Just because someone is religious, doesn't mean they want to hijack a plane and fly it into a building, or put on an explosive vest and blow up a train. There are intelligent people who believe in God, and just because somebody is a priest doesn't mean they're molesters. I'm catholic, and I don't care if you atheists hate me or say I'm an idiot or not, but I've never been motivated by my faith to kill somebody or be violent, or blow up a building.
It's funny, when he was describing how Christians take on some of the negative attributes of atheists when debating them, I thought of the Nietzsche quote, "He who fights with monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster." And then right after that he describes their behavior as Nietzschian!
And Tim thinks his message is 'respectful' when he says that all Muslims and Hindus and Jews and non believers will all be tortured for an eternity after they die because they're not Christians, just like him?!? What a narrow-minded asshole
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
Signs of the times, the same group will possibly explain away the "rapture", by explaining that UFOs had taken away the missing persons from the earth. The group was form just "in time" for
"Fairly easy to refute?" lol Has the Bible been given a thumbs up for accuracy by The New Republic, The London Review of Books, or The New York Review of Books?
@smegmasaurus What he did was make an appeal to authority - those outlets - after claiming the arguments are fairly easy to refute. Doesn't say if the easily refuted arguments are why they got the bad review. Then he makes that comment about "most scholars" in what fields. Theologians, for example, aren't going to knock themselves over to praise books that deny the legitimacy of their whole field.
I'm Agnostic Atheist personally. Religion has hurt my mental health some and I will never understand how people can say it does so much good as they yell at people and start wars over it. However I know some tolerant, reasonable people who are very religious and don't care that I'm Atheist. I happen to live in an area that tolerates a lot of people (I have friends who are Mormons, Wiccans, Deist) and I'm really thankful for that. I just don't want to try and convert people or be converted.
The "new atheists" as he calls them, have not said to disrespect religious believers. They have stated that the beliefs themselves should not be respected. We have been taught in this country (and many other religious dominated countries send the same message) that all personal beliefs should be respected. The problem is that they shouldn't be. Just because you believe it, does not mean that it is immune to criticism. That's all "new atheists" claim.
@TheRavensGhost Yeah, But you should be respectful while criticizing. Carl Sagan did it. Anyways this something i have not seen much from New Atheist. A agnostic. But i have not see one interaction that refer religious people as stupid or without words like Sky-daddies or imaginary friends. Even if your right. Be respectful. I dont like intolerance of any kind. i find Atheist are wasting there time. Bitch about religion, Is not likely to change 5 billion people's mind.
@Tuber77 You have young people on all sides of every debate, and they tend to be insulting. It's not a result of being atheist, it's a result of being human and inexperienced. Most of the insults I see atheists throw at theists are in retort to something insulting the theist said first (usually, not always the case). Keep in mind that many atheists in religious countries are dealing with constant insults from friends and family everyday as well.
I've heard Theists call evolution false before, but this is the first time I've heard one call "The Dark Ages" false.
Apparently it is not a sin to lie to promote your delusion.
FYI: Snakes and Donkeys can't talk, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, Evolution is real, and you are a brainwashed delusional fool. (I looked at your channel!)
Please respond to this comment.
Because Theists like you do more to prove that Atheists are right by accident, than I can do trying.
@legion1a Uahh. That sleep gives talk superficially neoatheists angry as you. Why only like to talk to atheists intellectuals. 1) NO serious historian and scholar refers to the Middle Ages "Dark Ages". This is an alias for the creator of the Enlightenment. 2) I am not a creationist as might be thinking. I do not believe that the earth is young nor believe in talking snakes.
@legion1a I do not altogether deny completly evolution (just read a little John Haught to make a mental sanitation in your head. You must have me confused with your girlfriend left you frustrated that you can turn to a new atheist disciple of Dawkins.:) 4) Do you know Portuguese to understand what I'm talking about or should be a telepath with key SAP atheist that only knows how to use the offense? Go find your class, boy.
@legion1a Amazing how some people remember and talk about the Church of the alleged crimes she committed against those who are different in the past. Apparently there are even many people who are stupid in history. In the past the principle in force "or them or us" and if not for the Church with movements like the Crusades or the Inquisition, today Europe was the Eurasia and would be all to pray five times a day and say that there is no god but Allah and other prophets besides Muhammad.
@legion1a Before you speak ill of the Church at all, using the "big" (sic) historian Hitchens (LOL) remember to wash your mouth and your fingers with soap and thank the Pope Leo I and other giants of the Church that prevented the West fall over barbarism and Islam. If not for the Crusades, today would not Oxford, Cambridge and Princeton.
@legion1a Why Dawkins and Hitchens did not come from some "university" in Islam or any other place in the world? Why come out of universities with Christian traditions and, thanks to the patrons of the Church, much of the culture and knowledge have been preserved and maintained? If atheists can use the genetic fallacy, I can too.
Ah, remember to wash your mouth out with soap. Is dirty.
@legion1a This anti-Christian, atheist, agnostic, secular and hedonistic mob of today is hypocritical, ungrateful and above all ignorant! Have you ever had the freedom to do and say what they feel like well if this is Islam? or if the Church had not stopped the advance of Islam in the Battle of Lepanto? There is every jerk who gives up pitied.
@legion1a "If not for the Church repressing scientific research we would be 1.000 years ahead of where we are now in science and medicine" New atheist bad propaganda of bad type.
@legion1a Take easy, boy. You're in good company. There aren't many atheists and New Atheists for purely intellectual but emotional reasons (some beautiful evangelical girlfriend had who gave him out, lost their jobs with some Christian businessman, etc.). Fun:)
Somebody better tell Keller that there are 10,000 religions in the world with incompatible teachings many of which are willing to die for their faith. I'm glad to know that he has the true religion. I was a christian most all my life and finally woke up. My family who are fundamentalists make fun of humanism.....sad
1:01: Keller doesn't know how civil society can grow without religion. As one may know, socities grow much faster through pluralism (therefore check sociological research). Pluralism forces groups to rethink strong beliefs (which often imply discrimination against others) and to open up towards each other. Groups which are not able to accept pluralism try to eliminate other beliefs or systems either through physical death or indoctrination. There couldn't be less growing through ONE "truth".
Simple as that they set out to take over the world with an idology, anyone who has a different idiology (belief in this case) should be vanished (become atheist in this case) Basicly the charasteristics of medieval catholicism
If atheism is a religion then theism itself is a religion with that logic. If atheism is a religion then atheist Buddhist are holding two religious beliefs at the same time.
@JJPHILLYLG You didnt get my point lol. Atheism in some point is a religion, not every religion has belief in a God as its central principle, for example Bahai, Buddhism, many many others.
The point is religions are more than a faith its a way of life with some perticular priciples about reality
Atheism's principle "Theres No God"
Abrahamic faiths say "Believe in God, Obey him etc"
Bahai' faith says "Live peacefully, quietly, with respect etc"
@legion1a honestly Im concidering to return to old slavic paganism which is about living your life and uniting with your land unlike the abrahamic faiths (Im russian, but thats a different story)
And I find Atheism as good as politics, full of idiocy. Uou try to force people into leaving their beliefs, so to speak. You find your self better for your beliefs hence why Atheism is as good as any other abrahamic faith (I say that from expirience with people I know and all these videos)
They keep doing this "the arguments presented by Dawkins/Hitchens/Dan Dennet etc are such incredibly super bad lame poor easy to disprove bad arguments, Oh they are soo bad and so really poor!" But then, after they say that, they never actually just easily disprove a single one.
@CorndogMaker It's because they're not going to do it in a 2 minute and 52 second video. Tim Keller has a lot of talks on the subject, look them up. Or pick up his book "Reason For God".
