There are three models of Government competing for world domination:
(1) Communist / atheist: where government officials decide and dole out your temporal rights if any
(2) Sharia Law: where the Qu'ron governs
(3) Judeo-Christian model, where God grants our rights & liberties and THEREFORE they are unalienable, power resides in we the people, we are sovereign and the government is our servant.
I love this guy! But what defines morals and ethics is the definition between good and bad, which is learnt as a child, Morals and ethics are values within a society, not religion, we know what causes pain and what doesn't. We know the difference between commiting a crime and not. YOU DO NOT need a god to tell you this, if you do then im afraid your an idiot.
morality comes from nature.a just society of positive collective interests.a child is morally sound until he/she is indoctrinated unjustly.morality is born from abundance.positive collectives are shaped from abundance,not scarcity.capitalism,for example, is the political management of scarcity .scarcity breeds immorality.
You get you're morals from you're self. Only you decide what you think is morally good and bad. And what creates the morals you've gotten through you're life? Experience and genes. Experience is all our pattern searching brain are about, and genes control a wide specter of things that might influence what morals we obtain. When it all comes down to it, we create our own morals. Everyone have different morals, and everyone chose what morals they think do good, and what they think is harmful.
Morality comes from god? They take their morality from a book that preaches genocide and bigotry. Even IF I had no morals whatsoever they would still be more substantial, even in their absence, than the fake morality preached by the ignorant religious masses. The categorical imperative can provide a logical basis for morality. There are other attempts to explain morality in terms of biology. However, what cannot explain morality properly is religion because it is hypocritical to the marrow.
Good point PFUNK1. Many of the arguments I hear tend to search for an "I don't know". That's usually the point at which the Theist will inject the necesity of the existence of a God. It seems they can't continue without an answer. It's almost as though there are no unknowns allowed.
hahahha 'we get our morales from the bible' what about all the people in the hood who rape murder and steal who are so devouted on jesus and god yea good morales
What would the world be like if people only thought of themselves? If they just took whatever they wanted? What kind of life would that be? How would you feel about others? ....
Then try switching that idea around. What would the world be like if people were thoughtful of others?
Hey, I'm not the atheist walking but I am an atheist and I do have an opinion. I dont think this guys explanation was very well. I dont think that anybody, theist or atheist, gets their morals from god. we get them from the basic learning of the society around us which tells us what is acceptable and what isn't. I learned my morales from my parents, also atheists, who taught me that steeling, lying, and adultery was wrong. god had nothing to do with it.
What a great idea! If someone opposes you, kill them! I mean, I think all christians know god does not like people to think for themselves. You must believe, period. No thought provoking questions aloud. That's the only intelligent way to live.
What a great idea! If someone opposes you, kill them! I mean, I think all christians know god does not like people to think for themselves. You must believe, period. No thought provoking questions aloud. That's the only intelligent way to live.
how in the world do we get our morals from science we get our morals from what we, as individuals, think is right if you are going about it the scientific way then Hitler would have been right by killing of the weak(talking about the mentally retarded not those with faith in Judaism) so the strong could survive... you talk about morals yet you attack theist which in terms of morals such as "do unto others..." you are giving them a reason to attack you as well
Way to straw man, rabidmonk. It's not about survival on an individual basis, it's not about survival on a purely communistic/collectivist basis, it's about a balance of both of those. Survival for our species and survival for ourselves as individuals stems from the selfish and altruism genes.
Although I believe in the constitutional right of freedom of religion and the freedom to have non at all, I don't understand why they feel the need to have a shirt that says "atheist walking" and feel as though they are SO HIGHLY THREATENED! There are many religions in this country, but you don't see Muslims and Jews wearing shirts like: I'm A MUSLIM accept me, or Jews Walking. If you are protected under the constitution, why must there be this "atheist uprising" so to speak?
@LiLxGHiT369: Yeah, having a shirt with "Atheist" written on it is just too much...just like wearing a cross, putting a Jesus fish on your car, wearing a headscarf, wearing a Jewish cap, and other such things. Oh, but those things aren't bad supposedly, I forgot...
This homo needs to get off the crack, and stop putting videos of his ass talking to the T.V. Very intelligent btw! I'm sure the the T.V. and God is listening and certainly hear you.
Testify my brother...testify up in here...can I get an amen for Mr. Dawkins...say it with me now: Thank god I'm an atheist...say it loud, say it proud...let 'em hear you in Rome...let 'em hear you in Jerusalem...Mecca, we're talkin' to you baaaaaaaabbbbyyyyyy...Yeeesssssss...I'm feelin' you, my brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People are always talking about theres a God and they have absolutely no proof whatsoever all they do is refer to the Bible that has been twisted is translated so much it not funny,They always say they believe in God and Jesus but they treat each other like absolute shit thats white people and black people and everybody in between American people really have it bad and they are the most hypocritical people on the fuckin planet
I know this is quite old but I want to answer the 'where do you get your morals?' question. Your answer was good but very abstract.
Here's what I think:
Why have we as a species survived? We're not the fastest or the strongest. We can't easily catch food on our own. Stoneage man didn't catch wolly mammoths on his own, he caught them because he could work together. Those people who could not work together went hungry (and eventually died) so the trait of working together is passed on.
This is the basis of our morality. We need other people, we need to rely on other people so we respect them.
As a species we also have empathy. We can see when someone else is in pain (physically or emotionally) we can put ourselves in the place of others. I'd never steal because I can imagine what it's like to be stolen from and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. I wouldn't kill someone because I don't want people to kill me.
Good video. I LOVED your explanation of morals. I often use a similar arguement, only I use society as where we get our morals. It is to further our society (and thus our existance) that we get our morals from.
some will show you the large body of evidence and theory as part of the framework of science, science,which in turn is THE enabler for ALL technology that you see around (hmm sounds like?).
Other will tell you that they solved the question by creating something else ...
You prove it, your own faith is based on assumptions.
Einstein's Quantum physics, General Relativity proven calculations of an expanding universe, so why would eternity need to expand? They prove a beginning...wait that scientific evidence, not religious dogma. Oh, so you know have to prove Einstein's quantum physic incorrect.
People are intolerant of atheists because of people like you. You're too fucking empty headed and ebonic to see the evidence for existence of god all around you. Get a job you welfare hoarding porch monkey.
now i'm watchin gthis nigger watch tv , what the fuck , some one stop this nigger before its to late, ahhhh, its too late , he bored the shit out of me
theres no need to take God out of any of the American ways. Such as the pledge etc. No one is forced at school to stand up and say the pledge or forced to pray. Its just Atheist's making a big deal out of nothing. <--I said it. get over it. You hide behind the easiest way out of things because you dont like not knowing for sure. but whose fault is it that YOU dont know for sure? YOU. The lazy way out would be Atheism. Your scared of the thought of something being superior to you. The end.
if you exchange the word GOD for "allah" or "dagna" or "atlas" or "eshu" or "raven" or "poseidon" i wonder how you would feel if everyone in your school prayed to Zues? and kids are singled out by christians if they dont subscribe to their religious beliefs. religion has no place in school. its devisive and its irrelevant to getting an education.
and why would u trust a christian more than an atheist. A lot of atheists seem like highly intelligent rational people. If you were in a burning building, would you a Christian praying to god or an atheist trying o find a way out?
all I have to say is the bible teaches us that we came from incest...If I remember the bible correctly Adam and Eve had two sons...Cain and Abel....so how did they procreate? that goes against science!
