Honestly being born into this world is comparable to waking up on a train that is going 300/mph. I just want to know what gave us that gigantic leap past the animals in intelligence and made us much more conscious.
@JG129 I didn't finish that analogy. Being born into this world is comparable to waking up on a train going 300/mph without any prior memory of anything and the train is about to derail.
the nazi's were just as wrong as the soviet union... who caused the most pain? At least the nazi's blamed other people instead of killing their own citizens. With that being said, the Nazi are still wrong. Don't get me wrong, I am merely philosophizing about if the nazi's where right. However, even Einstein knew to get the fuck out of naziland...
What he is talking is similar to terror management theory, in which one of our coping mechanisms to the fact that our life is ephemeral is culture, by providing some sense of belonging (through rituals and to a certain group and making us feel useful and therefore giving some meaning to our existence religion would be then just a byproduct.
gang members don't lead ethical lives. in the middle east a man could legally drag his wife out into the back yard and stone her to death... we don't always agree on what is right and what is wrong
When ever your actions are guided by the wish to bring happines to all and everyting. You are good. Even if what you do is evil, you can still be a good person, if you belive your actions are based on kindness.
BUT. Everyone have to do research and be open. Not being open minded is evil. The wish to be right, no mather if people will get hurt by the close miindnes of you. Is Evil.
Evil and good are only labels we put on things we do not like. There is no single 'evil' person in this world. Nobody does anything just for the sake of 'being evil', they do so either because they believe they do good or if it pleases them somehow.
We act in accordance to lust and determination. Some fundamentalist muslims might believe it is alright to stone women, but they only do so because they believe that it is the right thing to do.
Even the suporters of Hitler could be good people. it all depends.
But I still like to say there is good vs evil. I belive everyone... umm allmost everyone ;D Can feal what is good vs bad. But colture, religeon, gowerment, ideals and so on, will often misslead people.
If you are blindly walking, then you can do evil, but be good. But if you are awake and think for yourself. Then there is no exuse for doing evil.
No. A supporter of Hitler believes (see subjectivity) that Hitler is doing something good. He might believe that the jews really are out to destroy germany. Everyone can 'feel' good vs bad because they're a reflection of our morals and comfort. A vegetarian might believe that it is EVIL to eat animals, while others regard it as perfectly fine. Your idea of good and bad is shaped by society. The rest stems from comfort and rational inquiry. You're assuming that evil is an absolute.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW If we dont have our own standard evil vs good... then it's like not having a plan in your life. It proberly wont work out that good ;D
Allso. The will to be right can be evil. If your will to be right, is biger then the wish to bring good, brings damaging others. Then you are evil. Being captured in propaganda just because you dont want to be wrong. Is evil. It's like drinking and driving. You gamble tht you wont hurt people.
But when you drink and drive you do not expect to hit anyone. You do not BELIEVE you're going to do anything harmful. People do not drink and drive because they WANT to be evil, they do so out of comfort.
On the basis of ignorance and hate people do evil things. Doesn't matter if they think it's ok, they will pay the price anyway. Why ? Because every action has an effect on the mind and to the surroundings. Even if you don't know the law you will get sentenced anyway - or rewarded, however as the case my be.
'on the basis of ignorance and hate' we're discussing whether or not people can be evil. I do not believe they can because they themselves do not regard themselves as doing something 'evil'. If you're ignorant, you're UNAWARE that you're doing something 'wrong' (according to other people). If you're hateful you're most often than not going to hurt the person you hate; you do not do this out of wishing to do wrong, but out of strong emotion and the belief that you're justified to do so
I don't know, maybe my english is very wrong. As i said, good and evil is relative to living beings and the surroundings, no argument here. Otherwise that concept wouldn't make any sense right. But whereever in the universe living beings come into existence, they will avoid pain and embrace pleasant feelings. Therefore i say that inflicting pain (without consent) is objectivly evil.
There is no good and evil. It's just a man-made concept bred out of fear. Life comes and goes. It's been a continuous process for billions of years. Another insight to this is that, from an evolutionary vantage, an individual with an intuitive aversion to injuring another, would maintain greater harmony within the group. But all in all, killing someone else doesn't make it neither good, nor bad. It just is.
@Nev3rdie00 Life means pain. Where more pain is bad and less pain is good. It's common sense.. If you follow the path of less pain, you will end up in the best of all possible worlds. If you follow the path of more pain you will end up in the worst of all possible worlds.
@Repulver Morality is subjective. It's common sense. How much pain should someone suffer to pay the consequences. There is no cosmological balance sheet that will tally up your good and wrongs. In the end your pain and suffering means nothing in the grand scheme of things, this world means nothing compared to the galaxy and this galaxy means nothing compared to the universe. You're completely insignificant and will be replaced with new life that'll come after you die. It's a continuous process.
This is pretty weak. He never explains why cruelty is wrong, he only asserts that people would agree that it is. Nor provides justification for including all of humanity in the "in" group category. By his standards, the Nazis weren't immoral; they simply didn't include the Jews, gypsies, Poles, homosexuals etc. in their "in" group and thus committed no moral violation by treating them in a cruel manner.
@Daracon1010 Definition 1: An undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap.
@TheRebelOfTyrus My definition of "accident" is correct. I was the one who used the word, so I choose which definition is valid for my reference. "Chemical accidents" is completely correct. Following a "rule of natural law? That's non sequitur. If an accident is merely something that happens without a deliberate plan or cause, then EVERYTHING in this universe that does not involve will is an accident. Your statement on "natural law" means and demonstrates nothing.
@TheRebelOfTyrus No, I was correct. Humans are chemical accidents in your worldview - life ultimately came from non-living chemicals, thus humans are chemical accidents in your worldview. Oh, and they ARE accidents. It doesn't matter whether you believe it to be negative or not... that's completely irrelevant. For something not to be an "accident", there has to be some form of will involved. So tell me; who's will was involved? Was it God's will, was it? I thought so. No need to be careful :)
@Daracon1010 You have missed the point here, and presupposed my "world view" in the same breath. The reason why life may not be called an accident (along with every other occurrence in the universe) is because ALL matter follows the "rules" of natural law. Therefore, nothing happens "accidentally;" there are no accidents in a universe governed by natural law.
@TheRebelOfTyrus My definition is a valid dictionary reference. Lol humans don't know right from wrong instinctively, huh? So it would be wrong for me to say that "everybody knows that murder is wrong", correct? So some people don't know that murder is wrong, is that what you're saying? Hold a second, how do you even know that murder is wrong anyway? What is right and wrong? How do you define them? How do you know right from wrong?
@TheRebelOfTyrus I didn't say that humans can't reason. God has written his laws on our hearts. THAT is why we instinctively know right from wrong "most" of the time. People have however rebelled against God, and replaced his law with their own selfish desires and choose to be willfully ignorant of the truth to satisfy their desires. However, without Biblical presuppositions, it's impossible to account for morality.
@Daracon1010 A heart is an organ that pumps blood, I have never heard of any sort of language that is written on it. Humans DO NOT know right from wrong "instinctively,"
until we are taught a language we are little more than wild beasts. Your last sentence is laughable, and false. There were many early cultures that held moral ideals, cultures that are not mentioned in the bible and have no connection to monotheistic nonsense.
@TheRebelOfTyrus Of course humans have had God's moral law written on their hearts. We're nothing more than wild beasts? You honestly believe that? Okay, so why would you get angry when one wild beast murders another wild beast? You don't consider it wrong when a lion kills a zebra now do you? If we're just wild beasts, well animals do what they want. My last sentence still stands unrefuted whether you like it or not.
@TheRebelOfTyrus Yeah, there were many cultures who had their moral ideas... human sacrifice, cannibalism, etc. And you deem these to be "moral". Now that's laughable.
God ordered the slaughter of some "innocent" people? "Innocent" according to who? You? What "moral" standard are you working from? Your own personal standard? What makes you think your personal standard means anything at all?
You weren't even able to answer simple questions about morality.
@TheRebelOfTyrus Oh so Sam Harris uses "Logical Thinking" to decide right from wrong? Ok. So if he or someone else thinks hard using their logic, and their logic dictates that it's morally right to murder someone, then by YOUR definition, murdering that person would be moral. Morality doesn't come from religion - very true. Morality comes from the creator, and his laws have been revealed through the Bible.
@Daracon1010 No no no, you've got it all wrong! I can see your childish beliefs have lead you to reason in a childish way. Your "god" (i will not capitalize the name) is a perfect example of someone who cannot use logic. In the old testament this god of yours ordered the slaughter of innocent women and children because their nations were
"evil." Imagine if the US government ordered the slaughter of all North Koreans, this act would never be justified! Many innocents would die.
@TheRebelOfTyrus I already demonstrated that morality can't exist in your worldview. If naturalism is true, then we're nothing but "wild beasts". Even YOU admitted that. Why would it be wrong for one wild beast to get rid of another wild beast?
Very simple question... and you should be able to answer it.
And you failed with the other question. You said "Logical Thinking" Decides morality. So if morality is nothing more than logical thinking...
@TheRebelOfTyrus ... and someone's logical thinking leads them to murder someone, then by YOUR definition, murder is moral. Do you agree with this? Because that's your standard. If you don't agree with it, then make up your mind and stop contradicting yourself.
If one man says murder is wrong, and another says murder is right? Who is correct? Why? According to you, they're both right. But how can one particular action be both right and wrong at the same time?
Because morality and the notion of good and evil all come down to subjective opinion. Though society has a general consensus of what is deemed 'bad' and what is deemed 'good', we tend to still disagree inbetween.
Secondly, if murder was objectively bad, would it be wrong of me to kill a bomber who was intending on killing many people in the future?
If morality was objective and it said "do not murder", this would be kind of a paradox.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Oh, I see. So good and evil come down to subjective opinion? Is that true? So if it's someone's opinion that it would be moral to murder someone, by your own definition that you have just provided me with, that person would be correct in doing, and his/her actions would be moral.
Murder IS objectively bad, according to God's law. There is a difference between 'murder' and 'killing'. Look up the definitions.
Yes. Subjectively he would regard murder as 'ok'. Society doesn't though, and since we follow the morals of society (at least to a larger extent) we do not accept people with those beliefs.
His morals are subjectively immoral for most people on the planet and society as whole. FOR HIM murder would not be considered immoral though, which is why morality is subjective.
Furthmore, the idea of morality is a social construction, and it varies between societies.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Oh, so murder is "ok" is it? You actually said that. So you're actually agreeing that it would be perfectly moral to go and murder your entire family. See, this is how ridiculous your views are, and you don't have a leg to stand on. You're saying that murder is fine.
So for him, it's perfectly fine. So if I decide it's moral to murder your family, it's perfectly fine. Very interesting indeed.
It would be perfectly fine for you, I'd imagine. Psychopaths wouldn't have a problem with it; they'd feel nothing wrong.
But I'd believe it to be wrong, and so would society. Some OTHER society might not (I can't exactly put a name on that one) disagree with it; it could be linked to honor-killing in radical islamic communities.