There's no real truth where there's no understanding. It takes patience and courage as a Christian to want to understand others, but if you really want to help them then that's what you have to do, you have to humble yourself. I'm still learning myself but I've made it my goal.
You miss the point completely and show your true colors as a hypocrite as well as your lack of knowlege of human history. Religion deserves no respect in the public sphere that has a constitution separating church and state. Religion deserves no respect for the Cowboys winning a football game, but respect for people's beliefs is exactly what atheists stand for. This is where christianity falls short having continually supressed cultures based solely on their belief in different folk tales.
@johnwes3950 How can you claim that atheists stand for respect of other people's beliefs? That claim may be true for some atheists but certainly not the "new atheists". Further, new atheists love to dismiss the great persecution by the atheists of the Christian churches (in fact all religions). State enforced atheism was the name of the game for Stalinists and all other atheist run governments like Pol Pot, Mao Ts Tung. The "new atheists" turn a blind eye to the historical evidence.
@johnwes3950 You contradicted yourself in just a few sentences. You CLAIM that atheists respect other people's beliefs and then you call them "folk tales". You say that Christianity falls short for respecting other people's beliefs, but it is Western nations whose morality is based on Judeo-Christian values that have offered and continue to offer religious freedom to people. Atheist governments have done nothing but persecute people of faith. The atheist agenda in communism has killed MILLIONS.
@1105Chance I have had many friends that were atheists. That is not the same as the "new atheists" who are really just a bunch of fanatics everybit as insufferable as the worst fanatic fundamentalists. If one avoids the extremes of both sides...people that are quarrelsome and self-rigteous, then one can be respectful to others. Jesus tells us to do unto others. If Christians sometimes fail at this (or people claiming to be Christian) then they fail, but their failure does not define us.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON ANOTHER PLANET? Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed to make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visiting the planet and, after studying these robots, comes to the conclusion that because science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe there was an intelligent designer behind them! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a living cell. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all its is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
0:38 You started it. Theists have no one to blame but themselves for the relatively precarious position that they currently find themselves in. As long as verses and chapters like Psalm14 remain in the bible, christians have NOTHING to complain about, N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Here's an interesting video: "10 craziest child preachers".
@ActivatedOne Of course I feel threatened by a bunch of extremely aggressive and self-righteous zealots. Especially when you consider just how average their intelligence is.
@ActivatedOne Christians really are highly threatened by the growing tide of non-religion. Remember that Christianity in particular is BIG BUSINESS. In the U.S., it's a business that is untaxed, making it even easier to accumulate wealth. The one fly in the ointment for the Catholic Church has been court costs and litigation settlements for its huge pedophile scandal. Those costs have amounted to in excess of $2 B, paid for by the average guy in the pew, who is growing more disgusted.
@Sojourneer Outside the more enlightened and advaced west, religion has never left! Hence, we have religionists flying planes into buildings, religionists stoning women for adultery, religionists constantly bickering with and killing each other over who might be correct in some ridiculous, imaginary, inconsequential element of the interpretation of some absurd book.
@theclarinet1234 China and Russia were atheist; either you count them as part of the West or not, but in either case you are just thinnking wishfully.
You forgot to mention human sacrifice as practiced by several religions. I, like Keller, don't defend religion. OTOH, the "grace narrative" as he calls it has very different dynamics.
@Sojourneer You should talk to Chinese and Russians about atheism. Russian Orthodoxy is now nearly a state religion and the Chinese continue to have a variety of religious practices, always overlooked by the state of course. The evidence is obvious to me. Humans have a propensity to invent imaginary agents to explain what they can explain in no other way and to provide comfort for the difficulties in life: "pie in the sky, bye and bye." But more and more humans are escaping this proclivity.
@theclarinet1234 I was responding to your "God will be shut down". My eg shows that the future is hard to read. Despite Nietsche's "God is dead", it seems that the tide is moving towards more religion now. As Keller points out, fervent supernatural religion (he calls in "crunchy") is on the rise versus the decline of "spiritualized truths" ("thin") religion. Irregardless of who has the biggest numbers, "One word of truth outweighs the whole world". You should watch the video I recommended.
@Sojourneer In the west, especially in Europe, religion is in significant decline. Whyt? Several reasons. 1) Science provides much better explanations than religion ever can about the things that matter in everyday living; 2) With the major ongoing scandals of the Catholic Church, Evangelical preacher scandals, and Islamic extremists, the moral authority of religion has been destroyed; and 3) evidence continues to accumulate that religion is not a benign force in the world.
@theclarinet1234 Let me address those as reasons against Xtianity. 1) Science is not the property of atheists. It fits very well into a worldview where we are made in the image of a rational God and given a mandate to understand and govern. It's a really bad fit if you believe the world is illusion, or where obedience to Divine Will is the point. 2) Morality is not the point of the Xtian faith. 3) Recap the 20th C & the role of science & secular ideologies, & how it impacted view of science.
@Sojourneer The numbers are unequivocal. You may quibble with my reasons----though you did not discount them. More and more Europeans are realizing that religion, in all of its thousands of guises, is unnecessary for a happy, fulfilled life, and even militates against a good life of reason and compassion. "None of the above" is even gaining strength in the theocratic U.S., in part due to 9/11 and a growing realization that religionists are fully capable of enormous harm.
@theclarinet1234 That's right, I chose to address the validity of the reasons, not how they play out. And in that context, they are not quibbles. I'm also not interested in defending what I consider false and harmful religions. And therefore I'll won't bring up the growing influence of Islam in Europe :)
Great example of Keller misleading his own kind. "Don't listen to them because all they're doing is attacking you." It is in Keller's and all other religious leader's selfish interests to MAKE SURE that none of their sheeple (a) actually CONSIDER an opposing viewpoint, which would require critical thinking, and (b) EVER view their beliefs and their person separately. Anyone who does not submit to CHRISTIANITY at least partly is automatically ATTACKING CHRISTIANS, personally, Same old BS.
@Sojourneer "[T]hey're saying that even respect for religion is bad, that to even be congenial and respectful toward RELIGIOUS BELEIVERS is bad. ... When you actually say, here's the people over here and they disagree with us 'cause they're RELIGIOUS PEOPLE and they DON'T EVEN DESERVE RESPECT OR SYMPATHY...."
That is a total mischaracterization of the New Atheists. They've NEVER advocated mistreatment of individuals. It is obviously you who is not listening, to either side.
@JoeWantsCake Tit for tat? I was speaking about your statement about Tim, not his statement about TNA. The validity of latter I don't know, as I have not read nor are interested in reading those books. What I do know is there are a lot of very disgruntled unbelievers posting in forums in a manner that I expect they would not dream in doing in person.
@Sojourneer True. Also true of self-proclaimed Christian trolls and posters of all stripes. I don't lump you in with them, and appreciate being given the same benefit of the doubt. My statement about Keller is BASED on his mischaracterization of the message he disdains, the message you refuse to consider, yourself. So what exactly are you calling into issue?
@JoeWantsCake I have read BR's Why I am Not, and bits and pieces of Hitchens. Dialogues I have attempted to have with trollers (someone posting rude and provacative comments to worship music videos on Youtube, e.g.) clearly show the lack of courtesy and respect for my humanity. So I don't believe Tim Keller is mischaracterizing "what is new is the lack of basic respect necessary for civil discourse" (paraphrased). Keller himself demonstrates quite a different tone and openness.
@Sojourneer And you would have a valid point if Keller were addressing Internet trolls, but he was replying to his own summation of what the New Atheists' message is (it's even the title of the clip). Just as most bad arguments start, he began by mischaracterizing what his opponents have said, then proceeded in his answer to implicitly equate any disrespect toward religion with assaults on individuals who ascribe to that religion. Exactly what I meant by same old B.S.
