godwin: how you react to the situation of the Holocaust depends entirely on your fundamental moral principle regarding the extermination of the Jewish race. That will decide between whether you look for the most effective way to smuggle Jews out of Berlin or whether you look to build the most efficient type of oven.
It is understandable that you would say this when all I provided is my "crane" and not my basis. It is not my intention to flood the comments box once again, even though I feel this might get somewhere. I find what Locke set out as a fair basis as to the goodness of group cooperation, as it provides happiness and preservation for the species. That would be a fair basis, imho.
@YetAnotherInfidel There is a distinct problem with any pre-WWII utilitarian-style moral codes, which is the fact they were not as dramatically informed by the fact at, at some point, some society might deem it to be in its best moral, economic and reproductive interests to exterminate another group. Such moral systems are essentially tribalist and too reliant on an imagined "enlightened goodwill" which the very need for a moral code already falsifies.
Perhaps, but a mistake with the understanding of good and the instrumentation of a flawed moral system due to their basic misunderstanding does not invalidate the system.
You seem to have forgotten that I did state that good will and cooperation are immediately beneficial and is a fair basis.
This system is at least as good as biblical morality as it is inherently hostile and malicious due to the text it is based on.
@YetAnotherInfidel I suppose I should read up on Locke, but we tend to throw around terms like "good" without dissecting what that actually means. The Nazis, I would submit, exhibited a great deal of goodwill and cooperation towards one another in the cause of exterminating the races they felt were detrimental to the German State. It would seem to me that the most universal definition of "good" is "that which is in greatest conformity to reality"...
True, but that still does no recognize the fact that getting along with these Jews would maximize cooperative value and production quality, as well as overall quality of life and "lasting" potential for the whole society.
Also, let it be known that I doubt Locke set out to provide a moral basis, my point in presenting this was to stoke the idea of the possibility of goal-based morality, and its relation to his social contract. You won't need to look to deep into Locke to understand the point that I intended to make with Locke.
@YetAnotherInfidel I think I'm undertsanding your perspective, except that it really doesn't seem to resolve anything. You seem to be relying on a pretty vague, even sentimental, idea of what is "good" that would only be binding on people who make the social contract (and even then, there isn't anything but sentiment that should keep people compelled to that contract). If one group decides it is in its best interests to exterminate another, then that is morally defensible.
As I have said before, I DO have a weak idea of morality and am currently looking into it. That said, I typically don't like flooding people's pages with comments or speaking on topics which I have little grasp. Again, I would like to hear what you have to suggest as a workable moral system. If it is based Biblically, it is doomed to failure, just fyi.
@YetAnotherInfidel Of course Biblical morality is doomed to failure. That was the whole point of Christ's sacrifice for the salvation of humanity and a fact clearly articulated by the doctrine of Original Sin. Despite my failure to live by it consistently, however, I do think there is quite a bit that is commendable (and generally untried) about Christ's ethic to govern one's actions by love of God, love of others, and love of Creation.
@YetAnotherInfidel ...That seems to hold whether "reality" is the free market, or the historical dialectic, or scientific knowledge, or God. The moral dilemma foisted upon us by New Atheism, however, is that if morals are directed by evolution, then it gives no real truth value to science or virtue or anything else. In fact, I cannot think of any circumstance in which genocide could be considered immoral from the standpoint of increasing the reproductive success of one's own group...
Don't group New Atheism with evolution. They are separate issues, though used synonymously at times. They are not to be confused. No truth value to science? What...?
I cannot think of an instance of genocide being positive in reproductive success, as genocide creates fear at best and hatred at worst. This can only lead to negative consequence for such actions.
@YetAnotherInfidel Genocide also gets rid of a group that is competing for resources. The thing is, if morality evolved then so did immorality. There is some kind of reproductive advantage to war, rape, etc.
As some neurologists and psychologists have observed, our brains are not hardwired to search for truth. They are hardwired for being right. There is a difference, being that truth doesn't necessarily get you laid. Being in charge of the group does. Ergo, no evolutionary utility to truth.
Being human, we can think cognitively, and search for the goals that are, not only practical, but also founded in thought. This is to say that morality does change, but there is a "perfect" morality out there we strive to reach. No direct evolutionary utility to truth may be observed, true, but that is to miss the point: we can see the path to the greater good i.e. cooperation, and seize it. Killing does cause inherent harm to the killer, keep that in mind.
@YetAnotherInfidel The problem is that you keep defining cooperation, etc. as the "greater good" with circumscribing what makes it "good." Nietzsche said the will to power transcends ideas of "good" and "evil". Stalin said that "good" is whatever furthers the cause of the global revolution and "evil" is whatever hinders it. Ayn Rand said that selfishness is "good" and altruism is "evil". So you have to make the argument that cooperation for the survival of the human species is "good".
@YetAnotherInfidel I'm not necessarily trying to conflate New Atheism with evolution, but I am acknolwedging that New Atheism is the particular doctrine of atheism that subscribes to Scientism.
@YetAnotherInfidel To quote Michael Shermer: "Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science." Naturalism holds to the view that the physical world is all that exists, but Scientism is more aggressive about the epistemological primacy (if not singularity) of science.
Michael Shermer, the creator of the Skeptic magazine?
Great, he coined a phrase. But all in all, it bears no remarkable differences from naturalism. I suspect that science is held in much higher regard but is not a stand alone totem.
@YetAnotherInfidel No, Shermer provided a definition. The quote I actually picked up off the Skeptic's Dictionary. You can also find the term on Wikipedia and most online dictionaries. Basic research.
@YetAnotherInfidel ...Likewise, evolution has hardwired us to be right, not to pursue truth. Do not take this as an attack on evolution, of course. I'm just saying that ANY natural law provides no basis for morals, whether evolution or gravity or whathaveyou. Morals necessarily crossover from the realm of what "is" (ie: rape) to what "ought" (ie: rape is bad, don't do it). Therefore our external ground for morals must itself transcend what "is", being external both to ourselves and the cosmos.
It seems you are making a connection to Hume's Guillotine proposed by in his treatises, where you cannot derive a value (an ought) from an observation (an is). Yes, this is a problem for secular ethics, and cognitive dissonance requires I hold my positition until I have proven myself definitively wrong. I may very well be wrong, however Biblical ethics are demonstrably worse.
Though I admit to my fallibility, that is not to say I abandon my ideas. I still hold that goal related morals and consequensial morals (similar) are determinate from is statements, surpassing Hume's fork. That would be where I stand at the current.
Evolution has hardwired us to be able to pursue what is best for the survival of the group. What is best for the survival of the group can be analyized and understood, point by point. I am not a utilitarian, only a consequensialist, who recognizes that any moral law cannot be set in stone to be moral. This is because it may be ok in some circumstances to steal, etc. etc.
What is best for the group is to share and create a chain of interdependance. What have WE done?
@YetAnotherInfidel "Evolution has hardwired us to be able to pursue what is best for the survival of the group."
That is not true. Evolution strives towards reproductive success, not survival per se. Fitness is determined by number of offspring that themselves survive to reproduce, not by how long you live or how healthy you are. The high-minded survival of humanity is a matter of evolutionary indifference. The propagation of your specific genes is not.
@YetAnotherInfidel I admit I am a bit flumoxed regarding your comments regarding Biblical morality. If we take a Christian approach and regard Christ as the arbiter of morality, then what exactly is hostile and malicious about such doctrines as not killing people, not exploiting them, and not oppressing them?
If we take a Christian approach and regard Christ as the arbiter, then we are to follow all laws he set for us, including the muder of infidels and Sabbath-day workers, homosexuals, those who wear multiple types of fibers, those who eat shellfish and those who plant different types of food in the same crops.
What kind of moral code is this, that we follow an unproveable moral arbiter and his judgement regarding the verfiably true?
I will but be warned you will shout foul the second I make this bit of analysis:
In the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that the laws his father made were there to stay, unchanged (besides his edits).
Deny any of the laws I have set forward that are "to be respected" by NT teachings, but I can show them. I believe the majority are in Deuteronomy. I can still cite them, however what you will see as frivolous is my analysis.
@YetAnotherInfidel The relationship between Jesus and the Torah is far more nuanced and complex than most atheists really understand (for various and sundry reasons, most of which having to do with them not having bothered to study it). The predominant view is that Jesus, having come into the world not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, has embarked Christians on a New Covenent, not the old covenent with ammendments. The NT is quite thorough on this subject.
Naunced and complex are just two words for "theist bullshit". When you realize that you have been called on your bullshit, you go trying to tell us that we don't understand your pathetic book. No, Mosaic law is still in full effect as well as the whole of the ten commandments. While I am still on the topic, you must realize that the first four commandments are all about God's... inflective nature. If you are wearing a crucifix, you are violating your perfect code.