For the future, please drop the strawmen and spinning of words. You're perfectly aware of what I mean but still choose to do this.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Oh so morality is a social construction and it varies between societies?
So if one society says murder and rape are moral... and another society says that murder and rape are immoral, which society is correct? According to you, they both are. Everything and nothing is moral under your definition and morality is nothing more than a meaningless contradiction in your worldview. It's so incredibly easy to demonstrate and there's no comeback for atheists.
Nobody is correct. There is no objective moral value. And for the third time you try to strawman me; are you not getting tired by now?
None of them are correct, but because I belong to the society with the morals of no murder and rape (and because I find these positions logically sensible), I do not believe them to be moral.
My position might be a bit abstract for you, as you seem to clinge to objective reasoning every time you try to refute me.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Oh I'm not getting tired. Just trying to get you to see how it's impossible for the naturalistic worldview to make sense.
None of them are correct? So it's not right or wrong? But then you go on to say that it's moral. So clearly you're saying one of them is correct. Why is one more correct than another? You already said that right and wrong are decided by people, yet now you're saying he's wrong arbitrarily?
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW So what you're basically telling me is that, whatever you decide to be moral is moral, and everyone else wrong even though they're following your own method of deciding morality. You already said that morality is decided by human thinking though. Now you're going against it? You're contradicting your own claims.
I understand your position perfectly - it's irrational however. The only kind of morality that can exist is objective morality.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW By the way, I've never lost a debate to an atheist. I'm just telling you because Biblical Presuppositions are irrefutable, and I already know that "whatever" answer you give me regarding morality in the framework of your own naturalistic evolutionary worldview, I can show you how ridiculous it is in an instant. And why is that? Because relative morality refutes itself. It's nothing more than one man's opinion vs that of another.
How does it refute itself? You make claims but do not back them up, that is a major flaw and might explain why you (think) you've never 'lost' an argument. You're making claims with no basis.
Nonetheless, I'm not going to waste my time arguing someone like you on your own terms, so I'll just continue telling you why you're wrong.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW How does relative morality refute itself? If you listened to what I said, I told you that my earlier comments already did that. But, I'll say it again. If morality is relative, and human beings decide on a relative basis what right and wrong are, then by definition, any man can deem any action to be moral or immoral. This means that everything and nothing is moral, because man can choose whatever he wants to be moral or immoral.
@blaisingm Correct, Christianity has absolutely no contradictions. I already stated this. Every "supposed" contradiction is merely a misunderstanding by the atheistic reader. Clarification is available all over the internet.
Christians can account for the Uniformity of Nature because God has promised us uniformity in Genesis. Genesis 8:2 "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease."
@Daracon1010 "Every "supposed" contradiction is merely a misunderstanding by the atheistic reader."
You have stated that Islam is full of contradictions. Above, you full admit to some potential christian contradiction but explain them away with 'misunderstandings'. Couldn't you apply this same reasoning to Islam? Is it impossible that any contradiction found within the Quran is nothing more than an atheistic (YOU being an atheist to Islam) misunderstanding? If so, explain why...
@blaisingm If the Quran claimed to be ones ultimate authority, and source of knowledge then yes. But the Quran makes that claim no where. The same goes for every other religious text.
@Woreyel "If the Quran claimed to be ones ultimate authority.. then yes"
This simply does not make any sense. Example: I'm not understanding you right now. If you claimed ultimate authority, my 'misunderstanding' IS NOT satisfied. In school, will ur "misunderstanding" of algebra improve if ur teacher claims authority? For clarity: If the Quran claimed: "to be ones ultimate authority...", THEN you could be misunderstanding the Quran rendering it devoid of contradictions?
@blaisingm There's overwhelming evidence that animals have a 'moral code'? Where? What we actually observe in nature is animals killing each other on a constant basis. If what you said were true, that animals did have morality... where did they get this morality from? how could it be considered correct? what is based on? what moral code is it? and why aren't the animals following it? They do indeed just do what they want. This is what we observe.
@Daracon1010 "how could it be considered correct? {morality}"
Please ANSWER the question u avoid: What kind of behavioral evidence would have to be exhibited by an animal to prove to YOU it has a sense of morality? U have already said that god imbues people with morality as EVIDENCED by 'anger' towards murder. 'Anger' is the behavioral evidence (according to YOU) that humans have a moral sense. Now, what SPECIFIC behavioral evidence would you have to observe in animals to infer morality?
@blaisingm First I would have to know what the animals moral code IS, before I can determine whether or not it follows any kind of morality. It is a question that requires knowledge of what the animals moral code is, not simply observing an animals behavioural instincts.
@Woreyel "First I would have to know what the animals moral code IS"
What is the human moral code? Is this Daracon1010 or are you just participating in the questions I asked Daracon1010? Either way, Daracon1010 says that human's 'unique' moral sense such as 'getting angry' at murder is EVIDENCE of god's morality imbued upon humanity. So, if an animal displayed similar moral behavior (reacting unfavorably to murder), wouldn't that dissolve the claim that ONLY people have a 'moral sense'?
@Daracon1010 "What we actually observe in nature is animals killing each other on a constant basis."
Animals DO NOT indiscriminately attack and kill one another. You don't have to study animals for a living or be a scientist to know this. If this statement had any basis in reality, we would expect to be attacked by random animals every time we walk outside the door. When was the last time an animal attacked you unprovoked?
@blaisingm The only rational evidence that could exist as proof that animals are moral is an objective moral code given to the animals by an absolute being (since morality cannot exist any other way), and evidence that the animals have been following this moral code given to them.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW And to take it a step further, if man can decide what constitutes a right action, and he chooses a particular action to be moral - yet another man chooses that same action to be immoral, then who is correct? why? If morality is relative, then BOTH of them are correct. But how can a particular action be ultimately both right and wrong at the same time? That's a contradiction. Relative morality is nothing but a contradiction, thus is refutes itself.
@Daracon1010 "morality in the framework of your own naturalistic evolutionary worldview"
Morality and evolutionary theory are completely different and unfit for comparison in any way. This is no different than saying: morality in the framework of your own naturalistic plate tectonic worldview. The word 'evolution' is nonsensically placed within the sentence. Although it doesn't belong, your insertion of the word speaks volumes about your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
@blaisingm I'm not saying that morality and evolution are the same thing, obviously. But your worldview determines your presuppositions. It's directly relevant, and it belongs perfectly because if you presuppose evolution and naturalism, then you presuppose that humans ultimately have no more intrinsic value than bacteria - because we all came from the same place. Do you get angry when you're murdering bacteria on the kitchen bench through the use of antibacterial cleaning products?
@Daracon1010 " Do you get angry when you're murdering bacteria on the kitchen bench through the use of antibacterial cleaning products?"
I will answer your questions this one time... BUT please answer mine. No, I don't get angry at the possible death of bacteria at the hands of antibacterial agents. BECAUSE there is no reason to suspect that bacteria suffer as they lack a nervous system. Most people would agree that morality is tied to suffering. Do you have problems stepping on rocks?
@blaisingm Oh okay - so it's not wrong because bacteria aren't suffering. In the Christian worldview, this makes perfect sense. Harming others (specifically human beings) is wrong in the Christian worldview.
But why in your worldview would making others suffer be wrong? Pain and happiness are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain in your worldview. What does a chemical reaction have to do with right and wrong? Perhaps whatever is "good" is what brings the most pain to people.
@Daracon1010 "But why in your worldview would making others suffer be wrong?"
It would be impossible for any type of society or civilization to exist if people spent there days trying to kill one another. We would have died out long ago. Clearly it is advantageous to form teams and to work together for survival. Anyone who has suffered can empathize with individuals who ARE suffering. Why would anyone want another person to suffer? Do you think morality has anything to do with suffering?
@blaisingm Your response wasn't a satisfactory answer to my question. I asked "why" in your worldview would making others suffer be wrong? So what if society was unable to continue on and died out? Some might argue that it's a good thing since some believe that humans are a "disease" to this planet... especially people in greenpeace. So that doesn't answer the question, it merely raises another.
So answer this. "Making others suffer is wrong because _______" fill in the blank.
@Daracon1010 "Making others suffer is wrong because _______" fill in the blank."
Making others suffer is wrong because I have suffered myself and know it is an unpleasant experience. BECAUSE I have suffered myself, I am able to empathize. Helping others by reducing their suffering increases the likelihood that the individual I'm helping will help me if and when I'm in need. Can you empathize with the suffering of others? U have admitted that animal suffering is of no concern to you.
@blaisingm And suffering is just a type of chemical reaction [be it pain, etc] inside the brain, and so it's arbitrary and meaningless. So in your worldview, it's wrong to make certain chemical reactions happen. And so what if, by causing pain to others you increase the amount of happiness in another person, by that person watching them suffer...
@Woreyel "And suffering is just a type of chemical reaction...arbitrary and meaningless"
If you see NO meaning or value in a chemical reaction, then that's your problem and you're obviously not a chemist. Chemical reactions are FAR from meaningless and have great value in the real world I live in. We have identified people who are pleasured by another's suffering to be a mental disorder and obviously cannot be tolerated in a healthy society. Inflicting suffering is difficult to justify.
@Woreyel "causing pain to others you increase the amount of happiness in another person"
Inflicting suffering is VERY difficult to justify as I've described in order to maintain a healthy society. Daracon1010 also struggles with morality. For example, Daracon1010 has no moral objections to the suffering of animals butchered inhumanely for his pleasure. He justifies this behavior and attitude by believing god created animals to butcher for his satisfaction. What do you think?
@Woreyel "chemical reaction [be it pain, etc] inside the brain, and so it's arbitrary and meaningless."
The obvious issue you're struggling with is purpose. Here ur trying to equate science's chemical evaluation of brain activity into something meaningless. Why? Only you know. No reputable scientist, neurologist or any expert of the brain would ever make the claim that the brain's activities are inherently 'meaningless' (unless you can quote someone). Why do you think you do?
@blaisingm You see, it may have appeared that you gave a rational response. And you know what, if you had Biblical Presuppositions, it WOULD have been rational... because God has told us not to harm others. But in YOUR worldview, it makes absolutely no sense.
Do you know why you believe that it's wrong to harm others? Because God has hard-wired into you his moral law. He's given you knowledge of right and wrong that you will know inherently.
@Daracon1010 "if you had Biblical Presuppositions, it WOULD have been rational... because God has told us not to harm others"
That ALL DEPENDS on what passage you read. There are plenty of sections in the bible where god supports murder. Are you familiar with those sections of the bible? What would you conclude about a society made up of mostly non-christian people? What kind of behavior would you predict given that these people have not properly been taught biblical morality?
@blaisingm "Most" people would agree that morality is tied to suffering. And that's true because "most people believe it"? If most people believed that murder is moral, does that make it right, merely because "most people believe it"?
And no I don't have a problem stepping on rocks, unless of course I don't have shoes on :)
@Daracon1010 "If most people believed that murder is moral, does that make it right, merely because "most people believe it"?"
