@Beanybag2 I ain't into philosophy myself, morality is an angry one, good being objective has no moral value: there's two bases to its existence and essentiality, 1. What exists is its essential appearance, 2. what's essential is the way it feels, and if you dis the feeling, then reject a morality yourself, it doesn't apply to you.
@thesoundoftruth1 I'm pretty sure you are going to university because of the fact that you are actually good at something (but obviously not actual logic thinking or having manners) not because your invisible buddy jesus told/bribed the university to let you go. and the point of being an atheist is that you do NOT serve some god/whatever but act according to you own morals and views. have a good day.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a living cell. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all its is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
RIGHT AND WRONG Is the issue who gives a shit if I belive in God and there are alot of Christians like me and only deal with their personal lives and vote on things that effect others lives and most of all WHY DO I NEED TO PROVE GOD EXIST TO YOU i just want to have something to belive in that is positive in this would of hatred
In the end, whether you believe in God or not is something that depends entirely on methodology. Anyone who enters a discussion and accepts the limiting assumptions of positivism will obviously have to be an Agnostic (not an Atheist, though, which is quite untenable).That does not mean positivism is right. Actually, it's pretty far from the Truth, the way I perceive it.. But, hey, please, I beg you, don´t ask me to "prove" it...don´t be ridiculous, don´t embarrass yourself publicly.
@ZJemptv Sweetheart Rosie Jones! You have absolutely demolished his arguments. But it needs a reasoning mind to understand what you have said and that is too much to expect from those who oppose you.
@unabomberman jeez! i'm not talking about the blardy crusades or anything i'm referring specifically to these comments here, in the video and in current social circles. seriously, what is so offensive about believing in God that makes atheists' feel justified to criticize a Christian's intelligence or sense of reasoning?? just because atheists don't "get it" why hate on people who choose to believe in a higher power?? EVOLVE already!
Because it's useless and you, on your own, inbue your social context with a sense of being in the minority ("Look at me! I have it SO hard!") when that isn't the case. What bothers you is an *actual* minority of people, not even the majority of all atheists, raising their voices for the first time in unison telling you you are a dummy.
We could discuss the merits of belief of the supernatural (or the lack of them), if you want, but that is not what I was referring to.
@unabomberman you're making assumptions on what i said. my point is only why hate on anybody who has a different belief or in your words is a "dummy". but you are right... this conversation is useless. my bad!
@unabomberman i actually never said you were a dick. just know that not ALL christians are whackos and the inane things they say pisses ME off as much as it does you. we're not all the same.
@unabomberman do you have short term memory or what? YOU were the one who said "FUCK YOU" to me!! and your judgment of my so called "we have it so hard" mentality is a totally biased opinion!!! and you accuse ME of being judgemental? omg trying to resolve this stupid discussion peacefully with you is a total waste of my time!!! so fuck you too you bigot.
It is odd of you to call me a bigot b/c I draw a simple observation about how christians whine. A bunch of fellow atheists whine a lot and get overtly sentimental, too--just like you. No difference.
But why do you care Ms. fancy pants? Everyone is a complete asshole on the internets-you included-as you can well see.
Fuck this, fuck that, fuck you, or some other silly thing, and everyone flies into a hissy fit.
But do consider this "discussion" peacefully resolved, then. Off you go.
Wow couldnt get through your whole video cos it was like pulling teeth! I'm glad u have your logic to make sense of all these things. It's all you've got really, as questionable as it is. Btw faith is based on experiencing God on a spiritual level NOT on facts or proof. It actually takes far more faith to believe that we evolved from apes. Scientists STILL can't figure out the missing link! You really don't know what you are talking about. Oh and another thing, Atheists like yourself push your
@boogiebabe037 WROOOOOOOOONG!!!!! It takes no faith to believe evolution because there are mountains of evidence that support it. Faith is required only when evidence is absent. And yes, they HAVE found the "missing link". In fact, they've found several. Catch up to the 21st century, please.
@boogiebabe037 You might not accept the scientific explanation for the fact of evolution but you could at least find out what it is first. We didn't evolve from apes,we are apes and you don't figure out a missing link,you find them and we have found plenty. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is the best explanation for that fact. Couldn't your god have used evolution to create the diversity of life? that's what most christians say, are they wrong?
@ShinyBachuru YOUR FREAKS. You cant even pick a fucking gender. You are born what you are born, if you think you like the same sex or should be the other sex you have a disorder.
"You cant even pick a fucking gender. You are born what you are born, ..." - I ... don't think you understand the concept '-.- They chose what do THEY want to be, not what others want them to be. For example, I want you dead, but unfortunately, it's your choice.
"If you think you like same sex ... you have a disorder." - so you and / or your imaginary friend (aka god) knows what someone likes or thinks better than someone else? Riiight ...
@bigbob6556 Hmm I cant really believe you are an atheist and still think other people are mentally ill when they think diffrently from you. So basicly you replaced hell with an insane asylum. Sounds like a good trade. But honestly reconsider what it truelly means to be atheist a while. Im 100% heterosexual btw. And Im pretty sure you havent even been in a situation where you had to choose once.So quite frankly, stfu. ty
@TheWeeaboo I have been atheist for over 8 years. I believe in NO GOD. My point is gay people ARE freaks. However or whatever way we were put on earth, we were meant to be with the OPPOSITE sex. NOT THE SAME.
@bigbob6556 I have been an atheist for all my life. And your point is invalid. No it is not the same. Nobody is the same. Neither is the skin of so many races the same. They were born diffrently from you and I. In some cases its even possible to see it from the outside, but if we accept that its about whats on the inside anyway, then we come to the conclusion that people that think diffrently from eachother are not by definition freaks because they arent like you when you were born.
@bigbob6556 Well first off, I don't know what freaks you're talking about. I don't own any freaks.
Boy, how nice. So, you have a problem with people shaving I guess? People aren't "meant" to be clean shaved after all.
Oh, and by the way, please give me the scientific name of this "disorder". We'd all love to hear it. While you're (grammar lesson, that's you are because of the way I spelled it) at it, I've got a disorder for you, too! It's called "xenophobia".
wow, you certainly have an uncanny ability to relate your observance of temporal reality using carnal intellect. I'm not sure if you believe you will have an ability to express yourself so logically after you die, or if you belive that which is yourself will simply disappear into oblivion, you talked about almost everything else lol.