@JoeWantsCake "Implicitly equate" is your judgement, and I won't deny you the right to take it that way. From previous exposure to Keller, I know he is theologically against that kind of defensiveness, and I personally admire him for not exhibiting it personally either. Last sermon I heard from him was on Westphal's "Suspicion and Faith: The Religious Uses of Modern Atheism" on Nietzsche, Freud and Marx's criticism's of christianity. You might be surprised.
@JoeWantsCake As far as the substantive content of the alternative worldview espoused by atheists, I do continue to think and reflect on what science reveals about us and our world, but within what I consider a richer and ultimately more fully human interpretive framework.
@Sojourneer There is no singular worldview espoused by the New Atheists, let alone all atheists in general. Dawkins is a biologist, so his pov is from science. Hitch is a literary master, and that obviously informs everything he says and does. Dennett is a philosopher, so you won't hear much science coming from him. My point is, even those 3 perspectives are wide and varied. They cannot be understood through a single interpretation, only misunderstood for the purpose of dismissing them offhand.
@JoeWantsCake I remember reading Hitchens on Mother Theresa, and sensing how the wildly different frames of reference causea such deep misunderstanding and a loathing (from disappointed idealism?). Mary Poplin speaks a bit about this on Youtube, how incomprehensible MT was to her. Not that I am defending MT in particular.
I live in a country that is 1% christian. I am not a "sheeple", but I don't identify myself as a "bright" either. My relationship to Jesus and the Father are what define me.
@Sojourneer Implicit means "capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed" and equate means to make equal. I've already quoted to you where Keller shifts within a single sentence from claiming that the New Atheists are asserting that respect for religion is bad to respect for PEOPLE who are religious is bad. That is not my judgement, it is fact, and my description is accurate BY DEFINITION. You challenged me directly on this, so either defend your point or concede it.
@JoeWantsCake But that is rather different than your jump between "even to be congenial and respectful .. don't deserve respect or sympathy" to "NEVER advocated mistreatment of individuals". Or do you see disrespect and lack of sympathy as mistreatment? Or abuse? Child abuse? Leprachaunology?
@Sojourneer Yes it is. As a former Christian, I can say it's far harder from your standpoint, since it's disingenuous to your Biblical God. "The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong." Psalm 5:5. One of many, many examples where God is NOT a merciful, loving god toward those who do not submit to him. The falseness of "hate the sin, love the sinner" is one of the reasons I started losing faith. Also, you haven't answered my challenge.
@JoeWantsCake Sorry, I've lost the thread, I thought I was addressing your challenge. A number of critics agree there is a lack of respect and sympathy. I alluded to two quotes from TNA.
Understanding grace is one of the most difficult things to do, and takes many years of bumping up against personal failure to realize. The purpose of God is to create a people who will be united to Him, and join in the love that is the eternal experience within the Trinity. You are allowed to say no.
@Sojourneer (cont) ... since understanding God is officially impossible according to those who invented his current incarnation(s).
(5) Rephrasing my accusation and throwing it back at me only further demonstrates your inability to differentiate between an attack on an idea you hold and an attack on YOU, which brings us full circle. Keller is reinforcing that intellectual weakness outright, and stands only to profit from it. That is the assertion you challenged have failed to address since.
@JoeWantsCake Not following you at all. Linking is not possible in YT, or at least I don't know how. I don't know where your assertions 2,4 are coming from, so it seems my only course is to say I disagree and by inference judge your statements as baseless.
I'm really not interested in throwing stones, but for the record I don't feeling particularly threatened by any stones coming my way. Just tired from all the talking past one another.
For 2000 years Christians have explicitly said that everyone who disagrees with them will burn in hell. And now they have the audacity to complain about people "not respecting" their views. Awww..poor babies, now you have to put up with freedom of expression like everyone else. Still, I suppose you're not used to it, after 2000 years of simply killing anyone with a dissenting opinion.
The concepts of the New Atheists were first articulated by Bertrand Russell. In fact, Dawkins in particular uses many of Russell's examples. For so long, religionists have had the upper hand in society. Now that atheists are gaining respectability, religionists are incredibly threatened. Well, too bad. It's time that society begins to embrace reason, evidence, and science over superstition and belief in the incredible. The New Atheists are raising consciousness as never before. Bravissimo!
@theclarinet1234 I have not read these books so can't comment on the weakness of the arguments in these books. But I have read Russell's "Why I am not a Christian", and the arguments there *are* very weak. Just shows that expertise in one area doesn't transfer to other fields.
Ah, ridicule and narrow mindedness. Bigotry! Thank you for reaffirming my point about your views. And also not answering my questions. . . and thus re-affriming my worldview. Good day to you, and all the best! :)
The 'new athiests' only have so many years to act as puppets for satan, after which time, they will simply be dumped into God's cosmic waste disposal. Pray for them.
Let me ask a logical question. Where did we come from? How does this solar system exist and remain stable without constantly crashing into other systems? Why is it that we can breath on this planet and not others? Why is it we can see through telescopes millions of miles and see no other life forms? Why do people believe in the big bang theory, but stop short and don't believe that someone had to create the bang? Why do people believe in evolution? There are still monkeys and no transformation.
Im tired of Christians (or the religious in general) telling me how "weak" my points on life are. I do not believe in artificial mystical beings. I believe in humanism, secularism, and realism above anything else. I dont know why it is not accepted to trust in our 5 senses, rather than trust in a space god or in a human sacrifice.
@archdtaylor Please explain to me the etiology of your moral compass.....not whether you can be moral (which pigs, apes and other intellectually developed animals have shown in certain forms), but WHY you have moral objectivity (that pigs, apes and other intellectually developed animals do not have). I.e, why is murder and rape inherently abhorrent in humans and not in nature.
@Cmoni1111 We are intelligent beings through Evolution. We are the "lucky ones" to have been evolved with a better brain than our cousins. A better brain permits us to think rationally and reason all things which are give rise to our morals. To further my explanation, do you know that good and evil are just illusions in our world? (in the same way that a god is) What makes something good or evil is just a number of raised hands by our fellow primates.
@archdtaylor Thanks for replying to my post in a polite manner. I really think it's important for both sides (believers and non-believers) to regularly engage in respectful discourse regarding their beliefs. That being said, I have further problems with this reply in regards to my question. Here it goes:
On evolution, you contend that we have evolved to "have better brains than our cousins" and this "permits us to think rationally and reason all things which give rise to our morals".
@archdtaylor I think you're confusing what morality means. From a non-theistic perspective, if all we are is evolved animals, then morality is just a behavioral byproduct of evolution, and thus in no sense obligatory. But “obligatoryness” or “oughtness” is exactly what morality is, so without it you have no actual account of morality at all.
@Cmoni1111 Youre 100% correct by saying that morality is a byproduct. I think you are getting confused between morality and altruism. MORALITY:Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. As I stated and maintain, good and bad are illusions, therefore, morality is determined upon how we think we should conduct ourselves. Altruistic views, are more along the lines of taking care of one another which I think is what you are implying with "obligation".
@archdtaylor Thanks again for your reply. I think you're confusing moral ontology with moral semantics: confusing the basis or the foundation for moral values with the meaning of moral terms. I know that morals are how we think we OUGHT to act, as I already pointed out. I'm asking WHY? I'm not asking what constitutes "good" or "bad", I'm asking what these "oughts" for behavior are grounded in under Atheistic theory?
Also, if morality is just a set of evolved social customs, it doesn’t refer to anything that has objective existence, as moral values and duties must. Atheist Michael Ruse, & Richard Dawkins say, “morality is just an aid to survival, and any deeper meaning is illusory” and “there is no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference.” So, I still don't have a reason for why we have a sense of how we OUGHT to act (morals) & why "survival of the fit" isn't the rule of the day.