If the murder results in massive suffering, then I don't think it's right. Again, it DEPENDS on the circumstances by virtue of it's tie to suffering. You're not concerned about stepping on stones because you have NO reason to suspect the stones suffer when you step on them. If stones could suffer, would you step on them if the bible told you to do so?
@blaisingm No? Then you shouldn't be getting angry when one chemical accident removes another chemical accident. Do you get angry when you see a Lion kill another animal? No you don't?
You see what I did? I highlighted a whopping big inconsistency that you have between your worldview and your actions. You have absolutely no basis for morality, which is the entire point of this argument, and you have no possible way to refute what I'm saying either.
@Daracon1010 "Do you get angry when you see a Lion kill another animal?"
I think most people would feel bad for the other animal killed by the lion. In this example, the animal may suffer. However, an educated person understands that this is necessary if lions (or any top predator) are to survive, and without lions, the ecosystem on the African savanna would be disrupted/unhealthy. Do you have any moral objections to greedily feeding on beef from cow that has been slaughtered?
@blaisingm So you don't get angry when a lion kills another animal. Ok. So you don't get angry when you see that particular chemical accident destroying another chemical accident. However you get angry when another chemical accident (namely, human beings) remove other chemical accidents. Aren't humans just "wild beasts" in your worldview? Isn't that what you said? If that's true, just as you don't get angry at lions for murder - you shouldn't get angry at humans for murder. Yet you do
@Daracon1010 "Aren't humans just "wild beasts" in your worldview? "
Sure, people are animals just like any other animal. I wouldn't say I get 'angry' when one person murders another person. It COMPLETELY depends on the circumstances. Perhaps it's assisted suicide where a doctor (this happens in Europe) assists the suicide of an individual who is SUFFERING with a lethal injection. I have NO moral objections with this practice. Do you?
@blaisingm Yes, I have a moral objection to "greedily" feeding on beef from cow that has been slaughtered because Proverbs 23:20-21 tells us that gorging on meat is sinful as well as other verses.
I don't however, have any moral objection to eating beef from cows that have been slaughtered. Why? Because God created animals for us to eat.
@Daracon1010 "I don't however, have any moral objection to eating beef from cows that have been slaughtered. Why? Because God created animals for us to eat."
So, if there is evidence that a cow is greatly suffering prior to it's slaughter (or during it's blood letting), then you have no moral objections to its suffering prior to consumption of the cow (because god created cows for people to eat)? I'm just clarifying...
@blaisingm That's correct. Cows were made for eating. That doesn't mean we as individuals need to be excessive because The Bible already talks about gluttony.
@Daracon1010 "That's correct. Cows were made for eating."
Then, in your worldview, suffering has NOTHING to do with morality. If an animal suffers to please you, that's O.K.. You do not concern yourself with the suffering of other animals. Is this accurate?
I wouldn't consider myself a "radical" Christian - merely a Christian who stands upon the authority of the word of God. Atheists cannot account for three important presuppositions. Laws of Logic, Morality, and the Uniformity of Nature. If you cannot account for the first and last, it's literally impossible to prove anything. I can, however, account for those as a Christian, and they make sense in my worldview.
@Daracon1010 "Atheists cannot account for three important presuppositions. Laws of Logic, Morality, and the Uniformity of Nature."
1st, you are an atheists yourself in respect to any religion that is not christianity. If you're going to discuss atheism (or evolution for that matter), it's probably best that you understand them. When does chrisitianity provide insight into 'the uniformity of nature'? Where in the bible is this even mentioned?
@TheRebelOfTyrus It cannot. That's why relative morality (your morality) refutes itself. You cannot account for morality in a naturalistic worldview. Only Biblical presuppositions can account for morality. God deems something to be moral or immoral, and it is so. Why? He created us, and he sets the rules. He is an absolute being, thus his moral law is absolute.
Atheism/Naturalism makes no sense to those who are intellectually honest.
You present no evidence and conclude such an absolute claim. Nice.
First, we can take the impirical evidence: 'Godless people' are not (generally, we all have psychopaths etc) immoral.
Secondly, your idea focuses on ABSOLUTE morality. Impirically we know that people have different moral standards, which points to a subjective morality.
Thirdly, we observe morals in other animals too.
Lastly, naturalism perfectly accounts for morality as a socio-logical, evolutionary phenomenon.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW I gave lots of evidence. You merely disregarded it because you hate it, and you can't attack it in any possible way.
"impirical evidence"? "immoral"? First of all it's "Empirical" and secondly, Why waste my time when you can't even account for morality in the first place?
I've already discussed absolute morality and relative morality... and I already demonstrated unequivocally that relative morality refutes itself. Come on.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW You need to actually read what I wrote, and try to refute it (obviously you won't be able to). But the point is, you're making statements that prove nothing, because unless you have the very foundation for ANY argument you make on the subject of morality, what kind of effect will your argument have? Absolutely none - that's what.
We observe morality in animals?? Lol. Great example of an arbitrary statement that is impossible to prove.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW You talk about evidence, but if you actually LOOKED at the evidence, you would see that this isn't true at all. Animals don't have a moral code. They do what they want. If an animal wants to kill another animal, it does it. This is what we actually observe in nature. So clearly, you're wrong.
Oh yeah? "How" does naturalism account for morality as a socio-logical, evolutionary phenomenon? Don't just "tell" me that it does. Stop being arbitrary.
Morality is a social construction that sets boundaries to animals (human etc). If morality didn't exist (I believe morality, at least basic morality, is an evolutionary trait btw) in animals, they wouldn't survive as for example the predators would kill each other for food source. They don't, usually, which points to a social construction that is, btw, benefitial to the survival of said species.
Ofc, this is a basic moral trait; do not kill you kin, but it sure does exist.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW So let me get this straight, now you're saying that morality is all about survival value. So, if murdering someone and stealing their money without getting caught helps me survive, then it would be a moral action under this definition.
Honestly, how many more ways would you like me to demonstrate to you that your view on morality can be refuted in an instant? In order to argue against the Bible, you have to use Biblical Presuppositions. That won't work.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Oh I don't spin your words. I just give them back to you and show you that they're ridiculous, as if your worldview.
Oh so moral values are needed for the survival of the species and not the individual? Why does that matter? Once an individual dies, that's it - so why should he care about the species? In Christianity, yes we should care about others. We've been called to love others as we love ourselves. But why should a naturalist?
... There's a collective wish for animal species (that includes humans too) to secure their own survival. This is necessary because otherwise they wouldn't survive. Unless you're going to tell me you do not believe in evolution, then you should at least agree with me on this one.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW "There's a collective wish for animal species (that includes humans too) to secure their own survival." Do you have any evidence for that arbitrary assertion? More importantly, even if there was, what does that have anything to do with morality?
Of course I don't believe in the religion of evolution or abiogenesis. They're both beliefs that are contrary to the empirical evidence we see today and are highly irrational.
Okay, I'm done talking to you then. It's impossible to rationalize with someone who does not accept evolution as a credited scientific theory; this explains the rambling you've been keeping up in the rest of your comments. (I personally do not care about abiogenesis, as it is not nearly as certain yet)
"Contrary to the empriical evidence we see today" hahaha, idiocy. Ignoring 150 years of universal scientific consensus just to clinge on to a literal the 'Adam and Eve' belief.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW They defy Information Science. Information cannot spontaneously generate in matter without a sender. We do indeed have genetic information. Not to mention, genetic mutations are inherently "bad". You honestly believe that life arose from non-living chemicals in a hostile environment all on it's own? Scientists can't even create a single cell in a lab under perfect conditions let alone having it happen on it's own, without aid in a hostile environment.
Evolution by natural selection. The majority of mutations are in fact neutral as they hit the already bloated 'junk DNA'. 'by natural selection' meaning that the negative mutations will be selected away, and the positive mutations will remain and spread in the gene pool.
Evolution does not account for the creation of life. It accounts for the development of life after it appeared, abiogenesis accounts for the other; but I do not take it too seriously yet.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW For example, astronomers can successfully compute the positions of the planets, moons, and asteroids far into the future. Without uniformity in nature, such predictions would be impossible, and science could not exist. The problem for evolutionism is that such regularity only makes sense in a biblical creation worldview. Science Requires a Biblical Worldview
Sorry, but that is pure bogus and you give no concrete reason as to why evolution is wrong, which it obviously isn't according to what we know, and that "the biblical wordview is the only one that accounts for uniformity in the universe". You give no reason to either of them.
I don't know what you mean about lack of predicability. It is easy to predict evolutionary changes; a species is faced with a survival issue; the species slowly, selectively favours the positive gene pool.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity. Because there is such regularity in the universe, there are many instances where scientists are able to make successful predictions about the future.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW haha that's funny stuff :D, what I mean to say is.. you know you haven't a chance at winning presuppositional arguments, because they're unstoppable. But I know, you're just another materialistic atheist, who's been brainwased into following the evolutionary dogma that all atheists do.
Is this reality? Is some fundie musician who copy/pastes directly from AIG saying that "You're just another brainwashed materialistic atheist"?
While I do recognize the arrogance and idiocy of people like you, don't you think it's a bit over your head to try to take the 'high ground' when being shot down on your first post?
Evolutionary dogma... So every single credible scientist in the field of biology is a brainwashed, dogmatic atheist in a giant conspiracy? Funny.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 Corinthians 2:14 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" so yes. But you see, I AM a Christian and so I can account for the preconditions of intelligibility e.g morality, logical, nature, etc. I acknowledge that people aren't just chemical accidents, but people indeed have a soul, a supernatural part to themselves.
Oh, I could also create a random selection of mythical creatures and claim that I have an explaination for everything. That does, however, not prove anything.
And I easily accounted for everything you're talking about in my earlier posts on this video. Needless to say, I'm not going to waste my time with a bible-thumbing christian fundie who seems to copy/paste from shitty websites and site bible passages despite me not giving a flying shit.
@Woreyel "there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity"
Absolutely. The laws under which the universe functions are indeed the foundation of every believe. The perception of the law(s) we are bound to obey is always present. And that is why people are so easy to persuade into some "believe system". "Biblical worldview" ist just another word for "childish worldview" where facts are mixed with fantasy, garnished with wild conclusions.
@Repulver So here is your atheistic worldview dumbed down, "God seems to be in complete control of things, but I wanna life live my own way, so stuff God, and so therefore I don't want to believe in God, so if he's not real I have no one to be accountable for when I die. Screw you God!!" That's the extent of your reason behind your worldview.
@Repulver If you believe that God does not exist - that is religious believe. The conclusion is inescapable. You are either agnostic, or a religious atheist. Your belief system is that there is no God, and if you're not comfortable with that, your only alternative is the agnostic worldview. Even when you are asked questions like "what created the universe" you'll say "I don't know, but I believe it wasn't God".
I do not believe, i know for certain that god exists. I can see it every day. God is the law, which we have to obey, whether we believe or not. Therefore, if you know the law, you can live your live accordingly. If you do wrong things you will pay, if you do the right things you'll reap the rewards. These things are part of my everyday live. There is a path that leads to less pain and a path that leads to more pain, it's up to you..