@YetAnotherInfidel Actually, "nuanced" and "complex" is code for "no, you f**king ignorant asshole, you don't actually know what we believe." Most mere mortals might just sit and listen when being told by a practitioner of a religion that they don't understand that religion, but not you. You just gotta' be RIGHT, don't you? But that just goes to show you that New Atheism is just another system of thought-policing.
And another conversation goes to the dogs as the theist throws a fit. I can see this will go nowhere, with you throwing around accusations of which you also meet the crtiterion for. As if you are an expert, as if Christians as a whole agree with you.
I was am willing to hear your interpretation, but I telling you what your book says in black and white and not in convoluted language games that fit your personal belief system seems to upset you.
@YetAnotherInfidel Excuse me, YOU were the one who started throwing around terms like "theistic bullshit" and my "pathetic book", so take some responsibility for yourself. If you want the quality of the discussion to stay elevated, then don't you start dragging it through the muck.
And you're still presistent in that error of assuming YOUR interpretation of the Bible is THE interpretation of the Bible and the rest of us are just getting it wrong. That is nothing but fundamentalist thinking.
Yes, I suppose I was wrong in my assesment of your holy script, though I will stick with theistic bullshit as it is the only accurate way to describe what I hear when people pull the card you did. I apologize.
And you in your error that you are in good company with your interpretation. You may want to go ahead and explain why it is that you are right and others are wrong. Actually, just go ahead and skip to what it is that you support as moral absolutes.
@YetAnotherInfidel Pull what card? That you're oversimplifying and misrepresenting a subject that even a modicum of research could have clarified for you?
Your fault, which you get you a big fat F on a religious studies paper, is that you're not judging a belief, religion or worldview based on its own internal logical consistency. Rather, you are judging it based on its consistency with your own interpretations of it. YOU'RE never wrong, no. THEY'RE wrong. About their own religion.
A big fat F on a religious studies paper? I represent things with evidence, however bleak a concept that may be for you.
Those of faith just cannot wrap there heads around the fact that I, though not an expert, know enough of your holy scripture to tear many a claim apart. Though I am not an expert, I can still see obvious flaws.
I do not claim infallibility, just the ability to read. It is my religion as much as theirs, though I do not ascribe to it.
@YetAnotherInfidel Ah yes, the high-minded disdain for social studies. It is a common malady of atheists: because you think the object of a belief is false, therefore there is no need to be accurate about the beliefs in question. You would get an F because you're conflating (if not supplanting entirely) the accurate representation of a belief with the accuracy of that belief. You are imposing your interpretations onto the actual adherents of a belief, which is bad faith argumetnation...
I was not telling you what you personally believe, but when you go basing your conclusions on a book written by God and therefore meant to be able to be understood by anyone, I should be able to tell you that you are wrong based on that book. I was never telling you what you believe, I was telling you that your conclusions based upon evidence from that book are malinformed.
@YetAnotherInfidel ...So yes, you may read the Bible. You may even arrive at certain interpretations of its contents. But that is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT when you presume to say "Christians believe this or that" as you have presumed to do to me. If you say that "Christians believe this or that" and a Christian saysthey do not, that is the point at which you SHUT UP and listen to what the Christian tells you they believe. Then you are perfectly entitled to criticize those beliefs...
Again, I am not telling you what you believe. I am simply saying that you can only stray so far before what you are saying becomes more or less based on imaginings rather than your holy scripture.
@YetAnotherInfidel ...Point is, it is NOT "your religion." It is THEIRS. The very fact that you do not adhere to it is exactly why the onus is on you to take the evidence-based approach of accurately understanding what a person's beliefs EVEN ARE.
As a Christian, I'm not about to tell a Hindu what they are supposed to believe simply because I've read the Baghavad Gita. Nor would I presume to tell a Shintoist what the accurate practice of their religion should be. So get over yourself.
... You must have reaaaly midunderstood my intentions.
I AM NOT TELLING YOU WHAT YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE.
I am telling you that your statements based on the same book hold as much weight as the statements I bring from that book. I was weighing what you derived from the Bible to what I had interpreted. That is not to say that "This is what it says, you must believe it all."
If I could rewrite the Bible, I might believe it. But I can't. Stay within the set parameters.
@YetAnotherInfidel "I am telling you that your statements based on the same book hold as much weight as the statements I bring from that book."
No, they don't.
You are perfectly entitled to draw your own conclusions about a sacred writ based on sound interpretation, but when an adherent of that religion INFORMS you that your interpretations are not sound, you SHUT UP AND LISTEN. Do not presume to tell someone that their interpretations of their own holy book are "theistic bullshit"...
Look, as a Christian, you are to stand by your holy book. I would require a Muslim stand by his and so on. You cannot claim logically based points off of a vague interpretation of a book and say that they are sound because God said it, especially if that is your argument. I have a few books that I hold dear, but that does not make the the interpretive authority on them.
@YetAnotherInfidel Basic theological error: Christianity does not have a relationship to the BIble the way a Muslim does to the Quran. For Muslims, the Quran is God's definitive revelation to humanity. For Christians it is the person of Christ. That then frames how we understand and interpret our holy book.
So here;s the thing: you presume to tell us how to hold ourselves to our own book without knowing how WE hold ourselves to our own book. Slight disconnect there.
I satnd corrected. I don't remember that from the Bible explicitly, and I WAS under the impression that all three monotheistic religions of the contemporary era were text-based, though it is simple enough for me to just take your word.
ANYWAY ---
I guess that now I lack a subject to discuss. I am anxious to get off this poor guy's video, I can't stand flooding a comment box.
Please send a PM with a contact method, preferably email, if you want to continue.
@YetAnotherInfidel ...Interestingly enough, this is a key difference between good criticism and whatever it is that you're doing. A good critic, like Nietzsche, actually takes the pains to understand what the beliefs and doctrines of a religion are and launches a criticism that is all the more insightful and cutting for it. What you do is say "Christians believe this!" and when a Christian replies "No I don't", you say "WELL YOU DON'T BELIEVE YOUR OWN RELIGION THEN!!!" That's textbook strawman.
@CoryTheRaven Ooh, you're not one of THOSE Christians! You're one of the Christians that doesn't know anything about anything, because you base your tiny and limited knowledge upon your knowledge of the guy in the book you don't really read or rely upon, which is dumber than dirt but at least you get to wriggle out of the realities of your own dogma, huh?
@bigglyguy As with the other person I'm chatting with, you seem to indulge in an awful lot of telling me what my dogmas are supposed to be rather than listening to what my dogmas actually are. I suspect it's because you're not overly interested in a fair and meaningful discussion so much as just being a whiny little bitch who has to be right.
Your belief is not debatable. But your book is another thing entirely. If your belief IS your book, then it is debatable. I am not telling you your position, get it through your skull. I am telling you what your book says. I am telling you that to stray from this is to abandon the foundation that book provides. When it comes to the chase, you must follow your holy text. Like I said, I could be a Christian if I made some edits and "interpretations" too...
@YetAnotherInfidel For example, in case you're still fuzzy on it, I have read the Baghavad Gita. As a Christian, I have a certain interpretation of it. If a Hindu person were to hear my interpretation and tell me that I'm wrong - that such-and-such a passage means this other thing and not what I think it means - then I would shut the fuck up and listen. AFTER I have listened, THEN I may proceed to disagree with one or another thing from a position of informed understanding. It's not that hard.
The Bible is the most documented collection of books from antiquity by a long shot. It has been supported (and never discounted) through archaeological discovery. It is historically accurate (unlike the Koran, for example, of any of the myths and legends).
It has the extraordinary power to change the lives of individuals and has altered the course of history.
In fact, if God existed I, for one, would expect to hear from Him in a reliable manner - through the written word.
Of course, you would expect specific content to be different from one book to another. Anything other would be mere copies, wouldn't they.
But the truths remain the same. The 66 books are centered around Christ one way or another. They are all consistent in theologicla doctrine. Surely, you aren't referring to slight differences in eyewitness accounts in the gospels? These are both expected and serve to be quite informative. There are no contradictions, if that's what you're getting at.
BTW I like your remark that "just because you can't SEE somehting doesn't mean it isn't there".
So with God. What if we had a 'God detector'? You would believe, right? (i'm assuming). But doest that mean that God was not there all along.
Listen, I have to go right now. And I believe you said you were in Belfast? That's 5 hours ahead of us. By the time I get back, you'll be asleep, unless you're a serious nighthawk.
Think about my questions We can continue, Lord willing, later.
"What if we had a 'God detector'? You would believe, right? (i'm assuming). But doest that mean that God was not there all along."
I think you mean, "doesn't that mean that God was there all along?"
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Now:
Yes, it would mean God was there all along. If we had an alternate universe detector and found out there were other universes, that would mean they were there all along. It would be stupid to believe in them, however, without the detector/ evidence.