@video: y pick this guy's video 2 respond 2? any infant can pick apart his poor reasoning. he inserts his believe wit no more logic as 2 its legitimacy then if I were 2 insert, if good or bad exists, there must b a transcending being known as the flying spagetti monster. its poorly done, u can do better z
Oh, and the bible actually would have us believe that a transcendant being has redefined some objective truths -- not 1 + 1 = 5, but Pi = 3 (1 Kings 7:23, and 2 Chronicles 4:2). lol
At the time of Solomon, Pi had been known more accurately for about a thousand years already. Oops. Lazy writers. :)
Hi ZJ, DLB here. I have talked to a lot of christians about why they believe what they believe. There are a few who will say that they believe that the resurection of Christ is well documented and is the foundation of their belief; but all of them, if pressed, eventually admit that is the way that holding this belief in their mind makes them feel that ultimately convinces them. There is an emotional state that can be reached by holding this belief that is unlike any other. The feeling is real.
Its useless to ask logic from many christians, they just start quoting the bible, and thats when I bring up noahs ark and ask if we are all the products of inbreeding and inscest as the only people not drown in the 40 day flood was noah, his wife, noahs son and daughter, they they usually say-but thats just a story, you cant take it all literally, that is until they need to prove a point and want to take the bible literally, its like asking logic from a child who says his toy wizzard is magic.
A recent Israeli study found that women's tears contain pheromones which diminish a man's testosterone levels. This reduces his sex drive and agression, and could have the result of giving women more choice of who fathers their children. Since human societies consider abuse, and rape of women to be wrong, it might follow that this particular facet of human morality might have a purely chemical foundation, subject to the mechanics of the evolutionary process.
WE have to prove Evolution. THEY have to prove God. And, since we already have all the fossils, bones, Clydesdales etc, they have a little bit of catching up to do.
@dechha1981 its been proven that the fossil age verification methods have been false by thousands and millions of years.. explain the dinosaur foot print on top of the human footprint.. it's proven that the large dinosaur footprint was aged back to dinosours and so was the human footprint..... humans didnt exist back then? atleast, science says so...
@dechha1981 i dont understand where you are tryng to go with that. there are tons of other things that prove science wrong.. some dont exactly mainly prove it wrong. it just proves the fact that jesus existed right
@lovlyabby Features on land that match events in the bible...... too many to explain. Theres this one time when someone in the bible talks about being on top of a mountain somewhere(i forget where) and they talk about how Jesus split the rock directly in a straight line down and tht rock on the very top of a mountain was found. it was 15 feet tall with a slice straight down the middle matching the description in the bible.
@lovlyabby Also in the middle of the red sea there was an ancient roman wagon found that was only used for a short period of time and then were all wiped out. These wagons were stated in the Bible when Jesus led a village through the Red Sea.... He split the water and he led them through it. Those wagons were used while the people were walking through the sea.....
As always, your reasoning is sound. I say: keep on witnessing! As someone who grew up in a JW family, I personally have experiences in dealing with the unsound reasoning relating to blood transfusions, and although I can see some dangers from things like tainted blood, etc., I know of some JW parents who have decided to abandon this belief in favor of their child's life. There's still hope out there for religious people - don't give up!
Although I may not agree with how you define or identify every observance that you comment on, I am soooo GLAD to hear someone out there questioning what is and how we look at it. It really sparks creative thinking to keep these debates going.
I choose to have faith in a creator, though I can not define who or what it is.
To me, it's kind of a fun mystery to find out...What started all this?!
And I LOVE to hear ALL theories!
I appreciate respect for mine, as I also give respect to any opposing.
I "witness" because of the lies, misinformation about Atheism.
My morality: good & bad= beneficial & harmful. Agent-neutral, that is, I am not superior to others, so I cant give myself preferential treatment over others. I have never found any real-life situations that invalidates this position. If there are any, I'd like to know. (this position also reveals that most things in life are neither good or bad. They "just are." So stop judging and appreciate life more!)
"1+1=2" is not an objectively true statement. It is derived from arbitrary axioms which are either simply postulated or, as I like to look at it, only used as a basis for hypothetical deductions, i.e. "if axioms A and B are true, then statement C, which follows logically from A and B, is also true." Either way, there is nothing objective about them; we could just choose a different consistent system of axioms altogether and arrive at completely different mathematics.
@KingKolunikus Has anyone here really talked about what 'objective' means at all? It should mean something that can be agreed upon between a group and relies upon some measure that isn't controlled by the senses or anything but the barest human perceptions. Here is one definition "based only on facts and not influenced by personal feelings or beliefs". The only way 1+1=2 isn't objective is if you strip 'beliefs' down to apply to even the simplest rules of logic. Nihilism.
@eniuquine Your first definition of "objective" is what I would call "intersubjective", i.e. it can be agreed upon subjectively by each person in a group. This applies to the statement "1+1=2". It is, however, not based on any observable facts, but on axioms which may or may not be accepted by a person. The only thing that's necessarily true about the equation (by standard logic) is the deductive relation between the axioms and the statement the equation contains, not the statement itself.
Not collecting stamps is not a hobby, because there is no other interest that occupies your time, unless otherwise specified.
Color by definition means just that, light as we are able to "perceive it", can you say someone who is bald as not having "color", depends in your precise definition of color. If you mean "bald" as in a vacuum of matter and energy then no, that has yet to be proven.
If by color you are referring to the quality of light being perceived then the answer is obviously yes.
Hmmm I think that everyone sense of morality comes out when they are mistreated, not that anyone can pinpoint a truly morally good act, but we can define it in the way we would expect to be treated. Torture for instance, as witnessed by a third party is something you can immediately condemn by watching the tortured surfer and the torturer play God with the victim. Viewing people's reactions to wrong acts is a good indication in our objective morality, this is what I have come to percieve.
A religion is defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause and purpose
of the universe... If you were an Atheist you believe the universe has a particular cause, a particular nature, and a particular purpose [In addition - In Metaphysics what particular "type of atheist" you would be is open to debate under the broad umbrella of Atheism (believers)]. So that being the case it's impossible for a human not to have a belief system. Unless you were asleep or I'd argue dead....
@globe199 Wrong. You've got your basic assumptions all wrong. A religion is a belief SYSTEM including (but not limited to) "high concepts" such as: Afterlife Ascendence Categorizing of people (who is blessed and who is cursed; good vs evil; us vs them) Meditation (or prayer) Rituals (like worship) Music Pilgrimages Rules for living (including diet, social behavior, etc) A generational "perfect manuscript" held in higher regard than all other published works Etc. Atheism, is not a religion.
