I like the way you think. I hadn't thought of the difference between evidence and proof before. I have to say your videos could be improved by some editing, but I don't want to foist my advice on you unsolicited.
@rm2kmidi Thanks. My videos have lots of room for improvement, yes. But its kind of hard when it takes me a whole day to put out a video as low quality as this. My computer is very slow while rendering, and internet upload speed is even slower.
so in your last comment you basically say that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (the theist). I would say that proof is a product of evidence that points in one clear direction. so to say that you lack proof for your belief is the same as saying you lack sufficient evidence for your belief. now I would go on to say you have no evidence but I haven't heard what you have to say on the matter. I am interested in this energy argument thought.
@southpawOO7 My argument from energy goes along these lines:
1. God is an eternal, conscious, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, entity.
2. Energy requires conceiving of temporal values to create temporal material since since temporal values is against its eternal nature, thus has an eternal conscious.
3. Energy is the source of all power, thus omnipotent.
4. Given premise 2, since energy created all things, it is aware and cares about all things, thus omniscient and omnibenevolent.
Someone is a living being with a beautiful life which should not be taken away - natural. Taking away that life would therefore be the wrong thing to do - natural. Any need for a supernatural explanation is superfluous and therefore invalid...it's just an attempt to push God on people and get them to believe in dogma, other "laws" by this supposed "God" who "knows all." The fact is, there may be universal truths (natural), but we are nowhere near to figuring them all out yet. That is God.
@LibertyArtist "Any need for a supernatural explanation is superfluous and therefore invalid"
First of all, that's a contradiction in terms. If a supernatural explanation is "invalid" then there wouldn't be a "need" for it.
Secondly, you've provided no support for this claim and instead insists only one possible scenario that its always the product of religious intolerance while never even considering the other side of the coin. Therefore it was biased claim and unsubstantiated claim.
@nazra7 Basically what I'm saying is that "any supernatural explanation is superfluous." "Need for" did not refer to an actual need but a perceived need on the part of the person ascribing a supernatural explanation. No, it was not a biased or unsubstantiated claim at all. It is a very real, common outcome we get from people who say they believe in God. You see, usually God comes in a package, and I am not willing to take that whole package when the part in question is not even needed.
@LibertyArtist "it was not a biased or unsubstantiated claim at all."
Please explain why you think its superfluous for a christian to ascribe a supernatural cause. I know why you think its so for atheists
"You see, usually God comes in a package, and I am not willing to take that whole package when the part in question is not even needed."
I can explain how mount Rushmore was built without mentioning the lead designer behind the project, does that mean I can deny the existence of its creator?
@nazra7 it's superfluous for anyone to ascribe a supernatural cause, christian or atheist. it doesn't matter who is doing the ascribing. and if you know why i think it is so for atheists, then you know why i think it is so for a christians too. different people aren't entitled to different logic. logic applies across individuals. there is no need to ascribe a creator to everything. if you want to say there is a creator, then at the very least there's a creator, but that's it. no more.
@LibertyArtist This isn't about logic as much as it is about about your knowledge of the world (conclusions are based on premises). When an athiest conceives of God, he conceives of a contradictory God that even a Christian like me would also be skeptical of existing. My knowledge of God differs from you and what I know about God tells me its not only superfluous to conclude the supernatural, its necessary. If you saw God the way I see him, you'd probably also be a Christian.
@nazra7 I'm confident I will not see god as you see god, and that (therefore?) I won't be a christian. l already know much about Christianity and choose not to accept all of it. I admit that many Christian people are great and there are Christian charities that do great things. But that doesn't mean I believe in their religion. And I don't think that my choice not to believe in the Christian God is a bad one. I have my own personal beliefs which I don't think I have fully revealed here.
@nazra7 But humor me. Tell me about your knowledge of god, how it differs from my knowledge of god (and how you even know about my knowledge of god or lack thereof), and what you know about how god (the supernatural) tells you it is necessary to conclude the supernatural (isn't that begging the question? Let's see if your answer is any different from variations of what I've heard over the years and if it persuades me to change my beliefs. I consider myself pretty open-minded.
@LibertyArtist Your choice to choose not to believe is not a bad one because its apparently based off premises that shows that God is evil and impossible.
I can't tell you how my knowledge differs from yours because I'm not aware of your knowledge of God, but I will be glad to share with you mine. Now, it will be impossible to explain all my knowledge in youtube comments, so I'll give an example:
@LibertyArtist One example involving the "evil God" theory: Many athiests seem to think that God tortures people in hell thus making him evil, however, that's not what Christianity teaches. Christianity says that when a person goes to hell, they will be tortured by their sins similar to how fatty foods torture your body. Sin is bad for the soul like fatty foods is bad for your body, thus sin makes your soul unhealthy and painful.
@LibertyArtist With that said, many atheists also seem to think that God is not evil unless he removes all suffering from the world when Christianity teaches its our (mankind's) fault. Someone doesn't love you unless they clean up your mess?
Apologetics argue against this by asserting that without suffering, the world would be a worse place. When your morality is based on suffering, without suffering, there is no apparent need for morality thus it would lead to an immoral world.
@nazra7 Ok the way you phrase it, "God doesn't punish you for you sins, you punish yourself with your sins with hell" is a little softer way of phrasing it but is the same basic evil idea because I think it is false. It is a way to try to control people by lying to people and trying to punish them for their sins. There is no evidence for an afterlife. Yes, we can have "heaven" and "hell" here on earth, but I believe when we die we just cease to exist, just like we did before we lived.
@nazra7 "Please tell me you meant something more there." No, I didn't. I believe consistent dishonesty toward people for the sake of coercing them is morally wrong. If you think something is a sin then try to convince people not to engage in it. Tell them society will punish them for it because most often that is true. But don't lie to them about an eternal damnation that they will experience for something that isn't even a sin. That is evil. I'm sorry if you disagree.
@nazra7 And is that really what Christianity says or is that how you want to spin Christianity to make it look softer and nicer? Seems like a little revisionist history to me. Last time I checked the only Christian sin that mattered in the end was whether you accepted christ, and that determined where you go. Seems like the wish of a narcissistic God and not on whether they have actually repented for their sins or even done good in life. But it's irrelevant because there's no evidence.
@LibertyArtist "And is that really what Christianity says or is that how you want to spin Christianity"
There are many different interpretations of Christianity. The mistake people make when arguing against Christianity is over generalizations. One needs to take on one denomination of Christianity at a time.
"Last time I checked the only Christian sin that mattered in the end was whether you accepted christ"
Along with seeking forgiveness and performing selfless activities.
@nazra7 I agree it is important to perform selfless activities and should be encouraged, and different people will inevitably do that to different degrees depending on the person, but I don't believe accepting Christ as god is important because I don't think it is true, and that may just be a difference of opinion. The only one I think it is truly most important to seek forgiveness from is oneself, if you truly feel guilty for what you have done. Anything else is beyond your control.
@LibertyArtist "but I don't believe accepting Christ as god is important because I don't think it is true"
If it is true, would you think its important? Why do you think its false?
"If you think something is a sin then try to convince people not to engage in it."
Well you said people lie to keep people from sinning, but if that's what they truly think then they aren't lieing, rather, they are only self deceived if they are wrong.
@nazra7 ok, look, i can't keep having this conversation with you because like i said, when religion is ingrained in someone, it's very hard to convince them otherwise. they will come up with any argument even if it makes no coherent sense to justify their beliefs. so at some point, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
@nazra7 "If it is true, would you think its important?" It's not true so that question is irrelevant. Did you watch that dude's video I referred you to? The whole thing is really inherently immoral so I can't view it as true, and if it were true I would have a problem because I would essentially have to become a slave to Jesus and I don't think a supposedly all-loving Jesus would want me to be a slave. So it's an inherently impossible question. An inherently impossible situation.
@LibertyArtist "inherently immoral so I can't view it as true"
Because murder is immoral doesn't mean OJ Simpson didn't killed his wife. I'm sorry but you need to come up with a better argument.
"even if it makes no coherent sense to justify their beliefs."
You and I both know that statement goes both ways. And you've never given an explanation for the "incoherence" of my arguments. You even hinted that my argument from energy was anything but incoherent.
@nazra7 "Because murder is immoral doesn't mean OJ Simpson didn't killed his wife. I'm sorry but you need to come up with a better argument." Ok, so you are admitting it's immoral? The whole guise of it is that it is moral but it is really immoral...it can't be both. And the idea of making someone burn for eternity is not only impossible, it is reprehensible, and no loving god would do that. A loving and understanding god would at least always give someone a chance to reform themselves.
@nazra7 So not only is the idea of it a paradox because an all-loving god makes us his slaves, but there is no reason to believe it. Why would I believe it any more than I would believe any other religion? The greek gods, the native american gods, allah, etc? Just because it claims to be the only way? It's only as good as the claim itself, and to me it is not a very good claim. All religions are equal in my eyes. No one religion gets preferential treatment.
@nazra7 "And you've never given an explanation for the "incoherence" of my arguments." Again, this goes back to who the burden of proof is on. Is it on me to prove the incoherence of your arguments or is it on you to prove the coherence of your arguments? I think you actually have to prove the coherence of your arguments, you can't just say whatever you want and expect me to believe it. I'm not going to believe that energy is god (an omnibenevolent etc. trinity) just because you say so.
@LibertyArtist "I would essentially have to become a slave to Jesus and I don't think a supposedly all-loving Jesus would want me to be a slave."
Again, you need to get to the intention of this message. Every Christian knows that this means nothing more than doing the good will of Jesus, how would an all loving Jesus not want you to do good works for other people and yourself?
@nazra7 "how would an all loving Jesus not want you to do good works for other people and yourself?" an all-loving Jesus would give me the freedom to make my own choices and to deal with the real-life consequences of those actions without the added threat of eternal punishment simply for not accepting his will. It is funny to me to see murderers who say they've found Jesus. Yet these people supposedly get saved while an atheist philanthropist would burn in hell. It makes no sense.
@LibertyArtist "without the added threat of eternal punishment simply for not accepting his will."
This argument seems to be more about the morality of eternal damnation that Jesus being unloving for punishing the deserving (because punishment does not entail hatred), but for that to be a good argument you must show how any moral act deviates from God's will as Christianity proposes that all moral acts are essentially God's will whether or not it was done in his name.
@nazra7 ok man, i'm done arguing with you. i'm tired and i can't have this ridiculous conversation anymore and even entertain the idea that people burn in hell when they die. it's ridiculous and hopefully someday you'll realize how stupid it is. no, you know what, i don't care what you believe. believe what you want to believe. believe there's a heaven and hell if you want and keep pushing the lie. i can live a moral life without believing in christianity, if you can't, well you can't.
@LibertyArtist "t is funny to me to see murderers who say they've found Jesus. Yet these people supposedly get saved while an atheist philanthropist would burn in hell. It makes no sense."
It won't make sense unless you are completely aware of God's method of judgement, which is, to my knowledge, unclear even to Christians. That is why I propose that no one prescribe judgement, but let the judge give judgement.