I find it kind of funny that you should use an example of an 'alternate universe detector" and how stupid it would be to believe in it. Because that is precisely what the atheists are proposing to get around the problem of the fine tuning of the universe as an evidence for a Creator. Only THEY propose an infinite number of universes. :) Funny, eh?
However, I must also say that there WILL be a global revelation. The Bible is clear on this.
Nevertheless, there HAVE been 'mass' revelations if you want - both in the OT and NT.
But then, you have quite conveniently discounted the Bible as evidence. Which is as silly as throwing out Merck's manual while trying to understand medicine.
You make another silly comparison here, throwing out the Bible to Merck's work in the medical field, but ignoring that I will press on: A global revelation today, an absolute proof, one that would individually please each and every person. Perhaps even an individual revelation for every child. That would be proof, if everyone believed.
The bible is unfounded historically and Merck can site his sources. The bible makes supernatural claims, which cannot be proven.
Look, it's obvious that you don't want to believe. End of story. This "God didn't jump when I wanted Him to" business is a cover up.
You won't accept His Word, though it is trustworthy. You're upset because it contains the supernatural. Duh. What would you expect in a book concerning God?
No. YOU want a special revelation. A song and a dance maybe.
It's obvious you're not a true seeker. Not even a true skeptic.
I don't believe because there is no evidence other than your story book written by bronze age nomads. He won't give me empirical evidence, and I am still supposed to believe he is real?
His word condones slavery, stoning, murder of those that don't share your belief; he is little more than a figment of your imagination.
You will accept anything for evidence, it seems.
Looking for the supernatural is futile, I see that now. Blind belief such as yours is still overabundant.
@YetAnotherInfidel "His word condones slavery, stoning, murder of those that don't share your belief; he is little more than a figment of your imagination."
If that is what you think..then maybe you should read your Bible better. For example, the slavery of the time of the New Testament was nothing like the slavery you know. Many people even wanted to be slaves of rich people for getting better living conditions. Slaves were respected beings.
Well, another religious nut who is able to rationalize even slavery. Good job, I guess. Slavery is never a good institution, for one thing. It steals a man's freedoms. Secondly, you need to read YOUR bible better if you don't see these injustices. How hard to beat your slave, how to mark them, who stones who for what reason.
Send me PMs, this comments page has become so cluttered that I cannot even try to respond to all of your points.
@YetAnotherInfidel I agree, that slavery is always wrong. But the slavery that is in question in the New Testament was not similar to the "modern" slavery. In that time some poor people even seek to be slave for some rich man because compared to this modern slavery, slaves were treated better. And yes, there is pretty brutal stuff going on in the Bible but you have to know also the circumstances and background. Well I don't know if I'm a nut but religious maybe. I'm also scientist..chemist M.Sc.
You won't accept anything for evidence, it seems. I think your kind of people will never believe in God because they don't want to. There is absolutely nothing that would make you believe. I bet, not even direct Divine Intervention could make you believe. You would just reason it as a hallusination of somekind and get some pills and that's it.
The Bible is reliable historical document. Of course you don't believe it.
@MomoTheBellyDancer The Bible is historical document. No one can prove that it is not. If you test the Bible the same way as any other historical document is tested to its reliability/historicity, the Bible passes with flying colours.
No Exodus. No Flood. Even Israeli archeologists admitted that there is close to zero evidence for the OT claims, and they really did all they could to prove them right. There's also no evidence for the existence of Jesus.
@MomoTheBellyDancer About Jesus. Actually EVERY respected researcher in this area, admits that Jesus was historical. It is fact today. There are some marginal groups that want to say otherwise but those can be ignored. And you know archeologist use the Bible as to find different locations and so on. I think you should maybe do a little research on that subject. Me too. I have done some research and Bible is reliable . King David, Salomon, Pilate, Jesus. All historical person, facts.
"archeologist use the Bible as to find different locations and so on"
Fictional stories can take place in real settings, so that doesn't mean anything.
"King David, Salomon, Pilate, Jesus. All historical person, facts."
The evidence for David is meager, and there is NONE (as in zero) for Solomon or Jesus. The Biblical Pilate is likely a mythical character, since many details don't match with the real one.
For something that's supposed to be "Truth" that's highly unimpressive
"Actually EVERY respected researcher in this area, admits that Jesus was historical."
That's a blatant lie.
"It is fact today. "
Even if I would grant you his existence and all of the miracles attributed to him, it still wouldn't mean any of his claims would be correct, or that a god exists. It could all have been a prank by advanced space aliens, for example, and that actually sounds more likely than that some invisible sky-pixie controls the world.
sorry, you are grossly mistaken. Christians have no problem w/reading some portions of the O/T as allegory or moral literary device However certain events are clear & compelling historical fact. The Babylonian destruction of Isreal as related in Jeremiah are beyond dispute. The later defeat of Babylon by Persia &subsequent rise of Greece & Rome as predicted d in Daniel are factual events. Jesus appears during time of Augustus & Tiberius-FACT. Claudius & Nero are both historical & in the Bible
"The Babylonian destruction of Isreal as related in Jeremiah are beyond dispute."
Not entirely true. It seems to be exaggerated at least. It is no big deal that the Babylonians would be able to conquer an unimportant speck of land such as Israel.
In any case, even if ALL of the events in the Bible proved to be historically correct, it would still not be evidence for the supernatural claims in the Bible. So in the end, you still have nothing.
On the contrary, to say that "we have nothing" is no logical conclusion, but rather [merely] a subjective value judgment on your part.. If these now historical events were accurately described prior to there occurrence I submit that something very extraordinary requires examination... I would assert that your own narrow 'beliefs' are a type of fallacious, naturalistic 'religion'. Christianity says turn from UR delusion because the Creator God says to you change UR mind & trust the Gospels
"You may think you are more intelligent for not believing in a God, I do not". Napolean Bonparte.
Colton8646 1 day ago
What a lovely, charming, eloquent and thoroughly decent man Mr. Lennox is. Even if you don't agree with a single word he says, how could you disrespect a man who expresses himself with such dignity???
MegaBanjaluka 1 week ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@MegaBanjaluka easily.. knowing that he is deceitful.
daNDayati 4 days ago
So inspirational to listen to. What a lovely person you are! Heartfelt thanks.
sonsun08 1 week ago 4
If all Christians were like John Lennox, but that´s not the case, is it?. I think if there is a God, an absolute source of morality it is accessible for the ones that are willing to explore themselves for themselves alone, but people are so far from this fact that they need 2 thousand years old scriptures, filled with anachronisms and absurd to tell them of what is in them and all around them, if in fact there is, but we are so lost that no one will see farther than their own noses.
am101171 3 weeks ago
@am101171 To be fair, in my country most believers are not half as imposing and bigot as in the US. Though Atheist are somewhat almost as aggressive, in general. This is why I like the most Sam Harris and Lennox as the ones who are really exchanging understanding, sharing their ideas with respect and an small grade of understanding of the other, at least comparatively.
am101171 3 weeks ago
@am101171 If you think Sam Harris is respectful, then you haven't seen his debate with William Lane Craig. He practically refused to address any of Craig's arguments, instead spending the entire debate flinging cheap insults at Christians.
benjaminfair1 2 weeks ago
@benjaminfair1 maybe he is not, it is the impression I got from a couple of videos I have seen of him debating. I did see the debate you mention, and even though I think Craig is a very intelligent man, He is just playing philosophy games ( that I personally like), and Harris would not play the game, it seems to me because his focus is on denouncing what is wrong and needs to be changed, I do not agree with everything he says by far, but I think I might understand what he is trying to do.
am101171 2 weeks ago
what a lovely man.
themanfromhots 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins ist Francesco Schettino des Wissenschaftsbetriebs, der das Schiff der exakten Naturwissenschaften in die Havarie der atheistischen Halbwissenschaften zusteuert. Mit seinem waghalsigen Manöver eines Hasardeurs wird er die unzähligen Passanten der "Costa Scienza" in die unmoralische Vernunftlosigkeit kentern.
JesusChristusSoter 3 weeks ago
Arkthos, you don't get the point about the cake, do you. It's that there can be a purpose and a maker without ANYONE being able to do anything but believe they might know about that but the maker. Look at what Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett come up with at the drop of a hat to invent "behaviors" in support of their alleged science WITH NO ABILITY TO CONFIRM THEY ARE TRUE They're among the most accomplished fable makers alive today. Of course, they're atheists so "that's different".
destituteneedsjob 4 weeks ago
Well put, Arkthos. But Christians do claim they have evidence: the Bible. They just have to get you then to believe their interpretation of it. Of course, anyone who reads the Bible analytically and intelligently (rather than devotionally) recognizes without much effort that it is nothing but a set a self-serving tribal fables—a dreadful first draft of science, medicine, politics, and morality that, fortunately most of the world has grown away from.