@Icemario87 Are you actually telling me that Atheist, do not have a concept of good and evil?
You can have a religious belief and not believe in an afterlife however you see it as, such as energy and matter. I know Christians, Jews, and Muslims who do not believe in an afterlife. Yes that includes Atheist as well.
And Not all religions do meditation.Rituals perhaps but you must've never heard the concept of Reformist. I can keep punching holes into your argument but I think I made my point.
@globe199 Technically (and realistically), a religion is a large, socially accepted cult. (Yes, you are brainwashed. I'm sorry if this seems unbelievable to you. I know it hurts, I was too. Most of us are.)
Atheism is better described as anti-cultist. Atheists practice 0 cult behaviors, whereas the religious show all signs.
@Icemario87 i don't know why i am telling this to you, so far no atheist have say i hate such and such because i am atheist ant many religious people hates someone based on religion or cults or system or doctrine etc, thanks, enjoy the life because so far is the only one we are going to have
@legolasgreenleaff Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@jursamaj Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Atheism is a religious belief... I do not understand why that is such difficult concept to grasp.. Atheists ridicule believers and believers ridicule atheists. End of story. (ad infinitum)
@davyiu Enlighten us. What makes atheism a religious belief?
_____
Then how can the atheists delude themselve and *"believe"* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Please be informed of the golden rule: do not do unto others as you would not like them to do unto you. If it is obnoxious to most people when Christians "witness" then why would it be any less obnoxious when you do the same?
When all people follow the golden rule, then there will be world peace.
i don't believe in god - or to put it correctly, i don't even consider asking myself if there is a god, nor do i care in the slightest way, but opposing something is, if it wants to change something NOT the opposite of wanting someone to share their beliefs, it's the same. (sorry for possible mistakes, as english is not my main language).
you may also want to consider that you only have two logical choices concerning the origin of our existence:
Option 1.) the universe and the complex life on earth (no proof of any other life on other planets) was created from nothing, on accident, and for no purpose.
Option 2.) you believe that there is a God (not necessarily the God of the bible)
however I am a believer in the bible as well. but thats another topic.
you may also want to consider that consider that you only have two logical choices concerning the origin of our existence:
Option 1.) the universe and the complex life on earth (no proof of any other life on other planets) was created from nothing, on accident, and for no purpose.
Option 2.) you believe that there is a God (not necessarily the God of the bible)
however I am a believer in the bible as well. but thats another topic.
I love your videos even when I disagree, because at least you are rational. While I believe in objective morality, I don't believe it is possible to have a perfect understanding of it, making the fact that it exists irrelevant in determining how to apply it. As a Christian existentialist, I note many similarities in how we approach the issue of deciding what to value as right or wrong, despite our differing foundations and conclusions. I understand your perspective and find it interesting.
Not trying to start any kind of argument here, I in fact agree with pretty much everything you have said, but I believe you did get one thing wrong.
I see math as subjective. 1+1=2 does not make any sense unless you understand what 1, 2, +, and = mean. + and = are easily explained, but without a frame of reference to reality, 1 and 2 are meaningless. You have 1 24oz can of soda and added it to another. How much soda is there? 1can+1can=48Oz.
You need a frame of reference. That's how I see it.
I suggest you read Ayn Rands writings on something called (Objectivism).
Also are you making the claim that stating Child Molestation is wrong isn't an Objective Moral Value? How about Rape?
I agree it's good to be open minded to a certain point but it would seem that you have overthought everything to the point of losing all perspective on anything.
I remember my G/F and I looking over paint a book of paint samples and by the time we looked at all of the colors and shades I couldn't pick…
As a society, we construct what benefits that society and what is detrimental. This is why laws are passed, change or are ruled unconstitutional.
Our (American) society is, at its core, based on rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Rape, murder, molestation, these things rob people of those societal rights.
In a theocracy, for example, the murder of a non-believer might not be a bad thing. It might even be encouraged.
@macafeek215: Your claim that if a society deems something is ok makes it ok is false. Nazi Germany decided that taking everything Jews had of value and throwing them into Ghettos and forced mass deportation was ok: (Death Camps were secret).
Many societies including our own advocated Slavery.
I believe our moral developement is part of the Evolutionary Process and while on some points there is still debate most if not all societies agree on some basic principles: Rape, Murder, Theft…Ect.
@ConservativeAtheist The society of Nazi Germany certainly thought so. You prove my point.
Take honor killings. To us, abomination. For the people whose culture endorses it, not so much.
From our perspective, having the values that we constructed, other societies who do things so radically different are wrong. This is subjectivity. Neither does that subjectivity make them "okay" nor does it devalue our own mores nor does it mean we shouldn't fight against such things from happening.
@macafeek215: You forgot to mention the fact that those countries that honor killings occur have criminalizes the actions long ago and prosecute people who commit such acts.
@ConservativeAtheist the country's does, the society doesn't. many of them get away with it even as police stand by and watch them happen.
Thanks for splitting hairs and completely missing the point.
Since it seems I have to spell it out for you, there is no overarching "good" or "evil." In the absence of anyone telling you otherwise, everything is okay. It's when something challenges our personal morality that we either accept it or reject it. How that fits in with society is what matters.
@ConservativeAtheist Ayn Rand? You mean the less successful but equally insane version of L. Ron Hubbard?
What year of college are you in?
Anyway, "creating something" isn't morality. Beyond this, I really don't know what Objectivity has to do with an objective morality. It actually seems the opposite.
Also, in my previous comment, it should read more along the lines of "in the absence... ...none of your morals have value and are therefore equal"
@macafeek215: If you think Ayn Rand is anything like L. Ron Hubbard then you either don't know who she is or you don't know anything about what she advocates.
@ConservativeAtheist Hmm, both Rand and Hubbard are self-important pricks who made names for themselves by converting their shitty stories into philosophies about self-actualization. Sounds pretty similar to me.
@macafeek215: It's quite odd how Liberals think that anyone that isn't a Liberal must be defective somehow. In my view Liberalism and it's Ideology (Political Correctness) are all about emotions and feeling good along with attacking anyone that might burst their bubble of self delusion than based on true intellectual prowess and overall common sense.
For instance I have never spoken to or heard of even one single Conservative (9/11 Conspiracy Nut) not even one! I have met and spoken to 100s.