Are you saying that god was imposed on us? BY WHO!! How can God be imposed if you believe of science. I don't understand why someone who calls themselves atheist even cares that other people believe of God. It is stated by an atheist in the video that without the thought of God we could live a better life, with more freedom. What really dose that mean. So you can have sex out of marriage. Who cares really, God doesn't care. He wants a relation ship of honor, trust, and faithfulness.
As time is now going on, science is learning that sex with everyone, whenever it feels good, is not a good thing. Everywhere you look, disease lurks. I would be pissed at science now. If you look at it, it sure goes had and hand with "The will of God". You keep the fight going, because you are following the "Will of God" fulfilling prophesy. The Bible is meant to bring up questions, because they are all directed towards God. Your questions are directed towards the universe...
She should've just came out and told him that mans morals evolved from our desire to survive. Our morals have evolved past biblical rules. Ask that preacher if he thinks its okay to sell his daughter into slavery.
There is also no testable evidence that evolution did not require a schism from nomadic space frogs, either. But that, at least, is falsifiable.
The existence of a designer as described by theistic religions is not a falsifiable hypothesis. It is a purely philosophical matter, just as fate/destiny, and is unmanageable in the scientific method, the search for knowledge. Religion proclaims truth by faith without question while science continuously searches for it.
1 Peter 3:15 "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."
You can't get intelligence from unitelligence. This is an uncontradicted fact that is always useful for predictions. Thus, intelligent life must have been created and evolution could have been the process God used.
"...and evolution could have been the process God used.". So you reject the story of creation as told in the Bible? If the book that is the basis of your religion can be cherry picked for good ideas while you ignore that which is either horrifying (there's a lot of that) or proven wrong, then why have the book at all? All religions and cultures have the same basic humanistic beliefs - they do not come from a book.
The Genesis story of creation does not exclude evolution. There is no way to tie an eternal God's work to any specific human timeframe. Six days is just as valid as 15 billion years. Genesis says "Let the land produce", implying evolution. The word "bara'" is used in Genesis 1:1 for the big bang and creation of the heavenly lights.
Oh, of course. The Bible is not meant to be taken *literally*; it uses allegory and symbolism to convey a deeper meaning! It is not the book that is wrong - it is the evidence. Or maybe my misunderstanding of the Bibles may versions and interpretations? Silly me.
This (combined with the systematic ignoring all the bad parts of the Bible) and you have a document that is *never* wrong. Oh look, that's exactly what's happened.
The literal parts you take literally, the allegory you take like allegory. It's not that difficult.
The Bible is more historically reliable than any ancient secular or religious text. The bad parts are just history. The Bible does not exclude the bad just to make it appear like a "holy book".
Your Bible must be different from the four versions I have. None of mine have highlights, foot notes or even different fonts to denote which parts are which. The interpretation is performed by the reader according to their innate moral principles - these we all have regardless of which religion (if indeed you have one), culture or race we belong to.
This was not always the case. Once upon a time, if you recall, religion was intent on searching for the truth, not assuming ancient fiction as its truth. It was early science, before the scientific method developed. Science as we know it today has continued that evolution of ideas in the search for truth, while religion as we know it today is simply stuck with unquestionable dogma.
Modern scientists rest on Bible believing Christians. Where's the blind faith and dogma?! Fancis Bacon: scientific method Galileo Galilei: astronomy Descartes: philosophy Robert Boyle: chemistry Niels Seno: geology Isaac Newton: physics Leonhard Euler: mathematician John Dalton: atomic theory Gregor Mendel: genetics James Maxwell: physics Louis Pasteur: medicine Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg: Quantum Theory etc.
You falsly imply that Christians are dogmatic with blind faith when that is not generally true. There are some dogmatic examples in any belief including atheism.
The Bible has inspired a lot of great science, but you can always find a few examples where a few religious leaders didn't follow good science. However, none of the false religious beliefs in the past, by a few religious leaders, about science are actually found in the Bible.
By the way, however, I hardly intended to imply only Christianity, but rather how the basis of religion lay in attempting to understand the world and the events connected to it. I don't see that in the most well-established religions today -- the progressively-minded individuals therein are, of course, another matter, yet I gather that they remain a minority, though a significant one.
The testable evidence you claim exists for a designer guiding evolution, does not. Rather, there are philosophical analogies, such as the man-made watch analogy which you probably know. You may interpret analogies as evidence, if you wish, but you will be digging yourself quite an abyss.
Evolution and time is the designer of life. The environment causes the organism to adapt through systematic pressure on the organism's survival. "unintelligence" can do amazing things like create humans.
Predictions in evolution are about what we will find through DNA analysis and the fossil record. Aka Testable predictions
You miss the point of the watchmaker analogy which was to illustrate how subtle, intricate and complex things *can* arise from incremental steps in evolution if given enough time. All the evidence reinforces this point of view. The "watch" was not designed, it did not "spring into being" and has no designer.
Printing presses to not have sex with each other, so are incapable of evolution. Your theory of intelligent design ignores all the bad design decisions in living things, and all the inanimate matter in the universe.
If all intelligent things require a designer then who designed God? If the answer is "God was always there", then why not just say "the universe was always here" and do away with the God concept? How can you tell the difference between an eternal universe to one created by a God?
If everthing requires a begining, then who created God. If God can be eternal, then why can't the universe? How can you tell the difference between an eternal universe to one created by a God? Without evidence to suppport your God hypothesis, I will apply Occams razor and go with the explanation that makes the fewer assumptions - the universe is eternal, there is no God.
I would think morals don't come from science, but rather evolution. Now as far as I know its only a theory but it makes sense. A human is nothing on his own, but with his\her social group around them they have a better chance at survival. This morals are from and for social behaviors to be a part of a collective to survive.
Btw, for an excellent explanation on the origin of human morals, read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion". Fantastic book. Well worth the time. PLEEEEEASE AMERICA, PLEEEEASE WAKE UP!
"militant" while technically correct potrays a contextally incorrect view. Pfunk, man you've got the right idea. Forget the rest of the world though, the rest of the western nations are way beyond America as far as the atheist drift is concerned and the middle east is too far gone on the other end of the spectrum to worry about. Keep up the intelligent fight brother!
i am from the uk, which i have heard described as a post-religion society, because obviously religion is either dying out or has died out among the young majority over here. as such, i was shocked at the american attitude towards athiesm! shocked! ps- p funk makes some great points about evidence, beginning of the universe and the point where there are no answers.
The testable facts prove that every process requires a designer and every law requires a lawmaker, unless you believe in elves on the North Pole. This has neer been contradicted and it is always useful for predictions. Thus the process of evolution and the laws of nature require a designer.
It looks like in the UK you are getting more atheistic lies and propaganda.
Darwin said: "...we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator," (Origin of Species, p462)
Then why are you assholes trying to get intelligent design taught in our schools? Why do religious people reject evolution? I don't think he believed in a creator later on in his life.
I hate it when they call us atheists "militant" were is this atheist military? I don't see one. Where is my gun? How am I taking peoples rights, let alone taking them with violent force. God that pisses me off.