LoGos7891 1 month ago
@LoGos7891 I dont understand how you can even come CLOSE to saying that if you have read the Bible "analytically and intelligently".... are you a troll? :)
arktheball 3 weeks ago
We haven't seen aunt Matilda, we don't know is she made the cake alone or with other friends, we don't know if she made the cake or if she bought it, we don't know even if her name is Matilda or Marie or George. WE JUST DON'T KNOW!
What we have instead is a cake and millions of people claming to know who made it, why and how the cake was made all without any shread of evidence so we have to take their word for it in every single case.
(My english might be bad but I think you get the point)
Arkthos 1 month ago
This is really great stuff rfvidz. thank you. I think Lennox is a mathematician not a scientist. I think he teaches philosophy of science and math at oxford. just thought i'd keep you up to date :).
gmacdonald87 1 month ago
@gmacdonald87 Mathematics is the main language of science. If you want to understand quantum mechanics, general relativity, electromagnetism, string theory and many others you need to understand mathematics and not just superficially. So I am not sure what entails that Lennox is a mathematician and not a scientist.Just saying :)
am101171 3 weeks ago
@am101171 interesting thoughts am101171, thank you.
gmacdonald87 2 weeks ago
Mr John is very well articulated charming man to listen to. A simple yet to the point discussion. Great upload. Thank you
akulax2 1 month ago 22
John Lennox is awesome. God has blessed him with wisdom. :)
AmadeoBane 1 month ago 16
@AmadeoBane Well at least the shallow surface representation of wisdom that he fools you with.
Charlzez99 6 days ago
@Charlzez99 Jesus loves you!
AmadeoBane 5 days ago
He says we have to watch out for any linguistic sleight of hand - yet bases virtually his entire argument on just such word play. What's frustrating to me, as someone who speaks 2 languages, which I appreciate is rare in the UK/USA, is how lame such an exercise is. Try translating most of what this guy is saying into a different language and you realize it doesn't make any real sense; it's just playing with words.
bigglyguy 2 months ago
@bigglyguy Okay, what examples can you provide of him not saying anything?
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven OK, between 2:45 and 05:15, 'can we be good without god' - he spends 31/2 minutes waffling on, where he accepts atheists CAN point to the basis of morals without the need for a god (evolution of group behavior) admits atheists are often better behaved than theists and then states without god there is no "absolute" basis for morality. That's meaningless, unless Christian morality IS absolute? Then go stone anyone who works on a Sunday then, as that's in the bible. Yes or no?
bigglyguy 1 month ago
@bigglyguy I dunno', what he said seemed to make sense to me. First he circumscribed the topic and then quite generously and accurately said that atheists can be good, followed by asking "but what is good?" Atheists can only be deemed good by comparison to an absolute (I prefer the term "external" because so many people, like yourself, misundertsand what "absolute" means) moral system. New Atheism on its own does not and cannot furnish an external moral system. What didn't you get about it?
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Why does "absolute" suddenly mean "external"? More word games. Good CAN be deemed very easily - that which benefits the individual or the group over the long term will be favored by natural selection. A primate living in a society will be "sociable". Raw evolution. All societies are the same in the basics; sociable means NOT killing, stealing, lying etc. Eg: a 'satanic society' favoring lying makes no sense because lying makes no sense in the absence of the *expectation* of truth.
bigglyguy 1 month ago
@bigglyguy THe reason I clarify "absolute" to mean "external" is that too many critics ASSUME "absolute" to mean "universal". The issue is not that there is some moral code binding on all humanity as that there is a basis for any kind of moral criticism at all, regardless of how many people adhere to it. The counter-argument is that by denying an absolute (external) basis for morality, New Atheists ultimately render their own moral criticism of religion moot...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@bigglyguy ...You're also making an elementary error about evolution as well as morality. First of all, "good" is not an objective value. You're looking at group survival and ASSIGNING to that the value of "goodness". Secondly, if we are completely products of evolution, then not only did morality evolve, but SO DID IMMORALITY. That means that there is some kind of evolutionary advantage to all of our immoral behaviours like war, genocide, murder, rape, theft, etc...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@bigglyguy ...And it makes sense that immorality evolved because you make the same error that the other person I'm chatting with did. Evolution is not about survival. It is about reproductive success. Those are two different things. If going to war to exterminate a competing group, hauling back their women to rape, benefits my reproductive success, then the argument could be made that this is "good" from an evolutionary perspective.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@bigglyguy And dude, if you have not seen the benefits to reproductive success to be accrued by lying, you should go to more bars. Remember, lying ALSO evolved as a strategy to improve reproductive success. In fact, I've heard it argued that the reason we developed Reason is so that we could become more effective liars.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Did you not understand how lying it pointless without the EXPECTATION of truth? Sure, breaking the rules can bring short-term advantage but how did the rules get there in the first place? They're inherent to successful groups. You also failed to answer my point about stoning workers on the Sabbath? Adultery? Gays? If you pick and choose what parts of the bible you follow then what's the difference your 'absolute/external' morality and the gut instinct of an atheist? Mmm?
bigglyguy 1 month ago
@bigglyguy You're mistaking an orientation towards trust for an expectation of truth. Again, those are two different things.
"If you pick and choose what parts of the bible..."
This is another one of those common arguments that atheists and fundamentalists share that betrays a deep lack of understanding concerning Christian theology. For Christians, Jesus Himself is the definitive revelation of God to humanity. The Bible is subordinate to Him.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Subordinate eh? So how do you know anything Jesus said, did, thought or figured without it? You're just playing word games again - 'I know the bible is true cos the bible sez so'. Yeah but the bible says.. "Oh silly, we don't take no notice of that old bible thing! heheh". No, either you DO follow the bible and know the trinity via it, or you DON'T. Which is it? I'll happily debate but if you weasel out of your own damn bible then what's the point?
bigglyguy 1 month ago
@bigglyguy "I'll happily debate but if you weasel out of your own damn bible then what's the point?"
I think this pinpoints the very problem. How exactly do you think you have any wherewithal to dictate to someone what THEIR faith is supposed to be based on YOUR assumptions? You've jumped to a very narrow set of conclusions about how the BIble is to be interpreted (which, perhaps uncoincidentally, matches quite well with fundamentalism) and seem to be quite upset with anyone who deviates...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@bigglyguy ...Part of the problem with an all-or-nothing approach is that the Bible is not a single book by a single author in a single genre. It is a collection of books written in a multitude of genres by 40-some different authors over the course of 1 or 2,000 years. At first blush, the very minimal interpretive approach should be contextual: what does each book mean based on the genre, historical context and possible intention of the author?...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Yes, each book is to be understood in context (history is history, poetry is poetry, prophecy is prophecy). It should further not be wrenched out of its timeframe. The amazing thing, however, is to find the 66 books telling an overarching story - in a variety of voices and styles, yes - but the whole is greater than its parts.
quakerman7 1 month ago
@bigglyguy ...Christianity further contextualizes that interpretation by giving primacy to the person of Jesus and to His teachings as shared in the four Gospels. Here's the thing though: those Gospels are themselves documents recording an oral history (Luke even says exactly that in his introduction). The tradition of Christ's identity was something conducted by the Church before any part of the NT was even written. Your Bible-or-not ignores the whole dimension of authoritative Church tradition
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven I ask again, HOW do you know which bits of scripture are moral and good, and which bits are "subordinate to Jesus"? What is the criteria? Also orientation towards or expectation, what's the difference? Word games again. If people EXPECT others to lie then talking becomes pointless. We expect truth most of the time etc etc. You know stoning someone for working on Sunday is cruel, stupid and unnecessary - but how do you know? Your built-in morality tells you so, no Jesus needed.
bigglyguy 1 month ago
@bigglyguy The difference between expectation of truth and an orientation towards trust is that "truth" is an abstract category whereas "trust" is directly relational. Lots of truth is functionally useless, but someone being trustworthy has ramifications for their reproductive success. That is also why lying developed: there is a direct evolutionary advantage in being able to fake trustworthiness. I've also seen it argued that Reason developed moreso to enhance our ability to lie.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven There are debates by Lennox (or Michael Ramsden or Ravi Zacharias) that attack this evolutionary model of morality directly. They are pretty easy to find, and Lennox (?) points out that there are core contradictions in this model.
quakerman7 1 month ago
@quakerman7 There is a basic fallacy in looking to nature (or evolution) to determine values. Just because something does or does not happen in nature casts no light on whether it ought to happen for humans. Besides, the way most atheists appeal to evolution or human nature really just sneaks theism back into it, with some vague idea that evolution is an effectively progressive system breeding us towards moral goodness as defined by Western liberal democracies.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Correct. There is no particular reason to believe that even the thought 'morality is just my genes getting a leg up', is not just your genes lying to you in order to 'get a leg up'. Evolutionary morality/reason is actually a destroyer of both reason and free will. I quote from Lennox, Ramsden and Zacharias here.
quakerman7 1 month ago
@bigglyguy "You know stoning someone for working on Sunday is cruel, stupid and unnecessary - but how do you know? Your built-in morality tells you so, no Jesus needed."