@Cmoni1111 Im saying the same as Dawkins and Ruse. I bet your morality is different from mine. Different again from anyone you choose. Morality is a belief. Simple. There are no laws in science to govern morality, and it can be compared with snowflakes, no 2 views are alike among the people. Everyone has a slightly different perceptions. That's why we disagree on abortion, or smoking, or how to raise children, etc., but I do not think of these as "pointless indifferences".
@Cmoni1111 You dont believe in Evolution?? What kind of a fool are you? I just said that "There are no laws to govern morality." But there ARE laws that govern Evolution. Morality, is an illusion. Evolution is real without argument except from those who have a false god clouding their judgement. Get rid of your false perceptions to open your mind to what is the truth about the this world.
@archdtaylor wow. So now you resort to insulting me. Ok, I see that this is going to get pointless now... Well I won't stoop to insulting you, and you still haven't answered my question. Since you have decided to just insult me instead....and also claimed you can prove evolution, haha, I suppose this debate is over. Thanks and I wish you the best.
@Cmoni1111 Believe it or not, you insult yourself. You want to hold on to your bible so badly that you will stoop to any ignorant point to disprove Evolution like most Creationists. My very first line on this thread was "Im tired of Christians (or the religious in general) telling me how "weak" my points on life are." ... and what are you doing? Its idiots like you who are dumbing down society, blocking scientific research, making this world a lie. Your views need to become realistic. Done.
@archdtaylor I'm simply asking you to explain the basis of morality. I didn't tell you your argument was weak at all. I just asked you to tell me what the grounds of morality was in evolved animals. Sorry you couldn't give me an answer. And you got pretty pissed about it too. I'm not at all mad. Sorry if my questions came off as insulting, which was truly not my intention. So, as I said, I wish you the best! :)
@archdtaylor besides, what does it matter if I believe in evolution or toothfairy's? According to you, it's all illusory anyway and everything is meaningless. Why even argue about it? It's all relative right?
One more thing: you've also got a problem with reduction. If these senses of "oughtness" are illusory, and they're only for evolutionary purpose (i.e., beliefs are aids to survival), then doesn't that make the belief in evolution as illusory as belief in God?
@archdtaylor I wrote something else too, but I removed it because I want to get clarification from you first: are you suggesting that morality is not objective, but rather subjective (or relative) to the ideals of the majority?
@archdtaylor You know, I would also like to point out that ridicule does not constitute argument for your point. It's a distraction--I see it used again and again on BOTH sides of this issue. None of these attacks on my intelligence, beliefs, etc, etc, have anything to do with the question I asked. So you are doing exactly what you blame "the religious in general" of doing. How can we ever get anywhere with that kind of pandering?
@Cmoni1111 Ok, listen, its not ridicule, its shame. Shame that my fellow humans take a mythological viewpoint from prophets years ago without education, compared with educated scientists here now. We can even speak with scientists! Without Evolution there would be no biology. I use to be a Christian; I sympathize, but its too late, the bible keeps getting the wrong answers. I cannot stand a viewpoint of any kind that leads us away from the actual proven truth (no the bible is NOT truth sorry).
@archdtaylor fine. I accept your point of view, and I certainly don't ridicule it. I don't call you a fool, I don't insult your intelligence. I am a converted atheist and I also happen to be an evolutionist--to the degree that I can be rationally with the evidence provided thus far. But you did ridicule me & my current beliefs, while on the other hand dismissing belief as illusory & I still don't have and answer to the question. So, best to you, and let's move forward on agreeing to disagree.
@Cmoni1111 But you are a fool; you are the very definition of a fool if you dismiss Evolution and I stand by my remarks. So which is it? because you have given me mixed views with your ever-so-confusing, pointless argument (I dont even know wtf your argument is LOL) It seems like you just get a kick out of razing people. If you do believe in Evolution, then I cannot understand the premise for which you are arguing. If you do not, you remain a fool, no ridicule, just pure honesty.
Just because someone is religious, doesn't mean they want to hijack a plane and fly it into a building, or put on an explosive vest and blow up a train. There are intelligent people who believe in God, and just because somebody is a priest doesn't mean they're molesters. I'm catholic, and I don't care if you atheists hate me or say I'm an idiot or not, but I've never been motivated by my faith to kill somebody or be violent, or blow up a building.
joetufano719 1 week ago
It's funny, when he was describing how Christians take on some of the negative attributes of atheists when debating them, I thought of the Nietzsche quote, "He who fights with monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster." And then right after that he describes their behavior as Nietzschian!
stallion4life 2 weeks ago
And Tim thinks his message is 'respectful' when he says that all Muslims and Hindus and Jews and non believers will all be tortured for an eternity after they die because they're not Christians, just like him?!? What a narrow-minded asshole
TheGizmoskate 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 4 weeks ago
Signs of the times, the same group will possibly explain away the "rapture", by explaining that UFOs had taken away the missing persons from the earth. The group was form just "in time" for
the sign of the times.
atsaries 1 month ago
"Fairly easy to refute?" lol Has the Bible been given a thumbs up for accuracy by The New Republic, The London Review of Books, or The New York Review of Books?
smegmasaurus 1 month ago
@smegmasaurus What he did was make an appeal to authority - those outlets - after claiming the arguments are fairly easy to refute. Doesn't say if the easily refuted arguments are why they got the bad review. Then he makes that comment about "most scholars" in what fields. Theologians, for example, aren't going to knock themselves over to praise books that deny the legitimacy of their whole field.
colddrake80 6 days ago
Hmm
I'm Agnostic Atheist personally. Religion has hurt my mental health some and I will never understand how people can say it does so much good as they yell at people and start wars over it. However I know some tolerant, reasonable people who are very religious and don't care that I'm Atheist. I happen to live in an area that tolerates a lot of people (I have friends who are Mormons, Wiccans, Deist) and I'm really thankful for that. I just don't want to try and convert people or be converted.
pineamn129 1 month ago
Yeah tolerance :)
steveoho 1 month ago
Looks like a pedo.
MCSk0r 1 month ago
The "new atheists" as he calls them, have not said to disrespect religious believers. They have stated that the beliefs themselves should not be respected. We have been taught in this country (and many other religious dominated countries send the same message) that all personal beliefs should be respected. The problem is that they shouldn't be. Just because you believe it, does not mean that it is immune to criticism. That's all "new atheists" claim.
TheRavensGhost 1 month ago
@TheRavensGhost Yeah, But you should be respectful while criticizing. Carl Sagan did it. Anyways this something i have not seen much from New Atheist. A agnostic. But i have not see one interaction that refer religious people as stupid or without words like Sky-daddies or imaginary friends. Even if your right. Be respectful. I dont like intolerance of any kind. i find Atheist are wasting there time. Bitch about religion, Is not likely to change 5 billion people's mind.
Tuber77 1 month ago
@Tuber77 You have young people on all sides of every debate, and they tend to be insulting. It's not a result of being atheist, it's a result of being human and inexperienced. Most of the insults I see atheists throw at theists are in retort to something insulting the theist said first (usually, not always the case). Keep in mind that many atheists in religious countries are dealing with constant insults from friends and family everyday as well.
TheRavensGhost 1 month ago
When you say "Its my way or the high way". Then you have effectively become a "Terrorist of the Mind."
Tuber77 1 month ago
Very nice. Enjoyable video. Be Blessed.
jfrontier1 2 months ago
I agree with his end message but two of the points he makes on the way there are very wrong.
DeMause 2 months ago
Great Keller. I love your book "The Reason for God".
Logosapologetica 3 months ago
Christianity says that atheist will burn in hell but you’re all up in arms because atheist says that religion deserves no respect?
JJPHILLYLG 3 months ago
Religion is the worst thing that has ever happened to mankind.
Respect for religion is WRONG!
If not for the Church repressing scientific research we would be 1.000 years ahead of where we are now in science and medicine.