@Repulver Does it make you feel good, give-the-finger to the Christian faith? I bet it does. As soon as you say childish worldview, I knew you're fill with your own philosophical biased prejudice against "religion". Yet I must point out to you that even your atheistic worldview, IS a religious faith.
@Woreyel Atheism is a lack of religion... It's basing your knowledge off of scientific facts that can be replicated and proven, not the rantings of a 2000 year old carpenter who we have no historical evidence proving he existed. If atheism is a religion, OFF is a TV channel, sleeping is a running speed, and abstinence is a sex position.
@Quizlyxorquizzles1 Atheism is not a lack of religion. Its a lack of belief in supernatural deities. There are religions in the world that not only allow atheist branches (i.e. Hinduism) but also some can be based entirely on atheistic principales. Also there could be atheist who don't agree with any scientic facts at all.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Every single thing that you've said regarding morality can ONLY work in the Christian worldview. There is no other way to account for it. You act as if you care about other people - and that's a good thing. It's good because God told us to love others. The thing is however, if Christianity weren't true, you would have absolutely no reason to believe this. No reason to believe in right or wrong at all. A naturalist can't even know what right or wrong ARE.
You're being willfully ignorant. I'm a human; a social animal. Morality is vital for social animals; I have morals. My morals are not the same as your morals; therefore morality is subjective.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW How am I being willfully ignorant? I'm simply laying out the facts. You have morals? How do you know if those morals are correct?
Having different morals to me doesn't mean that morality is subjective, it merely means that one of us is wrong in what we consider to be moral, as morality cannot be relative since relative morality refutes itself. I've proven and demonstrated this dozens of times and cannot be refuted.
@Daracon1010 "Animals don't have a moral code. They do what they want. If an animal wants to kill another animal, it does it. This is what we actually observe in nature."
There is overwhelming evidence that animals have a 'moral code' (Many care about their kind and try to reduce suffering). By far, the most cruel animal of all (that kills and slaughters for nothing more than the pleasure of killing) are humans. What evidence would have to exist to prove to you that animals are moral?
We can go on. You make another ridiculous claim "only biblical presuppositions can account for morality.". This is without any evidence and ignores every other religious (and non-religious) moral code in the world. Which is why I'm going to presume you're a rather radical christian to make such a claim.
We can take it a step further and attack 'god's' morality. For one thing, it wouldn't really be moral for us nowadays to stone our children to death for disobeying. *smiley-face*
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Of course only Biblical presuppositions can account for morality. All other worldviews refute themselves. Empiricism refutes itself, relativism refutes itself... and I can demonstrate that very easily for you if you like.
Islam refutes itself as well through it's contradictory content. Of course I ignore every other moral code in the world. Why? Because relative morality refutes itself. Look below and you'll see that I proved that unequivocally.
Empiricism, the idea that knowledge can be derived from experience, refutes itself? Relativism refutes itself? That is intellectually dishonest and directly stupid.
And islam is contradictory but not the bible? The bible is the most cherry-picked, contradictory collection of 'holy' texts in the world..
You ignore the other moral codes; whom could be just as valid as yours, because you disagree with subjective morality, that of which they portray. Again, intellectually dishonest.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Empiricism states that knowledge can ONLY be derived through empirical observation.
Take the statement "All truth claims are answered through empirical observation". How do you even know that the statement itself is true? Did you observe that through empirical observation? No, you didn't - and you cannot. You can't see a truth claim because they're abstract. So empiricism should be rejected by it's own standard. Empiricism refutes itself.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Ahem... "I" was the one who said that empiricism and relativism refute themselves, and I was the one who brought them up - not you. So what you're referring to is irrelevant.
No, you responded to a post of mine where I talked about empirical evidence and relative morality. In your reponse you said "Relativism refutes itself. Empiricism refutes itself."
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW And relativism is the belief that everything is relative and there are no absolutes. So the question I ask to the relativist is this; "are you absolutely certain that there are no absolutes?" If he says "yes", he's just refuted himself, because he made an absolute statement, proving that absolutes do exist, and if he says no, he's also refuted himself because he doesn't even believe his own position.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW I could go on... but the point is, ALL other worldviews apart from the Biblical worldview are ultimately irrational. They might have pockets of rationality in them, but "ultimately" they're irrational.
I ignore other moral codes because they're man-made and relative. This can be demonstrated theologically. For example, theology is used to demonstrate where and how islam refutes itself through its contradictions.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW First of all, Christians live under the New Testament now - that means that the penalty for any sin has been paid for through Jesus Christ.
Oh, stoning children to death wouldn't be moral? Why? In your naturalistic worldview, humans are nothing more than chemical accidents. So why would it be wrong to throw stones at a chemical accident? Seriously - everything you said has been arbitrary. Back up what you say and give me some answers.
Actually no. Objectively we mean nothing (seen from a universal view) but these 'chemical accidents' (as you so dreadfully expressed) that we are mean a lot to society and its individuals. Therefore it is immoral to society and its individuals to stone children like it says in the old testament (another thing is, even though you like cherrypicking, Jesus never abolishes the old testament laws). Stoning children is obviously not objectively immoral, as the OT seems to agree with it
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW I'm glad you can finally admit that. You can actually admit that in your own worldview, human beings objectively mean nothing. So objectively, there would be nothing wrong with removing chemical accidents from the planet, since they mean nothing.
It's objective to society? You just said that society means nothing. So why should anyone care what society thinks, considering that they mean nothing?
You're spinning my words. Dirty arguing isn't exactly what I'd prefer we were going to be doing.
Objectively TO THE UNIVERSE we do not mean anything in the bigger picture. We're lifeforms on a tiny, tiny planet in an almost endless space filled with planets and stars a billion times larger than we are. The universe itself doesn't care; it is not sentient. WE care, therefore WE use morals. Society needs moral values to survive. But these moral values are not objective; they vary.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW I'm already well aware that objectively you mean nothing to the universe. That's an inescapable fact that devastates your case. Why? Because if morality is up to your subjective, relative arbitrary whims then anyone can decide what morality is.
Society needs moral values to survive? In a random-chance Godless universe, why does a society's survival matter? They're just accidents anyway.
There is no meaning to life as far as we know. There, your question answered. Meaning is a human made concept that we clinge to; but universally there is no meaning with anything.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Yes there is meaning to life. Christians "know" it. A naturalist says that there is no meaning to life, purely because there "can't" be any meaning to his life given his presuppositions and worldview. I certainly know what the meaning of life is, and my Biblical presuppositions make that possible since only Biblical presuppositions provide the preconditions for the intelligibility of man's reasoning and experiences.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Jesus certainly did abolish the Old Testament. How did he do this? He gave new laws in the place of the old ones, and Hebrews 8:13 says the old covenant no longer applies explicitly.
Hebrews 8:13 "By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."
Not to mention the OT was given specifically to the Jews in the first place. Am I cherry picking too much for you? lol.
Jesus also personally said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Which brings me again to question why you're so obsessed about the contradictions in the Qur'an but not in your own, very contradictory, holy book.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Yes, that's right. Jesus Christ didn't abolish the Law, he amended it and made it even tougher, then fulfilled the law by sacrificing himself in our place on the cross so that we may be set free from sin and no longer have to pay the price for sin when we repent and put our faith in him.
There are no contradictions in the Bible. I have seen every "supposed" contradiction, and let me tell you - the only contradiction is in your mind.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW If you want to look up explanations for the so-called "contradictions" of the Bible, it only takes a minute. After reading them you'll say "ohh I see what it's talking about now. Yeah, that's not a contradiction".
Lol dirty arguing? How is showing you what you believe "dirty arguing"? I'm just reflecting your own philosophy back to you and showing you that it's irrational.
@Daracon1010 "So why would it be wrong to throw stones at a chemical accident?"
There are many possible answers to this question. However, let's first look at the presupposition that people = chemical accidents. What naturalist or scientist has drawn this conclusion that people = chemical accidents? You obviously have, but who else does this?
"Islam refutes itself as well through it's contradictory content."
Are you suggesting that christianity is devoid of contradiction?
@blaisingm Some Naturalists don't like to admit that people are nothing more than chemical accidents, although plenty do. The reason they don't is because it highlights an inconsistency in their beliefs and their behaviour. They believe that human beings are just chemical accidents that are the result of a random-chance big bang... yet when they go home and hug their kids, they act as if their children are "more" than just chemical accidents.
@Daracon1010 "Some Naturalists don't like to admit that people are nothing more than chemical accidents, although plenty do. "
Hummm... that's interesting that 'immoral' naturalists have problems admitting that people are "chemical accidents". Rather than dishonestly putting words into someone's mouth, why don't you cite a scientist or credible naturalist who ACTUALLY says this?? The only person who seems to think this is YOU. Until you can show otherwise, these thoughts r ur own.
@blaisingm I talk to naturalists who admit that people are just chemical accidents here on youtube all the time. Why does it have to be a "scientist"? What difference does that make?
You'll just have to take my word on that, but it doesn't really make any difference anyway.
Honestly being born into this world is comparable to waking up on a train that is going 300/mph. I just want to know what gave us that gigantic leap past the animals in intelligence and made us much more conscious.
JG129 1 day ago
@JG129 I didn't finish that analogy. Being born into this world is comparable to waking up on a train going 300/mph without any prior memory of anything and the train is about to derail.
JG129 1 day ago
the nazi's were just as wrong as the soviet union... who caused the most pain? At least the nazi's blamed other people instead of killing their own citizens. With that being said, the Nazi are still wrong. Don't get me wrong, I am merely philosophizing about if the nazi's where right. However, even Einstein knew to get the fuck out of naziland...
ARobs42 1 week ago
What he is talking is similar to terror management theory, in which one of our coping mechanisms to the fact that our life is ephemeral is culture, by providing some sense of belonging (through rituals and to a certain group and making us feel useful and therefore giving some meaning to our existence religion would be then just a byproduct.
intestinomedicino 1 week ago
Anyone else get the ad sense for becoming a ordained paster. LAWL
alienhacker51 1 week ago
a very wise man...everything he says is succinct and logically sound.
ryanh206 2 weeks ago
I think that statism (patriotism) is more insidious than religion (but not by much).
dyne313 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Thanks bigthink for posting this video.
softwaria 1 month ago 4
Thank you for posting this, bigthink.
writersblock26 1 month ago
Why do fundies like the guy below me always have to copy-paste arguments from, quite frankly, idiotic websites.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
gang members don't lead ethical lives. in the middle east a man could legally drag his wife out into the back yard and stone her to death... we don't always agree on what is right and what is wrong
Lostzilla847 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
When ever your actions are guided by the wish to bring happines to all and everyting. You are good. Even if what you do is evil, you can still be a good person, if you belive your actions are based on kindness.
BUT. Everyone have to do research and be open. Not being open minded is evil. The wish to be right, no mather if people will get hurt by the close miindnes of you. Is Evil.
chrstilen5 1 month ago
@chrstilen5
Evil and good are only labels we put on things we do not like. There is no single 'evil' person in this world. Nobody does anything just for the sake of 'being evil', they do so either because they believe they do good or if it pleases them somehow.