Now this is just silly. Naive trust in humanity's innate moral compass an archaic holdover of the Enlightenment, utterly untenable in the wake of the 20th century's genocide, war and brutality. If there is ANY fact that sane, sober, rational reflection should make clear, it's that humans are innately quite monsterous.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven "rational reflection should make clear.., humans are innately quite monsterous." BY WHAT CRITERIA!? Stop playing word games and answer the question. 'Humans are inhumane' is not a rational response; it's an oxymoron. Feminists do the same, when trapped in a corner of their own absurdity "Oh I'm not THAT kind of feminist" BS! The ONLY thing Christians have to support their dogma is the damn bible, which you just admitted is outdated and corrupt beyond use, so why be a Christian?
bigglyguy 1 month ago
@bigglyguy By what criteria? Well, I'm making a value judgement on the fact that humans are quite adept at sexual and physical violence, deception, exploitation and oppression, and so on. The basis for that value judgement is, of course, my Christian faith, but nevertheless, the fact of these occurances tends to disprove your faith in the innate moral compass of humanity.
And oh dear, you have a problem with feminists to, eh? Frustrated, angry, atheist and misogynist... probably a neckbeard.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven "sexual and physical violence, deception, exploitation and oppression, and so on". Again I have to ask, on what BASIS? All those things are openly condoned in your damn bible, especially the original version. You certainly can't use the bible as a guide AGAINST those things! So again, on what BASIS do YOU decide such things are wrong? Why is sexual violence wrong, yet it's good when Lott offers up his daughters, for rape, as just one example? Answer the effing question why doncha?
bigglyguy 1 month ago
@bigglyguy My basis is the life and teachings of Jesus. That is why I am a Christian and not a Jew or a Biblian. I thought I already said that.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven WHAT teachings of Jesus? The only place you're getting them from is from your damn bible. Now you claim your damn bible is the "person" of Christ? Isn't that supposed to be your crackers? You one of them fruitcakes that think a sneaky snifter of wine means your actually drinking the blood of Jesus? Admit it, you're making this BS up as you go along, while your god shrinks ever smaller, with science removing all traces of it. Eventually all you'll have left is more word games.
bigglyguy 1 month ago
@bigglyguy Well, I can see that you've lost all control of yourself. Please feel free to resume this conversation once you've finished puberty and have your anger issues under control.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bigglyguy "you one of them fruitcakes that think a sneaky snifter of wine means your actually drinking the blood of Jesus?"
This is your assumption, Jesus said "This is my blood of the new covenant." The new covenant is forgiveness, we honor and remember Him when we eat and drink, we don't eat and drink and think it is His flesh and blood. I think this is the intepretation most christians have.
mikefanofmovies 1 month ago
@bigglyguy "which you just admitted is outdated and corrupt beyond use"
LoL, when did I say that? What I SAID was that Christ is the interpretive lens through which I, as a Christian, read the Bible.
I could attempt to answer your question, but the prevalence of rantish cussing suggests to me that it was more of a rhetorical question. I suspect you already think you know the answer to that, and will judge my answer based on how well it fits your strawmen.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven "Christ is the interpretive lens through which I... read the Bible." Explain how? More words games and twisting logic till it breaks! Your only source of info on the "lens" IS the bible, dumbass! I happily insult you because, just like fembots, when confronted with the absurdity of your own dogma you follow the exact same pattern, including the ad-hom insults, distractions and torturing of logic. You're a dumbass, either deliberately or retarded but the result is the same. Go away.
bigglyguy 1 month ago
@bigglyguy Actually, the Church is a more potent source of the traditions of Christianity than the Bible. The Bible itself is an expression of that tradition.
Nevertheless, I would be curious to see where you fit on the Aspergers-Autism spectrum. It seems that you have a pretty consistent problem with lots of different people in which you tell them what you think they think, and when they tell you they don't think that, you get frustrated, angry, insulting and accuse them of "word games"...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven The CHURCH!? Hahahahah! You really think your church is LESS corrupt that the bible you just admitted is corrupt as all buggery? DUMBASS!
bigglyguy 1 month ago
@bigglyguy ...That suggests to me, not that you're just so logical that the rest of the world can't handle you, but rather than you have a chronic inability to really empathize with or understand other people. It's exactly that capacity that Aspergers-Austism stunts.
It also tends to make one reflect poorly on their own behaviour. I suggest you take a pause, have a tea, and review your own insulting, accusatory, dismissive antics towards me from the start.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
So she baked the cake so she could use it to kill herself for the sins of the bacteria living on it... LOLZ fail!
exmuslimNfree 2 months ago
@exmuslimNfree Nah. You are only a bacteria if you think and act like one.
CJFCarlsson 2 months ago
Lennox doesn't get it. The point is not that non-religious regimes can't be totalitarian. The point is that religious regimes will be totalitarian by default. Just look at all those countries with Islamic regimes to see what I mean. Only secular governments can be truly democratic.
Stating that some totalitarian leaders might have been atheistic is therefore completely irrelevant, even disregarding fact that such leaders often impose pseudo-religions with themselves as object of worship.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
So the fact that we can do science points to a god?? I think the fact that we evolved big brains will billions of neuron connections might have more to do with it.
At that point I really had to stop watching the video; I just couldn't take this guy's momentous stupidity anymore. Why do people take this fool serious again? I don't see it. It's all the same vapid, puerile, ill-informed, laughable nonsense you hear theists spout all the time, delivered with an arrogance that's downright asinine
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
One more thing about morality: objective morality doesn't exist. Even if a god would exist, then its morality would still be subjective. Morality is linked to minds.
Human morality is a result of their evolution as a social species. It is based on deeply ingrained instincts such as sympathy and empathy, which are also observable in other social animals, such as chimpanzees.
So yes, we have a rational explanation for morality, however much Lennox and his ilk want to deny it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
Lennox, stop blabbering and show the evidence for your god already. Can't do it? Then just shut up.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
Sorry, in my last post it was meant to end with "for their sins."
Jjtorvik94 3 months ago
@YetAnotherInfidel
First and foremost, old testament slavery was a punishment for whatever sin that nation had committed. Also, every 10 years God commanded the Israelites to set all of their slaves free. Your definition of slavery is skewed by what you know of U.S. slavery which was indeed wrong because it was born out of racism. Not once in the bible did it say that the Israelite's slaves were't considered people. Once again God was punishing them for their sons.
Jjtorvik94 3 months ago
@Jjtorvik94
"old testament slavery was a punishment for whatever sin that nation had committed."
What sin would a nation have to commit to have all their innocent women and children killed as well? It's more a matter of that the winners write the history books. Those other nations probably didn't do anything more wrong that just believing in different gods.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@Jjtorvik94
God has no right to condemn or judge the masses, as he is inexorably condemning at least some innocent.
Regardless of how you view slavery, or how often your lazy God freed the slaves, it is wrong and inexcusable. You make a special case for your God, but if a human made these choices, you would have him jailed. It doesn't matter if they were considered people, they don't even have basic human freedoms.
YetAnotherInfidel 3 months ago
@YetAnotherInfidel If God has no right to judge. Then who has the right to judge. If we kick out the ultimate judge (who is God) then what measures are we gonna use to judge. So if there is no God, then we are nothing but just material, which means we have no value. That implies that slavery and suffering is not bad at all coz evolution states we are nothing but just matter. So if evolution is true, when does being human become so important? Your argument is problematic.
Flipver0 3 months ago
@Flipver0
Here you have fooled youself into thinking morality neccesitates a God.
This is untrue, as we are, simply put, sentient. Evolution says nthing about what we are made of, the fact that we are made of matter is validated elsewhere in science.
Slavery is bad because we can think and feel, and we can assess a given situation's consequences. This allows a morality seperate from scripture.
Besides, your God isn't even as civil as you are, ordering all sorts of disgusting things.
YetAnotherInfidel 3 months ago
@YetAnotherInfidel @YetAnotherInfidel If there is no God, then anything is permissible. The slave owners never thought is was bad to beat up their slaves, so if there is no objective moral law, what basis are you judging from? Your view will be just relative and nothing more if evolution is true. Science cant even explain itself because it has a lot of unprovable assumptions. All I'm saying is that if we kick God out, then anything is permissible which means slavery is fully justified.
Flipver0 3 months ago
@Flipver0
Look, you have only repeated yourself and ignored my previous statements.
Your ground for judging puts at its head a God who allows other's freedoms to be stolen away.
The moral law you are looking for doesn't exist. It never has and never will. We judge based on what is best for the individual and the society, and those nations that don't (specifically places where Sharia Law is in effect) fail miserably.