Yes, the term "militant" does have those implications, however, in contemporary society the term has been broadened to include any political activist who states his/her POV in a strong and uncomprimising manner.
Fuck religion, I'm too smart for that bullshit. There are so many ignorant people that buy into it, and it pisses me off because its fucking up the world.
Notice that the young white christian male that used the term "militant atheist", uses the same argument that was used against blacks, latinos, and feminist.
If one advocates strongly and publicly for a cause, then they become a threatening element. Salaam.
PFUNK, what is the testable evidence that the process of evolution was not invented? There is NONE!
In fact, there is no process that exists that has a shred of testable evidence showing that it was not invented by somebody. Every process, including evolution, must have a creator, unless you live by blind faith. Listen to Darwin...
Darwin said: "...we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator," (Origin of Species, p462)
In Darwins time, non-belief was punishable by death. There is tons of valiable, testable evidence for evolution. As time has gone on we have continued to discover legitimate evidence for evolution.
I said evolution was created. Testable evidence proves that every process or law that exists was intelligently created. This has never been contradicted and is always useful for predictions. Thus, the facts prove that every process, including evolution, must have a creator, unless you live by blind faith. Listen to Darwin...
Darwin said: "...we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator," (Origin of Species, p462)
God is eternal. Eternity means NO BEGINNING and no end. God is outside of time and causality so God was uniquely not created.
The testable facts prove that every law, process or machine requires a creator. This is unrefuted and is always useful for predictions. Thus the facts prove that the process of evolution was created!
You have blind faith if you don't go by the facts.
This shows that Dawkins is feeding you false arguments that will only embarrass you!
evolution occured naturally through genetics and survival of the fittest, so i guess you could say that the creators were the organisms themselves that had unique traits that allowed them to survive longer than the rest of their species
The testable facts prove that every law, process or machine requires a creator. This is unrefuted and is always useful for predictions. Thus the facts prove that the process of evolution was created!
You have blind faith if you don't go by the facts.
oohh good point "The testable facts prove that every law, process or machine requires a creator" all things man made pal so who made who? therefor you have no facts yours is the blind faith!in a book that man made
all things have beginnings and ends saying God was uniquely not created is so much blind faith.
What facts do you have that the flying pink unicorn doesn't exist?
Moron. Hypocrite.
We, unlike you, do not have stupid, blind fiath in things like God or Darwin. WE THINK. So stop appealing to authority, you lying piece of human trash.
I want to be an atheist: When you said to me "you lying piece of human trash" is really touched my heart in a deep way ;-)
Look, the testable facts prove that every process requires a designer and every law requires a lawmaker, unless you believe in elves on the North Pole. Thus the process of evolution and the laws of nature require a designer.
The facts are on my side. You blindly believe in contradiction to the facts.
equalsexes, your arguments only hold water in a sea of ignorance. its obvious that you havent given much thought to what you actually believe but rather learning how to defend and navigate the obvious pitfalls of your case.
Atheism is ignorance... A newborn baby is the perfect atheist. No thought is required to be an atheist. Belief in atheism is belief in the unprovable by definition.
"The testable facts prove that every process requires a designer and every law requires a lawmaker"God is eternal. Eternity means NO BEGINNING and no end. God is outside of time and causality so God was uniquely not created." -equalsexes
lol you guys crack me up. if god can "uniquely not be created", why can't the universe uniquely not be created.
Dawkins says Christianity has "not a shred of evidence"? There is tons of archaeological and corroborating evidence for the Bible. The Bible is taught as literature or history in every college and universary.
Nicely done . . . I know I was getting greatly annoyed by the dude trying to state that he's more ethical by his fear of the omnipresent security camera in the sky. And what a lame-duck attempt to try and cloud the catholic lol stigma by conveniently grouping xians together. Strange how quickly their tune changes once they enter their church of choice.
pretty good video, I enjoyed your thoughts and reactions. I was a bit disappointed with CNN again, but at least they were a little more fair this time.
I know I'm more moral than a lot of deeply religious christians. I like to call my self agnostic, but I have no belief whatsoever that we are moral because god teaches that or they come from him. It's easy to call that BS. Also don't forget the social contract.
I know I'm more moral than a lot of deeply religious christians. I like to call my self agnostic, but I have no belief whatsoever that we are moral because god teaches that or they come from him. It's easy to call that BS. Also don't forget the social contract.
I found this video quite confusing: people on tv talking and you too talking at the same time...well, it wasn't easy to follow the discussion. Anyway it was entertaining to see your reactions "live"!
However, I don't agree with you on morality: I think morality and science are two different instruments that we use to cohexist pacifically and to allow the continuation of life.
I love your videos, and I love your passion. But I have to disagree with you on the ethics thing. I think atheists get their ethics from reason and empathy. Science is a result of that reason.
A mild differentiation, but I know where you're coming from. You should be an atheist preacher.
POWER is the result of science. What we do with that power is based on our morals/ethics. For instance, scientists built the atomic bomb, but does science tell you how to use it? No, societal factors do. Science is only a means of attaining informantion, what we do with that info comes from our morals. Don't get me wrong, I think you make great points in all of your videos about how theism is just plain irrational.
hmmmmm good point. i like the question, but it doesnt say where morals come from, and im not challenging you on that. i agree morals and science are separate, but morals come from experience and data.
i like individual scenarios to test this idea like the atomic bomb question. "morals tell us how to use it." true, but morals still come from experience and data- and the best data of experience we have is a science of somekind. be it social sciences or even human experience.
Personally I don't believe that we can or should derive morals from science, as our evolutionary history is full of male-bonded violence and retaliational bargaining, though speculative sciences (read: philosophy) have made some way to give a "grounding" for ethics.
But I also believe that all the basis *I* need to be moral is to assume that I'll be treated as the person I appear to be to others, and as I like to be treated like a nice guy, I try to be that nice guy.
some "mother's wit" and things life has learned in our evolution is a form of science and research, cause its based on actual trial and error.
in the book DIANETICS, they say that if a man is presented with the proper data where he can see the situation clearly- without false fear or unwarranted prejudices, that he will ALWAYS make the best decision for all involved. not saying im a SCIENTOLOGIST, but i liked and remember that point...
also factor in empathy in the atomic bomb scenario.
Eh, well it's not enough to get in a heated debate though, but a sense of reason, rational thinking, and a little curiosity is necessary before science can be applied as a discipline. If you look at history and how the sciences developed, you'll see that reason had to be present in the mind of the scientist first. Science is based on reason, not the other way around.
Reason is from God. You can't get reason from non-reason, that is a testable fact that is always useful for predictions. You have no testable evidence to prove your beliefs.
I agree with you totally. We are moral because we gain more individually from living moral lives than disrespecting one another. There's no need for a book or a fear of punishment in some nonexistant afterlife. It always gets me that theists (especially xtians) can't see this!
Militant would be if I went to school with a gun and told them to shut the fuck up about god and to take god off of our money. But I am nice, So i tell them to please keep god out of schools and off of our money
the best way to attack the "no morals" claim is by turning the question back on theist. Is your "holy book" the thing that stops you from killing me? You don't commit crimes out of fear of hell? You do good because of claims of heaven? I don't need those "motivations".