We act in accordance to lust and determination. Some fundamentalist muslims might believe it is alright to stone women, but they only do so because they believe that it is the right thing to do.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Yeah I can agree on that.
Even the suporters of Hitler could be good people. it all depends.
But I still like to say there is good vs evil. I belive everyone... umm allmost everyone ;D Can feal what is good vs bad. But colture, religeon, gowerment, ideals and so on, will often misslead people.
If you are blindly walking, then you can do evil, but be good. But if you are awake and think for yourself. Then there is no exuse for doing evil.
chrstilen5 1 month ago
@chrstilen5
No. A supporter of Hitler believes (see subjectivity) that Hitler is doing something good. He might believe that the jews really are out to destroy germany. Everyone can 'feel' good vs bad because they're a reflection of our morals and comfort. A vegetarian might believe that it is EVIL to eat animals, while others regard it as perfectly fine. Your idea of good and bad is shaped by society. The rest stems from comfort and rational inquiry. You're assuming that evil is an absolute.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW If we dont have our own standard evil vs good... then it's like not having a plan in your life. It proberly wont work out that good ;D
Allso. The will to be right can be evil. If your will to be right, is biger then the wish to bring good, brings damaging others. Then you are evil. Being captured in propaganda just because you dont want to be wrong. Is evil. It's like drinking and driving. You gamble tht you wont hurt people.
chrstilen5 1 month ago
@chrstilen5
But when you drink and drive you do not expect to hit anyone. You do not BELIEVE you're going to do anything harmful. People do not drink and drive because they WANT to be evil, they do so out of comfort.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW "There is no single 'evil' person in this world"
On the basis of ignorance and hate people do evil things. Doesn't matter if they think it's ok, they will pay the price anyway. Why ? Because every action has an effect on the mind and to the surroundings. Even if you don't know the law you will get sentenced anyway - or rewarded, however as the case my be.
Repulver 1 month ago
@Repulver
'on the basis of ignorance and hate' we're discussing whether or not people can be evil. I do not believe they can because they themselves do not regard themselves as doing something 'evil'. If you're ignorant, you're UNAWARE that you're doing something 'wrong' (according to other people). If you're hateful you're most often than not going to hurt the person you hate; you do not do this out of wishing to do wrong, but out of strong emotion and the belief that you're justified to do so
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW "we're discussing whether or not people can be evil"
I don't know, maybe my english is very wrong. As i said, good and evil is relative to living beings and the surroundings, no argument here. Otherwise that concept wouldn't make any sense right. But whereever in the universe living beings come into existence, they will avoid pain and embrace pleasant feelings. Therefore i say that inflicting pain (without consent) is objectivly evil.
Repulver 1 month ago
every day I deal with madness.
dave474c 1 month ago
There is no good and evil. It's just a man-made concept bred out of fear. Life comes and goes. It's been a continuous process for billions of years. Another insight to this is that, from an evolutionary vantage, an individual with an intuitive aversion to injuring another, would maintain greater harmony within the group. But all in all, killing someone else doesn't make it neither good, nor bad. It just is.
Nev3rdie00 1 month ago
@Nev3rdie00 Life means pain. Where more pain is bad and less pain is good. It's common sense.. If you follow the path of less pain, you will end up in the best of all possible worlds. If you follow the path of more pain you will end up in the worst of all possible worlds.
Repulver 1 month ago
@Repulver Morality is subjective. It's common sense. How much pain should someone suffer to pay the consequences. There is no cosmological balance sheet that will tally up your good and wrongs. In the end your pain and suffering means nothing in the grand scheme of things, this world means nothing compared to the galaxy and this galaxy means nothing compared to the universe. You're completely insignificant and will be replaced with new life that'll come after you die. It's a continuous process.
Nev3rdie00 1 month ago
@Nev3rdie00 "There is no cosmological balance sheet that will tally up your good and wrongs"
Every action causes a reaction, there you have your cosmological balance sheet.
Repulver 1 month ago
@Repulver
That sentence is in regards to actual physical movement.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
This is pretty weak. He never explains why cruelty is wrong, he only asserts that people would agree that it is. Nor provides justification for including all of humanity in the "in" group category. By his standards, the Nazis weren't immoral; they simply didn't include the Jews, gypsies, Poles, homosexuals etc. in their "in" group and thus committed no moral violation by treating them in a cruel manner.
LessThanCertain 1 month ago
@TheRebelOfTyrus define "accident": Any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.
You really need to carry around a dictionary with you.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010 Definition 1: An undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap.
TheRebelOfTyrus 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@TheRebelOfTyrus My definition of "accident" is correct. I was the one who used the word, so I choose which definition is valid for my reference. "Chemical accidents" is completely correct. Following a "rule of natural law? That's non sequitur. If an accident is merely something that happens without a deliberate plan or cause, then EVERYTHING in this universe that does not involve will is an accident. Your statement on "natural law" means and demonstrates nothing.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@TheRebelOfTyrus No, I was correct. Humans are chemical accidents in your worldview - life ultimately came from non-living chemicals, thus humans are chemical accidents in your worldview. Oh, and they ARE accidents. It doesn't matter whether you believe it to be negative or not... that's completely irrelevant. For something not to be an "accident", there has to be some form of will involved. So tell me; who's will was involved? Was it God's will, was it? I thought so. No need to be careful :)
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010 You have missed the point here, and presupposed my "world view" in the same breath. The reason why life may not be called an accident (along with every other occurrence in the universe) is because ALL matter follows the "rules" of natural law. Therefore, nothing happens "accidentally;" there are no accidents in a universe governed by natural law.
TheRebelOfTyrus 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@TheRebelOfTyrus My definition is a valid dictionary reference. Lol humans don't know right from wrong instinctively, huh? So it would be wrong for me to say that "everybody knows that murder is wrong", correct? So some people don't know that murder is wrong, is that what you're saying? Hold a second, how do you even know that murder is wrong anyway? What is right and wrong? How do you define them? How do you know right from wrong?
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@TheRebelOfTyrus I didn't say that humans can't reason. God has written his laws on our hearts. THAT is why we instinctively know right from wrong "most" of the time. People have however rebelled against God, and replaced his law with their own selfish desires and choose to be willfully ignorant of the truth to satisfy their desires. However, without Biblical presuppositions, it's impossible to account for morality.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010 A heart is an organ that pumps blood, I have never heard of any sort of language that is written on it. Humans DO NOT know right from wrong "instinctively,"
until we are taught a language we are little more than wild beasts. Your last sentence is laughable, and false. There were many early cultures that held moral ideals, cultures that are not mentioned in the bible and have no connection to monotheistic nonsense.
TheRebelOfTyrus 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@TheRebelOfTyrus Of course humans have had God's moral law written on their hearts. We're nothing more than wild beasts? You honestly believe that? Okay, so why would you get angry when one wild beast murders another wild beast? You don't consider it wrong when a lion kills a zebra now do you? If we're just wild beasts, well animals do what they want. My last sentence still stands unrefuted whether you like it or not.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@TheRebelOfTyrus Yeah, there were many cultures who had their moral ideas... human sacrifice, cannibalism, etc. And you deem these to be "moral". Now that's laughable.
God ordered the slaughter of some "innocent" people? "Innocent" according to who? You? What "moral" standard are you working from? Your own personal standard? What makes you think your personal standard means anything at all?
You weren't even able to answer simple questions about morality.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@TheRebelOfTyrus Oh so Sam Harris uses "Logical Thinking" to decide right from wrong? Ok. So if he or someone else thinks hard using their logic, and their logic dictates that it's morally right to murder someone, then by YOUR definition, murdering that person would be moral. Morality doesn't come from religion - very true. Morality comes from the creator, and his laws have been revealed through the Bible.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010 No no no, you've got it all wrong! I can see your childish beliefs have lead you to reason in a childish way. Your "god" (i will not capitalize the name) is a perfect example of someone who cannot use logic. In the old testament this god of yours ordered the slaughter of innocent women and children because their nations were
"evil." Imagine if the US government ordered the slaughter of all North Koreans, this act would never be justified! Many innocents would die.
TheRebelOfTyrus 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@TheRebelOfTyrus I already demonstrated that morality can't exist in your worldview. If naturalism is true, then we're nothing but "wild beasts". Even YOU admitted that. Why would it be wrong for one wild beast to get rid of another wild beast?
Very simple question... and you should be able to answer it.
And you failed with the other question. You said "Logical Thinking" Decides morality. So if morality is nothing more than logical thinking...
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@TheRebelOfTyrus ... and someone's logical thinking leads them to murder someone, then by YOUR definition, murder is moral. Do you agree with this? Because that's your standard. If you don't agree with it, then make up your mind and stop contradicting yourself.
If one man says murder is wrong, and another says murder is right? Who is correct? Why? According to you, they're both right. But how can one particular action be both right and wrong at the same time?
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
Because morality and the notion of good and evil all come down to subjective opinion. Though society has a general consensus of what is deemed 'bad' and what is deemed 'good', we tend to still disagree inbetween.
Secondly, if murder was objectively bad, would it be wrong of me to kill a bomber who was intending on killing many people in the future?
If morality was objective and it said "do not murder", this would be kind of a paradox.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Oh, I see. So good and evil come down to subjective opinion? Is that true? So if it's someone's opinion that it would be moral to murder someone, by your own definition that you have just provided me with, that person would be correct in doing, and his/her actions would be moral.
Murder IS objectively bad, according to God's law. There is a difference between 'murder' and 'killing'. Look up the definitions.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
Yes. Subjectively he would regard murder as 'ok'. Society doesn't though, and since we follow the morals of society (at least to a larger extent) we do not accept people with those beliefs.
His morals are subjectively immoral for most people on the planet and society as whole. FOR HIM murder would not be considered immoral though, which is why morality is subjective.
Furthmore, the idea of morality is a social construction, and it varies between societies.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Oh, so murder is "ok" is it? You actually said that. So you're actually agreeing that it would be perfectly moral to go and murder your entire family. See, this is how ridiculous your views are, and you don't have a leg to stand on. You're saying that murder is fine.
So for him, it's perfectly fine. So if I decide it's moral to murder your family, it's perfectly fine. Very interesting indeed.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
It would be perfectly fine for you, I'd imagine. Psychopaths wouldn't have a problem with it; they'd feel nothing wrong.
But I'd believe it to be wrong, and so would society. Some OTHER society might not (I can't exactly put a name on that one) disagree with it; it could be linked to honor-killing in radical islamic communities.
For the future, please drop the strawmen and spinning of words. You're perfectly aware of what I mean but still choose to do this.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Oh so morality is a social construction and it varies between societies?
So if one society says murder and rape are moral... and another society says that murder and rape are immoral, which society is correct? According to you, they both are. Everything and nothing is moral under your definition and morality is nothing more than a meaningless contradiction in your worldview. It's so incredibly easy to demonstrate and there's no comeback for atheists.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
Nobody is correct. There is no objective moral value. And for the third time you try to strawman me; are you not getting tired by now?