There was a time when everyone believed in God, and the Church ruled.
That time was called "The Dark Ages"!
legion1a 3 months ago
@legion1a What's idiotic fallacy. No serious scholar calls Middle Ages of "Dark Ages". This is a false presumption.
Logosapologetica 3 months ago
@Logosapologetica
Wow!
I've heard Theists call evolution false before, but this is the first time I've heard one call "The Dark Ages" false.
Apparently it is not a sin to lie to promote your delusion.
FYI: Snakes and Donkeys can't talk, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, Evolution is real, and you are a brainwashed delusional fool. (I looked at your channel!)
Please respond to this comment.
Because Theists like you do more to prove that Atheists are right by accident, than I can do trying.
legion1a 3 months ago
@legion1a Uahh. That sleep gives talk superficially neoatheists angry as you. Why only like to talk to atheists intellectuals. 1) NO serious historian and scholar refers to the Middle Ages "Dark Ages". This is an alias for the creator of the Enlightenment. 2) I am not a creationist as might be thinking. I do not believe that the earth is young nor believe in talking snakes.
Logosapologetica 3 months ago
Comment removed
Logosapologetica 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@legion1a I do not altogether deny completly evolution (just read a little John Haught to make a mental sanitation in your head. You must have me confused with your girlfriend left you frustrated that you can turn to a new atheist disciple of Dawkins.:) 4) Do you know Portuguese to understand what I'm talking about or should be a telepath with key SAP atheist that only knows how to use the offense? Go find your class, boy.
Logosapologetica 3 months ago
@legion1a Amazing how some people remember and talk about the Church of the alleged crimes she committed against those who are different in the past. Apparently there are even many people who are stupid in history. In the past the principle in force "or them or us" and if not for the Church with movements like the Crusades or the Inquisition, today Europe was the Eurasia and would be all to pray five times a day and say that there is no god but Allah and other prophets besides Muhammad.
Logosapologetica 3 months ago
@legion1a Before you speak ill of the Church at all, using the "big" (sic) historian Hitchens (LOL) remember to wash your mouth and your fingers with soap and thank the Pope Leo I and other giants of the Church that prevented the West fall over barbarism and Islam. If not for the Crusades, today would not Oxford, Cambridge and Princeton.
Spare me your hate, atheist.
Logosapologetica 3 months ago
@legion1a Why Dawkins and Hitchens did not come from some "university" in Islam or any other place in the world? Why come out of universities with Christian traditions and, thanks to the patrons of the Church, much of the culture and knowledge have been preserved and maintained? If atheists can use the genetic fallacy, I can too.
Ah, remember to wash your mouth out with soap. Is dirty.
Logosapologetica 3 months ago
@legion1a This anti-Christian, atheist, agnostic, secular and hedonistic mob of today is hypocritical, ungrateful and above all ignorant! Have you ever had the freedom to do and say what they feel like well if this is Islam? or if the Church had not stopped the advance of Islam in the Battle of Lepanto? There is every jerk who gives up pitied.
Logosapologetica 3 months ago
@legion1a "If not for the Church repressing scientific research we would be 1.000 years ahead of where we are now in science and medicine" New atheist bad propaganda of bad type.
Logosapologetica 3 months ago
@legion1a Take easy, boy. You're in good company. There aren't many atheists and New Atheists for purely intellectual but emotional reasons (some beautiful evangelical girlfriend had who gave him out, lost their jobs with some Christian businessman, etc.). Fun:)
Logosapologetica 3 months ago
@legion1a New atheist learn History with the "doctor", "PhD", in history Christopher Hitchens. LMOL.
Logosapologetica 3 months ago
Somebody better tell Keller that there are 10,000 religions in the world with incompatible teachings many of which are willing to die for their faith. I'm glad to know that he has the true religion. I was a christian most all my life and finally woke up. My family who are fundamentalists make fun of humanism.....sad
Cousinsjay 3 months ago
1:01: Keller doesn't know how civil society can grow without religion. As one may know, socities grow much faster through pluralism (therefore check sociological research). Pluralism forces groups to rethink strong beliefs (which often imply discrimination against others) and to open up towards each other. Groups which are not able to accept pluralism try to eliminate other beliefs or systems either through physical death or indoctrination. There couldn't be less growing through ONE "truth".
learnfromthinkers 3 months ago
@learnfromthinkers Pluralistic societies are societies with many religions
sethdbeebe 3 months ago
I think this video is quite accurate.
voted4bush 3 months ago
Atheism = Godless Religion..
Simple as that they set out to take over the world with an idology, anyone who has a different idiology (belief in this case) should be vanished (become atheist in this case) Basicly the charasteristics of medieval catholicism
friday26th 3 months ago
@friday26th
If atheism is a religion then theism itself is a religion with that logic. If atheism is a religion then atheist Buddhist are holding two religious beliefs at the same time.
JJPHILLYLG 3 months ago
@JJPHILLYLG You didnt get my point lol. Atheism in some point is a religion, not every religion has belief in a God as its central principle, for example Bahai, Buddhism, many many others.
The point is religions are more than a faith its a way of life with some perticular priciples about reality
Atheism's principle "Theres No God"
Abrahamic faiths say "Believe in God, Obey him etc"
Bahai' faith says "Live peacefully, quietly, with respect etc"
Shamans have they're spirits they live by
etc etc...
friday26th 3 months ago
@friday26th
You say Atheism is a religion!?!?
If Atheism is a religion, how come we're not tax exempt?
Atheists never ask for tax deductable donations on television in the U.S.A..
We never promise that if you send money at the $1,000 prayer level; your money will be returned to you 10 times!
I just saw that lie on TV this morning, I don't know how they get away with it.
All religions are an evil delusion, (even yours).
legion1a 3 months ago
@legion1a honestly Im concidering to return to old slavic paganism which is about living your life and uniting with your land unlike the abrahamic faiths (Im russian, but thats a different story)
And I find Atheism as good as politics, full of idiocy. Uou try to force people into leaving their beliefs, so to speak. You find your self better for your beliefs hence why Atheism is as good as any other abrahamic faith (I say that from expirience with people I know and all these videos)
friday26th 3 months ago
They keep doing this "the arguments presented by Dawkins/Hitchens/Dan Dennet etc are such incredibly super bad lame poor easy to disprove bad arguments, Oh they are soo bad and so really poor!" But then, after they say that, they never actually just easily disprove a single one.
CorndogMaker 3 months ago 2
@CorndogMaker It's because they're not going to do it in a 2 minute and 52 second video. Tim Keller has a lot of talks on the subject, look them up. Or pick up his book "Reason For God".
unknownuser8838 3 months ago
There's no real truth where there's no understanding. It takes patience and courage as a Christian to want to understand others, but if you really want to help them then that's what you have to do, you have to humble yourself. I'm still learning myself but I've made it my goal.
gotGodandHislove 3 months ago
Who's that? Nitchi?
desasterz 3 months ago
we ignore Him but He does not ignore us, thats why you know youre an atheist
fernandopinoordonez 4 months ago
You miss the point completely and show your true colors as a hypocrite as well as your lack of knowlege of human history. Religion deserves no respect in the public sphere that has a constitution separating church and state. Religion deserves no respect for the Cowboys winning a football game, but respect for people's beliefs is exactly what atheists stand for. This is where christianity falls short having continually supressed cultures based solely on their belief in different folk tales.
johnwes3950 4 months ago
@johnwes3950 How can you claim that atheists stand for respect of other people's beliefs? That claim may be true for some atheists but certainly not the "new atheists". Further, new atheists love to dismiss the great persecution by the atheists of the Christian churches (in fact all religions). State enforced atheism was the name of the game for Stalinists and all other atheist run governments like Pol Pot, Mao Ts Tung. The "new atheists" turn a blind eye to the historical evidence.