@ConservativeAtheist when did i say I was a Liberal? When did I even suggest it? I only suggested that Ayn Rand is fucking ridiculous, which many Conservatives will agree on.
@macafeek215: Are you now claiming that you aren't a Liberal? 1. For or Against Obama Care? 2. For or Against the War in Iraq? 3. For or Against the War in Afghanistan? 4. Who did you Vote for in however many Presidential Elections you have Voted in? 5. Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? 6. Pro-Gun Rights or Anti-Gun Rights? 7. What's your position on Illegal Immigration? 8. Ground Zero: For or Against? 9. For or Against Affirmative Action? 10. America: An overall force for Good or Evil in the World?
@ConservativeAtheist Even if I were a dyed in the wool Liberal, none of that changes the fact that Ayn Rand's vision of everyone minding their own business and accumulating wealth for themselves is not only bullshit, as she lived her life completely devoid of leaving people alone, but also impractical as money is the representation of service or goods, which you get from people. You don't just "make money," it comes from somewhere.
Anyway, Objectivism has nothing to do with morality.
as an agnostic-atheist, I tell people what i believe, but I also don't care if people disagree, nor do i tell them that *insert religion here* is wrong, nor do i try and make them become atheist. As long as they feel the same towards other beliefs/ treat others with the same respect, it really doesn't matter. At the end of the day, it is simply a personal choice and really, no one alive could ever know which is "true"
WHAT THE FUCK IS IT?
impoorrsguy 1 month ago
@impoorrsguy
What the fuck ARE YOU?!?!?!!!!!
nocreditcard1 5 days ago
what the fuck are you!?
oli696969 2 months ago 2
ZJ, I see you are entering the big bad world of morality and philosophy. Great job so far!
Beanybag2 2 months ago
Comment removed
Hoobifta 3 weeks ago
@Beanybag2 I ain't into philosophy myself, morality is an angry one, good being objective has no moral value: there's two bases to its existence and essentiality, 1. What exists is its essential appearance, 2. what's essential is the way it feels, and if you dis the feeling, then reject a morality yourself, it doesn't apply to you.
Hoobifta 3 weeks ago
My cat is an atheist and so am I. He's smarter than most of the people I meet.
Gods are outdated and barbaric.
northoforacle 2 months ago 3
Not an invention of man . Morality and imorality is a creation . It is our , you would say choice , I would say duty to be the better .
inabluemoon1 2 months ago
@thesoundoftruth1 I'm pretty sure you are going to university because of the fact that you are actually good at something (but obviously not actual logic thinking or having manners) not because your invisible buddy jesus told/bribed the university to let you go. and the point of being an atheist is that you do NOT serve some god/whatever but act according to you own morals and views. have a good day.
lovlyabby 4 months ago
Atheists so called witness because we want to get our point across just like our religious counterparts.
Cainkane1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a living cell. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all its is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 5 months ago
RIGHT AND WRONG Is the issue who gives a shit if I belive in God and there are alot of Christians like me and only deal with their personal lives and vote on things that effect others lives and most of all WHY DO I NEED TO PROVE GOD EXIST TO YOU i just want to have something to belive in that is positive in this would of hatred
doniecurry 6 months ago
In the end, whether you believe in God or not is something that depends entirely on methodology. Anyone who enters a discussion and accepts the limiting assumptions of positivism will obviously have to be an Agnostic (not an Atheist, though, which is quite untenable).That does not mean positivism is right. Actually, it's pretty far from the Truth, the way I perceive it.. But, hey, please, I beg you, don´t ask me to "prove" it...don´t be ridiculous, don´t embarrass yourself publicly.
nabokovdiplomat 6 months ago
@ZJemptv Sweetheart Rosie Jones! You have absolutely demolished his arguments. But it needs a reasoning mind to understand what you have said and that is too much to expect from those who oppose you.
azzy314159 7 months ago
Atheists push their beliefs on others far more agressively, forcefully and argumentatively than Christians do. Peace be with you, dude!
boogiebabe037 9 months ago
@boogiebabe037
Really? I haven't seen him use 50 pound stone blocks or other torture devices to convince people to agree with him.
rynther 9 months ago 2
@boogiebabe037
You are historically wrong. It's not even funny.
unabomberman 7 months ago
@unabomberman jeez! i'm not talking about the blardy crusades or anything i'm referring specifically to these comments here, in the video and in current social circles. seriously, what is so offensive about believing in God that makes atheists' feel justified to criticize a Christian's intelligence or sense of reasoning?? just because atheists don't "get it" why hate on people who choose to believe in a higher power?? EVOLVE already!
boogiebabe037 7 months ago
@boogiebabe037
Because it's useless and you, on your own, inbue your social context with a sense of being in the minority ("Look at me! I have it SO hard!") when that isn't the case. What bothers you is an *actual* minority of people, not even the majority of all atheists, raising their voices for the first time in unison telling you you are a dummy.
We could discuss the merits of belief of the supernatural (or the lack of them), if you want, but that is not what I was referring to.
unabomberman 7 months ago
@unabomberman you're making assumptions on what i said. my point is only why hate on anybody who has a different belief or in your words is a "dummy". but you are right... this conversation is useless. my bad!
boogiebabe037 7 months ago
@boogiebabe037
Fuck you, then. And have a nice day. OOoops!
unabomberman 7 months ago
@unabomberman outstanding! proved your character right there.
boogiebabe037 7 months ago
@boogiebabe037
Yes, yes, yes. Rules of etiquette and appropriateness go out the window thus I'm a dick. Yeah.
unabomberman 7 months ago
@unabomberman i actually never said you were a dick. just know that not ALL christians are whackos and the inane things they say pisses ME off as much as it does you. we're not all the same.
boogiebabe037 6 months ago
@boogiebabe037
I never said you were, but you cannot deny that you are well into the mentality of "we have it SO hard."
I know not all christians behave like you do. Most are perfectly swell people who do not even attempt character judging unless they are face to face.
Laters.
unabomberman 6 months ago
@unabomberman do you have short term memory or what? YOU were the one who said "FUCK YOU" to me!! and your judgment of my so called "we have it so hard" mentality is a totally biased opinion!!! and you accuse ME of being judgemental? omg trying to resolve this stupid discussion peacefully with you is a total waste of my time!!! so fuck you too you bigot.
boogiebabe037 6 months ago
It is odd of you to call me a bigot b/c I draw a simple observation about how christians whine. A bunch of fellow atheists whine a lot and get overtly sentimental, too--just like you. No difference.