None of them are correct, but because I belong to the society with the morals of no murder and rape (and because I find these positions logically sensible), I do not believe them to be moral.
My position might be a bit abstract for you, as you seem to clinge to objective reasoning every time you try to refute me.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Oh I'm not getting tired. Just trying to get you to see how it's impossible for the naturalistic worldview to make sense.
None of them are correct? So it's not right or wrong? But then you go on to say that it's moral. So clearly you're saying one of them is correct. Why is one more correct than another? You already said that right and wrong are decided by people, yet now you're saying he's wrong arbitrarily?
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
Strawman. You're disappointing me.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW So what you're basically telling me is that, whatever you decide to be moral is moral, and everyone else wrong even though they're following your own method of deciding morality. You already said that morality is decided by human thinking though. Now you're going against it? You're contradicting your own claims.
I understand your position perfectly - it's irrational however. The only kind of morality that can exist is objective morality.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
Comment removed
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
Again, more strawmen and willful ignorance of my position.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW By the way, I've never lost a debate to an atheist. I'm just telling you because Biblical Presuppositions are irrefutable, and I already know that "whatever" answer you give me regarding morality in the framework of your own naturalistic evolutionary worldview, I can show you how ridiculous it is in an instant. And why is that? Because relative morality refutes itself. It's nothing more than one man's opinion vs that of another.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
How does it refute itself? You make claims but do not back them up, that is a major flaw and might explain why you (think) you've never 'lost' an argument. You're making claims with no basis.
Nonetheless, I'm not going to waste my time arguing someone like you on your own terms, so I'll just continue telling you why you're wrong.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW How does relative morality refute itself? If you listened to what I said, I told you that my earlier comments already did that. But, I'll say it again. If morality is relative, and human beings decide on a relative basis what right and wrong are, then by definition, any man can deem any action to be moral or immoral. This means that everything and nothing is moral, because man can choose whatever he wants to be moral or immoral.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daracon1010 Unanswered questions you REPEATEDLY IGNORE:
"Islam refutes itself as well through it's contradictory content."
Are you suggesting that christianity is devoid of contradiction?
When does chrisitianity provide insight into 'the uniformity of nature'? Where in the bible is this even mentioned?
""Animals don't have a moral code."
There is overwhelming evidence that animals have a 'moral code'. What evidence would have to exist to prove to you that animals are moral?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@blaisingm Correct, Christianity has absolutely no contradictions. I already stated this. Every "supposed" contradiction is merely a misunderstanding by the atheistic reader. Clarification is available all over the internet.
Christians can account for the Uniformity of Nature because God has promised us uniformity in Genesis. Genesis 8:2 "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease."
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010 "Every "supposed" contradiction is merely a misunderstanding by the atheistic reader."
You have stated that Islam is full of contradictions. Above, you full admit to some potential christian contradiction but explain them away with 'misunderstandings'. Couldn't you apply this same reasoning to Islam? Is it impossible that any contradiction found within the Quran is nothing more than an atheistic (YOU being an atheist to Islam) misunderstanding? If so, explain why...
blaisingm 1 month ago
@blaisingm If the Quran claimed to be ones ultimate authority, and source of knowledge then yes. But the Quran makes that claim no where. The same goes for every other religious text.
Woreyel 1 month ago
@Woreyel "If the Quran claimed to be ones ultimate authority.. then yes"
This simply does not make any sense. Example: I'm not understanding you right now. If you claimed ultimate authority, my 'misunderstanding' IS NOT satisfied. In school, will ur "misunderstanding" of algebra improve if ur teacher claims authority? For clarity: If the Quran claimed: "to be ones ultimate authority...", THEN you could be misunderstanding the Quran rendering it devoid of contradictions?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@blaisingm There's overwhelming evidence that animals have a 'moral code'? Where? What we actually observe in nature is animals killing each other on a constant basis. If what you said were true, that animals did have morality... where did they get this morality from? how could it be considered correct? what is based on? what moral code is it? and why aren't the animals following it? They do indeed just do what they want. This is what we observe.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010 "how could it be considered correct? {morality}"
Please ANSWER the question u avoid: What kind of behavioral evidence would have to be exhibited by an animal to prove to YOU it has a sense of morality? U have already said that god imbues people with morality as EVIDENCED by 'anger' towards murder. 'Anger' is the behavioral evidence (according to YOU) that humans have a moral sense. Now, what SPECIFIC behavioral evidence would you have to observe in animals to infer morality?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@blaisingm First I would have to know what the animals moral code IS, before I can determine whether or not it follows any kind of morality. It is a question that requires knowledge of what the animals moral code is, not simply observing an animals behavioural instincts.
Woreyel 1 month ago
@Woreyel "First I would have to know what the animals moral code IS"
What is the human moral code? Is this Daracon1010 or are you just participating in the questions I asked Daracon1010? Either way, Daracon1010 says that human's 'unique' moral sense such as 'getting angry' at murder is EVIDENCE of god's morality imbued upon humanity. So, if an animal displayed similar moral behavior (reacting unfavorably to murder), wouldn't that dissolve the claim that ONLY people have a 'moral sense'?
blaisingm 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daracon1010 "What we actually observe in nature is animals killing each other on a constant basis."
Animals DO NOT indiscriminately attack and kill one another. You don't have to study animals for a living or be a scientist to know this. If this statement had any basis in reality, we would expect to be attacked by random animals every time we walk outside the door. When was the last time an animal attacked you unprovoked?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@blaisingm The only rational evidence that could exist as proof that animals are moral is an objective moral code given to the animals by an absolute being (since morality cannot exist any other way), and evidence that the animals have been following this moral code given to them.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW And to take it a step further, if man can decide what constitutes a right action, and he chooses a particular action to be moral - yet another man chooses that same action to be immoral, then who is correct? why? If morality is relative, then BOTH of them are correct. But how can a particular action be ultimately both right and wrong at the same time? That's a contradiction. Relative morality is nothing but a contradiction, thus is refutes itself.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010 "morality in the framework of your own naturalistic evolutionary worldview"
Morality and evolutionary theory are completely different and unfit for comparison in any way. This is no different than saying: morality in the framework of your own naturalistic plate tectonic worldview. The word 'evolution' is nonsensically placed within the sentence. Although it doesn't belong, your insertion of the word speaks volumes about your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
blaisingm 1 month ago
@blaisingm I'm not saying that morality and evolution are the same thing, obviously. But your worldview determines your presuppositions. It's directly relevant, and it belongs perfectly because if you presuppose evolution and naturalism, then you presuppose that humans ultimately have no more intrinsic value than bacteria - because we all came from the same place. Do you get angry when you're murdering bacteria on the kitchen bench through the use of antibacterial cleaning products?
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010 " Do you get angry when you're murdering bacteria on the kitchen bench through the use of antibacterial cleaning products?"
I will answer your questions this one time... BUT please answer mine. No, I don't get angry at the possible death of bacteria at the hands of antibacterial agents. BECAUSE there is no reason to suspect that bacteria suffer as they lack a nervous system. Most people would agree that morality is tied to suffering. Do you have problems stepping on rocks?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@blaisingm Oh okay - so it's not wrong because bacteria aren't suffering. In the Christian worldview, this makes perfect sense. Harming others (specifically human beings) is wrong in the Christian worldview.
But why in your worldview would making others suffer be wrong? Pain and happiness are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain in your worldview. What does a chemical reaction have to do with right and wrong? Perhaps whatever is "good" is what brings the most pain to people.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010 "But why in your worldview would making others suffer be wrong?"
It would be impossible for any type of society or civilization to exist if people spent there days trying to kill one another. We would have died out long ago. Clearly it is advantageous to form teams and to work together for survival. Anyone who has suffered can empathize with individuals who ARE suffering. Why would anyone want another person to suffer? Do you think morality has anything to do with suffering?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@blaisingm Your response wasn't a satisfactory answer to my question. I asked "why" in your worldview would making others suffer be wrong? So what if society was unable to continue on and died out? Some might argue that it's a good thing since some believe that humans are a "disease" to this planet... especially people in greenpeace. So that doesn't answer the question, it merely raises another.
So answer this. "Making others suffer is wrong because _______" fill in the blank.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010 "Making others suffer is wrong because _______" fill in the blank."
Making others suffer is wrong because I have suffered myself and know it is an unpleasant experience. BECAUSE I have suffered myself, I am able to empathize. Helping others by reducing their suffering increases the likelihood that the individual I'm helping will help me if and when I'm in need. Can you empathize with the suffering of others? U have admitted that animal suffering is of no concern to you.
blaisingm 1 month ago
@blaisingm And suffering is just a type of chemical reaction [be it pain, etc] inside the brain, and so it's arbitrary and meaningless. So in your worldview, it's wrong to make certain chemical reactions happen. And so what if, by causing pain to others you increase the amount of happiness in another person, by that person watching them suffer...
Woreyel 1 month ago
@Woreyel "And suffering is just a type of chemical reaction...arbitrary and meaningless"
If you see NO meaning or value in a chemical reaction, then that's your problem and you're obviously not a chemist. Chemical reactions are FAR from meaningless and have great value in the real world I live in. We have identified people who are pleasured by another's suffering to be a mental disorder and obviously cannot be tolerated in a healthy society. Inflicting suffering is difficult to justify.
blaisingm 1 month ago
@Woreyel "causing pain to others you increase the amount of happiness in another person"
Inflicting suffering is VERY difficult to justify as I've described in order to maintain a healthy society. Daracon1010 also struggles with morality. For example, Daracon1010 has no moral objections to the suffering of animals butchered inhumanely for his pleasure. He justifies this behavior and attitude by believing god created animals to butcher for his satisfaction. What do you think?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@Woreyel "chemical reaction [be it pain, etc] inside the brain, and so it's arbitrary and meaningless."
The obvious issue you're struggling with is purpose. Here ur trying to equate science's chemical evaluation of brain activity into something meaningless. Why? Only you know. No reputable scientist, neurologist or any expert of the brain would ever make the claim that the brain's activities are inherently 'meaningless' (unless you can quote someone). Why do you think you do?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@blaisingm You see, it may have appeared that you gave a rational response. And you know what, if you had Biblical Presuppositions, it WOULD have been rational... because God has told us not to harm others. But in YOUR worldview, it makes absolutely no sense.
Do you know why you believe that it's wrong to harm others? Because God has hard-wired into you his moral law. He's given you knowledge of right and wrong that you will know inherently.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daracon1010 "if you had Biblical Presuppositions, it WOULD have been rational... because God has told us not to harm others"
That ALL DEPENDS on what passage you read. There are plenty of sections in the bible where god supports murder. Are you familiar with those sections of the bible? What would you conclude about a society made up of mostly non-christian people? What kind of behavior would you predict given that these people have not properly been taught biblical morality?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@blaisingm "Most" people would agree that morality is tied to suffering. And that's true because "most people believe it"? If most people believed that murder is moral, does that make it right, merely because "most people believe it"?