1105Chance 4 months ago
@johnwes3950 You contradicted yourself in just a few sentences. You CLAIM that atheists respect other people's beliefs and then you call them "folk tales". You say that Christianity falls short for respecting other people's beliefs, but it is Western nations whose morality is based on Judeo-Christian values that have offered and continue to offer religious freedom to people. Atheist governments have done nothing but persecute people of faith. The atheist agenda in communism has killed MILLIONS.
1105Chance 4 months ago
@1105Chance I have had many friends that were atheists. That is not the same as the "new atheists" who are really just a bunch of fanatics everybit as insufferable as the worst fanatic fundamentalists. If one avoids the extremes of both sides...people that are quarrelsome and self-rigteous, then one can be respectful to others. Jesus tells us to do unto others. If Christians sometimes fail at this (or people claiming to be Christian) then they fail, but their failure does not define us.
1105Chance 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON ANOTHER PLANET? Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed to make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visiting the planet and, after studying these robots, comes to the conclusion that because science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe there was an intelligent designer behind them! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Mogley52 4 months ago
I like Tim Keller's books. Greetings from Brazil.
StephenDeMille 4 months ago
Comment removed
StephenDeMille 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a living cell. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all its is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 4 months ago
0:38 You started it. Theists have no one to blame but themselves for the relatively precarious position that they currently find themselves in. As long as verses and chapters like Psalm14 remain in the bible, christians have NOTHING to complain about, N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Here's an interesting video: "10 craziest child preachers".
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@ActivatedOne Of course I feel threatened by a bunch of extremely aggressive and self-righteous zealots. Especially when you consider just how average their intelligence is.
bushfingers 4 months ago
@ActivatedOne Christians really are highly threatened by the growing tide of non-religion. Remember that Christianity in particular is BIG BUSINESS. In the U.S., it's a business that is untaxed, making it even easier to accumulate wealth. The one fly in the ointment for the Catholic Church has been court costs and litigation settlements for its huge pedophile scandal. Those costs have amounted to in excess of $2 B, paid for by the average guy in the pew, who is growing more disgusted.
theclarinet1234 4 months ago
@ActivatedOne You should listen to e.g."The Veritas Forum: Belief in an Age of Skepticism" on Youtube. Religion is back, big time, outside the West.
Sojourneer 4 months ago in playlist More videos from TheGospelCoalition
@Sojourneer Outside the more enlightened and advaced west, religion has never left! Hence, we have religionists flying planes into buildings, religionists stoning women for adultery, religionists constantly bickering with and killing each other over who might be correct in some ridiculous, imaginary, inconsequential element of the interpretation of some absurd book.
theclarinet1234 4 months ago
@theclarinet1234 China and Russia were atheist; either you count them as part of the West or not, but in either case you are just thinnking wishfully.
You forgot to mention human sacrifice as practiced by several religions. I, like Keller, don't defend religion. OTOH, the "grace narrative" as he calls it has very different dynamics.
Sojourneer 4 months ago
@Sojourneer You should talk to Chinese and Russians about atheism. Russian Orthodoxy is now nearly a state religion and the Chinese continue to have a variety of religious practices, always overlooked by the state of course. The evidence is obvious to me. Humans have a propensity to invent imaginary agents to explain what they can explain in no other way and to provide comfort for the difficulties in life: "pie in the sky, bye and bye." But more and more humans are escaping this proclivity.
theclarinet1234 4 months ago
@theclarinet1234 I was responding to your "God will be shut down". My eg shows that the future is hard to read. Despite Nietsche's "God is dead", it seems that the tide is moving towards more religion now. As Keller points out, fervent supernatural religion (he calls in "crunchy") is on the rise versus the decline of "spiritualized truths" ("thin") religion. Irregardless of who has the biggest numbers, "One word of truth outweighs the whole world". You should watch the video I recommended.
Sojourneer 4 months ago
@Sojourneer In the west, especially in Europe, religion is in significant decline. Whyt? Several reasons. 1) Science provides much better explanations than religion ever can about the things that matter in everyday living; 2) With the major ongoing scandals of the Catholic Church, Evangelical preacher scandals, and Islamic extremists, the moral authority of religion has been destroyed; and 3) evidence continues to accumulate that religion is not a benign force in the world.
theclarinet1234 4 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Let me address those as reasons against Xtianity. 1) Science is not the property of atheists. It fits very well into a worldview where we are made in the image of a rational God and given a mandate to understand and govern. It's a really bad fit if you believe the world is illusion, or where obedience to Divine Will is the point. 2) Morality is not the point of the Xtian faith. 3) Recap the 20th C & the role of science & secular ideologies, & how it impacted view of science.
Sojourneer 4 months ago
@Sojourneer The numbers are unequivocal. You may quibble with my reasons----though you did not discount them. More and more Europeans are realizing that religion, in all of its thousands of guises, is unnecessary for a happy, fulfilled life, and even militates against a good life of reason and compassion. "None of the above" is even gaining strength in the theocratic U.S., in part due to 9/11 and a growing realization that religionists are fully capable of enormous harm.
theclarinet1234 4 months ago
@theclarinet1234 That's right, I chose to address the validity of the reasons, not how they play out. And in that context, they are not quibbles. I'm also not interested in defending what I consider false and harmful religions. And therefore I'll won't bring up the growing influence of Islam in Europe :)
Sojourneer 4 months ago
@Sojourneer And I won't bring up another false, harmful, ridiculous, magic-based religion----Christianity.
theclarinet1234 4 months ago 2
@theclarinet1234 OK, now I'm really bored. Bye.
Sojourneer 4 months ago
Well done Tim! I feel that this is a very fair assessment.
ryan4121 4 months ago
Great example of Keller misleading his own kind. "Don't listen to them because all they're doing is attacking you." It is in Keller's and all other religious leader's selfish interests to MAKE SURE that none of their sheeple (a) actually CONSIDER an opposing viewpoint, which would require critical thinking, and (b) EVER view their beliefs and their person separately. Anyone who does not submit to CHRISTIANITY at least partly is automatically ATTACKING CHRISTIANS, personally, Same old BS.
JoeWantsCake 4 months ago
@JoeWantsCake Really? He is saying the exact opposite. You aren't listening.
Sojourneer 4 months ago in playlist More videos from TheGospelCoalition
@Sojourneer "[T]hey're saying that even respect for religion is bad, that to even be congenial and respectful toward RELIGIOUS BELEIVERS is bad. ... When you actually say, here's the people over here and they disagree with us 'cause they're RELIGIOUS PEOPLE and they DON'T EVEN DESERVE RESPECT OR SYMPATHY...."
That is a total mischaracterization of the New Atheists. They've NEVER advocated mistreatment of individuals. It is obviously you who is not listening, to either side.
JoeWantsCake 4 months ago
@JoeWantsCake Tit for tat? I was speaking about your statement about Tim, not his statement about TNA. The validity of latter I don't know, as I have not read nor are interested in reading those books. What I do know is there are a lot of very disgruntled unbelievers posting in forums in a manner that I expect they would not dream in doing in person.
Sojourneer 4 months ago
@Sojourneer True. Also true of self-proclaimed Christian trolls and posters of all stripes. I don't lump you in with them, and appreciate being given the same benefit of the doubt. My statement about Keller is BASED on his mischaracterization of the message he disdains, the message you refuse to consider, yourself. So what exactly are you calling into issue?
JoeWantsCake 4 months ago
@JoeWantsCake I have read BR's Why I am Not, and bits and pieces of Hitchens. Dialogues I have attempted to have with trollers (someone posting rude and provacative comments to worship music videos on Youtube, e.g.) clearly show the lack of courtesy and respect for my humanity. So I don't believe Tim Keller is mischaracterizing "what is new is the lack of basic respect necessary for civil discourse" (paraphrased). Keller himself demonstrates quite a different tone and openness.