But why do you care Ms. fancy pants? Everyone is a complete asshole on the internets-you included-as you can well see.
Fuck this, fuck that, fuck you, or some other silly thing, and everyone flies into a hissy fit.
But do consider this "discussion" peacefully resolved, then. Off you go.
unabomberman 6 months ago
Wow couldnt get through your whole video cos it was like pulling teeth! I'm glad u have your logic to make sense of all these things. It's all you've got really, as questionable as it is. Btw faith is based on experiencing God on a spiritual level NOT on facts or proof. It actually takes far more faith to believe that we evolved from apes. Scientists STILL can't figure out the missing link! You really don't know what you are talking about. Oh and another thing, Atheists like yourself push your
boogiebabe037 9 months ago
@boogiebabe037 WROOOOOOOOONG!!!!! It takes no faith to believe evolution because there are mountains of evidence that support it. Faith is required only when evidence is absent. And yes, they HAVE found the "missing link". In fact, they've found several. Catch up to the 21st century, please.
Ravenshadeoux 8 months ago
@boogiebabe037 You might not accept the scientific explanation for the fact of evolution but you could at least find out what it is first. We didn't evolve from apes,we are apes and you don't figure out a missing link,you find them and we have found plenty. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is the best explanation for that fact. Couldn't your god have used evolution to create the diversity of life? that's what most christians say, are they wrong?
1empathy 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fucking freak! You fags should be shot!
bigbob6556 11 months ago
@bigbob6556
You seem nice.
harrifer3000 11 months ago
@harrifer3000 im friends with him now.
TheWeeaboo 10 months ago
@bigbob6556 For what? lol.
shinryu1285 11 months ago
@shinryu1285 For being a tranny fag?
bigbob6556 11 months ago
@bigbob6556 Someones got skeletons :o
Tell me, what makes us "tranny fags" so scary to you? Jealous that we can accept ourselves?
ShinyBachuru 10 months ago
@ShinyBachuru YOUR FREAKS. You cant even pick a fucking gender. You are born what you are born, if you think you like the same sex or should be the other sex you have a disorder.
bigbob6556 10 months ago
@bigbob6556 Learn to spell, dumbass.
"You cant even pick a fucking gender. You are born what you are born, ..." - I ... don't think you understand the concept '-.- They chose what do THEY want to be, not what others want them to be. For example, I want you dead, but unfortunately, it's your choice.
"If you think you like same sex ... you have a disorder." - so you and / or your imaginary friend (aka god) knows what someone likes or thinks better than someone else? Riiight ...
Aurelovanovalopta 10 months ago
@Aurelovanovalopta Im atheist dipshit lol. I just think fags and trannys are freaks and need to be put in a mental hospital.
bigbob6556 10 months ago
@bigbob6556 So what? Unless you have any reason, nobody cares what you think.
Aurelovanovalopta 10 months ago
@bigbob6556 Hmm I cant really believe you are an atheist and still think other people are mentally ill when they think diffrently from you. So basicly you replaced hell with an insane asylum. Sounds like a good trade. But honestly reconsider what it truelly means to be atheist a while. Im 100% heterosexual btw. And Im pretty sure you havent even been in a situation where you had to choose once.So quite frankly, stfu. ty
TheWeeaboo 10 months ago
@TheWeeaboo I have been atheist for over 8 years. I believe in NO GOD. My point is gay people ARE freaks. However or whatever way we were put on earth, we were meant to be with the OPPOSITE sex. NOT THE SAME.
bigbob6556 10 months ago
@bigbob6556 I have been an atheist for all my life. And your point is invalid. No it is not the same. Nobody is the same. Neither is the skin of so many races the same. They were born diffrently from you and I. In some cases its even possible to see it from the outside, but if we accept that its about whats on the inside anyway, then we come to the conclusion that people that think diffrently from eachother are not by definition freaks because they arent like you when you were born.
TheWeeaboo 10 months ago
@bigbob6556
I'd like you to know that God supports you on that one.
Utterbach 9 months ago
@bigbob6556 Well first off, I don't know what freaks you're talking about. I don't own any freaks.
Boy, how nice. So, you have a problem with people shaving I guess? People aren't "meant" to be clean shaved after all.
Oh, and by the way, please give me the scientific name of this "disorder". We'd all love to hear it. While you're (grammar lesson, that's you are because of the way I spelled it) at it, I've got a disorder for you, too! It's called "xenophobia".
ShinyBachuru 10 months ago
I am an atheist but I can't tell what you are, gender wise I mean?
CrazyDancingBear 11 months ago
@CrazyDancingBear Its a freak tranny man.
bigbob6556 11 months ago
wow, you certainly have an uncanny ability to relate your observance of temporal reality using carnal intellect. I'm not sure if you believe you will have an ability to express yourself so logically after you die, or if you belive that which is yourself will simply disappear into oblivion, you talked about almost everything else lol.
ReligionlessFAITH 11 months ago
@video: y pick this guy's video 2 respond 2? any infant can pick apart his poor reasoning. he inserts his believe wit no more logic as 2 its legitimacy then if I were 2 insert, if good or bad exists, there must b a transcending being known as the flying spagetti monster. its poorly done, u can do better z
cruelbusiness1984 11 months ago
Nicely reasoned, as usual, ZJ.
Oh, and the bible actually would have us believe that a transcendant being has redefined some objective truths -- not 1 + 1 = 5, but Pi = 3 (1 Kings 7:23, and 2 Chronicles 4:2). lol
At the time of Solomon, Pi had been known more accurately for about a thousand years already. Oops. Lazy writers. :)
miriamEnglish 1 year ago
Hi ZJ, DLB here. I have talked to a lot of christians about why they believe what they believe. There are a few who will say that they believe that the resurection of Christ is well documented and is the foundation of their belief; but all of them, if pressed, eventually admit that is the way that holding this belief in their mind makes them feel that ultimately convinces them. There is an emotional state that can be reached by holding this belief that is unlike any other. The feeling is real.
dlbattle100 1 year ago
This is very boring...very robotic. You appear to have an "Adam's Apple", are you a man?
mrKZ6090 1 year ago
Its useless to ask logic from many christians, they just start quoting the bible, and thats when I bring up noahs ark and ask if we are all the products of inbreeding and inscest as the only people not drown in the 40 day flood was noah, his wife, noahs son and daughter, they they usually say-but thats just a story, you cant take it all literally, that is until they need to prove a point and want to take the bible literally, its like asking logic from a child who says his toy wizzard is magic.
meattube4u33 1 year ago
A recent Israeli study found that women's tears contain pheromones which diminish a man's testosterone levels. This reduces his sex drive and agression, and could have the result of giving women more choice of who fathers their children. Since human societies consider abuse, and rape of women to be wrong, it might follow that this particular facet of human morality might have a purely chemical foundation, subject to the mechanics of the evolutionary process.