Science has made no assumptions, and your God says slavery is OK. lol.
YetAnotherInfidel 3 months ago
In regards to morals this is something philosophers have said.If there is no absolute or objective moral law then relative morality in itself can either right nor wrong.Because to say its right is to make an objective absolute statement of relative morality being absolutely correct, how then do we know if moral relativism exists unless we absolutely believe relativism is real?If everything is relative, then what makes you say relativism is right?You don't have to reply :) Have a ice day.
NathanForster91 2 months ago
@NathanForster91
Not really sure what it is you are saying, but I am not a moral relatavist on a person to person basis. I am a consequecialist, and personally think that morals depend on the situation. Everything can be right or wrong except for something that is neccesarily baseless.
That said, I would rather have a moveable grounds for morality based on situation rather than a fragmented, set-in-stone morality that is generally flawed and morally reprehensible.
YetAnotherInfidel 2 months ago
@YetAnotherInfidel Consequencalism still relies on fundamental moral principles. Lets go full-on Godwin: how you react to the situation of the Holocaust depends entirely on your fundamental moral principle regarding the extermination of the Jewish race. That will decide between whether you look for the most effective way to smuggle Jews out of Berlin or whether you look to build the most efficient type of oven.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
It is understandable that you would say this when all I provided is my "crane" and not my basis. It is not my intention to flood the comments box once again, even though I feel this might get somewhere. I find what Locke set out as a fair basis as to the goodness of group cooperation, as it provides happiness and preservation for the species. That would be a fair basis, imho.
At least you aren't a retard like the last guy.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel There is a distinct problem with any pre-WWII utilitarian-style moral codes, which is the fact they were not as dramatically informed by the fact at, at some point, some society might deem it to be in its best moral, economic and reproductive interests to exterminate another group. Such moral systems are essentially tribalist and too reliant on an imagined "enlightened goodwill" which the very need for a moral code already falsifies.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
Perhaps, but a mistake with the understanding of good and the instrumentation of a flawed moral system due to their basic misunderstanding does not invalidate the system.
You seem to have forgotten that I did state that good will and cooperation are immediately beneficial and is a fair basis.
This system is at least as good as biblical morality as it is inherently hostile and malicious due to the text it is based on.
Tell me, what do you propose as a proper system?
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel I suppose I should read up on Locke, but we tend to throw around terms like "good" without dissecting what that actually means. The Nazis, I would submit, exhibited a great deal of goodwill and cooperation towards one another in the cause of exterminating the races they felt were detrimental to the German State. It would seem to me that the most universal definition of "good" is "that which is in greatest conformity to reality"...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
True, but that still does no recognize the fact that getting along with these Jews would maximize cooperative value and production quality, as well as overall quality of life and "lasting" potential for the whole society.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
Also, let it be known that I doubt Locke set out to provide a moral basis, my point in presenting this was to stoke the idea of the possibility of goal-based morality, and its relation to his social contract. You won't need to look to deep into Locke to understand the point that I intended to make with Locke.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel I think I'm undertsanding your perspective, except that it really doesn't seem to resolve anything. You seem to be relying on a pretty vague, even sentimental, idea of what is "good" that would only be binding on people who make the social contract (and even then, there isn't anything but sentiment that should keep people compelled to that contract). If one group decides it is in its best interests to exterminate another, then that is morally defensible.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
As I have said before, I DO have a weak idea of morality and am currently looking into it. That said, I typically don't like flooding people's pages with comments or speaking on topics which I have little grasp. Again, I would like to hear what you have to suggest as a workable moral system. If it is based Biblically, it is doomed to failure, just fyi.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel Of course Biblical morality is doomed to failure. That was the whole point of Christ's sacrifice for the salvation of humanity and a fact clearly articulated by the doctrine of Original Sin. Despite my failure to live by it consistently, however, I do think there is quite a bit that is commendable (and generally untried) about Christ's ethic to govern one's actions by love of God, love of others, and love of Creation.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel ...That seems to hold whether "reality" is the free market, or the historical dialectic, or scientific knowledge, or God. The moral dilemma foisted upon us by New Atheism, however, is that if morals are directed by evolution, then it gives no real truth value to science or virtue or anything else. In fact, I cannot think of any circumstance in which genocide could be considered immoral from the standpoint of increasing the reproductive success of one's own group...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
Don't group New Atheism with evolution. They are separate issues, though used synonymously at times. They are not to be confused. No truth value to science? What...?
I cannot think of an instance of genocide being positive in reproductive success, as genocide creates fear at best and hatred at worst. This can only lead to negative consequence for such actions.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel Genocide also gets rid of a group that is competing for resources. The thing is, if morality evolved then so did immorality. There is some kind of reproductive advantage to war, rape, etc.
As some neurologists and psychologists have observed, our brains are not hardwired to search for truth. They are hardwired for being right. There is a difference, being that truth doesn't necessarily get you laid. Being in charge of the group does. Ergo, no evolutionary utility to truth.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
Being human, we can think cognitively, and search for the goals that are, not only practical, but also founded in thought. This is to say that morality does change, but there is a "perfect" morality out there we strive to reach. No direct evolutionary utility to truth may be observed, true, but that is to miss the point: we can see the path to the greater good i.e. cooperation, and seize it. Killing does cause inherent harm to the killer, keep that in mind.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel The problem is that you keep defining cooperation, etc. as the "greater good" with circumscribing what makes it "good." Nietzsche said the will to power transcends ideas of "good" and "evil". Stalin said that "good" is whatever furthers the cause of the global revolution and "evil" is whatever hinders it. Ayn Rand said that selfishness is "good" and altruism is "evil". So you have to make the argument that cooperation for the survival of the human species is "good".
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven *without circumscribing...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel I'm not necessarily trying to conflate New Atheism with evolution, but I am acknolwedging that New Atheism is the particular doctrine of atheism that subscribes to Scientism.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
Dude, wtf is scientism?
You must mean naturalism, right?
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel To quote Michael Shermer: "Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science." Naturalism holds to the view that the physical world is all that exists, but Scientism is more aggressive about the epistemological primacy (if not singularity) of science.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
Michael Shermer, the creator of the Skeptic magazine?
Great, he coined a phrase. But all in all, it bears no remarkable differences from naturalism. I suspect that science is held in much higher regard but is not a stand alone totem.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel No, Shermer provided a definition. The quote I actually picked up off the Skeptic's Dictionary. You can also find the term on Wikipedia and most online dictionaries. Basic research.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel ...Likewise, evolution has hardwired us to be right, not to pursue truth. Do not take this as an attack on evolution, of course. I'm just saying that ANY natural law provides no basis for morals, whether evolution or gravity or whathaveyou. Morals necessarily crossover from the realm of what "is" (ie: rape) to what "ought" (ie: rape is bad, don't do it). Therefore our external ground for morals must itself transcend what "is", being external both to ourselves and the cosmos.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
It seems you are making a connection to Hume's Guillotine proposed by in his treatises, where you cannot derive a value (an ought) from an observation (an is). Yes, this is a problem for secular ethics, and cognitive dissonance requires I hold my positition until I have proven myself definitively wrong. I may very well be wrong, however Biblical ethics are demonstrably worse.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel
Though I admit to my fallibility, that is not to say I abandon my ideas. I still hold that goal related morals and consequensial morals (similar) are determinate from is statements, surpassing Hume's fork. That would be where I stand at the current.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
Evolution has hardwired us to be able to pursue what is best for the survival of the group. What is best for the survival of the group can be analyized and understood, point by point. I am not a utilitarian, only a consequensialist, who recognizes that any moral law cannot be set in stone to be moral. This is because it may be ok in some circumstances to steal, etc. etc.
What is best for the group is to share and create a chain of interdependance. What have WE done?
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YetAnotherInfidel "Evolution has hardwired us to be able to pursue what is best for the survival of the group."
That is not true. Evolution strives towards reproductive success, not survival per se. Fitness is determined by number of offspring that themselves survive to reproduce, not by how long you live or how healthy you are. The high-minded survival of humanity is a matter of evolutionary indifference. The propagation of your specific genes is not.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel I admit I am a bit flumoxed regarding your comments regarding Biblical morality. If we take a Christian approach and regard Christ as the arbiter of morality, then what exactly is hostile and malicious about such doctrines as not killing people, not exploiting them, and not oppressing them?
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
If we take a Christian approach and regard Christ as the arbiter, then we are to follow all laws he set for us, including the muder of infidels and Sabbath-day workers, homosexuals, those who wear multiple types of fibers, those who eat shellfish and those who plant different types of food in the same crops.
What kind of moral code is this, that we follow an unproveable moral arbiter and his judgement regarding the verfiably true?