Sojourneer 4 months ago
@Sojourneer And you would have a valid point if Keller were addressing Internet trolls, but he was replying to his own summation of what the New Atheists' message is (it's even the title of the clip). Just as most bad arguments start, he began by mischaracterizing what his opponents have said, then proceeded in his answer to implicitly equate any disrespect toward religion with assaults on individuals who ascribe to that religion. Exactly what I meant by same old B.S.
JoeWantsCake 4 months ago
@JoeWantsCake "Implicitly equate" is your judgement, and I won't deny you the right to take it that way. From previous exposure to Keller, I know he is theologically against that kind of defensiveness, and I personally admire him for not exhibiting it personally either. Last sermon I heard from him was on Westphal's "Suspicion and Faith: The Religious Uses of Modern Atheism" on Nietzsche, Freud and Marx's criticism's of christianity. You might be surprised.
Sojourneer 4 months ago
@JoeWantsCake As far as the substantive content of the alternative worldview espoused by atheists, I do continue to think and reflect on what science reveals about us and our world, but within what I consider a richer and ultimately more fully human interpretive framework.
Sojourneer 4 months ago
@Sojourneer There is no singular worldview espoused by the New Atheists, let alone all atheists in general. Dawkins is a biologist, so his pov is from science. Hitch is a literary master, and that obviously informs everything he says and does. Dennett is a philosopher, so you won't hear much science coming from him. My point is, even those 3 perspectives are wide and varied. They cannot be understood through a single interpretation, only misunderstood for the purpose of dismissing them offhand.
JoeWantsCake 4 months ago
@JoeWantsCake I remember reading Hitchens on Mother Theresa, and sensing how the wildly different frames of reference causea such deep misunderstanding and a loathing (from disappointed idealism?). Mary Poplin speaks a bit about this on Youtube, how incomprehensible MT was to her. Not that I am defending MT in particular.
I live in a country that is 1% christian. I am not a "sheeple", but I don't identify myself as a "bright" either. My relationship to Jesus and the Father are what define me.
Sojourneer 4 months ago
@Sojourneer Implicit means "capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed" and equate means to make equal. I've already quoted to you where Keller shifts within a single sentence from claiming that the New Atheists are asserting that respect for religion is bad to respect for PEOPLE who are religious is bad. That is not my judgement, it is fact, and my description is accurate BY DEFINITION. You challenged me directly on this, so either defend your point or concede it.
JoeWantsCake 4 months ago
@JoeWantsCake But that is rather different than your jump between "even to be congenial and respectful .. don't deserve respect or sympathy" to "NEVER advocated mistreatment of individuals". Or do you see disrespect and lack of sympathy as mistreatment? Or abuse? Child abuse? Leprachaunology?
You are being disengenuous.
Sojourneer 4 months ago
@JoeWantsCake Just reviewed some of the reviews of TNA. This "love the sinner, hate the sin" stuff is hard isn't it :)
Sojourneer 4 months ago
@Sojourneer Yes it is. As a former Christian, I can say it's far harder from your standpoint, since it's disingenuous to your Biblical God. "The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong." Psalm 5:5. One of many, many examples where God is NOT a merciful, loving god toward those who do not submit to him. The falseness of "hate the sin, love the sinner" is one of the reasons I started losing faith. Also, you haven't answered my challenge.
JoeWantsCake 4 months ago
@JoeWantsCake Sorry, I've lost the thread, I thought I was addressing your challenge. A number of critics agree there is a lack of respect and sympathy. I alluded to two quotes from TNA.
Understanding grace is one of the most difficult things to do, and takes many years of bumping up against personal failure to realize. The purpose of God is to create a people who will be united to Him, and join in the love that is the eternal experience within the Trinity. You are allowed to say no.
Sojourneer 4 months ago
Comment removed
JoeWantsCake 4 months ago
Comment removed
JoeWantsCake 4 months ago
Comment removed
JoeWantsCake 4 months ago
Comment removed
JoeWantsCake 4 months ago
Comment removed
JoeWantsCake 4 months ago
Comment removed
JoeWantsCake 4 months ago
Comment removed
JoeWantsCake 4 months ago
@Sojourneer (cont) ... since understanding God is officially impossible according to those who invented his current incarnation(s).
(5) Rephrasing my accusation and throwing it back at me only further demonstrates your inability to differentiate between an attack on an idea you hold and an attack on YOU, which brings us full circle. Keller is reinforcing that intellectual weakness outright, and stands only to profit from it. That is the assertion you challenged have failed to address since.
JoeWantsCake 4 months ago
@JoeWantsCake Not following you at all. Linking is not possible in YT, or at least I don't know how. I don't know where your assertions 2,4 are coming from, so it seems my only course is to say I disagree and by inference judge your statements as baseless.
I'm really not interested in throwing stones, but for the record I don't feeling particularly threatened by any stones coming my way. Just tired from all the talking past one another.
Sojourneer 4 months ago
@Sojourneer Where to begin...
(1) Reading reviews is not the same as understanding a perspective, particularly when you disagree with that perspective going in.
(2) I'm glad you know the purpose of God. Please tell all pastors and theologians. They're dying to know.
(3) If you're going to refer to quotes, the post or link to them. Saying they prove me wrong is not enough.
(4) If understanding Grace is the way to understanding the Trinity/God, then understanding Grace is impossible (to be cont.)
JoeWantsCake 4 months ago
@JoeWantsCake Sure :-)
bushfingers 4 months ago
@bushfingers Huh?
JoeWantsCake 4 months ago
For 2000 years Christians have explicitly said that everyone who disagrees with them will burn in hell. And now they have the audacity to complain about people "not respecting" their views. Awww..poor babies, now you have to put up with freedom of expression like everyone else. Still, I suppose you're not used to it, after 2000 years of simply killing anyone with a dissenting opinion.
chaosroyalevideo 4 months ago
@chaosroyalevideo In my opinion, t
hat is a completely generalized statement.
ryan4121 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What are the arguments that are so easy to refute and how are they refuted?
usukatlifegodiekthx 5 months ago
Comment removed
usukatlifegodiekthx 5 months ago
The concepts of the New Atheists were first articulated by Bertrand Russell. In fact, Dawkins in particular uses many of Russell's examples. For so long, religionists have had the upper hand in society. Now that atheists are gaining respectability, religionists are incredibly threatened. Well, too bad. It's time that society begins to embrace reason, evidence, and science over superstition and belief in the incredible. The New Atheists are raising consciousness as never before. Bravissimo!
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 I have not read these books so can't comment on the weakness of the arguments in these books. But I have read Russell's "Why I am not a Christian", and the arguments there *are* very weak. Just shows that expertise in one area doesn't transfer to other fields.
Sojourneer 4 months ago in playlist More videos from TheGospelCoalition
Ah, ridicule and narrow mindedness. Bigotry! Thank you for reaffirming my point about your views. And also not answering my questions. . . and thus re-affriming my worldview. Good day to you, and all the best! :)
Cmoni1111 5 months ago
1:46-2:04
I think that was directed at many of the people (particularly Christian) posting comments on this video.