@nazra7 "but let the judge give judgement" ok, let the judge give judgement then. so don't tell me what i need to do. don't tell me you know what god thinks or knows. because as you say it's "unclear even to christians." so if it's unclear to christians then you don't know, and don't pretend to know. it "doesn't make sense" to me, and it doesn't make sense to you so don't claim to know who gets saved and who doesn't
@nazra7 "I wouldn't dream of it as long as you're not hurting people." good, i'm not. "Wouldn't dream of it. Who am I to speak for God?" good. you're right. but you are trying to speak for him when you say he wants certain things, such as wanting people to do good deeds. that's speaking for him. "but that is nothing more than opinion unless you give a good argument as to why its a lie." you're right. it is an opinion. it's my opinion and it's a damn good one. i hope i have given
@nazra7 at least a decent argument about why it is a lie. but i can't prove it's a lie any more than you can prove it's not a lie, or that judaism is a lie, or islam, or buddhism, etc. there is as much basis for it as the flying spaghetti monster or the celestial teapot. who knows, i could drown in a watery hell instead of burn in a firy hell. all good people could go to hell while all bad people who dismiss christ go to heaven. you can't give me a good argument against it.
@LibertyArtist "but i can't prove it's a lie any more than you can prove it's not a lie"
Well its up for the claimer to prove his claims, its not up to the person effected by the claim to prove its false. So saying its false doesn't get you anywhere.
@nazra7 so it's just your opinion. just because a book says something doesn't make it true. just because someone/something claims to know/be the word of god doesn't make it so, especially when you have more than one religion claiming this. then there's no way to know. so you are going on faith, and that's an opinion.
@LibertyArtist I wouldn't be a Christian right now if I didn't see extra-biblical evidence for Christianity's validity, such as the argument from energy I proposed to you.
@nazra7 If it's simply about doing good deeds and being a good person, that's one thing. (It's still immoral to make anyone suffer the worst imaginable pain for eternity, even if they are a bad person. Two wrongs don't make a right. Remember, he's god, he can supposedly do anything, so he can decide how to treat people. He doesn't have to enact vengeance on people. He could simply obliterate or isolate their soul if it does not deserve to go on to the eternal awesomeness of heaven.)
@nazra7 But Christianity is not about what we have come to understand as being a good person who does good deeds. There's a specific requirement about accepting Christ as your savior and essentially becoming Christian. Therefore, you burn in hell if you are a great person of any other religion. If you are not "lucky" enough to live in a culture where you are exposed to Christianity so you've never heard of Christ and don't have a choice of whether to accept him, you still go to hell.
@nazra7 "Well you said people lie to keep people from sinning, but if that's what they truly think then they aren't lieing, rather, they are only self deceived if they are wrong." Who says you can't deceive yourself and others at the same time? I think the fact that you are lying to yourself too doesn't make it any more acceptable.
@nazra7 I think seeking forgiveness from others, society, and maybe the greater universe, god, whatever you want to call it can be useful, but i think it's really a guise for what you are really trying to do: forgive and accept yourself, which is most important.
@nazra7 ZJemptv...Watch some of this dude's videos. He does a pretty good job of knocking down the concept of God/Christianity and I think would do a better job of convincing you than I would, if that's at all possible. He makes some pretty interesting and solid arguments. But then again, you believe what you believe. If something has been ingrained in you for so long and you are part of the culture, I admit it's going to be hard to change your beliefs, even if there's no evidence.
@LibertyArtist When I watch ZJ's videos it is a clear example of what I am talking about. For example, Zj says that Christ's sacrifice is not really a sacrifice because he rose three days later, that's like saying a good deed when rewarded is not a good deed.
I've tried creating criticisms of his videos but I get blasted by thousands of his subscribers who do not take on my points, rather, instead they just repeat what he says. If anyone's doing brain washing here, I think its ZJ
@nazra7 "Zj says that Christ's sacrifice is not really a sacrifice because he rose three days later" I agree, this was not ZJ's strongest argument and she probably should not have made it. But she was not saying he rose three days later. She was saying that people say he rose three days later which is kind of silly considering they say he just died a brutal death. Not her strongest argument because it temporarily accepts the story's premise, but that doesn't weaken her other arguments.
@LibertyArtist I know that argument made by ZJ was a hypothetical, saying even if this were the case then the worth of the sacrifice was diminished. Perhaps I could have made a better rebuttal to that video, but in as far as I know I'm not ware of any strong arguments he makes. If you recommend one, please let me know.
@nazra7 The problem I have with saying there is a god and even a creator is everything that it has come to connote. What you think is positive I think can be very negative. For we as humans to claim we know what god wants has proven to be immoral. Anyone who claims to know the answer to how the universe got here is just reaching too high. It's a mystery. You don't know. I don't know. So we shouldn't pretend to have supernatural answers to questions we don't know the answer to.
@LibertyArtist "For we as humans to claim we know what god wants has proven to be immoral."
Actually, some things that has been said that God wants has proven to be moral, such as non-violent protest that Jesus preached and practiced, avoiding psychoactive drugs, not murdering, presumption of innocence in the courts, loving your neighbors and enemies, not stealing, treat servants as equals, the list goes on and on.
@nazra7 "Actually, some things that has been said that God wants has proven to be moral." What you mentioned are morals that we as a society have realized through logic, through reason, through experience, through debate We did not need a religion or god to tell us that. Take murder. Do you think we need the bible to tell us that murder is wrong or do you think that's something that we as humans just understand? I think it is something we innately understand or have come to understand.
@nazra7 I don't need to believe in Jesus to be a non-violent protestor. Non-violent resistance actually preceded Christ. I don't need to believe in religion to believe any of the things you mentioned. Atheists can believe in the same morals as theists, proving that god or a belief in god is not required for morality. Many of these things can be better explained by common sense.
@LibertyArtist "I don't need to believe in Jesus to be a non-violent protestor."
I never said you did. You said things that God wants is immoral, however, Jesus wants us to be non-violent protesters, and that's a moral thing. Therefore that claim of yours was false.
This is another example of you trying to argue against your interpretation of Christianity, rather than actually arguing against Christianity.
@LibertyArtist In any case, I've only explained an apparent contradiction of God without ever explaining God. I believe that God is either energy, or energy is what God is made of because I argue that energy is personal, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, and is a trinity.
Energy is the source of all power that exists therefore energy is omnipotent.
Energy requires conceiving of temporal values to create a finite universe from its infinite nature, therefore personal. Continued
@LibertyArtist Since energy conceives of what it creates, it is also aware of it and cares about it, and since energy creates all things it is aware and cares about all things, therefore energy is omniscient and omnibenevolent.
Lastly, energy has three primary forms, material energy (thermal and chemical), immaterial energy (electrical and nuclear), and instructional energy (radiant and mechanical). Therefore, energy is a trinity.
@nazra7 Ok, energy is a trinity? So what? What does that prove? I can think of many things that are a trinity, that doesn't mean they are god or vice-verse.
@LibertyArtist Alone one cannot say a thing is a god if they are trinities, but coupled together with a conscious, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, one can easily conclude this as the Judeo Christian God.
@nazra7 "Alone one cannot say a thing is a god if they are trinities, but coupled together with a conscious, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, one can easily conclude this as the Judeo Christian God." No, actually one cannot make this assumption. This is more nonsense. And there is no evidence that energy is omnipotent or omnibenevolent. Energy does not solve all problems nor does it always create a good result.
@nazra7 I also don't see what energy, the capacity of a system to do work, has to do with omniscience. Yes matter is energy so therefore everything that exists is both energy and matter, but that doesn't mean everything knows everything about itself or everything else. Neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed in an isolated system but both can be converted, yet we don't know where they came from. This doesn't get you to a God, much less Jesus died for my sins.
@nazra7 Look, your thoughts on energy are obviously very deep but a lot of it is just assumption and non-sequitir, i.e., "since energy conceives of what it creates, it is also aware of it and cares about it..." i don't even think i know what you mean here. it seems more like poetry than logic to me. Think about how everything is energy and how everything I observe in the natural world is energy. That doesn't mean that it is god. You can overthink anything and come to any conclusion.
@LibertyArtist I'm not sure how you can cry "fallacy!" and "assumptions!" when you're not even sure what I mean. Without a mind to conceive of invention, nothing creates things that are different from its nature. This is why physics is predictable because atoms only do things in accord to their nature. And it just so happens that the nature of matter, which is mortal, is in contrast to the nature of energy, which is eternal.
"Please explain, in natural terms, the cause of crimes against humanity." Dude, that's what I've been doing. It's basically explained in and of itself. "Crimes against humanity." Those are acts that we as humans have determined to be unlawful because they violate the rights of other humans. All that is natural. Now you might say, what if humans didn't believe it was wrong to kill? Would it still be wrong to kill? Yes, it would be. But that can still be explained by the laws of nature.
@LibertyArtist "Those are acts that we as humans have determined to be unlawful because they violate the rights of other humans."
Now how are such unalienable rights determined? Please explain how the laws of nature can account for objective moral standard to say it is wrong to murder.
@nazra7 "Please explain how the laws of nature can account for objective moral standard to say it is wrong to murder." We are given a life. It is something that we have. For someone to take that away from us is unfair because we are the ones living it, not them. I am sure there are more erudite explanations. I'm giving you my street explanation. That is why it's not fair to take away life. Because the laws of nature say that it's not yours to take away someone else's life.
And let me point out that even if we were able to reach consensus on these issues, if we did agree on what was right and wrong on every issue, and could agree that they apply universally, that wouldn't necessarily support the existence of a god.
Most rational, empathetic people believe murdering innocent people is wrong, and therefore would believe doing so throughout history was wrong. That's a pretty cut and dry one, so I see why you jump to that one. But what about abortion? What about killing animals for food? What about euthanasia? What about the right to kill yourself? All these are questions without a moral consensus in today's society. So if morality is so absolute and timeless, why don't we have answers to these questions?
@LibertyArtist "That's a pretty cut and dry one, so I see why you jump to that one."
Because no normal person kills other human beings unless there is some perceived justification for it. That implies justice, and justice implies morality.
"So if morality is so absolute and timeless, why don't we have answers to these questions?"
@nazra7 "Because no normal person kills other human beings unless there is some perceived justification for it. That implies justice, and justice implies morality." Yes, we're in agreement here. But it still doesn't imply a god.
@LibertyArtist "Yes, we're in agreement here. But it still doesn't imply a god."
For their to be universal justice there needs to be a universal moral standard, and for their to be a universal moral standard, there must be a universal moral judge - AKA God.
@nazra7 "Because we don't fully understand morality yet." Exactly, so it is not absolute. A perfect morality is just an ideal, a concept. And again, to claim something exists that is not falsifiable, the burden of proof lies on you.
You mean our understanding of it is not absolute.
"A perfect morality is just an ideal, a concept."
The fact that we are trying to discover such a perfect moral conception is evidence that morality has objectivity to it, which suggests that morality exists independent of our conception of it.
@nazra7 "You mean our understanding of it is not absolute." No, I mean IT is not absolute. There is no "one right standard" of morality. Good people can disagree on moral issues. The consensus that murder is wrong is not evidence for an objective moral standard on that issue nor all issues. It's subjective. It comes from good people reasoning. Let's give ourselves credit for good moral decisions we make and not attribute them to the supposed objectivity of something that may not exist.
@LibertyArtist Your argument for a subjective morality seems to be based off the premise that there is no evidence for objective morality. Is that correct?