RobertSHilton 1 year ago
Comment removed
drkillyou 1 year ago
Ok no offence but are you a man or a woman??
rosechild23 1 year ago
@rosechild23 its a guy i think it says so on the profile
drkillyou 1 year ago
WE have to prove Evolution. THEY have to prove God. And, since we already have all the fossils, bones, Clydesdales etc, they have a little bit of catching up to do.
dechha1981 1 year ago 31
@dechha1981 im sorry.. but how do fossils disprove God?
sfdrf 1 year ago
@dechha1981 its been proven that the fossil age verification methods have been false by thousands and millions of years.. explain the dinosaur foot print on top of the human footprint.. it's proven that the large dinosaur footprint was aged back to dinosours and so was the human footprint..... humans didnt exist back then? atleast, science says so...
mpearcy36520 4 months ago
@mpearcy36520
Ugh. Do I REALLy have to adress arguments that have already been debunked to death AGAIN?
Look it up your damn self. Also, let's just pretend I made fun of you with someFlintstones refference to save time.
dechha1981 4 months ago
@dechha1981 i dont understand where you are tryng to go with that. there are tons of other things that prove science wrong.. some dont exactly mainly prove it wrong. it just proves the fact that jesus existed right
mpearcy36520 4 months ago
@mpearcy36520 name one
lovlyabby 4 months ago
@lovlyabby Features on land that match events in the bible...... too many to explain. Theres this one time when someone in the bible talks about being on top of a mountain somewhere(i forget where) and they talk about how Jesus split the rock directly in a straight line down and tht rock on the very top of a mountain was found. it was 15 feet tall with a slice straight down the middle matching the description in the bible.
mpearcy36520 3 months ago
@lovlyabby Also in the middle of the red sea there was an ancient roman wagon found that was only used for a short period of time and then were all wiped out. These wagons were stated in the Bible when Jesus led a village through the Red Sea.... He split the water and he led them through it. Those wagons were used while the people were walking through the sea.....
mpearcy36520 3 months ago
omg is this intelligence? atheist offer intelligence? rather then a blinded and stripped from individuality will ?.. DE converted : )
count with my thumbs going up
eckstudios 1 year ago
@eckstudios
This isnt intelligence. Pat Condell
1982rf 1 year ago
As always, your reasoning is sound. I say: keep on witnessing! As someone who grew up in a JW family, I personally have experiences in dealing with the unsound reasoning relating to blood transfusions, and although I can see some dangers from things like tainted blood, etc., I know of some JW parents who have decided to abandon this belief in favor of their child's life. There's still hope out there for religious people - don't give up!
GreatGazoo25 1 year ago
Is this a guy or a girl ? Seriously !!!!
jamjar1314 1 year ago
@jamjar1314 Fag alert! lmfao
ruffisrocker 1 year ago
@ruffisrocker Bigot alert!
SCordeliaB 1 year ago
@SCordeliaB bigot...?
ruffisrocker 1 year ago
Although I may not agree with how you define or identify every observance that you comment on, I am soooo GLAD to hear someone out there questioning what is and how we look at it. It really sparks creative thinking to keep these debates going.
I choose to have faith in a creator, though I can not define who or what it is.
To me, it's kind of a fun mystery to find out...What started all this?!
And I LOVE to hear ALL theories!
I appreciate respect for mine, as I also give respect to any opposing.
gregorymuncey 1 year ago
Subscribed.
colourfulwithaU 1 year ago
I "witness" because of the lies, misinformation about Atheism.
My morality: good & bad= beneficial & harmful. Agent-neutral, that is, I am not superior to others, so I cant give myself preferential treatment over others. I have never found any real-life situations that invalidates this position. If there are any, I'd like to know. (this position also reveals that most things in life are neither good or bad. They "just are." So stop judging and appreciate life more!)
727Phoenix 1 year ago
Your Videoo's Are Excellent! Do We Really Have Free Thought If Religeous Bastards Are Going To Press Their Crap On Us. Atheist And Proud Of IT!
HaxAras 1 year ago
@HaxAras , do we have free thought if relig bastards press?
???? Sounds like some cognitive dissonance here.
l8rthen 1 year ago
@l8rthen what?
HaxAras 1 year ago
@asiankevind I agree entirely. ZJ is fluid and focussed.
eniuquine 1 year ago
absolutely brilliant.
TheMindsmack 1 year ago
"1+1=2" is not an objectively true statement. It is derived from arbitrary axioms which are either simply postulated or, as I like to look at it, only used as a basis for hypothetical deductions, i.e. "if axioms A and B are true, then statement C, which follows logically from A and B, is also true." Either way, there is nothing objective about them; we could just choose a different consistent system of axioms altogether and arrive at completely different mathematics.
KingKolunikus 1 year ago
@KingKolunikus Has anyone here really talked about what 'objective' means at all? It should mean something that can be agreed upon between a group and relies upon some measure that isn't controlled by the senses or anything but the barest human perceptions. Here is one definition "based only on facts and not influenced by personal feelings or beliefs". The only way 1+1=2 isn't objective is if you strip 'beliefs' down to apply to even the simplest rules of logic. Nihilism.
eniuquine 1 year ago
@eniuquine Your first definition of "objective" is what I would call "intersubjective", i.e. it can be agreed upon subjectively by each person in a group. This applies to the statement "1+1=2". It is, however, not based on any observable facts, but on axioms which may or may not be accepted by a person. The only thing that's necessarily true about the equation (by standard logic) is the deductive relation between the axioms and the statement the equation contains, not the statement itself.
KingKolunikus 1 year ago
Not collecting stamps is not a hobby, because there is no other interest that occupies your time, unless otherwise specified.
Color by definition means just that, light as we are able to "perceive it", can you say someone who is bald as not having "color", depends in your precise definition of color. If you mean "bald" as in a vacuum of matter and energy then no, that has yet to be proven.