I totally respect that line of answer. I agree that it is a better answer *IF* you have time to properly layout the theory of the selfish gene or altruism. In this sound-byte format debate done on cnn, an offensive is the best defensive. In my opinion, of course.
Well, the problem here is that the question "Where do you get your morals from?" is totally dishonest. The guy does not want a lecture in cultural formation of morals on the base of biological disposition of humankind, though this would be necessary.
He just wants to claim that atheists have no morals. But this is obviously counterfactual since neither the atheist woman, nor the family nor Dawkins behave very evil. So he tries to hide his defamation in a rhetorical question.
This has been flagged as spam show
There are three models of Government competing for world domination:
(1) Communist / atheist: where government officials decide and dole out your temporal rights if any
(2) Sharia Law: where the Qu'ron governs
(3) Judeo-Christian model, where God grants our rights & liberties and THEREFORE they are unalienable, power resides in we the people, we are sovereign and the government is our servant.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
I love this guy! But what defines morals and ethics is the definition between good and bad, which is learnt as a child, Morals and ethics are values within a society, not religion, we know what causes pain and what doesn't. We know the difference between commiting a crime and not. YOU DO NOT need a god to tell you this, if you do then im afraid your an idiot.
Awsomo666 1 year ago
Beautifully done. Thank you.
4wings2fly 2 years ago
morality comes from nature.a just society of positive collective interests.a child is morally sound until he/she is indoctrinated unjustly.morality is born from abundance.positive collectives are shaped from abundance,not scarcity.capitalism,for example, is the political management of scarcity .scarcity breeds immorality.
CheBrigade 2 years ago
In this new age religion is about done!
marantzo69 2 years ago
Hugs from Brazil man!!! =)
callac 2 years ago
Atheists FTW!!
ArrogantAtheist 2 years ago 2
You get you're morals from you're self. Only you decide what you think is morally good and bad. And what creates the morals you've gotten through you're life? Experience and genes. Experience is all our pattern searching brain are about, and genes control a wide specter of things that might influence what morals we obtain. When it all comes down to it, we create our own morals. Everyone have different morals, and everyone chose what morals they think do good, and what they think is harmful.
fuunguus 2 years ago
PFunk
I like your style. You're a good man. Keep up the good fight.
clearvision12 3 years ago
LOL I sound a lot like you (well female version lol) when I watch clips like this here on youtube.
My husband probably thinks I'm nuts for yelling "shut the fuck up" at my computer. haha
ScaperSteph 3 years ago
I wish you can go to CNN :D
"Don't take no shit from that black man" lmao
PreparationH 3 years ago 2
Morality comes from god? They take their morality from a book that preaches genocide and bigotry. Even IF I had no morals whatsoever they would still be more substantial, even in their absence, than the fake morality preached by the ignorant religious masses. The categorical imperative can provide a logical basis for morality. There are other attempts to explain morality in terms of biology. However, what cannot explain morality properly is religion because it is hypocritical to the marrow.
Yeremita 3 years ago 2
jeez, they sound like Fox when it comes to atheism...I would have expected more from CNN
nerdelicious5 3 years ago 6
you are an amazing man p funk!!! great vid...
acurafanatic001 3 years ago
Good point PFUNK1. Many of the arguments I hear tend to search for an "I don't know". That's usually the point at which the Theist will inject the necesity of the existence of a God. It seems they can't continue without an answer. It's almost as though there are no unknowns allowed.
RichardRoy2 3 years ago 2
hahahha 'we get our morales from the bible' what about all the people in the hood who rape murder and steal who are so devouted on jesus and god yea good morales
andrewstubeaccount 3 years ago
i bet they scared to put PFUNK on the air...let him speak.
scgoquj86 3 years ago 4
Very interesting.
I have a question I would like to propose to you.
What would the world be like if people only thought of themselves? If they just took whatever they wanted? What kind of life would that be? How would you feel about others? ....
Then try switching that idea around. What would the world be like if people were thoughtful of others?
jlburnitt 4 years ago
So, if I dont believe in God I think killing is ok?
Mossasan 4 years ago
I'm an atheist. God is irrelevant.
This is a thought exercise to try to get a different perspective of life.
jlburnitt 4 years ago
Hey, I'm not the atheist walking but I am an atheist and I do have an opinion. I dont think this guys explanation was very well. I dont think that anybody, theist or atheist, gets their morals from god. we get them from the basic learning of the society around us which tells us what is acceptable and what isn't. I learned my morales from my parents, also atheists, who taught me that steeling, lying, and adultery was wrong. god had nothing to do with it.
winbergmitchell 3 years ago
Morals from science???
Moral comes from our upbringing, and from debates with other people. Watch the clip named; Richard Dawkins - The Shifting Moral Zeitgeist
Anarkokommunist 4 years ago
DollfaceHottie sounds like an upstanding member of a strictly religious family. May her message of peace reach the masses.
Darkbison7 4 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Kill the walking atheist!
DollFaceHottie 4 years ago
What a great idea! If someone opposes you, kill them! I mean, I think all christians know god does not like people to think for themselves. You must believe, period. No thought provoking questions aloud. That's the only intelligent way to live.
jlburnitt 4 years ago
What a great idea! If someone opposes you, kill them! I mean, I think all christians know god does not like people to think for themselves. You must believe, period. No thought provoking questions aloud. That's the only intelligent way to live.
jlburnitt 4 years ago
your great man =]
davierfc 4 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
have fun in hell
kusimuc 4 years ago
You make me laugh.
Envee211 4 years ago 5
Just caught this video of yours, Pfunk. Good job. Keep it up!
AzmodanKijur 4 years ago 4
how in the world do we get our morals from science we get our morals from what we, as individuals, think is right if you are going about it the scientific way then Hitler would have been right by killing of the weak(talking about the mentally retarded not those with faith in Judaism) so the strong could survive... you talk about morals yet you attack theist which in terms of morals such as "do unto others..." you are giving them a reason to attack you as well
rabidmonk49 4 years ago
Morals come from your parents not the Bible, if you need god to be a decent human being there is something really wrong with you.
Jdollaz03 4 years ago 4
Way to straw man, rabidmonk. It's not about survival on an individual basis, it's not about survival on a purely communistic/collectivist basis, it's about a balance of both of those. Survival for our species and survival for ourselves as individuals stems from the selfish and altruism genes.
BoozyBeggar 4 years ago
Although I believe in the constitutional right of freedom of religion and the freedom to have non at all, I don't understand why they feel the need to have a shirt that says "atheist walking" and feel as though they are SO HIGHLY THREATENED! There are many religions in this country, but you don't see Muslims and Jews wearing shirts like: I'm A MUSLIM accept me, or Jews Walking. If you are protected under the constitution, why must there be this "atheist uprising" so to speak?
LiLxGHiT369 4 years ago
@LiLxGHiT369: Yeah, having a shirt with "Atheist" written on it is just too much...just like wearing a cross, putting a Jesus fish on your car, wearing a headscarf, wearing a Jewish cap, and other such things. Oh, but those things aren't bad supposedly, I forgot...
riction 4 years ago
This homo needs to get off the crack, and stop putting videos of his ass talking to the T.V. Very intelligent btw! I'm sure the the T.V. and God is listening and certainly hear you.
LiLxGHiT369 4 years ago
hes talking to people on youtube you fucking ass hole
n0nameTAZ 4 years ago
PFUNK for prez
ColdVein 4 years ago
"Morals from God" Scary!!!