"The consensus that murder is wrong is not evidence for an objective moral standard on that issue nor all issues"
That's strange that you say that because consensus of the immoral implications of murder is in itself a standard for morality, one that is accepted universally.
@nazra7"consensus of the immoral implications of murder is in itself a standard for morality, one that is accepted universally" if that is true, it is done by humans, and for a reason. because we value human life (our survival/happiness) and therefore judge taking that life to violate our rights (that nobody impede our survival/happiness). that's totally natural. and being self-interested/empathetic/thinking/feeling humans, we apply that standard. it doesn't imply anything supernatural.
If you define nature as being everything that exists then yeah, morality is natural, but if supernatural things existed, then by that definition of nature, supernatural things would also be natural.
Nature is usually defined as the material world. Morality is not material, so by that definition of nature, it would be above and beyond nature, which is the definition of supernatural.
@nazra7 "Morality is not material" You may view it that way, but I don't view it that way. I view it as natural. Just because it is an abstract concept does not mean it can't be explained by the natural and must be explained by the supernatural. Thought is an abstract which can be explained by the concrete human brain. Likewise, morality can be explained by the human brain and how it reacts to human behavior, or by human behavior itself. There is no need for a supernatural explanation.
@nazra7 "The fact that we are trying to discover such a perfect moral conception is evidence that morality has objectivity to it, which suggests that morality exists independent of our conception of it." No. Just because we are searching for something does not mean it exists. Moral statements are by definition normative. They can't be proven. Ex. "One ought not steal." In contrast, descriptive statements are objective statements that can be logically proven "all bachelors are unmarried"
@LibertyArtist "Just because we are searching for something does not mean it exists."
Right. In fact, the phrase "wild goose chase" is derived from this fact. However, in the case of morality, we are not searching for any absolute concept of morality, we are searching for a complete understanding of the morality we already know to exist called "mala in se" (wrong in nature) crimes and crimes against "humanity".
@nazra7 "in the case of morality, we are not searching for any absolute concept of morality, we are searching for a complete understanding of the morality we already know to exist called "mala in se" (wrong in nature)" i guess i agree here, with the caveat that this concept of morality is normative and must be determined by humans. good humans will disagree on what this means and we will probably never reach a consensus on all moral issues. but i agree with the existence of the concept.
@LibertyArtist The argument is mala in se crimes and crimes against humanity exist even if they're not being enforced. The evidence for this is its universally accepted as wrong and the only way for one to engage in such acts would have "mens rea" AKA a "guilty mind".
"Moral statements are by definition normative. They can't be proven."
So what if I say "It is immoral to steal"? According to you, that statement is logically provable because its descriptive.
@nazra7 "So what if I say "It is immoral to steal"? According to you, that statement is logically provable because its descriptive." That's basically rephrasing "One should not steal." It's not a definition. A definition would be "stealing is taking away from someone" or "immoral means wrong," but to make the jump to "it is immoral to steal," that is now an opinion and can't be logically proven. I'm not saying you can't make a persuasive argument for it. It just can't be proven.
@LibertyArtist "That's basically rephrasing "One should not steal."
Exactly, and according to you "it is immoral to steal" is not normative and its a provable statement. What, are you trying to say that "it is immoral to steal" and "one ought not steal" do not mean the same thing?
"that is now an opinion and can't be logically proven."
Sure you can if you have a standard for morality. So do you think Nazi war criminals should not have been convicted of crimes against humanity?
@nazra7 No, I'm saying they mean the same thing and that "it is immoral to steal" is normative. It's not provable. You can make a good argument, but when it comes down to it, it's a subjective judgement.
@nazra7 "Sure you can if you have a standard for morality. So do you think Nazi war criminals should not have been convicted of crimes against humanity?" No, I think they should have. Just because I think something is subjective does not mean I think it is automatically good or bad, or that that subjective opinion should not exist. I still think prosecuting the war crimes was a good decision, albeit a subjective one.
@nazra7 "The evidence for this is its universally accepted as wrong"
Just because something is universally accepted does not make it true, let alone objective truth. Right/Wrong is inherently subjective. What one person thinks is right, another might think is wrong. To pretend we know what god thinks is right is to say we are god, which we don't even know exists. We can't use our concept of our morality as evidence that god exists. We can only say what WE believe to be right vs. wrong.
"The only things that differ in morality through out the ages are the conditions for which innocent and guilty applies." Not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean that things change with time but that what is right/wrong remains the same? I think this is what you mean. But this still doesn't answer the question who is deciding what is right and what is wrong? If I think murdering an innocent person is wrong today, there is no reason I shouldn't believe doing so was wrong 100 years ago (cont)
@nazra7 There's also the issue of how far must we go to save a life. If genocide is being committed or people are starving in another country and we have the power and resources to stop it, is it immoral not to do so? We allow it to happen, but people don't call it murder. Same goes for people who can't afford prescription drugs or a life-saving operation in our own country. We let it happen. Our society doesn't have clear answers to these questions that absolute morality supposedly answers.
@nazra7 You should check out this guy's channel. cjae2631. He makes very good points that protect the Bible's accuracy. Check out his latest video if you're short on time.
@Z6D4C4 Thanks, he has a pretty interesting channel going on, though I'm sure he, like I, find it difficult to find support for our videos when they're mainly for an atheistic audience.
I think the issue with atheists questioning "faith" is that the vast majority of evidence is on our side. Sure, we all have faith in some things. How do I know I'm not going to be smashed by a truck the moment I step out my front door? I don't know for sure. But I use induction so I don't worry about it. But If every time I walked out that front door I was freaking out looking for that truck, I think you would have a reason to question my behavior.
@LibertyArtist "I think the issue with atheists questioning "faith" is that the vast majority of evidence is on our side"
Evidence for what? God doesn't exist? That's actually untrue as their is no evidence God doesn't exist. That is why atheist reject the arguments for God's existence, not the possibility of his existence.
In fact, I argue the contrary, there's plenty of evidence that God exists. To name a couple, universally accepted moral concepts and fine tuning.
@nazra7 Sure there is evidence that God doesn''t exist. We've never seen him. The more we go looking for him, we don't find him. I think what you mean is there is no proof he doesn't exist. But there is no proof that anything doesn't exist. So you say you have evidence that God exists? Go ahead and explain it please. How do you think universally accepted moral concepts and fine tuning support the existence of a god? Because I'm not seeing the connection.
@LibertyArtist "How do you think universally accepted moral concepts... support the existence of a god?"
The argument I am about to give you is called Modus Ponens:
If universal morals exist, then God exists (because a "ruler" of the universe [God] is the only thing that can objectively determine right from wrong in its creation).
Universal morals exist. (A given, some people argue the contrary, but those same people will never say murder is ok).
@nazra7" If universal morals exist, then God exists (because a "ruler" of the universe [God] is the only thing that can objectively determine right from wrong in its creation)." I question this premise. Why does a ruler of the universe have to determine right from wrong in its creation? Why can't the universe itself determine right from wrong? Why does there have to be a creator/ruler just because you posit that the universe has an absolute sense of right and wrong?
@nazra7 "Universal morals exist." How do you know? How do you know that humans didn't create this idea of universal morals? Would we have universal morals without humans? Are animals bound by universal morals? That is, is it wrong for animals to kill each other? How do you know that we as a society didn't come to a sense of morality through reasoning?
@LibertyArtist "How do you think... fine tuning support the existence of a god?"
Again, Modus Ponens:
If the universe is fined tuned for life, then God exists (because as finely tuned universe for implies that something wanted the universe to contain life, the only thing that would be is God).
The universe is finely tuned for life. (A well known concept in cosmology).
@nazra7 "because as finely tuned universe for implies that something wanted the universe to contain life, the only thing that would be is God" how do you know something wanted the universe to contain life? how do you know it didn't just happen by chance? if mold grows in my apartment that doesn't mean i want it there, it just means the conditions were right. this also brings up the dilemma of how you as a human can assume or even propose what a possible god would/wouldn't want.
@nazra7 "Not me" Exactly, some faith is rational, some is not. When the evidence is highly on your side, you might say it is rational to have faith. When it is not, it's not rational to have faith.
@LibertyArtist "When the evidence is highly on your side, you might say it is rational to have faith."
Before we knew the world was round, if you go outside, the world looks flat. And back then there's no reason to not think the world is flat (additionally, due to a lack of knowledge about the world, testing such a hypothesis is difficult), is it wrong to say that belief was irrational?
After all, the basic question of logic is, given the premises, does the conclusion follow?
@nazra7 would it be terribly irrational, back then, to think the world was flat? probably not. but if you believed it after repeatedly being given clear and convincing evidence that the world was round or after evidence the world was flat was repeatedly discredited, yes, it probably would be. if you believed it today, yes it probably would be. same thing if you believed in evolution. it's pretty much the same example if you think about it.
@LibertyArtist My point is, there has never been given any convincing evidence to people like me that God does not exist, therefore my faith should not be considered irrational.
Evolution is an interesting case. In fact, no one in their right mind rejects evolution completely, only certain kinds of evolution. Whether or not its ok to reject any part of evolution, I have no idea, I'm not a biologist.
@nazra7 "My point is, there has never been given any convincing evidence to people like me that God does not exist, therefore my faith should not be considered irrational." But you admitted that you can't prove something doesn't exist. By this logic, you would have to believe in Allah, in Buddha, in Hare Krishna, in the Greek Gods, in idols. You would have to assume that I have committed murder and every other crime imaginable because you don't have convincing evidence that I haven't.
@nazra7 this is ad ignorantiam. "you haven't disproved it, so i'm going to believe it's true." even if there is no good evidence for it. so then which religion is it? i can't disprove any of them but they all contradict each other and many say theirs is the only right way. so how do you choose which is best other than bias? without being irrational and admitting there is no good reason to choose one over the other? tell me because you said lack of evidence to the contrary isn't evidence.
No, not exactly, because the basis for which I believe is not that it has not been disprove, I was just saying its very arrogant for atheists to say my belief is wrong when there's no evidence it is wrong.
I do have plenty of evidence God exists. One being the fact that the universe is fined tuned in such a way that life is even possible anywhere.
@nazra7 "I was just saying its very arrogant for atheists to say my belief is wrong when there's no evidence it is wrong." what we are saying is that it is kind of arrogant to say we are wrong to choose not to believe something or at least doubt it when there is no evidence that it exists. Sure, the universe is "finely tuned" to allow life. We wouldn't be here to observe that fact if it weren't. But does that imply a creator, or could that have just happened? (cont.)
@nazra7 Is there anything extraordinary about life other than the fact that we are here to observe it? Just because we exist, does that make us divine and supernatural? Does it imply that we must have been created, just because we are here? And if there is a creator, where is it? what does it look like? what form does it take? what does it really mean? are you really going to equate these philosophical questions with some organized religion's conception of a god? holy book and all?
@nazra7 What fine-tuning says is that if any of a number of fundamental physical constants were slightly different, the conditions that allow life would not be possible. It's kind of irrelevant though because they're not different...they are what they are. The question still remains...did someone create them that way? Or did it just happen that way without a creator?
@nazra7 Life seems extraordinary to us because we are living it. We are conscious beings, and that can bring up the question, did someone create this soul? Does a higher power own this soul and is it part of a higher order of things...or, is my sentience just a natural part of the universe, life, evolution? There are two basic ways of looking at it: a god is responsible for my soul, or nature is responsible for my soul. Some people blur the line between the two, but that's the question.