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel I must have missed the part of the Gospels where Jesus is quoted as commanding those things. Please do cite.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
I will but be warned you will shout foul the second I make this bit of analysis:
In the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that the laws his father made were there to stay, unchanged (besides his edits).
Deny any of the laws I have set forward that are "to be respected" by NT teachings, but I can show them. I believe the majority are in Deuteronomy. I can still cite them, however what you will see as frivolous is my analysis.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel The relationship between Jesus and the Torah is far more nuanced and complex than most atheists really understand (for various and sundry reasons, most of which having to do with them not having bothered to study it). The predominant view is that Jesus, having come into the world not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, has embarked Christians on a New Covenent, not the old covenent with ammendments. The NT is quite thorough on this subject.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
Naunced and complex are just two words for "theist bullshit". When you realize that you have been called on your bullshit, you go trying to tell us that we don't understand your pathetic book. No, Mosaic law is still in full effect as well as the whole of the ten commandments. While I am still on the topic, you must realize that the first four commandments are all about God's... inflective nature. If you are wearing a crucifix, you are violating your perfect code.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel Actually, "nuanced" and "complex" is code for "no, you f**king ignorant asshole, you don't actually know what we believe." Most mere mortals might just sit and listen when being told by a practitioner of a religion that they don't understand that religion, but not you. You just gotta' be RIGHT, don't you? But that just goes to show you that New Atheism is just another system of thought-policing.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
And another conversation goes to the dogs as the theist throws a fit. I can see this will go nowhere, with you throwing around accusations of which you also meet the crtiterion for. As if you are an expert, as if Christians as a whole agree with you.
I was am willing to hear your interpretation, but I telling you what your book says in black and white and not in convoluted language games that fit your personal belief system seems to upset you.
Believe what you will.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel Excuse me, YOU were the one who started throwing around terms like "theistic bullshit" and my "pathetic book", so take some responsibility for yourself. If you want the quality of the discussion to stay elevated, then don't you start dragging it through the muck.
And you're still presistent in that error of assuming YOUR interpretation of the Bible is THE interpretation of the Bible and the rest of us are just getting it wrong. That is nothing but fundamentalist thinking.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
Yes, I suppose I was wrong in my assesment of your holy script, though I will stick with theistic bullshit as it is the only accurate way to describe what I hear when people pull the card you did. I apologize.
And you in your error that you are in good company with your interpretation. You may want to go ahead and explain why it is that you are right and others are wrong. Actually, just go ahead and skip to what it is that you support as moral absolutes.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel Pull what card? That you're oversimplifying and misrepresenting a subject that even a modicum of research could have clarified for you?
Your fault, which you get you a big fat F on a religious studies paper, is that you're not judging a belief, religion or worldview based on its own internal logical consistency. Rather, you are judging it based on its consistency with your own interpretations of it. YOU'RE never wrong, no. THEY'RE wrong. About their own religion.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
A big fat F on a religious studies paper? I represent things with evidence, however bleak a concept that may be for you.
Those of faith just cannot wrap there heads around the fact that I, though not an expert, know enough of your holy scripture to tear many a claim apart. Though I am not an expert, I can still see obvious flaws.
I do not claim infallibility, just the ability to read. It is my religion as much as theirs, though I do not ascribe to it.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel Ah yes, the high-minded disdain for social studies. It is a common malady of atheists: because you think the object of a belief is false, therefore there is no need to be accurate about the beliefs in question. You would get an F because you're conflating (if not supplanting entirely) the accurate representation of a belief with the accuracy of that belief. You are imposing your interpretations onto the actual adherents of a belief, which is bad faith argumetnation...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
I was not telling you what you personally believe, but when you go basing your conclusions on a book written by God and therefore meant to be able to be understood by anyone, I should be able to tell you that you are wrong based on that book. I was never telling you what you believe, I was telling you that your conclusions based upon evidence from that book are malinformed.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel ...So yes, you may read the Bible. You may even arrive at certain interpretations of its contents. But that is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT when you presume to say "Christians believe this or that" as you have presumed to do to me. If you say that "Christians believe this or that" and a Christian saysthey do not, that is the point at which you SHUT UP and listen to what the Christian tells you they believe. Then you are perfectly entitled to criticize those beliefs...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
Again, I am not telling you what you believe. I am simply saying that you can only stray so far before what you are saying becomes more or less based on imaginings rather than your holy scripture.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel ...Point is, it is NOT "your religion." It is THEIRS. The very fact that you do not adhere to it is exactly why the onus is on you to take the evidence-based approach of accurately understanding what a person's beliefs EVEN ARE.
As a Christian, I'm not about to tell a Hindu what they are supposed to believe simply because I've read the Baghavad Gita. Nor would I presume to tell a Shintoist what the accurate practice of their religion should be. So get over yourself.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
... You must have reaaaly midunderstood my intentions.
I AM NOT TELLING YOU WHAT YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE.
I am telling you that your statements based on the same book hold as much weight as the statements I bring from that book. I was weighing what you derived from the Bible to what I had interpreted. That is not to say that "This is what it says, you must believe it all."
If I could rewrite the Bible, I might believe it. But I can't. Stay within the set parameters.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YetAnotherInfidel "I am telling you that your statements based on the same book hold as much weight as the statements I bring from that book."
No, they don't.
You are perfectly entitled to draw your own conclusions about a sacred writ based on sound interpretation, but when an adherent of that religion INFORMS you that your interpretations are not sound, you SHUT UP AND LISTEN. Do not presume to tell someone that their interpretations of their own holy book are "theistic bullshit"...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
Look, as a Christian, you are to stand by your holy book. I would require a Muslim stand by his and so on. You cannot claim logically based points off of a vague interpretation of a book and say that they are sound because God said it, especially if that is your argument. I have a few books that I hold dear, but that does not make the the interpretive authority on them.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel Basic theological error: Christianity does not have a relationship to the BIble the way a Muslim does to the Quran. For Muslims, the Quran is God's definitive revelation to humanity. For Christians it is the person of Christ. That then frames how we understand and interpret our holy book.
So here;s the thing: you presume to tell us how to hold ourselves to our own book without knowing how WE hold ourselves to our own book. Slight disconnect there.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
I satnd corrected. I don't remember that from the Bible explicitly, and I WAS under the impression that all three monotheistic religions of the contemporary era were text-based, though it is simple enough for me to just take your word.
ANYWAY ---
I guess that now I lack a subject to discuss. I am anxious to get off this poor guy's video, I can't stand flooding a comment box.
Please send a PM with a contact method, preferably email, if you want to continue.
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel Well now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Because Knowledge is Power!
Akieth0 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@Akieth0 And with great power comes great responsibility.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel ...Interestingly enough, this is a key difference between good criticism and whatever it is that you're doing. A good critic, like Nietzsche, actually takes the pains to understand what the beliefs and doctrines of a religion are and launches a criticism that is all the more insightful and cutting for it. What you do is say "Christians believe this!" and when a Christian replies "No I don't", you say "WELL YOU DON'T BELIEVE YOUR OWN RELIGION THEN!!!" That's textbook strawman.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Ooh, you're not one of THOSE Christians! You're one of the Christians that doesn't know anything about anything, because you base your tiny and limited knowledge upon your knowledge of the guy in the book you don't really read or rely upon, which is dumber than dirt but at least you get to wriggle out of the realities of your own dogma, huh?
bigglyguy 1 month ago
@bigglyguy As with the other person I'm chatting with, you seem to indulge in an awful lot of telling me what my dogmas are supposed to be rather than listening to what my dogmas actually are. I suspect it's because you're not overly interested in a fair and meaningful discussion so much as just being a whiny little bitch who has to be right.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven
Your belief is not debatable. But your book is another thing entirely. If your belief IS your book, then it is debatable. I am not telling you your position, get it through your skull. I am telling you what your book says. I am telling you that to stray from this is to abandon the foundation that book provides. When it comes to the chase, you must follow your holy text. Like I said, I could be a Christian if I made some edits and "interpretations" too...
YetAnotherInfidel 1 month ago
@YetAnotherInfidel For example, in case you're still fuzzy on it, I have read the Baghavad Gita. As a Christian, I have a certain interpretation of it. If a Hindu person were to hear my interpretation and tell me that I'm wrong - that such-and-such a passage means this other thing and not what I think it means - then I would shut the fuck up and listen. AFTER I have listened, THEN I may proceed to disagree with one or another thing from a position of informed understanding. It's not that hard.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
The Bible is the most documented collection of books from antiquity by a long shot. It has been supported (and never discounted) through archaeological discovery. It is historically accurate (unlike the Koran, for example, of any of the myths and legends).
It has the extraordinary power to change the lives of individuals and has altered the course of history.
In fact, if God existed I, for one, would expect to hear from Him in a reliable manner - through the written word.
He has obliged.
greatgulffixed 3 months ago
Of course, you would expect specific content to be different from one book to another. Anything other would be mere copies, wouldn't they.