ImBrainwashed 4 years ago
Testify my brother...testify up in here...can I get an amen for Mr. Dawkins...say it with me now: Thank god I'm an atheist...say it loud, say it proud...let 'em hear you in Rome...let 'em hear you in Jerusalem...Mecca, we're talkin' to you baaaaaaaabbbbyyyyyy...Yeeesssssss...I'm feelin' you, my brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gatorbuilt 4 years ago
Dude! This is hilarious
vegeta4728 4 years ago
People are always talking about theres a God and they have absolutely no proof whatsoever all they do is refer to the Bible that has been twisted is translated so much it not funny,They always say they believe in God and Jesus but they treat each other like absolute shit thats white people and black people and everybody in between American people really have it bad and they are the most hypocritical people on the fuckin planet
birab 4 years ago
I know this is quite old but I want to answer the 'where do you get your morals?' question. Your answer was good but very abstract.
Here's what I think:
Why have we as a species survived? We're not the fastest or the strongest. We can't easily catch food on our own. Stoneage man didn't catch wolly mammoths on his own, he caught them because he could work together. Those people who could not work together went hungry (and eventually died) so the trait of working together is passed on.
ProudOfMyApeHeritage 4 years ago
This is the basis of our morality. We need other people, we need to rely on other people so we respect them.
As a species we also have empathy. We can see when someone else is in pain (physically or emotionally) we can put ourselves in the place of others. I'd never steal because I can imagine what it's like to be stolen from and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. I wouldn't kill someone because I don't want people to kill me.
ProudOfMyApeHeritage 4 years ago
Good video. I LOVED your explanation of morals. I often use a similar arguement, only I use society as where we get our morals. It is to further our society (and thus our existance) that we get our morals from.
animematt 4 years ago
Fuckin hillarious man. Your great!
ForTheLoveOfGod 4 years ago
PFunk,
If you're doing a best of and take votes for it, i'll vote for the question at:
6:30
And.... the best explenation is ...
some will show you the large body of evidence and theory as part of the framework of science, science,which in turn is THE enabler for ALL technology that you see around (hmm sounds like?).
Other will tell you that they solved the question by creating something else ...
which answers all your questions
mindwis3 4 years ago
could you post the original CNN report?
batkrach 4 years ago
Atheist Walking is awesome!
tothboy01 4 years ago
Amazing video.
makeyourowndamnpie 4 years ago
Dawkins is awesome. I just got done reading the Ancestors Tale today
pisscunt 4 years ago
FPunk1, where are you?
NewMoves 4 years ago
You prove it, your own faith is based on assumptions.
Einstein's Quantum physics, General Relativity proven calculations of an expanding universe, so why would eternity need to expand? They prove a beginning...wait that scientific evidence, not religious dogma. Oh, so you know have to prove Einstein's quantum physic incorrect.
NewMoves 4 years ago
People are intolerant of atheists because of people like you. You're too fucking empty headed and ebonic to see the evidence for existence of god all around you. Get a job you welfare hoarding porch monkey.
brianthedog159 4 years ago
Look, it's bad enough that his fate is sealed, but racial slurs are violating the last 6 commandments.
NewMoves 4 years ago
you are one weird dude... im atheist but im a not a damn scientist.
popsson 4 years ago
now i'm watchin gthis nigger watch tv , what the fuck , some one stop this nigger before its to late, ahhhh, its too late , he bored the shit out of me
kenmabie 4 years ago
I hope you don't mind another subscriber.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are 2 angles in the world.
1)To pay taxes
2)To die
Copy this to 3 videos and get 100 angles to your life
If you don't then get ready for tax time!!!!!!!
sesarathor 4 years ago
you're awesome, I want that t-shirt!
grizzlyreaper2002 4 years ago
That video was awesome. I really liked how you were going "MILITANT?!?!?!111oneone" when they mentioned 'militant Atheism'
Tiwaking 4 years ago
theres no need to take God out of any of the American ways. Such as the pledge etc. No one is forced at school to stand up and say the pledge or forced to pray. Its just Atheist's making a big deal out of nothing. <--I said it. get over it. You hide behind the easiest way out of things because you dont like not knowing for sure. but whose fault is it that YOU dont know for sure? YOU. The lazy way out would be Atheism. Your scared of the thought of something being superior to you. The end.
tomisluvsher 4 years ago
if you exchange the word GOD for "allah" or "dagna" or "atlas" or "eshu" or "raven" or "poseidon" i wonder how you would feel if everyone in your school prayed to Zues? and kids are singled out by christians if they dont subscribe to their religious beliefs. religion has no place in school. its devisive and its irrelevant to getting an education.
theSouliLLUSION 4 years ago
Don't pray in my school and i wont think in your church.
theSouliLLUSION 4 years ago
oh man. tell me you dont subscribe to kent hovinds theory of creation. the guy believes in fire breathing dragons, for the love of Zeus.
theSouliLLUSION 4 years ago
I like your style PFUNK1 - count me as a new subscriber. 5*
DavidKabuki 4 years ago
Darwin was a racist. He believed black people evolved from a different species than white people.
platinumpig 4 years ago
Darwin a RACIST? That is so absolutely NOT true.
Site a specific reference.
spookytom 4 years ago
I thought atheists are 12% of the American population. Where are they getting this 1% figure from?? (Tempted to suggest their ass, but I won't.)
BlightyLume 4 years ago
"militant?...you aint seen militant!" lol, ya we should start flying planes into churches.
theSouliLLUSION 4 years ago
and why would u trust a christian more than an atheist. A lot of atheists seem like highly intelligent rational people. If you were in a burning building, would you a Christian praying to god or an atheist trying o find a way out?
chocolatechipbear 4 years ago
wow i guess it sux for me that im an atheist homosexual :(
chocolatechipbear 4 years ago
all I have to say is the bible teaches us that we came from incest...If I remember the bible correctly Adam and Eve had two sons...Cain and Abel....so how did they procreate? that goes against science!
jacksonnicolem 4 years ago
I feel the exact same way. I support you 100 percent.
KyleYamato 4 years ago
Are you saying that god was imposed on us? BY WHO!! How can God be imposed if you believe of science. I don't understand why someone who calls themselves atheist even cares that other people believe of God. It is stated by an atheist in the video that without the thought of God we could live a better life, with more freedom. What really dose that mean. So you can have sex out of marriage. Who cares really, God doesn't care. He wants a relation ship of honor, trust, and faithfulness.
xtremewaianae 4 years ago
(Continued)
As time is now going on, science is learning that sex with everyone, whenever it feels good, is not a good thing. Everywhere you look, disease lurks. I would be pissed at science now. If you look at it, it sure goes had and hand with "The will of God". You keep the fight going, because you are following the "Will of God" fulfilling prophesy. The Bible is meant to bring up questions, because they are all directed towards God. Your questions are directed towards the universe...
xtremewaianae 4 years ago
Science presents us with information so that we can make decisions on behavior we choose.
If science tells us eating too much sugar is not good. Our conduct should reflect that.
Cigarette smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths.
Harmful health effects can occur from smoking a cigarette. Pfunk1 do you smoke cigarettes?