@nazra7 "Yes, the fact that everyone sees certain things, such as murder and rape, as atrocious." We see it that way because we humans naturally value our own lives and welfare out of a biological/psychological need to survive and be happy, and we instinctively fight against the sense of violation and injustice when our rights are taken. We also empathize with other people so we generally want to promote the well-being of others and protect them from harm, even if we do not know them.
@nazra7 Some people, however, do not recognize rape and murder as atrocious. They will violate the survival/well-being of others if they feel threatened or even to assert power. Look at war. I see a lot of people objecting to murder but when it's in the context of war they think it's ok or somehow not murder. Look at capital punishment. Where did the sanctity of life go when it comes to that? Are those people not human anymore because they were found guilty of a horrible crime?
@nazra7 So morality is very human, can vary from person to person, and then is often determined at a higher level by groups and can differ between civilizations and times. In some cultures, women walk around topless and mutilation rituals are performed that we would find tasteless/immoral. To oversimplify, what's ok in the north doesn't always fly in the south. As time goes on minorities seem to get more rights. Who knows where we will be in 100 years. But it's often very political.
@nazra7 I could give you 100 other examples of how morality isn't absolute. Look at the OT and some of its outdated morality. Murder and rape are those extreme examples that are so horrendous that nobody could think anyone would allow it on a societal level. But we just think that way because we are "civilized" western society, with what seem to be stringent social rules some people mistakenly believe are based on absolute morality, but those rules get broken successfully all the time
@LibertyArtist "Look at the OT and some of its outdated morality"
I don't see it as outdated, it worked for thousands of years. And many methods they used back in Ancient Israel we still use today. Our whole court system is based off of the court systems in the old testament.
@nazra7 When it comes down to it, absolute morality does not exist because we will never see it, we will never have it, we can only approach it if it even could exist, and it can't exist because nobody will ever agree on what it means. Yes, on the big issues like rape and murder we will agree on the basic idea, but what about war and capital punishment? What should the sentence be for someone who commits rape? And what about lighter issues like gay marriage? All these things are open.
@LibertyArtist "When it comes down to it, absolute morality does not exist because we will never see it, we will never have it"
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be thinking that morality only exists if moral actions are carried out right? So morality isn't really something that exists independent of us, rather, morality is just a consequence of our actions right?
@nazra7 "you seem to be thinking that morality only exists if moral actions are carried out right?" No, I'm not saying that whatever action is taken is moral. I'm saying that morality depends on the person/society who is judging and the situations they are in. Morality is rules of right/wrong. "So morality isn't really something that exists independent of us," correct...without humans we would not have a sense of morality...there would be no reason for it...it is something we created.
@nazra7 "rather, morality is just a consequence of our actions right?" Not so much just a consequence of our actions but also of our thoughts and ideas. Morality is a system of judgement. We judge something to be right or wrong or somewhere in between. If we live in a society where we accept the killing of animals for food, then for us it is a moral thing to do. But for many vegetarians, they view it as a violation of the animals' rights, and thus for those individuals it may be immoral.
@LibertyArtist Your argument makes complete sense if that's how morality really is, but I believe morality exists independent of us. We're only trying to discover it fully. Evidence of this is the fact that everyone throughout all ages knew that killing another innocent human being is wrong. And the fact that every civilization has always had a concept of "justice" and "morality".
@nazra7 I already explained why people think killing is wrong. And the reason civilizations have concepts of "justice" and "morality" is also because human's idea of right and wrong is based on their need to survive and be happy, even on a societal level. It is completely natural. There is nothing supernatural about it. The reason our sense of morality evolves and we are "only trying to discover it fully" is because society is constantly evolving and making advances. (continued)
@nazra7 If there is an "absolute morality," then why wouldn't it reveal itself to us fully? We as a society/societies are constantly evolving our sense of right/wrong to reflect what we believe our place to be in our environment and there is constant disagreement on what right and wrong actually is. AM is only a concept, an idealistic utopia that we would reach if we made infinite moral advances. But even then there would be disagreement as to whether that society would be truly moral.
@nazra7 Everyone throughout the ages didn't know that killing another innocent human being is wrong and some people still don't know. And many still disagree what innocent means. There are probably several innocent people each year in the U.S. who get put to death by the state. We have seen many people on death row been exonerated by DNA evidence. Imagine how many others have already been wrongly put to death. Though most agree "murder is wrong," what that really means is another issue.
@nazra7 There are TONS of issues that arguably carry moral implications that don't have a clear answer and are a matter of a debate, e.g., what people wear, what people say, what people write, business practices that are legal but not necessarily ethical, treatment of animals, pollution, taxation, the role of our government, how to treat the poor, how to interact with other nations, how much (if any) charity is morally required of someone/something, drug policy, voting age, and many more
@LibertyArtist "so how do you choose which is best other than bias?"
Go through what the religion says about their God and see if its in any way contradictory to things we see in reality.
I'll give you an example, the Bible says in the beginning there was light, this was proven to be true for the big bang emitted vast amounts of radiation, and as you know (or should know) radiation is light.
@nazra7 "I'll give you an example" Now I don't know whether to take you seriously. You are saying we should take the bible literally? So you believe God created the universe in six days? That he first divided light and darkness into day and night, then popped planets into existence? That with each day, he popped out different forms of life, rather than these having slowly evolved from a common ancestor? Anyone in their right mind can't possibly believe the universe came about this way.
@LibertyArtist "You are saying we should take the bible literally?"
Why not look at my argument instead of asking all these other unrelated questions?
"what we are saying is that it is kind of arrogant to say we are wrong to choose not to believe something or at least doubt it when there is no evidence that it exists."
Well then I have no beef with you. I am only a responder to atheists who call Christians stupid for believing in something they have no evidence does not exist.
@nazra7 "Why not look at my argument instead of asking all these other unrelated questions?" Sorry dude, you weren't exactly saying that. But in a way you were. You were saying we should look at the bible and see if it mirrors reality. Which we know it doesn't. "Let there be Light" is not the same as the big bang. There may be similarities. So the question kind of stands. Take the bible literally? Or only take the parts that fit reality/morality and dispose of everything else?
@nazra7 "Yes, the fact that everyone sees certain things, such as murder and rape, as atrocious." Ok, so life is extraordinary. Life is valuable. We have rights. How does this evidence a god? Something was fine-tuned for something "extraordinary" to take place so therefore there is a god, and the christian god no less because you see things in the bible that supposedly mirror real-life? You still haven't answered why this couldn't have happened by chance.
@nazra7 I did look at your argument. And you said see if things in the bible mirror things in real life, which you implied they do. So therefore follow the christian bible. But then the question comes up, as a christian, do you take the bible word-for-word? do you want to impose your religion on other people? because these are common christian beliefs. my answer to the bible question is you can find things in any holy book that make sense and some things that don't make sense.
@nazra7 "By we, I think you mean you. The same cannot be said for me." No, by we, I mean a lot of other smart, rational people too and a growing number people in civilized, intellectual society.
@LibertyArtist "No, by we, I mean a lot of other smart, rational people too and a growing number people in civilized, intellectual society."
The oppostie can be said for those who believe in God. The majority of philosophers and cosmologists believe in God, the majority of physicists and biologists don't.
"Does a lack of evidence that he does exist constitute evidence that he doesn't exist?"
No, because that's the fallacy of ad ignorantiam.
@nazra7 "No, because that's the fallacy of ad ignorantiam." Yeah, and that can go both ways. You can argue that just because we haven't disproved a god is support for his existence, when in fact it is not. I can't argue for sure there is no god, but i can argue that i haven't seen any good evidence for a god. and i can argue that i have seen people's proposed evidence for a god to be false.
@nazra7 "Nope, I mean evidence.There is no evidence God does not exist (as far that I've seen). If you disagree, please list some." Well, if we're talking about a specific religious god, that's easy. Shit in the scriptures are wrong and religions contradict each other. If we're talking broadly about a philosophical supreme being in the broadest terms, that gets a little more difficult. Does a lack of evidence that he does exist constitute evidence that he doesn't exist? (cont).
...like what? I hear this argument a lot, however, from my experience, this statement reflects an incomplete understanding of the scriptures by the person who stated it.
"...and religions contradict each other."
That's to be expected. Every religion asserts a complete view of reality, only one can be right (if any).
@nazra7 "from my experience, this statement reflects an incomplete understanding of the scriptures by the person who stated it." ok, i'm not going to engage this because you have to be a complete idiot not to know that bible has some ridiculous shit in it. and what's true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole. that's like saying, "well, to understand my murdering someone, you have to look at my complete life." but i'll humor you...anything saying homosexuality is wrong.
@nazra7 "That's to be expected. Every religion asserts a complete view of reality, only one can be right (if any)." Ok, a logical person would look at all of these religions and say, they are all incorrect...they are so specific, and they developed out of the cultures and superstitions of their time/environment. A logical person wouldn't say, well, one just nailed it on the head! Maybe a logical person would say that they were all aiming at some common general idea of a higher power.
@nazra7 I would only categorize faith to be idiotic based on the importance of the belief's verity and it's oddity, or, how "far out" it is. Of course this would be using your definition of faith, belief without proof, which I do prefer. I would say that looking at a picture of a cup that looks to be made of glass and believing it is made of glass is not idiotic. Believing that an invisible dragon just flew by because of a sudden wind, I think, is idiotic. This should better explain my opinion.
@shyanndreamcatcher You may disagree with me then, and that's ok I'm still a learning Christian, I am just saying how I currently understand things to be. I may be completely wrong. But my belief in God and Jesus has never been stimulated by nothing more than a good reason to believe its true. Does that mean I don't have faith?
@nazra7 We are saying the same thing just differently. Yes I think you have faith, your just going deeper in your definition, but your right. Yes we all have different experiences in our life that helped us in our belief in God, which gives us faith to believe in him. Some one may have had a near death experiences where they saw heaven, and from that gave them the proof they needed to believe in God, but to others we still believe with out seeing. I hope that makes sense. God Bless You Big Hugs
I like the way you think. I hadn't thought of the difference between evidence and proof before. I have to say your videos could be improved by some editing, but I don't want to foist my advice on you unsolicited.
rm2kmidi 4 weeks ago
@rm2kmidi Thanks. My videos have lots of room for improvement, yes. But its kind of hard when it takes me a whole day to put out a video as low quality as this. My computer is very slow while rendering, and internet upload speed is even slower.
Please bear with me.
nazra7 4 weeks ago
so in your last comment you basically say that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (the theist). I would say that proof is a product of evidence that points in one clear direction. so to say that you lack proof for your belief is the same as saying you lack sufficient evidence for your belief. now I would go on to say you have no evidence but I haven't heard what you have to say on the matter. I am interested in this energy argument thought.
southpawOO7 1 month ago in playlist More videos from nazra7
@southpawOO7 My argument from energy goes along these lines:
1. God is an eternal, conscious, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, entity.
2. Energy requires conceiving of temporal values to create temporal material since since temporal values is against its eternal nature, thus has an eternal conscious.