And no I don't have a problem stepping on rocks, unless of course I don't have shoes on :)
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010 "If most people believed that murder is moral, does that make it right, merely because "most people believe it"?"
If the murder results in massive suffering, then I don't think it's right. Again, it DEPENDS on the circumstances by virtue of it's tie to suffering. You're not concerned about stepping on stones because you have NO reason to suspect the stones suffer when you step on them. If stones could suffer, would you step on them if the bible told you to do so?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@blaisingm No? Then you shouldn't be getting angry when one chemical accident removes another chemical accident. Do you get angry when you see a Lion kill another animal? No you don't?
You see what I did? I highlighted a whopping big inconsistency that you have between your worldview and your actions. You have absolutely no basis for morality, which is the entire point of this argument, and you have no possible way to refute what I'm saying either.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010 "Do you get angry when you see a Lion kill another animal?"
I think most people would feel bad for the other animal killed by the lion. In this example, the animal may suffer. However, an educated person understands that this is necessary if lions (or any top predator) are to survive, and without lions, the ecosystem on the African savanna would be disrupted/unhealthy. Do you have any moral objections to greedily feeding on beef from cow that has been slaughtered?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@blaisingm So you don't get angry when a lion kills another animal. Ok. So you don't get angry when you see that particular chemical accident destroying another chemical accident. However you get angry when another chemical accident (namely, human beings) remove other chemical accidents. Aren't humans just "wild beasts" in your worldview? Isn't that what you said? If that's true, just as you don't get angry at lions for murder - you shouldn't get angry at humans for murder. Yet you do
Daracon1010 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daracon1010 "So you don't get angry when you see that particular chemical accident destroying another chemical accident. "
This whole 'chemical accident' theory of yours is NOT a concept I subscribe too. I'm NOT going to respond to this nonsense you cling to.
"Aren't humans just "wild beasts" in your worldview? "
Sure, people are animals just like any other animal. 1st, I NEVER said I get 'angry' for lions killing prey (I might feel bad for the prey).
blaisingm 1 month ago
@Daracon1010 "Aren't humans just "wild beasts" in your worldview? "
Sure, people are animals just like any other animal. I wouldn't say I get 'angry' when one person murders another person. It COMPLETELY depends on the circumstances. Perhaps it's assisted suicide where a doctor (this happens in Europe) assists the suicide of an individual who is SUFFERING with a lethal injection. I have NO moral objections with this practice. Do you?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@blaisingm Yes, I have a moral objection to "greedily" feeding on beef from cow that has been slaughtered because Proverbs 23:20-21 tells us that gorging on meat is sinful as well as other verses.
I don't however, have any moral objection to eating beef from cows that have been slaughtered. Why? Because God created animals for us to eat.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010 "I don't however, have any moral objection to eating beef from cows that have been slaughtered. Why? Because God created animals for us to eat."
So, if there is evidence that a cow is greatly suffering prior to it's slaughter (or during it's blood letting), then you have no moral objections to its suffering prior to consumption of the cow (because god created cows for people to eat)? I'm just clarifying...
blaisingm 1 month ago
@blaisingm That's correct. Cows were made for eating. That doesn't mean we as individuals need to be excessive because The Bible already talks about gluttony.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010 "That's correct. Cows were made for eating."
Then, in your worldview, suffering has NOTHING to do with morality. If an animal suffers to please you, that's O.K.. You do not concern yourself with the suffering of other animals. Is this accurate?
blaisingm 1 month ago
I wouldn't consider myself a "radical" Christian - merely a Christian who stands upon the authority of the word of God. Atheists cannot account for three important presuppositions. Laws of Logic, Morality, and the Uniformity of Nature. If you cannot account for the first and last, it's literally impossible to prove anything. I can, however, account for those as a Christian, and they make sense in my worldview.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010 "Atheists cannot account for three important presuppositions. Laws of Logic, Morality, and the Uniformity of Nature."
1st, you are an atheists yourself in respect to any religion that is not christianity. If you're going to discuss atheism (or evolution for that matter), it's probably best that you understand them. When does chrisitianity provide insight into 'the uniformity of nature'? Where in the bible is this even mentioned?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@TheRebelOfTyrus It cannot. That's why relative morality (your morality) refutes itself. You cannot account for morality in a naturalistic worldview. Only Biblical presuppositions can account for morality. God deems something to be moral or immoral, and it is so. Why? He created us, and he sets the rules. He is an absolute being, thus his moral law is absolute.
Atheism/Naturalism makes no sense to those who are intellectually honest.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
You present no evidence and conclude such an absolute claim. Nice.
First, we can take the impirical evidence: 'Godless people' are not (generally, we all have psychopaths etc) immoral.
Secondly, your idea focuses on ABSOLUTE morality. Impirically we know that people have different moral standards, which points to a subjective morality.
Thirdly, we observe morals in other animals too.
Lastly, naturalism perfectly accounts for morality as a socio-logical, evolutionary phenomenon.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW I gave lots of evidence. You merely disregarded it because you hate it, and you can't attack it in any possible way.
"impirical evidence"? "immoral"? First of all it's "Empirical" and secondly, Why waste my time when you can't even account for morality in the first place?
I've already discussed absolute morality and relative morality... and I already demonstrated unequivocally that relative morality refutes itself. Come on.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
I account for morality as a social construction (initally evolutionary construction) that aids the survival of the societies of species.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW You need to actually read what I wrote, and try to refute it (obviously you won't be able to). But the point is, you're making statements that prove nothing, because unless you have the very foundation for ANY argument you make on the subject of morality, what kind of effect will your argument have? Absolutely none - that's what.
We observe morality in animals?? Lol. Great example of an arbitrary statement that is impossible to prove.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
No word for this post. Filled with snot arrogance.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW You talk about evidence, but if you actually LOOKED at the evidence, you would see that this isn't true at all. Animals don't have a moral code. They do what they want. If an animal wants to kill another animal, it does it. This is what we actually observe in nature. So clearly, you're wrong.
Oh yeah? "How" does naturalism account for morality as a socio-logical, evolutionary phenomenon? Don't just "tell" me that it does. Stop being arbitrary.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
Morality is a social construction that sets boundaries to animals (human etc). If morality didn't exist (I believe morality, at least basic morality, is an evolutionary trait btw) in animals, they wouldn't survive as for example the predators would kill each other for food source. They don't, usually, which points to a social construction that is, btw, benefitial to the survival of said species.
Ofc, this is a basic moral trait; do not kill you kin, but it sure does exist.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW So let me get this straight, now you're saying that morality is all about survival value. So, if murdering someone and stealing their money without getting caught helps me survive, then it would be a moral action under this definition.
Honestly, how many more ways would you like me to demonstrate to you that your view on morality can be refuted in an instant? In order to argue against the Bible, you have to use Biblical Presuppositions. That won't work.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
Again you spin my words.
I said that basic moral values are needed for the survival OF THE SPECIES. Not the individual.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Oh I don't spin your words. I just give them back to you and show you that they're ridiculous, as if your worldview.
Oh so moral values are needed for the survival of the species and not the individual? Why does that matter? Once an individual dies, that's it - so why should he care about the species? In Christianity, yes we should care about others. We've been called to love others as we love ourselves. But why should a naturalist?
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
... There's a collective wish for animal species (that includes humans too) to secure their own survival. This is necessary because otherwise they wouldn't survive. Unless you're going to tell me you do not believe in evolution, then you should at least agree with me on this one.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW "There's a collective wish for animal species (that includes humans too) to secure their own survival." Do you have any evidence for that arbitrary assertion? More importantly, even if there was, what does that have anything to do with morality?
Of course I don't believe in the religion of evolution or abiogenesis. They're both beliefs that are contrary to the empirical evidence we see today and are highly irrational.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
Okay, I'm done talking to you then. It's impossible to rationalize with someone who does not accept evolution as a credited scientific theory; this explains the rambling you've been keeping up in the rest of your comments. (I personally do not care about abiogenesis, as it is not nearly as certain yet)
"Contrary to the empriical evidence we see today" hahaha, idiocy. Ignoring 150 years of universal scientific consensus just to clinge on to a literal the 'Adam and Eve' belief.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW They defy Information Science. Information cannot spontaneously generate in matter without a sender. We do indeed have genetic information. Not to mention, genetic mutations are inherently "bad". You honestly believe that life arose from non-living chemicals in a hostile environment all on it's own? Scientists can't even create a single cell in a lab under perfect conditions let alone having it happen on it's own, without aid in a hostile environment.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
Evolution by natural selection. The majority of mutations are in fact neutral as they hit the already bloated 'junk DNA'. 'by natural selection' meaning that the negative mutations will be selected away, and the positive mutations will remain and spread in the gene pool.
Evolution does not account for the creation of life. It accounts for the development of life after it appeared, abiogenesis accounts for the other; but I do not take it too seriously yet.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW For example, astronomers can successfully compute the positions of the planets, moons, and asteroids far into the future. Without uniformity in nature, such predictions would be impossible, and science could not exist. The problem for evolutionism is that such regularity only makes sense in a biblical creation worldview. Science Requires a Biblical Worldview
Woreyel 1 month ago
@Woreyel
Sorry, but that is pure bogus and you give no concrete reason as to why evolution is wrong, which it obviously isn't according to what we know, and that "the biblical wordview is the only one that accounts for uniformity in the universe". You give no reason to either of them.
I don't know what you mean about lack of predicability. It is easy to predict evolutionary changes; a species is faced with a survival issue; the species slowly, selectively favours the positive gene pool.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity. Because there is such regularity in the universe, there are many instances where scientists are able to make successful predictions about the future.
Woreyel 1 month ago
@Woreyel
It doesn't necessarily. There are parts of physics (quantum mechanics as an example) where this is not true.
Anyway, I'm not going to discuss with you, as I've just found that you take your
'argument' from Answersingenesis which only a fundamentalist nutjob would do.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW haha that's funny stuff :D, what I mean to say is.. you know you haven't a chance at winning presuppositional arguments, because they're unstoppable. But I know, you're just another materialistic atheist, who's been brainwased into following the evolutionary dogma that all atheists do.
Woreyel 1 month ago
@Woreyel
Is this reality? Is some fundie musician who copy/pastes directly from AIG saying that "You're just another brainwashed materialistic atheist"?
While I do recognize the arrogance and idiocy of people like you, don't you think it's a bit over your head to try to take the 'high ground' when being shot down on your first post?
Evolutionary dogma... So every single credible scientist in the field of biology is a brainwashed, dogmatic atheist in a giant conspiracy? Funny.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 Corinthians 2:14 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" so yes. But you see, I AM a Christian and so I can account for the preconditions of intelligibility e.g morality, logical, nature, etc. I acknowledge that people aren't just chemical accidents, but people indeed have a soul, a supernatural part to themselves.
Woreyel 1 month ago
@Woreyel
Oh, I could also create a random selection of mythical creatures and claim that I have an explaination for everything. That does, however, not prove anything.
And I easily accounted for everything you're talking about in my earlier posts on this video. Needless to say, I'm not going to waste my time with a bible-thumbing christian fundie who seems to copy/paste from shitty websites and site bible passages despite me not giving a flying shit.