MalikOneLuvAli 4 years ago
i dont snoke cigarettes, but i have cut out sugar!
key word is "should." as humans we do not have to be
"moral" as we have free will. where morals come from
is what i was trying to identify.
PFUNK1 4 years ago
Science presents us with information so that we can make decisions on behavior we choose.
If science tells us eating too much sugar is not good. Our conduct should reflect that.
Cigarette smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths.
Harmful health effects can occur from smoking a cigarette. Pfunk1 did I see you smoke a cigarette?
MalikOneLuvAli 4 years ago
She should've just came out and told him that mans morals evolved from our desire to survive. Our morals have evolved past biblical rules. Ask that preacher if he thinks its okay to sell his daughter into slavery.
CitizenCain001 4 years ago
Hey is no Hypocrite! He should be our next Nations President.
MrWest14 4 years ago
This man believes in television but he dont belive whats real wow he one dumb ass nigger
Strawhatstretch 4 years ago
"Love thy neighbour" is something you preach but don't practice. Hypocrite.
askegg 4 years ago
Where do we get our morals from?
Respect for human life. If you respect human life, all other morals can be derived from that.
Freedom, Equality, Peace... It all derives from respect for human life.
CosmosCR 4 years ago
Let's test your logic. Give me one piece of testable evidence that evolution did not require a designer.
There is none!
You have blind faith. And don't tell me you don't need evidence to believe something or you will be contradicting yourself.
equalsexes 4 years ago
There is also no testable evidence that evolution did not require a schism from nomadic space frogs, either. But that, at least, is falsifiable.
The existence of a designer as described by theistic religions is not a falsifiable hypothesis. It is a purely philosophical matter, just as fate/destiny, and is unmanageable in the scientific method, the search for knowledge. Religion proclaims truth by faith without question while science continuously searches for it.
Saerain 4 years ago
No true Christian would have blind faith:
1 Peter 3:15 "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."
You can't get intelligence from unitelligence. This is an uncontradicted fact that is always useful for predictions. Thus, intelligent life must have been created and evolution could have been the process God used.
equalsexes 4 years ago
"...and evolution could have been the process God used.". So you reject the story of creation as told in the Bible? If the book that is the basis of your religion can be cherry picked for good ideas while you ignore that which is either horrifying (there's a lot of that) or proven wrong, then why have the book at all? All religions and cultures have the same basic humanistic beliefs - they do not come from a book.
askegg 4 years ago
The Genesis story of creation does not exclude evolution. There is no way to tie an eternal God's work to any specific human timeframe. Six days is just as valid as 15 billion years. Genesis says "Let the land produce", implying evolution. The word "bara'" is used in Genesis 1:1 for the big bang and creation of the heavenly lights.
equalsexes 4 years ago
Oh, of course. The Bible is not meant to be taken *literally*; it uses allegory and symbolism to convey a deeper meaning! It is not the book that is wrong - it is the evidence. Or maybe my misunderstanding of the Bibles may versions and interpretations? Silly me.
This (combined with the systematic ignoring all the bad parts of the Bible) and you have a document that is *never* wrong. Oh look, that's exactly what's happened.
askegg 4 years ago
The literal parts you take literally, the allegory you take like allegory. It's not that difficult.
The Bible is more historically reliable than any ancient secular or religious text. The bad parts are just history. The Bible does not exclude the bad just to make it appear like a "holy book".
equalsexes 4 years ago
Your Bible must be different from the four versions I have. None of mine have highlights, foot notes or even different fonts to denote which parts are which. The interpretation is performed by the reader according to their innate moral principles - these we all have regardless of which religion (if indeed you have one), culture or race we belong to.
askegg 4 years ago
This was not always the case. Once upon a time, if you recall, religion was intent on searching for the truth, not assuming ancient fiction as its truth. It was early science, before the scientific method developed. Science as we know it today has continued that evolution of ideas in the search for truth, while religion as we know it today is simply stuck with unquestionable dogma.
Saerain 4 years ago
equalsexes 4 years ago
What about them? I recognise that they are Christians and Catholics, but I don't see what you are trying to use that to say.
Saerain 4 years ago
You falsly imply that Christians are dogmatic with blind faith when that is not generally true. There are some dogmatic examples in any belief including atheism.
The Bible has inspired a lot of great science, but you can always find a few examples where a few religious leaders didn't follow good science. However, none of the false religious beliefs in the past, by a few religious leaders, about science are actually found in the Bible.
equalsexes 4 years ago
Of course.
By the way, however, I hardly intended to imply only Christianity, but rather how the basis of religion lay in attempting to understand the world and the events connected to it. I don't see that in the most well-established religions today -- the progressively-minded individuals therein are, of course, another matter, yet I gather that they remain a minority, though a significant one.
Saerain 4 years ago
The testable evidence you claim exists for a designer guiding evolution, does not. Rather, there are philosophical analogies, such as the man-made watch analogy which you probably know. You may interpret analogies as evidence, if you wish, but you will be digging yourself quite an abyss.
Saerain 4 years ago
The watchmaker is not really an analogy. It's a real, natural phenomenon and hypothesis that is good for making predictions.
What predictions can be made by the unintelligent evolution hypothesis?!
1. Unintelligent processes like the printing process need no designers?
2. Unintelligence can do amazing things?
equalsexes 4 years ago
Evolution and time is the designer of life. The environment causes the organism to adapt through systematic pressure on the organism's survival. "unintelligence" can do amazing things like create humans.
Predictions in evolution are about what we will find through DNA analysis and the fossil record. Aka Testable predictions
mowmow415 4 years ago
I get this out of the watch argument .
If something exists then it was created by an intelligence. if an intelligence exists then it was created by an intelligence.
See how that can repeat and repeat like an infinite loop.
Such thoughts are philosophical and are not science. That is why they are different majors in college.
mowmow415 4 years ago
You miss the point of the watchmaker analogy which was to illustrate how subtle, intricate and complex things *can* arise from incremental steps in evolution if given enough time. All the evidence reinforces this point of view. The "watch" was not designed, it did not "spring into being" and has no designer.
askegg 4 years ago
Every design process is incremental.
What predictions can be made by the unintelligent evolution hypothesis?!
1. Unintelligent processes like the printing process need no designers.
2. Unintelligence can do amazing things.
Lol.
equalsexes 4 years ago
Printing presses to not have sex with each other, so are incapable of evolution. Your theory of intelligent design ignores all the bad design decisions in living things, and all the inanimate matter in the universe.
If all intelligent things require a designer then who designed God? If the answer is "God was always there", then why not just say "the universe was always here" and do away with the God concept? How can you tell the difference between an eternal universe to one created by a God?
askegg 4 years ago
The universe it temporal, God is eternal, i.e. NO BEGINNING and no end. Dawkins PWNED!
Nothing dependant on time like the universe could exist without a beginning. The arrow of time implies a beginning.
equalsexes 4 years ago
Prove it.
If everthing requires a begining, then who created God. If God can be eternal, then why can't the universe? How can you tell the difference between an eternal universe to one created by a God? Without evidence to suppport your God hypothesis, I will apply Occams razor and go with the explanation that makes the fewer assumptions - the universe is eternal, there is no God.
askegg 4 years ago
CNN pissed me the fuck off too :( .