3. Energy is the source of all power, thus omnipotent.
4. Given premise 2, since energy created all things, it is aware and cares about all things, thus omniscient and omnibenevolent.
nazra7 1 month ago
Someone is a living being with a beautiful life which should not be taken away - natural. Taking away that life would therefore be the wrong thing to do - natural. Any need for a supernatural explanation is superfluous and therefore invalid...it's just an attempt to push God on people and get them to believe in dogma, other "laws" by this supposed "God" who "knows all." The fact is, there may be universal truths (natural), but we are nowhere near to figuring them all out yet. That is God.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "Any need for a supernatural explanation is superfluous and therefore invalid"
First of all, that's a contradiction in terms. If a supernatural explanation is "invalid" then there wouldn't be a "need" for it.
Secondly, you've provided no support for this claim and instead insists only one possible scenario that its always the product of religious intolerance while never even considering the other side of the coin. Therefore it was biased claim and unsubstantiated claim.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 Basically what I'm saying is that "any supernatural explanation is superfluous." "Need for" did not refer to an actual need but a perceived need on the part of the person ascribing a supernatural explanation. No, it was not a biased or unsubstantiated claim at all. It is a very real, common outcome we get from people who say they believe in God. You see, usually God comes in a package, and I am not willing to take that whole package when the part in question is not even needed.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "it was not a biased or unsubstantiated claim at all."
Please explain why you think its superfluous for a christian to ascribe a supernatural cause. I know why you think its so for atheists
"You see, usually God comes in a package, and I am not willing to take that whole package when the part in question is not even needed."
I can explain how mount Rushmore was built without mentioning the lead designer behind the project, does that mean I can deny the existence of its creator?
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 it's superfluous for anyone to ascribe a supernatural cause, christian or atheist. it doesn't matter who is doing the ascribing. and if you know why i think it is so for atheists, then you know why i think it is so for a christians too. different people aren't entitled to different logic. logic applies across individuals. there is no need to ascribe a creator to everything. if you want to say there is a creator, then at the very least there's a creator, but that's it. no more.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist This isn't about logic as much as it is about about your knowledge of the world (conclusions are based on premises). When an athiest conceives of God, he conceives of a contradictory God that even a Christian like me would also be skeptical of existing. My knowledge of God differs from you and what I know about God tells me its not only superfluous to conclude the supernatural, its necessary. If you saw God the way I see him, you'd probably also be a Christian.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 I'm confident I will not see god as you see god, and that (therefore?) I won't be a christian. l already know much about Christianity and choose not to accept all of it. I admit that many Christian people are great and there are Christian charities that do great things. But that doesn't mean I believe in their religion. And I don't think that my choice not to believe in the Christian God is a bad one. I have my own personal beliefs which I don't think I have fully revealed here.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@nazra7 But humor me. Tell me about your knowledge of god, how it differs from my knowledge of god (and how you even know about my knowledge of god or lack thereof), and what you know about how god (the supernatural) tells you it is necessary to conclude the supernatural (isn't that begging the question? Let's see if your answer is any different from variations of what I've heard over the years and if it persuades me to change my beliefs. I consider myself pretty open-minded.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist Your choice to choose not to believe is not a bad one because its apparently based off premises that shows that God is evil and impossible.
I can't tell you how my knowledge differs from yours because I'm not aware of your knowledge of God, but I will be glad to share with you mine. Now, it will be impossible to explain all my knowledge in youtube comments, so I'll give an example:
nazra7 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist One example involving the "evil God" theory: Many athiests seem to think that God tortures people in hell thus making him evil, however, that's not what Christianity teaches. Christianity says that when a person goes to hell, they will be tortured by their sins similar to how fatty foods torture your body. Sin is bad for the soul like fatty foods is bad for your body, thus sin makes your soul unhealthy and painful.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 another funny one /watch?v=MK3bHq5vJ4M
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist With that said, many atheists also seem to think that God is not evil unless he removes all suffering from the world when Christianity teaches its our (mankind's) fault. Someone doesn't love you unless they clean up your mess?
Apologetics argue against this by asserting that without suffering, the world would be a worse place. When your morality is based on suffering, without suffering, there is no apparent need for morality thus it would lead to an immoral world.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 Ok the way you phrase it, "God doesn't punish you for you sins, you punish yourself with your sins with hell" is a little softer way of phrasing it but is the same basic evil idea because I think it is false. It is a way to try to control people by lying to people and trying to punish them for their sins. There is no evidence for an afterlife. Yes, we can have "heaven" and "hell" here on earth, but I believe when we die we just cease to exist, just like we did before we lived.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist "but is the same basic evil idea because I think it is false"
Its evil because you think its false? Please tell me you meant something more there.
"It is a way to try to control people by lying to people and trying to punish them for their sins."
Why would some one want to punish others for sinning if they didn't believe that they had a responsibility to keep people from sinning?
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 "Please tell me you meant something more there." No, I didn't. I believe consistent dishonesty toward people for the sake of coercing them is morally wrong. If you think something is a sin then try to convince people not to engage in it. Tell them society will punish them for it because most often that is true. But don't lie to them about an eternal damnation that they will experience for something that isn't even a sin. That is evil. I'm sorry if you disagree.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@nazra7 And is that really what Christianity says or is that how you want to spin Christianity to make it look softer and nicer? Seems like a little revisionist history to me. Last time I checked the only Christian sin that mattered in the end was whether you accepted christ, and that determined where you go. Seems like the wish of a narcissistic God and not on whether they have actually repented for their sins or even done good in life. But it's irrelevant because there's no evidence.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist "And is that really what Christianity says or is that how you want to spin Christianity"
There are many different interpretations of Christianity. The mistake people make when arguing against Christianity is over generalizations. One needs to take on one denomination of Christianity at a time.
"Last time I checked the only Christian sin that mattered in the end was whether you accepted christ"
Along with seeking forgiveness and performing selfless activities.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 I agree it is important to perform selfless activities and should be encouraged, and different people will inevitably do that to different degrees depending on the person, but I don't believe accepting Christ as god is important because I don't think it is true, and that may just be a difference of opinion. The only one I think it is truly most important to seek forgiveness from is oneself, if you truly feel guilty for what you have done. Anything else is beyond your control.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist "but I don't believe accepting Christ as god is important because I don't think it is true"
If it is true, would you think its important? Why do you think its false?
"If you think something is a sin then try to convince people not to engage in it."
Well you said people lie to keep people from sinning, but if that's what they truly think then they aren't lieing, rather, they are only self deceived if they are wrong.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 ok, look, i can't keep having this conversation with you because like i said, when religion is ingrained in someone, it's very hard to convince them otherwise. they will come up with any argument even if it makes no coherent sense to justify their beliefs. so at some point, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@nazra7 "If it is true, would you think its important?" It's not true so that question is irrelevant. Did you watch that dude's video I referred you to? The whole thing is really inherently immoral so I can't view it as true, and if it were true I would have a problem because I would essentially have to become a slave to Jesus and I don't think a supposedly all-loving Jesus would want me to be a slave. So it's an inherently impossible question. An inherently impossible situation.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist "inherently immoral so I can't view it as true"
Because murder is immoral doesn't mean OJ Simpson didn't killed his wife. I'm sorry but you need to come up with a better argument.
"even if it makes no coherent sense to justify their beliefs."
You and I both know that statement goes both ways. And you've never given an explanation for the "incoherence" of my arguments. You even hinted that my argument from energy was anything but incoherent.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 "Because murder is immoral doesn't mean OJ Simpson didn't killed his wife. I'm sorry but you need to come up with a better argument." Ok, so you are admitting it's immoral? The whole guise of it is that it is moral but it is really immoral...it can't be both. And the idea of making someone burn for eternity is not only impossible, it is reprehensible, and no loving god would do that. A loving and understanding god would at least always give someone a chance to reform themselves.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@nazra7 So not only is the idea of it a paradox because an all-loving god makes us his slaves, but there is no reason to believe it. Why would I believe it any more than I would believe any other religion? The greek gods, the native american gods, allah, etc? Just because it claims to be the only way? It's only as good as the claim itself, and to me it is not a very good claim. All religions are equal in my eyes. No one religion gets preferential treatment.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@nazra7 "And you've never given an explanation for the "incoherence" of my arguments." Again, this goes back to who the burden of proof is on. Is it on me to prove the incoherence of your arguments or is it on you to prove the coherence of your arguments? I think you actually have to prove the coherence of your arguments, you can't just say whatever you want and expect me to believe it. I'm not going to believe that energy is god (an omnibenevolent etc. trinity) just because you say so.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist "I would essentially have to become a slave to Jesus and I don't think a supposedly all-loving Jesus would want me to be a slave."
Again, you need to get to the intention of this message. Every Christian knows that this means nothing more than doing the good will of Jesus, how would an all loving Jesus not want you to do good works for other people and yourself?
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 "how would an all loving Jesus not want you to do good works for other people and yourself?" an all-loving Jesus would give me the freedom to make my own choices and to deal with the real-life consequences of those actions without the added threat of eternal punishment simply for not accepting his will. It is funny to me to see murderers who say they've found Jesus. Yet these people supposedly get saved while an atheist philanthropist would burn in hell. It makes no sense.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist "without the added threat of eternal punishment simply for not accepting his will."
This argument seems to be more about the morality of eternal damnation that Jesus being unloving for punishing the deserving (because punishment does not entail hatred), but for that to be a good argument you must show how any moral act deviates from God's will as Christianity proposes that all moral acts are essentially God's will whether or not it was done in his name.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 ok man, i'm done arguing with you. i'm tired and i can't have this ridiculous conversation anymore and even entertain the idea that people burn in hell when they die. it's ridiculous and hopefully someday you'll realize how stupid it is. no, you know what, i don't care what you believe. believe what you want to believe. believe there's a heaven and hell if you want and keep pushing the lie. i can live a moral life without believing in christianity, if you can't, well you can't.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist "t is funny to me to see murderers who say they've found Jesus. Yet these people supposedly get saved while an atheist philanthropist would burn in hell. It makes no sense."
It won't make sense unless you are completely aware of God's method of judgement, which is, to my knowledge, unclear even to Christians. That is why I propose that no one prescribe judgement, but let the judge give judgement.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 "but let the judge give judgement" ok, let the judge give judgement then. so don't tell me what i need to do. don't tell me you know what god thinks or knows. because as you say it's "unclear even to christians." so if it's unclear to christians then you don't know, and don't pretend to know. it "doesn't make sense" to me, and it doesn't make sense to you so don't claim to know who gets saved and who doesn't
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist "so don't tell me what i need to do"
I wouldn't dream of it as long as you're not hurting people.
"don't tell me you know what god thinks or knows"
Wouldn't dream of it. Who am I to speak for God?
"if you want and keep pushing the lie"
And you can believe its a lie if you want, but that is nothing more than opinion unless you give a good argument as to why its a lie.