Learn to create an argument your self.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@Woreyel "there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity"
Absolutely. The laws under which the universe functions are indeed the foundation of every believe. The perception of the law(s) we are bound to obey is always present. And that is why people are so easy to persuade into some "believe system". "Biblical worldview" ist just another word for "childish worldview" where facts are mixed with fantasy, garnished with wild conclusions.
Repulver 1 month ago
@Repulver So here is your atheistic worldview dumbed down, "God seems to be in complete control of things, but I wanna life live my own way, so stuff God, and so therefore I don't want to believe in God, so if he's not real I have no one to be accountable for when I die. Screw you God!!" That's the extent of your reason behind your worldview.
Woreyel 1 month ago
@Repulver If you believe that God does not exist - that is religious believe. The conclusion is inescapable. You are either agnostic, or a religious atheist. Your belief system is that there is no God, and if you're not comfortable with that, your only alternative is the agnostic worldview. Even when you are asked questions like "what created the universe" you'll say "I don't know, but I believe it wasn't God".
Woreyel 1 month ago
@Woreyel "If you believe that God does not exist"
I do not believe, i know for certain that god exists. I can see it every day. God is the law, which we have to obey, whether we believe or not. Therefore, if you know the law, you can live your live accordingly. If you do wrong things you will pay, if you do the right things you'll reap the rewards. These things are part of my everyday live. There is a path that leads to less pain and a path that leads to more pain, it's up to you..
Repulver 1 month ago
@Repulver okay.....
Woreyel 1 month ago
@Repulver dude seriously, you know your just feeding the troll. :P
Dominus420eh 1 month ago
@Repulver Does it make you feel good, give-the-finger to the Christian faith? I bet it does. As soon as you say childish worldview, I knew you're fill with your own philosophical biased prejudice against "religion". Yet I must point out to you that even your atheistic worldview, IS a religious faith.
Woreyel 1 month ago
@Woreyel Atheism is a lack of religion... It's basing your knowledge off of scientific facts that can be replicated and proven, not the rantings of a 2000 year old carpenter who we have no historical evidence proving he existed. If atheism is a religion, OFF is a TV channel, sleeping is a running speed, and abstinence is a sex position.
Quizlyxorquizzles1 4 weeks ago 25
@Quizlyxorquizzles1 Atheism is not a lack of religion. Its a lack of belief in supernatural deities. There are religions in the world that not only allow atheist branches (i.e. Hinduism) but also some can be based entirely on atheistic principales. Also there could be atheist who don't agree with any scientic facts at all.
Windrake101 3 weeks ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Every single thing that you've said regarding morality can ONLY work in the Christian worldview. There is no other way to account for it. You act as if you care about other people - and that's a good thing. It's good because God told us to love others. The thing is however, if Christianity weren't true, you would have absolutely no reason to believe this. No reason to believe in right or wrong at all. A naturalist can't even know what right or wrong ARE.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
You're being willfully ignorant. I'm a human; a social animal. Morality is vital for social animals; I have morals. My morals are not the same as your morals; therefore morality is subjective.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW How am I being willfully ignorant? I'm simply laying out the facts. You have morals? How do you know if those morals are correct?
Having different morals to me doesn't mean that morality is subjective, it merely means that one of us is wrong in what we consider to be moral, as morality cannot be relative since relative morality refutes itself. I've proven and demonstrated this dozens of times and cannot be refuted.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010 "Animals don't have a moral code. They do what they want. If an animal wants to kill another animal, it does it. This is what we actually observe in nature."
There is overwhelming evidence that animals have a 'moral code' (Many care about their kind and try to reduce suffering). By far, the most cruel animal of all (that kills and slaughters for nothing more than the pleasure of killing) are humans. What evidence would have to exist to prove to you that animals are moral?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
We can go on. You make another ridiculous claim "only biblical presuppositions can account for morality.". This is without any evidence and ignores every other religious (and non-religious) moral code in the world. Which is why I'm going to presume you're a rather radical christian to make such a claim.
We can take it a step further and attack 'god's' morality. For one thing, it wouldn't really be moral for us nowadays to stone our children to death for disobeying. *smiley-face*
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Of course only Biblical presuppositions can account for morality. All other worldviews refute themselves. Empiricism refutes itself, relativism refutes itself... and I can demonstrate that very easily for you if you like.
Islam refutes itself as well through it's contradictory content. Of course I ignore every other moral code in the world. Why? Because relative morality refutes itself. Look below and you'll see that I proved that unequivocally.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
Empiricism, the idea that knowledge can be derived from experience, refutes itself? Relativism refutes itself? That is intellectually dishonest and directly stupid.
And islam is contradictory but not the bible? The bible is the most cherry-picked, contradictory collection of 'holy' texts in the world..
You ignore the other moral codes; whom could be just as valid as yours, because you disagree with subjective morality, that of which they portray. Again, intellectually dishonest.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Empiricism states that knowledge can ONLY be derived through empirical observation.
Take the statement "All truth claims are answered through empirical observation". How do you even know that the statement itself is true? Did you observe that through empirical observation? No, you didn't - and you cannot. You can't see a truth claim because they're abstract. So empiricism should be rejected by it's own standard. Empiricism refutes itself.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
I'm not talking about empiricism as a concept. I'm talking about EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. The idea that we can conclude something from experience.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Ahem... "I" was the one who said that empiricism and relativism refute themselves, and I was the one who brought them up - not you. So what you're referring to is irrelevant.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
No, you responded to a post of mine where I talked about empirical evidence and relative morality. In your reponse you said "Relativism refutes itself. Empiricism refutes itself."
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW And relativism is the belief that everything is relative and there are no absolutes. So the question I ask to the relativist is this; "are you absolutely certain that there are no absolutes?" If he says "yes", he's just refuted himself, because he made an absolute statement, proving that absolutes do exist, and if he says no, he's also refuted himself because he doesn't even believe his own position.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
Again, I'm not talking about RELATIVISM as the entire philosophy. Gosh.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW I could go on... but the point is, ALL other worldviews apart from the Biblical worldview are ultimately irrational. They might have pockets of rationality in them, but "ultimately" they're irrational.
I ignore other moral codes because they're man-made and relative. This can be demonstrated theologically. For example, theology is used to demonstrate where and how islam refutes itself through its contradictions.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW First of all, Christians live under the New Testament now - that means that the penalty for any sin has been paid for through Jesus Christ.
Oh, stoning children to death wouldn't be moral? Why? In your naturalistic worldview, humans are nothing more than chemical accidents. So why would it be wrong to throw stones at a chemical accident? Seriously - everything you said has been arbitrary. Back up what you say and give me some answers.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
Actually no. Objectively we mean nothing (seen from a universal view) but these 'chemical accidents' (as you so dreadfully expressed) that we are mean a lot to society and its individuals. Therefore it is immoral to society and its individuals to stone children like it says in the old testament (another thing is, even though you like cherrypicking, Jesus never abolishes the old testament laws). Stoning children is obviously not objectively immoral, as the OT seems to agree with it
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW I'm glad you can finally admit that. You can actually admit that in your own worldview, human beings objectively mean nothing. So objectively, there would be nothing wrong with removing chemical accidents from the planet, since they mean nothing.
It's objective to society? You just said that society means nothing. So why should anyone care what society thinks, considering that they mean nothing?
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
You're spinning my words. Dirty arguing isn't exactly what I'd prefer we were going to be doing.
Objectively TO THE UNIVERSE we do not mean anything in the bigger picture. We're lifeforms on a tiny, tiny planet in an almost endless space filled with planets and stars a billion times larger than we are. The universe itself doesn't care; it is not sentient. WE care, therefore WE use morals. Society needs moral values to survive. But these moral values are not objective; they vary.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW I'm already well aware that objectively you mean nothing to the universe. That's an inescapable fact that devastates your case. Why? Because if morality is up to your subjective, relative arbitrary whims then anyone can decide what morality is.
Society needs moral values to survive? In a random-chance Godless universe, why does a society's survival matter? They're just accidents anyway.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
There is no meaning to life as far as we know. There, your question answered. Meaning is a human made concept that we clinge to; but universally there is no meaning with anything.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Yes there is meaning to life. Christians "know" it. A naturalist says that there is no meaning to life, purely because there "can't" be any meaning to his life given his presuppositions and worldview. I certainly know what the meaning of life is, and my Biblical presuppositions make that possible since only Biblical presuppositions provide the preconditions for the intelligibility of man's reasoning and experiences.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Jesus certainly did abolish the Old Testament. How did he do this? He gave new laws in the place of the old ones, and Hebrews 8:13 says the old covenant no longer applies explicitly.
Hebrews 8:13 "By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."
Not to mention the OT was given specifically to the Jews in the first place. Am I cherry picking too much for you? lol.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010
Jesus also personally said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Which brings me again to question why you're so obsessed about the contradictions in the Qur'an but not in your own, very contradictory, holy book.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Yes, that's right. Jesus Christ didn't abolish the Law, he amended it and made it even tougher, then fulfilled the law by sacrificing himself in our place on the cross so that we may be set free from sin and no longer have to pay the price for sin when we repent and put our faith in him.
There are no contradictions in the Bible. I have seen every "supposed" contradiction, and let me tell you - the only contradiction is in your mind.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW If you want to look up explanations for the so-called "contradictions" of the Bible, it only takes a minute. After reading them you'll say "ohh I see what it's talking about now. Yeah, that's not a contradiction".
Lol dirty arguing? How is showing you what you believe "dirty arguing"? I'm just reflecting your own philosophy back to you and showing you that it's irrational.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010 "So why would it be wrong to throw stones at a chemical accident?"
There are many possible answers to this question. However, let's first look at the presupposition that people = chemical accidents. What naturalist or scientist has drawn this conclusion that people = chemical accidents? You obviously have, but who else does this?
"Islam refutes itself as well through it's contradictory content."
Are you suggesting that christianity is devoid of contradiction?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@blaisingm Some Naturalists don't like to admit that people are nothing more than chemical accidents, although plenty do. The reason they don't is because it highlights an inconsistency in their beliefs and their behaviour. They believe that human beings are just chemical accidents that are the result of a random-chance big bang... yet when they go home and hug their kids, they act as if their children are "more" than just chemical accidents.
Daracon1010 1 month ago
@Daracon1010 "Some Naturalists don't like to admit that people are nothing more than chemical accidents, although plenty do. "
Hummm... that's interesting that 'immoral' naturalists have problems admitting that people are "chemical accidents". Rather than dishonestly putting words into someone's mouth, why don't you cite a scientist or credible naturalist who ACTUALLY says this?? The only person who seems to think this is YOU. Until you can show otherwise, these thoughts r ur own.
blaisingm 1 month ago
@blaisingm I talk to naturalists who admit that people are just chemical accidents here on youtube all the time. Why does it have to be a "scientist"? What difference does that make?
You'll just have to take my word on that, but it doesn't really make any difference anyway.
Daracon1010 1 month ago