DigiEvolve 4 years ago
I would think morals don't come from science, but rather evolution. Now as far as I know its only a theory but it makes sense. A human is nothing on his own, but with his\her social group around them they have a better chance at survival. This morals are from and for social behaviors to be a part of a collective to survive.
Swidhelm 4 years ago
evolution is science so I think it's a decent statement. There are also other sciences to help us figure out morals.
DigiEvolve 4 years ago
True. What I was saying though is morals don't come from understanding science so much as they are either hard wired or taught as a survival tactic.
Swidhelm 4 years ago
Btw, for an excellent explanation on the origin of human morals, read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion". Fantastic book. Well worth the time. PLEEEEEASE AMERICA, PLEEEEASE WAKE UP!
DiablOEncarnadO 4 years ago
Oi, this American wasn't sleeping though. I can't see much for my fellow Americans. I'm outraged at them.
DigiEvolve 4 years ago
say rather than see*
DigiEvolve 4 years ago
"militant" while technically correct potrays a contextally incorrect view. Pfunk, man you've got the right idea. Forget the rest of the world though, the rest of the western nations are way beyond America as far as the atheist drift is concerned and the middle east is too far gone on the other end of the spectrum to worry about. Keep up the intelligent fight brother!
DiablOEncarnadO 4 years ago
IN FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER WE TRUST
galaxytraveller 4 years ago
Perhaps in the future we will find it comical to put that on our money. That'd be so sweet :) .
DigiEvolve 4 years ago
i am from the uk, which i have heard described as a post-religion society, because obviously religion is either dying out or has died out among the young majority over here. as such, i was shocked at the american attitude towards athiesm! shocked! ps- p funk makes some great points about evidence, beginning of the universe and the point where there are no answers.
ronMexico121 4 years ago
The testable facts prove that every process requires a designer and every law requires a lawmaker, unless you believe in elves on the North Pole. This has neer been contradicted and it is always useful for predictions. Thus the process of evolution and the laws of nature require a designer.
It looks like in the UK you are getting more atheistic lies and propaganda.
Darwin said: "...we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator," (Origin of Species, p462)
equalsexes 4 years ago
Then why are you assholes trying to get intelligent design taught in our schools? Why do religious people reject evolution? I don't think he believed in a creator later on in his life.
DigiEvolve 4 years ago
I hate it when they call us atheists "militant" were is this atheist military? I don't see one. Where is my gun? How am I taking peoples rights, let alone taking them with violent force. God that pisses me off.
leftwingextremist 5 years ago
Yes, the term "militant" does have those implications, however, in contemporary society the term has been broadened to include any political activist who states his/her POV in a strong and uncomprimising manner.
Godlesspanther 4 years ago
Fuck religion, I'm too smart for that bullshit. There are so many ignorant people that buy into it, and it pisses me off because its fucking up the world.
damastakilla 5 years ago
Hahahha...Is P-Funk hilarious or what?
Keep the fight alive; P-Funk..Onward, Atheists soldiers!
MaddAtheist 5 years ago
Notice that the young white christian male that used the term "militant atheist", uses the same argument that was used against blacks, latinos, and feminist.
If one advocates strongly and publicly for a cause, then they become a threatening element. Salaam.
rayburne 5 years ago
PFUNK, what is the testable evidence that the process of evolution was not invented? There is NONE!
In fact, there is no process that exists that has a shred of testable evidence showing that it was not invented by somebody. Every process, including evolution, must have a creator, unless you live by blind faith. Listen to Darwin...
Darwin said: "...we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator," (Origin of Species, p462)
equalsexes 5 years ago
Huh?
psyjax 5 years ago
In Darwins time, non-belief was punishable by death. There is tons of valiable, testable evidence for evolution. As time has gone on we have continued to discover legitimate evidence for evolution.
lazerflesh 5 years ago
Punishable by death in psyjax? Not!
I said evolution was created. Testable evidence proves that every process or law that exists was intelligently created. This has never been contradicted and is always useful for predictions. Thus, the facts prove that every process, including evolution, must have a creator, unless you live by blind faith. Listen to Darwin...
Darwin said: "...we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator," (Origin of Species, p462)
equalsexes 4 years ago
Equalsexes, you are insane.
darkreign16 5 years ago
Believing in facts is insane?! What facts or testable evidence do you have to prove that evolution, or any other process, was not created?
Facts...
The process of scientific investigation was invented.
The printing process was invented... Smelting, electroplating, semiconductor device fabrication,
automobile manufacturing process, etc., etc. You name it!
Darwin said: "...we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator," (Origin of Species, p. 462)
equalsexes 5 years ago
Everything but "God" right? Which makes no sense because a God would be THE MOST COMPLEX THING EVER TO FATHOM. Moron.
darkreign16 5 years ago
God is eternal. Eternity means NO BEGINNING and no end. God is outside of time and causality so God was uniquely not created.
The testable facts prove that every law, process or machine requires a creator. This is unrefuted and is always useful for predictions. Thus the facts prove that the process of evolution was created!
You have blind faith if you don't go by the facts.
This shows that Dawkins is feeding you false arguments that will only embarrass you!
equalsexes 4 years ago
evolution occured naturally through genetics and survival of the fittest, so i guess you could say that the creators were the organisms themselves that had unique traits that allowed them to survive longer than the rest of their species
ptyg13192 4 years ago
Ptyg13192 said: "i guess you could say..."
The testable facts prove that every law, process or machine requires a creator. This is unrefuted and is always useful for predictions. Thus the facts prove that the process of evolution was created!
You have blind faith if you don't go by the facts.
equalsexes 4 years ago
oohh good point "The testable facts prove that every law, process or machine requires a creator" all things man made pal so who made who? therefor you have no facts yours is the blind faith!in a book that man made
all things have beginnings and ends saying God was uniquely not created is so much blind faith.
you embarrass your self your are the joke
tipsymcstager1 4 years ago
There's no testable evidence that evolution did not require a designer.
Considering that atheists think that no intelligence was used in creating us, what predictions can this theory make?
Atheist's scientific predictions:
1. Unintelligent scientists can do miraculous things.
2. Unintelligent designers can do miraculous things.
3. Unintelligent lawmakers can do miraculous things.
You have blind faith. Don't tell me you don't need evidence to believe or you will contradict yourself.
equalsexes 4 years ago
tipsymcstager1, you provide no argument. What evidence do you have that you were not designed by a Creator?
What predictions can be made by your hypothesis that creators are not needed to create things?!
Darwin said: "...we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator," (Origin of Species, p462)
equalsexes 4 years ago
What facts do you have that the flying pink unicorn doesn't exist?
Moron. Hypocrite.
We, unlike you, do not have stupid, blind fiath in things like God or Darwin. WE THINK. So stop appealing to authority, you lying piece of human trash.
Solar2 4 years ago
I want to be an atheist: When you said to me "you lying piece of human trash" is really touched my heart in a deep way ;-)
Look, the testable facts prove that every process requires a designer and every law requires a lawmaker, unless you believe in elves on the North Pole. Thus the process of evolution and the laws of nature require a designer.
The facts are on my side. You blindly believe in contradiction to the facts.
equalsexes 4 years ago
equalsexes, your arguments only hold water in a sea of ignorance. its obvious that you havent given much thought to what you actually believe but rather learning how to defend and navigate the obvious pitfalls of your case.
theSouliLLUSION 4 years ago
You have no argument, just opinion.