If by color you are referring to the quality of light being perceived then the answer is obviously yes.
globe199 1 year ago
Hmmm I think that everyone sense of morality comes out when they are mistreated, not that anyone can pinpoint a truly morally good act, but we can define it in the way we would expect to be treated. Torture for instance, as witnessed by a third party is something you can immediately condemn by watching the tortured surfer and the torturer play God with the victim. Viewing people's reactions to wrong acts is a good indication in our objective morality, this is what I have come to percieve.
LinkMaster1711 1 year ago
i dont care if your a guy, your voice is sexy and your face can be missenturperatated to be a woman :D i wana shag u! :) :): )
rareisalive 1 year ago
@Menak666 But that "5" would just equal the "2" that is in our current reality.
xxneondinosaur 1 year ago
you look like meeka kitty
DanielRadcliffe777 1 year ago
It's nice to know you're really, where it counts, quite male.
Are you familiar with an old song by the composing team Rodgers & Hammerstein called "I Enjoy Being A Girl"?
It's from a show/film called "Flower Drum Song" and you can watch it right here on "Youtube!"
SatchmoSings 1 year ago
A religion is defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause and purpose
of the universe... If you were an Atheist you believe the universe has a particular cause, a particular nature, and a particular purpose [In addition - In Metaphysics what particular "type of atheist" you would be is open to debate under the broad umbrella of Atheism (believers)]. So that being the case it's impossible for a human not to have a belief system. Unless you were asleep or I'd argue dead....
globe199 1 year ago
Icemario87 1 year ago
@Icemario87 Are you actually telling me that Atheist, do not have a concept of good and evil?
You can have a religious belief and not believe in an afterlife however you see it as, such as energy and matter. I know Christians, Jews, and Muslims who do not believe in an afterlife. Yes that includes Atheist as well.
And Not all religions do meditation.Rituals perhaps but you must've never heard the concept of Reformist. I can keep punching holes into your argument but I think I made my point.
globe199 1 year ago
@globe199 Technically (and realistically), a religion is a large, socially accepted cult. (Yes, you are brainwashed. I'm sorry if this seems unbelievable to you. I know it hurts, I was too. Most of us are.)
Atheism is better described as anti-cultist. Atheists practice 0 cult behaviors, whereas the religious show all signs.
Icemario87 1 year ago
@Icemario87 i don't know why i am telling this to you, so far no atheist have say i hate such and such because i am atheist ant many religious people hates someone based on religion or cults or system or doctrine etc, thanks, enjoy the life because so far is the only one we are going to have
legolasgreenleaff 1 year ago
@legolasgreenleaff I know many atheists who ridicule those who believe in a (type of) God...
So I'm not exactly sure how much weight your "stereotype" holds.
globe199 1 year ago
@legolasgreenleaff Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
I hues it's too bad for your argument that atheists don't believe that load of babble. :P
jursamaj 1 year ago 10
@jursamaj Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh
Atheists don't believe that matter created itself.
Atheists don't believe that matter decreed the laws that regulate the universe.
Atheists don't believe that matter is a being, so it couldn't "be the source for all *other* beings".
Your question is a strawman argument. Look it up.
jursamaj 1 year ago 2
Atheism is a religious belief... I do not understand why that is such difficult concept to grasp.. Atheists ridicule believers and believers ridicule atheists. End of story. (ad infinitum)
globe199 1 year ago
Enlighten us. What makes atheism a religious belief?
davyiu 1 year ago
Comment removed
globe199 1 year ago
Comment removed
globe199 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@davyiu Enlighten us. What makes atheism a religious belief?
_____
Then how can the atheists delude themselve and *"believe"* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@globe199
You mean like bald is a hair color? Or not collecting stamps is a hobby? :)
jursamaj 1 year ago
Please be informed of the golden rule: do not do unto others as you would not like them to do unto you. If it is obnoxious to most people when Christians "witness" then why would it be any less obnoxious when you do the same?
When all people follow the golden rule, then there will be world peace.
72Yonatan 1 year ago
Please, please do the world a favor and kill yourself ZJ. no one needs or wants your ignorance. you are scum, you are a freak. Please just do it.
dafunker00 1 year ago
Comment removed
MultiKoebes 1 year ago
i don't believe in god - or to put it correctly, i don't even consider asking myself if there is a god, nor do i care in the slightest way, but opposing something is, if it wants to change something NOT the opposite of wanting someone to share their beliefs, it's the same. (sorry for possible mistakes, as english is not my main language).
MultiKoebes 1 year ago
Here's a better question... why are atheists so ugly? lol
stallion4life 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stallion4life because according to your reglion GOD created us in his image=)
yannypoo 1 year ago
i am just gonna pritend that your a women
bokkabonde 1 year ago
ur voice just threw me off
packers718 1 year ago
@Menak666 watch?v=55pIcgzzkoA
SomethingSea1 1 year ago
MY FIRST VID ....I LIKE IT
XXSUPER17XX 1 year ago
ROFL! ZJemptv, please watch your video again. ***shakes head*** judging from your other video's, I don't think you will even get it.
Gypscrew 1 year ago
your intellect & sense of reason are inspiring!
AugustusAurelianus1 1 year ago
Do morals evolve?
AssilemakaMelissa 1 year ago
Btw, objective morality is an oxymoron.
ImaginaryLettuce 1 year ago
I AM THE LORD LOL
ImaginaryLettuce 1 year ago
Keep doing it ZJ.Keep doing it;)!
SvendsenAtheist 1 year ago
Sky Cake !!!
kilgonus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you may also want to consider that you only have two logical choices concerning the origin of our existence:
Option 1.) the universe and the complex life on earth (no proof of any other life on other planets) was created from nothing, on accident, and for no purpose.
Option 2.) you believe that there is a God (not necessarily the God of the bible)
however I am a believer in the bible as well. but thats another topic.
mcrage81 1 year ago
you may also want to consider that consider that you only have two logical choices concerning the origin of our existence:
Option 1.) the universe and the complex life on earth (no proof of any other life on other planets) was created from nothing, on accident, and for no purpose.
Option 2.) you believe that there is a God (not necessarily the God of the bible)
however I am a believer in the bible as well. but thats another topic.
mcrage81 1 year ago
I love your videos even when I disagree, because at least you are rational. While I believe in objective morality, I don't believe it is possible to have a perfect understanding of it, making the fact that it exists irrelevant in determining how to apply it. As a Christian existentialist, I note many similarities in how we approach the issue of deciding what to value as right or wrong, despite our differing foundations and conclusions. I understand your perspective and find it interesting.
snaildragon 1 year ago
My brain! Me too stupid to keep up!