But the truths remain the same. The 66 books are centered around Christ one way or another. They are all consistent in theologicla doctrine. Surely, you aren't referring to slight differences in eyewitness accounts in the gospels? These are both expected and serve to be quite informative. There are no contradictions, if that's what you're getting at.
greatgulffixed 3 months ago
BTW I like your remark that "just because you can't SEE somehting doesn't mean it isn't there".
So with God. What if we had a 'God detector'? You would believe, right? (i'm assuming). But doest that mean that God was not there all along.
Listen, I have to go right now. And I believe you said you were in Belfast? That's 5 hours ahead of us. By the time I get back, you'll be asleep, unless you're a serious nighthawk.
Think about my questions We can continue, Lord willing, later.
greatgulffixed 3 months ago
@greatgulffixed
"What if we had a 'God detector'? You would believe, right? (i'm assuming). But doest that mean that God was not there all along."
I think you mean, "doesn't that mean that God was there all along?"
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Now:
Yes, it would mean God was there all along. If we had an alternate universe detector and found out there were other universes, that would mean they were there all along. It would be stupid to believe in them, however, without the detector/ evidence.
YetAnotherInfidel 3 months ago
@YetAnotherInfidel
I find it kind of funny that you should use an example of an 'alternate universe detector" and how stupid it would be to believe in it. Because that is precisely what the atheists are proposing to get around the problem of the fine tuning of the universe as an evidence for a Creator. Only THEY propose an infinite number of universes. :) Funny, eh?
greatgulffixed 3 months ago
However, I must also say that there WILL be a global revelation. The Bible is clear on this.
Nevertheless, there HAVE been 'mass' revelations if you want - both in the OT and NT.
But then, you have quite conveniently discounted the Bible as evidence. Which is as silly as throwing out Merck's manual while trying to understand medicine.
greatgulffixed 3 months ago
@greatgulffixed
You make another silly comparison here, throwing out the Bible to Merck's work in the medical field, but ignoring that I will press on: A global revelation today, an absolute proof, one that would individually please each and every person. Perhaps even an individual revelation for every child. That would be proof, if everyone believed.
The bible is unfounded historically and Merck can site his sources. The bible makes supernatural claims, which cannot be proven.
YetAnotherInfidel 3 months ago
@YetAnotherInfidel
Look, it's obvious that you don't want to believe. End of story. This "God didn't jump when I wanted Him to" business is a cover up.
You won't accept His Word, though it is trustworthy. You're upset because it contains the supernatural. Duh. What would you expect in a book concerning God?
No. YOU want a special revelation. A song and a dance maybe.
It's obvious you're not a true seeker. Not even a true skeptic.
Sorry I couldn't help you.
greatgulffixed 3 months ago
@greatgulffixed
I don't believe because there is no evidence other than your story book written by bronze age nomads. He won't give me empirical evidence, and I am still supposed to believe he is real?
His word condones slavery, stoning, murder of those that don't share your belief; he is little more than a figment of your imagination.
You will accept anything for evidence, it seems.
Looking for the supernatural is futile, I see that now. Blind belief such as yours is still overabundant.
YetAnotherInfidel 3 months ago
@YetAnotherInfidel "His word condones slavery, stoning, murder of those that don't share your belief; he is little more than a figment of your imagination."
If that is what you think..then maybe you should read your Bible better. For example, the slavery of the time of the New Testament was nothing like the slavery you know. Many people even wanted to be slaves of rich people for getting better living conditions. Slaves were respected beings.
lahmarko 3 months ago
@lahmarko
Well, another religious nut who is able to rationalize even slavery. Good job, I guess. Slavery is never a good institution, for one thing. It steals a man's freedoms. Secondly, you need to read YOUR bible better if you don't see these injustices. How hard to beat your slave, how to mark them, who stones who for what reason.
Send me PMs, this comments page has become so cluttered that I cannot even try to respond to all of your points.
YetAnotherInfidel 3 months ago
@YetAnotherInfidel I agree, that slavery is always wrong. But the slavery that is in question in the New Testament was not similar to the "modern" slavery. In that time some poor people even seek to be slave for some rich man because compared to this modern slavery, slaves were treated better. And yes, there is pretty brutal stuff going on in the Bible but you have to know also the circumstances and background. Well I don't know if I'm a nut but religious maybe. I'm also scientist..chemist M.Sc.
lahmarko 3 months ago
@lahmarko
"But the slavery that is in question in the New Testament? was not similar to the "modern" slavery. "
What's the name for this again? Oh yeah: cop-out!
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@YetAnotherInfidel "You will accept anything for evidence, it seems."
You won't accept anything for evidence, it seems. I think your kind of people will never believe in God because they don't want to. There is absolutely nothing that would make you believe. I bet, not even direct Divine Intervention could make you believe. You would just reason it as a hallusination of somekind and get some pills and that's it.
The Bible is reliable historical document. Of course you don't believe it.
lahmarko 3 months ago
@lahmarko
"The Bible is reliable historical document. Of course you don't believe it. "
No, the Bible is not historically reliable. But of course you don't believe it, because you need the fairy tales in contains for emotional support.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer The Bible is historical document. No one can prove that it is not. If you test the Bible the same way as any other historical document is tested to its reliability/historicity, the Bible passes with flying colours.
lahmarko 3 months ago
@lahmarko
"The Bible is historical document. No one can prove that it is not."
That's called shifting the burden of proof. If you claim the Bible is historically accurate, YOU will have to provide the evidence for it.
"If you test the Bible the same way as any other historical document is tested to its reliability/historicity"
Actually, every historical statement in the Bible is contradicted by historical research.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Actually, every historical statement in the Bible is contradicted by historical research."
Really? Tell me. Show me.
lahmarko 3 months ago
@lahmarko
"Really? Tell me. Show me. "
No Exodus. No Flood. Even Israeli archeologists admitted that there is close to zero evidence for the OT claims, and they really did all they could to prove them right. There's also no evidence for the existence of Jesus.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer About Jesus. Actually EVERY respected researcher in this area, admits that Jesus was historical. It is fact today. There are some marginal groups that want to say otherwise but those can be ignored. And you know archeologist use the Bible as to find different locations and so on. I think you should maybe do a little research on that subject. Me too. I have done some research and Bible is reliable . King David, Salomon, Pilate, Jesus. All historical person, facts.
lahmarko 3 months ago
@lahmarko
"archeologist use the Bible as to find different locations and so on"
Fictional stories can take place in real settings, so that doesn't mean anything.
"King David, Salomon, Pilate, Jesus. All historical person, facts."
The evidence for David is meager, and there is NONE (as in zero) for Solomon or Jesus. The Biblical Pilate is likely a mythical character, since many details don't match with the real one.
For something that's supposed to be "Truth" that's highly unimpressive
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Check facingthechallenge(dot)org(slash)arch2(dot)php.
lahmarko 3 months ago
@lahmarko
"Check facingthechallenge(dot)org(slash)arch2(dot)php"
I'm not interested in religious pandering.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@lahmarko
"Actually EVERY respected researcher in this area, admits that Jesus was historical."
That's a blatant lie.
"It is fact today. "
Even if I would grant you his existence and all of the miracles attributed to him, it still wouldn't mean any of his claims would be correct, or that a god exists. It could all have been a prank by advanced space aliens, for example, and that actually sounds more likely than that some invisible sky-pixie controls the world.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Hmm..ok, you are entitled to believe what you will.
lahmarko 3 months ago
@lahmarko
"you are entitled to believe what you will."
And I am also entitled to call you our on your bullshit.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
sorry, you are grossly mistaken. Christians have no problem w/reading some portions of the O/T as allegory or moral literary device However certain events are clear & compelling historical fact. The Babylonian destruction of Isreal as related in Jeremiah are beyond dispute. The later defeat of Babylon by Persia &subsequent rise of Greece & Rome as predicted d in Daniel are factual events. Jesus appears during time of Augustus & Tiberius-FACT. Claudius & Nero are both historical & in the Bible
shieldsff 3 months ago
@shieldsff
"The Babylonian destruction of Isreal as related in Jeremiah are beyond dispute."
Not entirely true. It seems to be exaggerated at least. It is no big deal that the Babylonians would be able to conquer an unimportant speck of land such as Israel.
In any case, even if ALL of the events in the Bible proved to be historically correct, it would still not be evidence for the supernatural claims in the Bible. So in the end, you still have nothing.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
On the contrary, to say that "we have nothing" is no logical conclusion, but rather [merely] a subjective value judgment on your part.. If these now historical events were accurately described prior to there occurrence I submit that something very extraordinary requires examination... I would assert that your own narrow 'beliefs' are a type of fallacious, naturalistic 'religion'. Christianity says turn from UR delusion because the Creator God says to you change UR mind & trust the Gospels
shieldsff 3 months ago