Atheism is ignorance... A newborn baby is the perfect atheist. No thought is required to be an atheist. Belief in atheism is belief in the unprovable by definition.
equalsexes 4 years ago
"The testable facts prove that every process requires a designer and every law requires a lawmaker"God is eternal. Eternity means NO BEGINNING and no end. God is outside of time and causality so God was uniquely not created." -equalsexes
lol you guys crack me up. if god can "uniquely not be created", why can't the universe uniquely not be created.
theSouliLLUSION 4 years ago
The universe is under temporal laws, God is not.
equalsexes 4 years ago
Dawkins says Christianity has "not a shred of evidence"? There is tons of archaeological and corroborating evidence for the Bible. The Bible is taught as literature or history in every college and universary.
equalsexes 5 years ago
Hey PFUNK, what microphone do you use? You sound is really good in these latest videos. Thanks!
GottaMinute 5 years ago
Funny guy, good clip.
InuMaama87 5 years ago
They should have had Dawkins give a rebuttal to that black guy. Anyway nice video. Its good to see a black guy for the atheist cause.
aldude77777 5 years ago
They should have had Dawkins give a rebuttal to that black guy. Anyway nice video. Its good to see a black guy for the atheist cause.
aldude77777 5 years ago
Nicely done . . . I know I was getting greatly annoyed by the dude trying to state that he's more ethical by his fear of the omnipresent security camera in the sky. And what a lame-duck attempt to try and cloud the catholic lol stigma by conveniently grouping xians together. Strange how quickly their tune changes once they enter their church of choice.
otakursed 5 years ago
They should have had Dawkins give a rebuttal to that black guy. Anyway nice video. Its good to see a black guy for the atheist cause.
aldude77777 5 years ago
lol I love this video. lol
Castaa 5 years ago
pretty good video, I enjoyed your thoughts and reactions. I was a bit disappointed with CNN again, but at least they were a little more fair this time.
DaHanG 5 years ago
I know I'm more moral than a lot of deeply religious christians. I like to call my self agnostic, but I have no belief whatsoever that we are moral because god teaches that or they come from him. It's easy to call that BS. Also don't forget the social contract.
mimage 5 years ago
I know I'm more moral than a lot of deeply religious christians. I like to call my self agnostic, but I have no belief whatsoever that we are moral because god teaches that or they come from him. It's easy to call that BS. Also don't forget the social contract.
mimage 5 years ago
btw, how are atheists supposed to impose their beliefs on Christians if THEY DONT HAVE ANY?!
GryphynBloodheart 5 years ago
I found this video quite confusing: people on tv talking and you too talking at the same time...well, it wasn't easy to follow the discussion. Anyway it was entertaining to see your reactions "live"!
However, I don't agree with you on morality: I think morality and science are two different instruments that we use to cohexist pacifically and to allow the continuation of life.
Andyilmatto 5 years ago
I love your videos, and I love your passion. But I have to disagree with you on the ethics thing. I think atheists get their ethics from reason and empathy. Science is a result of that reason.
A mild differentiation, but I know where you're coming from. You should be an atheist preacher.
GryphynBloodheart 5 years ago
i think reason is a result of science-
science presents the data from which reason is based
PFUNK1 5 years ago
POWER is the result of science. What we do with that power is based on our morals/ethics. For instance, scientists built the atomic bomb, but does science tell you how to use it? No, societal factors do. Science is only a means of attaining informantion, what we do with that info comes from our morals. Don't get me wrong, I think you make great points in all of your videos about how theism is just plain irrational.
milwrift 5 years ago
hmmmmm good point. i like the question, but it doesnt say where morals come from, and im not challenging you on that. i agree morals and science are separate, but morals come from experience and data.
i like individual scenarios to test this idea like the atomic bomb question. "morals tell us how to use it." true, but morals still come from experience and data- and the best data of experience we have is a science of somekind. be it social sciences or even human experience.
PFUNK1 5 years ago
Personally I don't believe that we can or should derive morals from science, as our evolutionary history is full of male-bonded violence and retaliational bargaining, though speculative sciences (read: philosophy) have made some way to give a "grounding" for ethics.
But I also believe that all the basis *I* need to be moral is to assume that I'll be treated as the person I appear to be to others, and as I like to be treated like a nice guy, I try to be that nice guy.
garouHH 4 years ago
some "mother's wit" and things life has learned in our evolution is a form of science and research, cause its based on actual trial and error.
in the book DIANETICS, they say that if a man is presented with the proper data where he can see the situation clearly- without false fear or unwarranted prejudices, that he will ALWAYS make the best decision for all involved. not saying im a SCIENTOLOGIST, but i liked and remember that point...
also factor in empathy in the atomic bomb scenario.
PFUNK1 5 years ago
Eh, well it's not enough to get in a heated debate though, but a sense of reason, rational thinking, and a little curiosity is necessary before science can be applied as a discipline. If you look at history and how the sciences developed, you'll see that reason had to be present in the mind of the scientist first. Science is based on reason, not the other way around.
GryphynBloodheart 5 years ago
Reason is from God. You can't get reason from non-reason, that is a testable fact that is always useful for predictions. You have no testable evidence to prove your beliefs.
equalsexes 4 years ago
equalsexes: How do you test that hypothesis, that is, what testable predictions does it yield? How is it falsifiable?
garouHH 4 years ago
If they gave Dawkins more time he would have kicked some serious ass.
AgentGhost 5 years ago
I like the professional setup! Great vid!
KT45 5 years ago
I agree with you totally. We are moral because we gain more individually from living moral lives than disrespecting one another. There's no need for a book or a fear of punishment in some nonexistant afterlife. It always gets me that theists (especially xtians) can't see this!
BudhagRizzo 5 years ago
"MILITANT!"
I love it.. I had the same thoughts..
Militant would be if I went to school with a gun and told them to shut the fuck up about god and to take god off of our money. But I am nice, So i tell them to please keep god out of schools and off of our money
thefakeyeti 5 years ago
you rule
pro7o7ype 5 years ago
the best way to attack the "no morals" claim is by turning the question back on theist. Is your "holy book" the thing that stops you from killing me? You don't commit crimes out of fear of hell? You do good because of claims of heaven? I don't need those "motivations".
quannump 5 years ago
I PERSONALLY don't think that is the best way to answer..
Because you aren't answering the question. Sure it is fun to watch the dumbfounded look on their faces..
*I* THINK the best way is to explain that if we did want to kill each other.. we wouldve died of. And another species would've evolved instead of us..
thefakeyeti 5 years ago
I totally respect that line of answer. I agree that it is a better answer *IF* you have time to properly layout the theory of the selfish gene or altruism. In this sound-byte format debate done on cnn, an offensive is the best defensive. In my opinion, of course.
quannump 5 years ago
Well, the problem here is that the question "Where do you get your morals from?" is totally dishonest. The guy does not want a lecture in cultural formation of morals on the base of biological disposition of humankind, though this would be necessary.
Jeremias1111 5 years ago
He just wants to claim that atheists have no morals. But this is obviously counterfactual since neither the atheist woman, nor the family nor Dawkins behave very evil. So he tries to hide his defamation in a rhetorical question.
Jeremias1111 5 years ago