In any case, I enjoyed our talk. You have a good day.
nazra7 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7 "I wouldn't dream of it as long as you're not hurting people." good, i'm not. "Wouldn't dream of it. Who am I to speak for God?" good. you're right. but you are trying to speak for him when you say he wants certain things, such as wanting people to do good deeds. that's speaking for him. "but that is nothing more than opinion unless you give a good argument as to why its a lie." you're right. it is an opinion. it's my opinion and it's a damn good one. i hope i have given
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@nazra7 at least a decent argument about why it is a lie. but i can't prove it's a lie any more than you can prove it's not a lie, or that judaism is a lie, or islam, or buddhism, etc. there is as much basis for it as the flying spaghetti monster or the celestial teapot. who knows, i could drown in a watery hell instead of burn in a firy hell. all good people could go to hell while all bad people who dismiss christ go to heaven. you can't give me a good argument against it.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist "but i can't prove it's a lie any more than you can prove it's not a lie"
Well its up for the claimer to prove his claims, its not up to the person effected by the claim to prove its false. So saying its false doesn't get you anywhere.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 so it's just your opinion. just because a book says something doesn't make it true. just because someone/something claims to know/be the word of god doesn't make it so, especially when you have more than one religion claiming this. then there's no way to know. so you are going on faith, and that's an opinion.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist I wouldn't be a Christian right now if I didn't see extra-biblical evidence for Christianity's validity, such as the argument from energy I proposed to you.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 anyway, i enjoyed sharing our opinions. peace.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@nazra7 If it's simply about doing good deeds and being a good person, that's one thing. (It's still immoral to make anyone suffer the worst imaginable pain for eternity, even if they are a bad person. Two wrongs don't make a right. Remember, he's god, he can supposedly do anything, so he can decide how to treat people. He doesn't have to enact vengeance on people. He could simply obliterate or isolate their soul if it does not deserve to go on to the eternal awesomeness of heaven.)
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@nazra7 But Christianity is not about what we have come to understand as being a good person who does good deeds. There's a specific requirement about accepting Christ as your savior and essentially becoming Christian. Therefore, you burn in hell if you are a great person of any other religion. If you are not "lucky" enough to live in a culture where you are exposed to Christianity so you've never heard of Christ and don't have a choice of whether to accept him, you still go to hell.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7 "Well you said people lie to keep people from sinning, but if that's what they truly think then they aren't lieing, rather, they are only self deceived if they are wrong." Who says you can't deceive yourself and others at the same time? I think the fact that you are lying to yourself too doesn't make it any more acceptable.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@nazra7 I think seeking forgiveness from others, society, and maybe the greater universe, god, whatever you want to call it can be useful, but i think it's really a guise for what you are really trying to do: forgive and accept yourself, which is most important.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@nazra7 ZJemptv...Watch some of this dude's videos. He does a pretty good job of knocking down the concept of God/Christianity and I think would do a better job of convincing you than I would, if that's at all possible. He makes some pretty interesting and solid arguments. But then again, you believe what you believe. If something has been ingrained in you for so long and you are part of the culture, I admit it's going to be hard to change your beliefs, even if there's no evidence.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist When I watch ZJ's videos it is a clear example of what I am talking about. For example, Zj says that Christ's sacrifice is not really a sacrifice because he rose three days later, that's like saying a good deed when rewarded is not a good deed.
I've tried creating criticisms of his videos but I get blasted by thousands of his subscribers who do not take on my points, rather, instead they just repeat what he says. If anyone's doing brain washing here, I think its ZJ
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 "Zj says that Christ's sacrifice is not really a sacrifice because he rose three days later" I agree, this was not ZJ's strongest argument and she probably should not have made it. But she was not saying he rose three days later. She was saying that people say he rose three days later which is kind of silly considering they say he just died a brutal death. Not her strongest argument because it temporarily accepts the story's premise, but that doesn't weaken her other arguments.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist I know that argument made by ZJ was a hypothetical, saying even if this were the case then the worth of the sacrifice was diminished. Perhaps I could have made a better rebuttal to that video, but in as far as I know I'm not ware of any strong arguments he makes. If you recommend one, please let me know.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 The problem I have with saying there is a god and even a creator is everything that it has come to connote. What you think is positive I think can be very negative. For we as humans to claim we know what god wants has proven to be immoral. Anyone who claims to know the answer to how the universe got here is just reaching too high. It's a mystery. You don't know. I don't know. So we shouldn't pretend to have supernatural answers to questions we don't know the answer to.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist "For we as humans to claim we know what god wants has proven to be immoral."
Actually, some things that has been said that God wants has proven to be moral, such as non-violent protest that Jesus preached and practiced, avoiding psychoactive drugs, not murdering, presumption of innocence in the courts, loving your neighbors and enemies, not stealing, treat servants as equals, the list goes on and on.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 "Actually, some things that has been said that God wants has proven to be moral." What you mentioned are morals that we as a society have realized through logic, through reason, through experience, through debate We did not need a religion or god to tell us that. Take murder. Do you think we need the bible to tell us that murder is wrong or do you think that's something that we as humans just understand? I think it is something we innately understand or have come to understand.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@nazra7 I don't need to believe in Jesus to be a non-violent protestor. Non-violent resistance actually preceded Christ. I don't need to believe in religion to believe any of the things you mentioned. Atheists can believe in the same morals as theists, proving that god or a belief in god is not required for morality. Many of these things can be better explained by common sense.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist "I don't need to believe in Jesus to be a non-violent protestor."
I never said you did. You said things that God wants is immoral, however, Jesus wants us to be non-violent protesters, and that's a moral thing. Therefore that claim of yours was false.
This is another example of you trying to argue against your interpretation of Christianity, rather than actually arguing against Christianity.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 Here's another good vid about the weakness of christianity: /watch?v=0hBVvt_Eu_U
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist In any case, I've only explained an apparent contradiction of God without ever explaining God. I believe that God is either energy, or energy is what God is made of because I argue that energy is personal, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, and is a trinity.
Energy is the source of all power that exists therefore energy is omnipotent.
Energy requires conceiving of temporal values to create a finite universe from its infinite nature, therefore personal. Continued
nazra7 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist Since energy conceives of what it creates, it is also aware of it and cares about it, and since energy creates all things it is aware and cares about all things, therefore energy is omniscient and omnibenevolent.
Lastly, energy has three primary forms, material energy (thermal and chemical), immaterial energy (electrical and nuclear), and instructional energy (radiant and mechanical). Therefore, energy is a trinity.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 Ok, energy is a trinity? So what? What does that prove? I can think of many things that are a trinity, that doesn't mean they are god or vice-verse.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist Alone one cannot say a thing is a god if they are trinities, but coupled together with a conscious, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, one can easily conclude this as the Judeo Christian God.
nazra7 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7 "Alone one cannot say a thing is a god if they are trinities, but coupled together with a conscious, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, one can easily conclude this as the Judeo Christian God." No, actually one cannot make this assumption. This is more nonsense. And there is no evidence that energy is omnipotent or omnibenevolent. Energy does not solve all problems nor does it always create a good result.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@nazra7 I also don't see what energy, the capacity of a system to do work, has to do with omniscience. Yes matter is energy so therefore everything that exists is both energy and matter, but that doesn't mean everything knows everything about itself or everything else. Neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed in an isolated system but both can be converted, yet we don't know where they came from. This doesn't get you to a God, much less Jesus died for my sins.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist "Yes matter is energy"
Matter is material, energy is not, therefore something that is, is not the same thing as something that is not. Energy and matter are not the same.
"but that doesn't mean everything knows everything about itself or everything else."
And that's not what my argument says. If you're going to rebut my argument, please rebut what it says.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 Look, your thoughts on energy are obviously very deep but a lot of it is just assumption and non-sequitir, i.e., "since energy conceives of what it creates, it is also aware of it and cares about it..." i don't even think i know what you mean here. it seems more like poetry than logic to me. Think about how everything is energy and how everything I observe in the natural world is energy. That doesn't mean that it is god. You can overthink anything and come to any conclusion.
LibertyArtist 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist I'm not sure how you can cry "fallacy!" and "assumptions!" when you're not even sure what I mean. Without a mind to conceive of invention, nothing creates things that are different from its nature. This is why physics is predictable because atoms only do things in accord to their nature. And it just so happens that the nature of matter, which is mortal, is in contrast to the nature of energy, which is eternal.
nazra7 1 month ago
@LibertyArtist PS: Sorry if I sound snobby, not trying to.
nazra7 2 months ago
"Please explain, in natural terms, the cause of crimes against humanity." Dude, that's what I've been doing. It's basically explained in and of itself. "Crimes against humanity." Those are acts that we as humans have determined to be unlawful because they violate the rights of other humans. All that is natural. Now you might say, what if humans didn't believe it was wrong to kill? Would it still be wrong to kill? Yes, it would be. But that can still be explained by the laws of nature.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "Those are acts that we as humans have determined to be unlawful because they violate the rights of other humans."
Now how are such unalienable rights determined? Please explain how the laws of nature can account for objective moral standard to say it is wrong to murder.
nazra7 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7 "Please explain how the laws of nature can account for objective moral standard to say it is wrong to murder." We are given a life. It is something that we have. For someone to take that away from us is unfair because we are the ones living it, not them. I am sure there are more erudite explanations. I'm giving you my street explanation. That is why it's not fair to take away life. Because the laws of nature say that it's not yours to take away someone else's life.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
And let me point out that even if we were able to reach consensus on these issues, if we did agree on what was right and wrong on every issue, and could agree that they apply universally, that wouldn't necessarily support the existence of a god.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
Most rational, empathetic people believe murdering innocent people is wrong, and therefore would believe doing so throughout history was wrong. That's a pretty cut and dry one, so I see why you jump to that one. But what about abortion? What about killing animals for food? What about euthanasia? What about the right to kill yourself? All these are questions without a moral consensus in today's society. So if morality is so absolute and timeless, why don't we have answers to these questions?
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "That's a pretty cut and dry one, so I see why you jump to that one."
Because no normal person kills other human beings unless there is some perceived justification for it. That implies justice, and justice implies morality.
"So if morality is so absolute and timeless, why don't we have answers to these questions?"
Because we don't fully understand morality yet.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 "Because no normal person kills other human beings unless there is some perceived justification for it. That implies justice, and justice implies morality." Yes, we're in agreement here. But it still doesn't imply a god.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "Yes, we're in agreement here. But it still doesn't imply a god."
For their to be universal justice there needs to be a universal moral standard, and for their to be a universal moral standard, there must be a universal moral judge - AKA God.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 "Because we don't fully understand morality yet." Exactly, so it is not absolute. A perfect morality is just an ideal, a concept. And again, to claim something exists that is not falsifiable, the burden of proof lies on you.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "Exactly, so it is not absolute."
You mean our understanding of it is not absolute.
"A perfect morality is just an ideal, a concept."
The fact that we are trying to discover such a perfect moral conception is evidence that morality has objectivity to it, which suggests that morality exists independent of our conception of it.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 "You mean our understanding of it is not absolute." No, I mean IT is not absolute. There is no "one right standard" of morality. Good people can disagree on moral issues. The consensus that murder is wrong is not evidence for an objective moral standard on that issue nor all issues. It's subjective. It comes from good people reasoning. Let's give ourselves credit for good moral decisions we make and not attribute them to the supposed objectivity of something that may not exist.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist Your argument for a subjective morality seems to be based off the premise that there is no evidence for objective morality. Is that correct?
"The consensus that murder is wrong is not evidence for an objective moral standard on that issue nor all issues"
That's strange that you say that because consensus of the immoral implications of murder is in itself a standard for morality, one that is accepted universally.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7"consensus of the immoral implications of murder is in itself a standard for morality, one that is accepted universally" if that is true, it is done by humans, and for a reason. because we value human life (our survival/happiness) and therefore judge taking that life to violate our rights (that nobody impede our survival/happiness). that's totally natural. and being self-interested/empathetic/thinking/feeling humans, we apply that standard. it doesn't imply anything supernatural.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "that's totally natural"
If you define nature as being everything that exists then yeah, morality is natural, but if supernatural things existed, then by that definition of nature, supernatural things would also be natural.