OnADiet666 1 year ago
Not trying to start any kind of argument here, I in fact agree with pretty much everything you have said, but I believe you did get one thing wrong.
I see math as subjective. 1+1=2 does not make any sense unless you understand what 1, 2, +, and = mean. + and = are easily explained, but without a frame of reference to reality, 1 and 2 are meaningless. You have 1 24oz can of soda and added it to another. How much soda is there? 1can+1can=48Oz.
You need a frame of reference. That's how I see it.
ObsidianWizroh 1 year ago
I suggest you read Ayn Rands writings on something called (Objectivism).
Also are you making the claim that stating Child Molestation is wrong isn't an Objective Moral Value? How about Rape?
I agree it's good to be open minded to a certain point but it would seem that you have overthought everything to the point of losing all perspective on anything.
I remember my G/F and I looking over paint a book of paint samples and by the time we looked at all of the colors and shades I couldn't pick…
ConservativeAtheist 1 year ago
@ConservativeAtheist No, they're not objectively amoral.
As a society, we construct what benefits that society and what is detrimental. This is why laws are passed, change or are ruled unconstitutional.
Our (American) society is, at its core, based on rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Rape, murder, molestation, these things rob people of those societal rights.
In a theocracy, for example, the murder of a non-believer might not be a bad thing. It might even be encouraged.
macafeek215 1 year ago
@macafeek215: Your claim that if a society deems something is ok makes it ok is false. Nazi Germany decided that taking everything Jews had of value and throwing them into Ghettos and forced mass deportation was ok: (Death Camps were secret).
Many societies including our own advocated Slavery.
I believe our moral developement is part of the Evolutionary Process and while on some points there is still debate most if not all societies agree on some basic principles: Rape, Murder, Theft…Ect.
ConservativeAtheist 1 year ago
@ConservativeAtheist The society of Nazi Germany certainly thought so. You prove my point.
Take honor killings. To us, abomination. For the people whose culture endorses it, not so much.
From our perspective, having the values that we constructed, other societies who do things so radically different are wrong. This is subjectivity. Neither does that subjectivity make them "okay" nor does it devalue our own mores nor does it mean we shouldn't fight against such things from happening.
macafeek215 1 year ago
@macafeek215: You forgot to mention the fact that those countries that honor killings occur have criminalizes the actions long ago and prosecute people who commit such acts.
ConservativeAtheist 1 year ago
@ConservativeAtheist the country's does, the society doesn't. many of them get away with it even as police stand by and watch them happen.
Thanks for splitting hairs and completely missing the point.
Since it seems I have to spell it out for you, there is no overarching "good" or "evil." In the absence of anyone telling you otherwise, everything is okay. It's when something challenges our personal morality that we either accept it or reject it. How that fits in with society is what matters.
macafeek215 1 year ago
@macafeek215: I completely disagree. If you haven't read anything about (Objectivism) you should. Do a search on the name (Ayn Rand).
ConservativeAtheist 1 year ago
@ConservativeAtheist Ayn Rand? You mean the less successful but equally insane version of L. Ron Hubbard?
What year of college are you in?
Anyway, "creating something" isn't morality. Beyond this, I really don't know what Objectivity has to do with an objective morality. It actually seems the opposite.
Also, in my previous comment, it should read more along the lines of "in the absence... ...none of your morals have value and are therefore equal"
macafeek215 1 year ago
@macafeek215: If you think Ayn Rand is anything like L. Ron Hubbard then you either don't know who she is or you don't know anything about what she advocates.
I have been out of College since the early 90s.
ConservativeAtheist 1 year ago
@ConservativeAtheist Hmm, both Rand and Hubbard are self-important pricks who made names for themselves by converting their shitty stories into philosophies about self-actualization. Sounds pretty similar to me.
macafeek215 1 year ago
@macafeek215: It's quite odd how Liberals think that anyone that isn't a Liberal must be defective somehow. In my view Liberalism and it's Ideology (Political Correctness) are all about emotions and feeling good along with attacking anyone that might burst their bubble of self delusion than based on true intellectual prowess and overall common sense.
For instance I have never spoken to or heard of even one single Conservative (9/11 Conspiracy Nut) not even one! I have met and spoken to 100s.
ConservativeAtheist 1 year ago
@ConservativeAtheist when did i say I was a Liberal? When did I even suggest it? I only suggested that Ayn Rand is fucking ridiculous, which many Conservatives will agree on.
macafeek215 1 year ago
ConservativeAtheist 1 year ago
@ConservativeAtheist You really know how to completely miss the point of a comment, don't you?
You already have your assumptions, here's the ones I'll frustrate:
3 For
6 I am a gun owner
7 Unless they pay taxes they should enjoy no benefits an American citizen enjoys
8 lol wut?
Now, what does this have to do with how morality is objective or subjective?
macafeek215 1 year ago
@macafeek215: 8 was a typo it was meant to be (Ground Zero Mosque:For or Against!).
Now regardless if you pay taxes or not if you are here illegally you must go your answer is a deceptive Liberal answer.
Next are you a hand gun owner because that's the point of contention?
Lastly you were dodging an answer so I was trying to get a clarification on your perspective.
ConservativeAtheist 1 year ago
@ConservativeAtheist Make a point, please.
macafeek215 1 year ago
@macafeek215: Ok your not going to clarify with specifics you obviously prefer to give deceptively ambiguous answers and I say so be it.
I will end by saying a refusal to answer in fact can be an answer and that is precisely the case in your reply.
ConservativeAtheist 1 year ago
@ConservativeAtheist Even if I were a dyed in the wool Liberal, none of that changes the fact that Ayn Rand's vision of everyone minding their own business and accumulating wealth for themselves is not only bullshit, as she lived her life completely devoid of leaving people alone, but also impractical as money is the representation of service or goods, which you get from people. You don't just "make money," it comes from somewhere.
Anyway, Objectivism has nothing to do with morality.
macafeek215 1 year ago
You're a good writer.
whittleddownbattery 1 year ago
as an agnostic-atheist, I tell people what i believe, but I also don't care if people disagree, nor do i tell them that *insert religion here* is wrong, nor do i try and make them become atheist. As long as they feel the same towards other beliefs/ treat others with the same respect, it really doesn't matter. At the end of the day, it is simply a personal choice and really, no one alive could ever know which is "true"
Keep up the amazing videos and logic, @ZJemptv
TheStarrysea 1 year ago