PompousFlea 5 months ago
The 'new athiests' only have so many years to act as puppets for satan, after which time, they will simply be dumped into God's cosmic waste disposal. Pray for them.
voyagersystem 5 months ago
@bomichaelsdotcom, ... eternity awaits.
voyagersystem 5 months ago
The new atheist message is HATE GOD. It's satanism under a different name.
voyagersystem 5 months ago
Let me ask a logical question. Where did we come from? How does this solar system exist and remain stable without constantly crashing into other systems? Why is it that we can breath on this planet and not others? Why is it we can see through telescopes millions of miles and see no other life forms? Why do people believe in the big bang theory, but stop short and don't believe that someone had to create the bang? Why do people believe in evolution? There are still monkeys and no transformation.
absoluterightchoice 5 months ago
Comment removed
voyagersystem 5 months ago
@absoluterightchoice, you ask 'Why do people believe in evolution?' Answer: Because they worship King Kong, when they need to worship King Jesus.
voyagersystem 5 months ago
Im tired of Christians (or the religious in general) telling me how "weak" my points on life are. I do not believe in artificial mystical beings. I believe in humanism, secularism, and realism above anything else. I dont know why it is not accepted to trust in our 5 senses, rather than trust in a space god or in a human sacrifice.
archdtaylor 5 months ago
@archdtaylor Please explain to me the etiology of your moral compass.....not whether you can be moral (which pigs, apes and other intellectually developed animals have shown in certain forms), but WHY you have moral objectivity (that pigs, apes and other intellectually developed animals do not have). I.e, why is murder and rape inherently abhorrent in humans and not in nature.
Cmoni1111 5 months ago
@Cmoni1111 We are intelligent beings through Evolution. We are the "lucky ones" to have been evolved with a better brain than our cousins. A better brain permits us to think rationally and reason all things which are give rise to our morals. To further my explanation, do you know that good and evil are just illusions in our world? (in the same way that a god is) What makes something good or evil is just a number of raised hands by our fellow primates.
archdtaylor 5 months ago
@archdtaylor Thanks for replying to my post in a polite manner. I really think it's important for both sides (believers and non-believers) to regularly engage in respectful discourse regarding their beliefs. That being said, I have further problems with this reply in regards to my question. Here it goes:
On evolution, you contend that we have evolved to "have better brains than our cousins" and this "permits us to think rationally and reason all things which give rise to our morals".
Cmoni1111 5 months ago
@archdtaylor I think you're confusing what morality means. From a non-theistic perspective, if all we are is evolved animals, then morality is just a behavioral byproduct of evolution, and thus in no sense obligatory. But “obligatoryness” or “oughtness” is exactly what morality is, so without it you have no actual account of morality at all.
Cmoni1111 5 months ago
@Cmoni1111 Youre 100% correct by saying that morality is a byproduct. I think you are getting confused between morality and altruism. MORALITY:Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. As I stated and maintain, good and bad are illusions, therefore, morality is determined upon how we think we should conduct ourselves. Altruistic views, are more along the lines of taking care of one another which I think is what you are implying with "obligation".
archdtaylor 5 months ago
@archdtaylor Thanks again for your reply. I think you're confusing moral ontology with moral semantics: confusing the basis or the foundation for moral values with the meaning of moral terms. I know that morals are how we think we OUGHT to act, as I already pointed out. I'm asking WHY? I'm not asking what constitutes "good" or "bad", I'm asking what these "oughts" for behavior are grounded in under Atheistic theory?
Cmoni1111 5 months ago
Comment removed
Cmoni1111 5 months ago
Also, if morality is just a set of evolved social customs, it doesn’t refer to anything that has objective existence, as moral values and duties must. Atheist Michael Ruse, & Richard Dawkins say, “morality is just an aid to survival, and any deeper meaning is illusory” and “there is no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference.” So, I still don't have a reason for why we have a sense of how we OUGHT to act (morals) & why "survival of the fit" isn't the rule of the day.
Cmoni1111 5 months ago
@Cmoni1111 Im saying the same as Dawkins and Ruse. I bet your morality is different from mine. Different again from anyone you choose. Morality is a belief. Simple. There are no laws in science to govern morality, and it can be compared with snowflakes, no 2 views are alike among the people. Everyone has a slightly different perceptions. That's why we disagree on abortion, or smoking, or how to raise children, etc., but I do not think of these as "pointless indifferences".
archdtaylor 5 months ago
@archdtaylor This is exactly my point. Doesn't that make your belief in evolution illusory too?
Cmoni1111 5 months ago
@Cmoni1111 You dont believe in Evolution?? What kind of a fool are you? I just said that "There are no laws to govern morality." But there ARE laws that govern Evolution. Morality, is an illusion. Evolution is real without argument except from those who have a false god clouding their judgement. Get rid of your false perceptions to open your mind to what is the truth about the this world.
archdtaylor 5 months ago
@archdtaylor wow. So now you resort to insulting me. Ok, I see that this is going to get pointless now... Well I won't stoop to insulting you, and you still haven't answered my question. Since you have decided to just insult me instead....and also claimed you can prove evolution, haha, I suppose this debate is over. Thanks and I wish you the best.
Cmoni1111 5 months ago
@Cmoni1111 Believe it or not, you insult yourself. You want to hold on to your bible so badly that you will stoop to any ignorant point to disprove Evolution like most Creationists. My very first line on this thread was "Im tired of Christians (or the religious in general) telling me how "weak" my points on life are." ... and what are you doing? Its idiots like you who are dumbing down society, blocking scientific research, making this world a lie. Your views need to become realistic. Done.
archdtaylor 5 months ago
@archdtaylor I'm simply asking you to explain the basis of morality. I didn't tell you your argument was weak at all. I just asked you to tell me what the grounds of morality was in evolved animals. Sorry you couldn't give me an answer. And you got pretty pissed about it too. I'm not at all mad. Sorry if my questions came off as insulting, which was truly not my intention. So, as I said, I wish you the best! :)
Cmoni1111 5 months ago
@archdtaylor besides, what does it matter if I believe in evolution or toothfairy's? According to you, it's all illusory anyway and everything is meaningless. Why even argue about it? It's all relative right?
Cmoni1111 5 months ago
One more thing: you've also got a problem with reduction. If these senses of "oughtness" are illusory, and they're only for evolutionary purpose (i.e., beliefs are aids to survival), then doesn't that make the belief in evolution as illusory as belief in God?
Cmoni1111 5 months ago
@archdtaylor I wrote something else too, but I removed it because I want to get clarification from you first: are you suggesting that morality is not objective, but rather subjective (or relative) to the ideals of the majority?
Cmoni1111 5 months ago
@archdtaylor You know, I would also like to point out that ridicule does not constitute argument for your point. It's a distraction--I see it used again and again on BOTH sides of this issue. None of these attacks on my intelligence, beliefs, etc, etc, have anything to do with the question I asked. So you are doing exactly what you blame "the religious in general" of doing. How can we ever get anywhere with that kind of pandering?
Cmoni1111 5 months ago
@Cmoni1111 Ok, listen, its not ridicule, its shame. Shame that my fellow humans take a mythological viewpoint from prophets years ago without education, compared with educated scientists here now. We can even speak with scientists! Without Evolution there would be no biology. I use to be a Christian; I sympathize, but its too late, the bible keeps getting the wrong answers. I cannot stand a viewpoint of any kind that leads us away from the actual proven truth (no the bible is NOT truth sorry).
archdtaylor 5 months ago
@archdtaylor fine. I accept your point of view, and I certainly don't ridicule it. I don't call you a fool, I don't insult your intelligence. I am a converted atheist and I also happen to be an evolutionist--to the degree that I can be rationally with the evidence provided thus far. But you did ridicule me & my current beliefs, while on the other hand dismissing belief as illusory & I still don't have and answer to the question. So, best to you, and let's move forward on agreeing to disagree.
Cmoni1111 5 months ago
@Cmoni1111 But you are a fool; you are the very definition of a fool if you dismiss Evolution and I stand by my remarks. So which is it? because you have given me mixed views with your ever-so-confusing, pointless argument (I dont even know wtf your argument is LOL) It seems like you just get a kick out of razing people. If you do believe in Evolution, then I cannot understand the premise for which you are arguing. If you do not, you remain a fool, no ridicule, just pure honesty.
archdtaylor 5 months ago