Nature is usually defined as the material world. Morality is not material, so by that definition of nature, it would be above and beyond nature, which is the definition of supernatural.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 "Morality is not material" You may view it that way, but I don't view it that way. I view it as natural. Just because it is an abstract concept does not mean it can't be explained by the natural and must be explained by the supernatural. Thought is an abstract which can be explained by the concrete human brain. Likewise, morality can be explained by the human brain and how it reacts to human behavior, or by human behavior itself. There is no need for a supernatural explanation.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "subjective judgement"
Judgement is sometimes subjective, but the accuracy of the argument is not
"Just because it is an abstract concept"
Who said it was abstract?
"Thought is an abstract"
Abstract the way you're using it is an adjective, a description... But the way you're using the word "thought" is a bit unclear.
"no need for a supernatural explanation."
Perhaps, but that doen't mean there isn't one. Please explain, in natural terms, the cause of crimes against humanity
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 "The fact that we are trying to discover such a perfect moral conception is evidence that morality has objectivity to it, which suggests that morality exists independent of our conception of it." No. Just because we are searching for something does not mean it exists. Moral statements are by definition normative. They can't be proven. Ex. "One ought not steal." In contrast, descriptive statements are objective statements that can be logically proven "all bachelors are unmarried"
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "Just because we are searching for something does not mean it exists."
Right. In fact, the phrase "wild goose chase" is derived from this fact. However, in the case of morality, we are not searching for any absolute concept of morality, we are searching for a complete understanding of the morality we already know to exist called "mala in se" (wrong in nature) crimes and crimes against "humanity".
nazra7 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7 "in the case of morality, we are not searching for any absolute concept of morality, we are searching for a complete understanding of the morality we already know to exist called "mala in se" (wrong in nature)" i guess i agree here, with the caveat that this concept of morality is normative and must be determined by humans. good humans will disagree on what this means and we will probably never reach a consensus on all moral issues. but i agree with the existence of the concept.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist The argument is mala in se crimes and crimes against humanity exist even if they're not being enforced. The evidence for this is its universally accepted as wrong and the only way for one to engage in such acts would have "mens rea" AKA a "guilty mind".
"Moral statements are by definition normative. They can't be proven."
So what if I say "It is immoral to steal"? According to you, that statement is logically provable because its descriptive.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 "So what if I say "It is immoral to steal"? According to you, that statement is logically provable because its descriptive." That's basically rephrasing "One should not steal." It's not a definition. A definition would be "stealing is taking away from someone" or "immoral means wrong," but to make the jump to "it is immoral to steal," that is now an opinion and can't be logically proven. I'm not saying you can't make a persuasive argument for it. It just can't be proven.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "That's basically rephrasing "One should not steal."
Exactly, and according to you "it is immoral to steal" is not normative and its a provable statement. What, are you trying to say that "it is immoral to steal" and "one ought not steal" do not mean the same thing?
"that is now an opinion and can't be logically proven."
Sure you can if you have a standard for morality. So do you think Nazi war criminals should not have been convicted of crimes against humanity?
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 No, I'm saying they mean the same thing and that "it is immoral to steal" is normative. It's not provable. You can make a good argument, but when it comes down to it, it's a subjective judgement.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7 "Sure you can if you have a standard for morality. So do you think Nazi war criminals should not have been convicted of crimes against humanity?" No, I think they should have. Just because I think something is subjective does not mean I think it is automatically good or bad, or that that subjective opinion should not exist. I still think prosecuting the war crimes was a good decision, albeit a subjective one.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7 "The evidence for this is its universally accepted as wrong"
Just because something is universally accepted does not make it true, let alone objective truth. Right/Wrong is inherently subjective. What one person thinks is right, another might think is wrong. To pretend we know what god thinks is right is to say we are god, which we don't even know exists. We can't use our concept of our morality as evidence that god exists. We can only say what WE believe to be right vs. wrong.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
"The only things that differ in morality through out the ages are the conditions for which innocent and guilty applies." Not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean that things change with time but that what is right/wrong remains the same? I think this is what you mean. But this still doesn't answer the question who is deciding what is right and what is wrong? If I think murdering an innocent person is wrong today, there is no reason I shouldn't believe doing so was wrong 100 years ago (cont)
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 There's also the issue of how far must we go to save a life. If genocide is being committed or people are starving in another country and we have the power and resources to stop it, is it immoral not to do so? We allow it to happen, but people don't call it murder. Same goes for people who can't afford prescription drugs or a life-saving operation in our own country. We let it happen. Our society doesn't have clear answers to these questions that absolute morality supposedly answers.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 You should check out this guy's channel. cjae2631. He makes very good points that protect the Bible's accuracy. Check out his latest video if you're short on time.
Z6D4C4 2 months ago
@Z6D4C4 Thanks, he has a pretty interesting channel going on, though I'm sure he, like I, find it difficult to find support for our videos when they're mainly for an atheistic audience.
nazra7 2 months ago
I think the issue with atheists questioning "faith" is that the vast majority of evidence is on our side. Sure, we all have faith in some things. How do I know I'm not going to be smashed by a truck the moment I step out my front door? I don't know for sure. But I use induction so I don't worry about it. But If every time I walked out that front door I was freaking out looking for that truck, I think you would have a reason to question my behavior.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "I think the issue with atheists questioning "faith" is that the vast majority of evidence is on our side"
Evidence for what? God doesn't exist? That's actually untrue as their is no evidence God doesn't exist. That is why atheist reject the arguments for God's existence, not the possibility of his existence.
In fact, I argue the contrary, there's plenty of evidence that God exists. To name a couple, universally accepted moral concepts and fine tuning.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 Sure there is evidence that God doesn''t exist. We've never seen him. The more we go looking for him, we don't find him. I think what you mean is there is no proof he doesn't exist. But there is no proof that anything doesn't exist. So you say you have evidence that God exists? Go ahead and explain it please. How do you think universally accepted moral concepts and fine tuning support the existence of a god? Because I'm not seeing the connection.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "How do you think universally accepted moral concepts... support the existence of a god?"
The argument I am about to give you is called Modus Ponens:
If universal morals exist, then God exists (because a "ruler" of the universe [God] is the only thing that can objectively determine right from wrong in its creation).
Universal morals exist. (A given, some people argue the contrary, but those same people will never say murder is ok).
Therefore, God exists.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7" If universal morals exist, then God exists (because a "ruler" of the universe [God] is the only thing that can objectively determine right from wrong in its creation)." I question this premise. Why does a ruler of the universe have to determine right from wrong in its creation? Why can't the universe itself determine right from wrong? Why does there have to be a creator/ruler just because you posit that the universe has an absolute sense of right and wrong?
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 "Universal morals exist." How do you know? How do you know that humans didn't create this idea of universal morals? Would we have universal morals without humans? Are animals bound by universal morals? That is, is it wrong for animals to kill each other? How do you know that we as a society didn't come to a sense of morality through reasoning?
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "How do you think... fine tuning support the existence of a god?"
Again, Modus Ponens:
If the universe is fined tuned for life, then God exists (because as finely tuned universe for implies that something wanted the universe to contain life, the only thing that would be is God).
The universe is finely tuned for life. (A well known concept in cosmology).
Therefore, God exists.
nazra7 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7 "because as finely tuned universe for implies that something wanted the universe to contain life, the only thing that would be is God" how do you know something wanted the universe to contain life? how do you know it didn't just happen by chance? if mold grows in my apartment that doesn't mean i want it there, it just means the conditions were right. this also brings up the dilemma of how you as a human can assume or even propose what a possible god would/wouldn't want.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "I don't know for sure. But I use induction so I don't worry about it."
That's faith.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 Yes, but who said all faith is rational?
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "Yes, but who said all faith is rational?"
Not me.
"We've never seen him. The more we go looking for him, we don't find him. I think what you mean is there is no proof he doesn't exist."
By we, I think you mean you. The same cannot be said for me. (Except that I've never "seen" him).
"I think what you mean is there is no proof he doesn't exist"
Nope, I mean evidence. There is no evidence God does not exist (as far that I've seen). If you disagree, please list some.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 "Not me" Exactly, some faith is rational, some is not. When the evidence is highly on your side, you might say it is rational to have faith. When it is not, it's not rational to have faith.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "When the evidence is highly on your side, you might say it is rational to have faith."
Before we knew the world was round, if you go outside, the world looks flat. And back then there's no reason to not think the world is flat (additionally, due to a lack of knowledge about the world, testing such a hypothesis is difficult), is it wrong to say that belief was irrational?
After all, the basic question of logic is, given the premises, does the conclusion follow?
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 would it be terribly irrational, back then, to think the world was flat? probably not. but if you believed it after repeatedly being given clear and convincing evidence that the world was round or after evidence the world was flat was repeatedly discredited, yes, it probably would be. if you believed it today, yes it probably would be. same thing if you believed in evolution. it's pretty much the same example if you think about it.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist My point is, there has never been given any convincing evidence to people like me that God does not exist, therefore my faith should not be considered irrational.
Evolution is an interesting case. In fact, no one in their right mind rejects evolution completely, only certain kinds of evolution. Whether or not its ok to reject any part of evolution, I have no idea, I'm not a biologist.
nazra7 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7 "My point is, there has never been given any convincing evidence to people like me that God does not exist, therefore my faith should not be considered irrational." But you admitted that you can't prove something doesn't exist. By this logic, you would have to believe in Allah, in Buddha, in Hare Krishna, in the Greek Gods, in idols. You would have to assume that I have committed murder and every other crime imaginable because you don't have convincing evidence that I haven't.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 this is ad ignorantiam. "you haven't disproved it, so i'm going to believe it's true." even if there is no good evidence for it. so then which religion is it? i can't disprove any of them but they all contradict each other and many say theirs is the only right way. so how do you choose which is best other than bias? without being irrational and admitting there is no good reason to choose one over the other? tell me because you said lack of evidence to the contrary isn't evidence.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "this is ad ignorantiam."
No, not exactly, because the basis for which I believe is not that it has not been disprove, I was just saying its very arrogant for atheists to say my belief is wrong when there's no evidence it is wrong.
I do have plenty of evidence God exists. One being the fact that the universe is fined tuned in such a way that life is even possible anywhere.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 "I was just saying its very arrogant for atheists to say my belief is wrong when there's no evidence it is wrong." what we are saying is that it is kind of arrogant to say we are wrong to choose not to believe something or at least doubt it when there is no evidence that it exists. Sure, the universe is "finely tuned" to allow life. We wouldn't be here to observe that fact if it weren't. But does that imply a creator, or could that have just happened? (cont.)
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 Is there anything extraordinary about life other than the fact that we are here to observe it? Just because we exist, does that make us divine and supernatural? Does it imply that we must have been created, just because we are here? And if there is a creator, where is it? what does it look like? what form does it take? what does it really mean? are you really going to equate these philosophical questions with some organized religion's conception of a god? holy book and all?
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "Is there anything extraordinary about life other than the fact that we are here to observe it?"
Yes, the fact that everyone sees certain things, such as murder and rape, as atrocious. Just to name one.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 What fine-tuning says is that if any of a number of fundamental physical constants were slightly different, the conditions that allow life would not be possible. It's kind of irrelevant though because they're not different...they are what they are. The question still remains...did someone create them that way? Or did it just happen that way without a creator?
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 Life seems extraordinary to us because we are living it. We are conscious beings, and that can bring up the question, did someone create this soul? Does a higher power own this soul and is it part of a higher order of things...or, is my sentience just a natural part of the universe, life, evolution? There are two basic ways of looking at it: a god is responsible for my soul, or nature is responsible for my soul. Some people blur the line between the two, but that's the question.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7 "Yes, the fact that everyone sees certain things, such as murder and rape, as atrocious." We see it that way because we humans naturally value our own lives and welfare out of a biological/psychological need to survive and be happy, and we instinctively fight against the sense of violation and injustice when our rights are taken. We also empathize with other people so we generally want to promote the well-being of others and protect them from harm, even if we do not know them.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 Some people, however, do not recognize rape and murder as atrocious. They will violate the survival/well-being of others if they feel threatened or even to assert power. Look at war. I see a lot of people objecting to murder but when it's in the context of war they think it's ok or somehow not murder. Look at capital punishment. Where did the sanctity of life go when it comes to that? Are those people not human anymore because they were found guilty of a horrible crime?
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 So morality is very human, can vary from person to person, and then is often determined at a higher level by groups and can differ between civilizations and times. In some cultures, women walk around topless and mutilation rituals are performed that we would find tasteless/immoral. To oversimplify, what's ok in the north doesn't always fly in the south. As time goes on minorities seem to get more rights. Who knows where we will be in 100 years. But it's often very political.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 I could give you 100 other examples of how morality isn't absolute. Look at the OT and some of its outdated morality. Murder and rape are those extreme examples that are so horrendous that nobody could think anyone would allow it on a societal level. But we just think that way because we are "civilized" western society, with what seem to be stringent social rules some people mistakenly believe are based on absolute morality, but those rules get broken successfully all the time
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "Look at the OT and some of its outdated morality"
I don't see it as outdated, it worked for thousands of years. And many methods they used back in Ancient Israel we still use today. Our whole court system is based off of the court systems in the old testament.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 When it comes down to it, absolute morality does not exist because we will never see it, we will never have it, we can only approach it if it even could exist, and it can't exist because nobody will ever agree on what it means. Yes, on the big issues like rape and murder we will agree on the basic idea, but what about war and capital punishment? What should the sentence be for someone who commits rape? And what about lighter issues like gay marriage? All these things are open.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "When it comes down to it, absolute morality does not exist because we will never see it, we will never have it"
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be thinking that morality only exists if moral actions are carried out right? So morality isn't really something that exists independent of us, rather, morality is just a consequence of our actions right?
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 "you seem to be thinking that morality only exists if moral actions are carried out right?" No, I'm not saying that whatever action is taken is moral. I'm saying that morality depends on the person/society who is judging and the situations they are in. Morality is rules of right/wrong. "So morality isn't really something that exists independent of us," correct...without humans we would not have a sense of morality...there would be no reason for it...it is something we created.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 "rather, morality is just a consequence of our actions right?" Not so much just a consequence of our actions but also of our thoughts and ideas. Morality is a system of judgement. We judge something to be right or wrong or somewhere in between. If we live in a society where we accept the killing of animals for food, then for us it is a moral thing to do. But for many vegetarians, they view it as a violation of the animals' rights, and thus for those individuals it may be immoral.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist Your argument makes complete sense if that's how morality really is, but I believe morality exists independent of us. We're only trying to discover it fully. Evidence of this is the fact that everyone throughout all ages knew that killing another innocent human being is wrong. And the fact that every civilization has always had a concept of "justice" and "morality".
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 I already explained why people think killing is wrong. And the reason civilizations have concepts of "justice" and "morality" is also because human's idea of right and wrong is based on their need to survive and be happy, even on a societal level. It is completely natural. There is nothing supernatural about it. The reason our sense of morality evolves and we are "only trying to discover it fully" is because society is constantly evolving and making advances. (continued)
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 If there is an "absolute morality," then why wouldn't it reveal itself to us fully? We as a society/societies are constantly evolving our sense of right/wrong to reflect what we believe our place to be in our environment and there is constant disagreement on what right and wrong actually is. AM is only a concept, an idealistic utopia that we would reach if we made infinite moral advances. But even then there would be disagreement as to whether that society would be truly moral.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 Everyone throughout the ages didn't know that killing another innocent human being is wrong and some people still don't know. And many still disagree what innocent means. There are probably several innocent people each year in the U.S. who get put to death by the state. We have seen many people on death row been exonerated by DNA evidence. Imagine how many others have already been wrongly put to death. Though most agree "murder is wrong," what that really means is another issue.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist The only things that differ in morality through out the ages are the conditions for which innocent and guilty applies.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 There are TONS of issues that arguably carry moral implications that don't have a clear answer and are a matter of a debate, e.g., what people wear, what people say, what people write, business practices that are legal but not necessarily ethical, treatment of animals, pollution, taxation, the role of our government, how to treat the poor, how to interact with other nations, how much (if any) charity is morally required of someone/something, drug policy, voting age, and many more
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "so how do you choose which is best other than bias?"
Go through what the religion says about their God and see if its in any way contradictory to things we see in reality.
I'll give you an example, the Bible says in the beginning there was light, this was proven to be true for the big bang emitted vast amounts of radiation, and as you know (or should know) radiation is light.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 "I'll give you an example" Now I don't know whether to take you seriously. You are saying we should take the bible literally? So you believe God created the universe in six days? That he first divided light and darkness into day and night, then popped planets into existence? That with each day, he popped out different forms of life, rather than these having slowly evolved from a common ancestor? Anyone in their right mind can't possibly believe the universe came about this way.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "You are saying we should take the bible literally?"
Why not look at my argument instead of asking all these other unrelated questions?
"what we are saying is that it is kind of arrogant to say we are wrong to choose not to believe something or at least doubt it when there is no evidence that it exists."
Well then I have no beef with you. I am only a responder to atheists who call Christians stupid for believing in something they have no evidence does not exist.
nazra7 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7 "Why not look at my argument instead of asking all these other unrelated questions?" Sorry dude, you weren't exactly saying that. But in a way you were. You were saying we should look at the bible and see if it mirrors reality. Which we know it doesn't. "Let there be Light" is not the same as the big bang. There may be similarities. So the question kind of stands. Take the bible literally? Or only take the parts that fit reality/morality and dispose of everything else?
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7 "Yes, the fact that everyone sees certain things, such as murder and rape, as atrocious." Ok, so life is extraordinary. Life is valuable. We have rights. How does this evidence a god? Something was fine-tuned for something "extraordinary" to take place so therefore there is a god, and the christian god no less because you see things in the bible that supposedly mirror real-life? You still haven't answered why this couldn't have happened by chance.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 I did look at your argument. And you said see if things in the bible mirror things in real life, which you implied they do. So therefore follow the christian bible. But then the question comes up, as a christian, do you take the bible word-for-word? do you want to impose your religion on other people? because these are common christian beliefs. my answer to the bible question is you can find things in any holy book that make sense and some things that don't make sense.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 "Why not look at my argument instead of asking all these other unrelated questions?" Sorry, I didn't know I couldn't ask questions.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 "By we, I think you mean you. The same cannot be said for me." No, by we, I mean a lot of other smart, rational people too and a growing number people in civilized, intellectual society.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "No, by we, I mean a lot of other smart, rational people too and a growing number people in civilized, intellectual society."
The oppostie can be said for those who believe in God. The majority of philosophers and cosmologists believe in God, the majority of physicists and biologists don't.
"Does a lack of evidence that he does exist constitute evidence that he doesn't exist?"
No, because that's the fallacy of ad ignorantiam.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 "The majority of philosophers and cosmologists believe in God." Where did you get your numbers on that?
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 "No, because that's the fallacy of ad ignorantiam." Yeah, and that can go both ways. You can argue that just because we haven't disproved a god is support for his existence, when in fact it is not. I can't argue for sure there is no god, but i can argue that i haven't seen any good evidence for a god. and i can argue that i have seen people's proposed evidence for a god to be false.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 "Nope, I mean evidence.There is no evidence God does not exist (as far that I've seen). If you disagree, please list some." Well, if we're talking about a specific religious god, that's easy. Shit in the scriptures are wrong and religions contradict each other. If we're talking broadly about a philosophical supreme being in the broadest terms, that gets a little more difficult. Does a lack of evidence that he does exist constitute evidence that he doesn't exist? (cont).
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist "Shit in the scriptures are wrong..."
...like what? I hear this argument a lot, however, from my experience, this statement reflects an incomplete understanding of the scriptures by the person who stated it.
"...and religions contradict each other."
That's to be expected. Every religion asserts a complete view of reality, only one can be right (if any).
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 "from my experience, this statement reflects an incomplete understanding of the scriptures by the person who stated it." ok, i'm not going to engage this because you have to be a complete idiot not to know that bible has some ridiculous shit in it. and what's true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole. that's like saying, "well, to understand my murdering someone, you have to look at my complete life." but i'll humor you...anything saying homosexuality is wrong.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 "That's to be expected. Every religion asserts a complete view of reality, only one can be right (if any)." Ok, a logical person would look at all of these religions and say, they are all incorrect...they are so specific, and they developed out of the cultures and superstitions of their time/environment. A logical person wouldn't say, well, one just nailed it on the head! Maybe a logical person would say that they were all aiming at some common general idea of a higher power.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 "Every religion asserts a complete view of reality, only one can be right (if any)." So which religion (if any) do you choose, and why?
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@nazra7 I would only categorize faith to be idiotic based on the importance of the belief's verity and it's oddity, or, how "far out" it is. Of course this would be using your definition of faith, belief without proof, which I do prefer. I would say that looking at a picture of a cup that looks to be made of glass and believing it is made of glass is not idiotic. Believing that an invisible dragon just flew by because of a sudden wind, I think, is idiotic. This should better explain my opinion.
Z6D4C4 3 months ago
John 20:29 “Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.”
"We walk by faith and not by sight.-2 Corinthian 5:7
FAITH:
Believing Without Seeing
shyanndreamcatcher 3 months ago
@shyanndreamcatcher You may disagree with me then, and that's ok I'm still a learning Christian, I am just saying how I currently understand things to be. I may be completely wrong. But my belief in God and Jesus has never been stimulated by nothing more than a good reason to believe its true. Does that mean I don't have faith?
nazra7 3 months ago
@nazra7 We are saying the same thing just differently. Yes I think you have faith, your just going deeper in your definition, but your right. Yes we all have different experiences in our life that helped us in our belief in God, which gives us faith to believe in him. Some one may have had a near death experiences where they saw heaven, and from that gave them the proof they needed to believe in God, but to others we still believe with out seeing. I hope that makes sense. God Bless You Big Hugs
shyanndreamcatcher 3 months ago
@shyanndreamcatcher Thanks. God bless you too.
nazra7 3 months ago
@nazra7 They could have built a boat but I can see where you're coming from. I'm not so good at making analogies. XD
Z6D4C4 3 months ago