I think there's a really easy was to refute morality: Morals were around in the start of civilisation; there's written sources from 3500BC (If I'm remembering correctly) that have moral/judicial laws. That's several thousand years before Judaism was even conceived. Ask the Christian then how if those morals which are the same as today's, and were created from a different religion that is, according to the Christian, incorrect, how is it the work of the Christian God? Forgive the rambling there.
Dawkins has claimed, “As for religion … nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.” Harris debated Craig on 7th April. In his opening statement in that debate, Harris declared that Dr Craig is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.” After that debate, the atheist website Debunking Christianity reported: “Bill (Craig) has once again showed himself as the best debater of this generation.” ROFL
Thunderf00t, I recommend reading Dawkins on group selection (on the issues he pointed out when you spoke to him on your channel) and even more reading Steve Pinker the causes of violence. You're making quite a few controversial statements in this video and seem to be unaware that they are controversial. The common idea that violence is often caused by diminished resource is not supported by the evidence even though it sounds so plausible.
@skewCZ "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
It depends on how you qualify a diety. The problem is that people will all disagree on the attributes of this diety or even the number of dieties, even people who belong to the same religion/culture.
Well this is the time when people play the "God-works-in-mysterious-ways" card. And rightly so - it just might be the case that this universe is the least evil universe possible, but we are unable to see consequences.
What worries me though, is that people basically admit that God is unknowable, yet they are so sure about whole bunch of his features. They just believe, and thats the scary part to me. No need of proof, no need of hint.
Just to clarify - i meant that we are unable to see consequences of changing the universe.
The whole argument "there is evil in the world so God doesn't exist" seems fallacious to me (and to my great disappointment, even The four horseman of new atheism use it).
@skewCZ If God is omnipotent, he is necessarily able to make a world without evil. Your appeal to mystery doesn't solve anything. Saying that "this universe is the least evil universe possible"necessarily means that your god has some kind of limit one what he can do, not omnipotent by definition. And if you say that god is unknowable, you have effectively made your claim both unprovable and completely useless, meaning that there is no benefit it making this supposition in the first place.
@Tamizushi Well the Greek gods were not omnipotent and they were still gods. Just cause g/God is not omnipotent doesn't mean he's not worthy of worship.
People already (pretty much) worship other people, so the omnipotence doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
"And if you say that god is unknowable... ...in the first place."
@skewCZ That is correct. The problem of evil is only a problem for Omnipotent Omniscient OmniBenevolent gods, which means that it's perfectly valid against the classical definition of the Christian god but not against a god without one of these attributes.
.... WTF??? Fish having a moral code??? No, you fuckin' idiot, its called "Murder is bad for a community to prosper." These fish would have NO trouble killing each other if it was for the benefit of the group.
Kent Hovind is in jail because he was trying to warn the world that their is a dark agenda out there that aims at destroying the morality of every man woman and child making them into beasts. In fact Darwinism states that we evolved from mere beasts. God says you should hold your head up because you have been given free will by an all powerful all wise and all loving Creator. Jesus answered "Woe to them who worship the Created (Monkeys/Primates) rather then the Creator."
I know you (Tf00l) hammer William Lane Craig on the Kalam Cosmo argument (and I think erroneously, but that's a different issue). What about WLC's formulation of the moral argument--as follows: (1) If there is no God, then there are no absolute moral values and duties. (2) There are absolute moral values and duties. Conclusion: It is false that there is no God.
Just curious how you (or the other atheists on here) would respond to that one. I thought I had a good answer when I was an atheist.
@richsuga I would point out that there are no moral absolutes. For example if you state that killing is always wrong that is a moral absolute. However, If i were to ask you if you would just roll over and die if someone tried killing you or you kill them and you said you would kill them you are then stating that that absolute is not correct. Moral absolutism says that intention or context does not matter. Most people would probably agree that killing in self defense is often moral.
@Azrael666Azazel Famous atheist writer Sam Harris (and an increasing number of the "new atheists") would disagree with you. They maintain that absolute morality does exist. Would it EVER be either morally good (or even morally arbitrary) for me to abduct a newborn baby out of his baby stroller as his mother walked him along on the sidewalk, take him into a dark alley, and torture and kill him? Is this ALWAYS wrong?
@richsuga I may think it's always wrong... but then... says who? Many serial killers don't feel that it's wrong. Just because most people can agree that something is wrong does not mean there are absolute moral values.
Can you demonstrate your first premise to be true? You can't simply state a premise as fact you have to show that it is true. False premise = I reject your conclusion (logically)
@VeritasLuxMea100 And what do the judges and juries do with these serial killers who do not seem to recognize wrong from right? Let them go because they just don't get it? No, the law is still there, and we recognize that they are abnormal and lacking. I think your point upholds the principle instead of negating it.
I can rephrase the first premise to make it more focused for the purpose of the present discussion: (1) Without an absolute standard of moral values (continued)
@VeritasLuxMea100 (cont'd from below...) as a source, then there are no absolute moral values and duties.
Here is my evidence of the necessary existence of an absolute moral standard as source. Ask any naturalist, and she or he will affirm to you that nature is amoral. Atheists like Harris claims that an inherently amoral system has produced objective morality (and immorality). Impossible.
@richsuga Judges and juries are subjective and decide on a case by case basis. These laws are based on our opinions and change as society changes. 1st premise is still not demonstrably true. I don't care what Mr. Harris says, he does not speak for me. I deny your premise because you have not demonstrated it to be true, I don't have to explain why it's false, I did not say it was false I said it was not demonstrably true. It's your claim, you prove WHY it is true.
@VeritasLuxMea100 Prove that I have to prove that it's demonstrably true. In other words, prove the principle that you are appealing to to insist that I demonstrate the veracity of my premise. If you can't, I'll be under no rational obligation to oblige you.
@VeritasLuxMea100 You haven't objectively demonstrated any reason to believe that your demand for demonstration is a rational prerequisite. Sorry. Looks like we're stuck here, unless we're willing to make certain presuppositions. All logicians do--even you. But I'll admit that we cannot make any progress while you continue to deny the existence of properly basic principles.
@richsuga Next, explain why your second premise is true. How do you know there are absolute moral values and duties. What are these absolute moral values and duties? How come I am not aware of these absolute moral values and duties? If I'm not aware of them how can you claim they are absolute?
@VeritasLuxMea100 Ha! Exactly as WLC predicted in his podcast about the moral argument! Atheists will flip-flop from premise one to premise two. Try to deny the first. Realize they can't. Try to deny the second instead.
Let's use the holocaust to illustrate. Was it objectively wrong for the Nazis to exterminate the 60 million (?) Jews? Even if they had won the War and succeeded in either converting or exterminating everyone who disagreed? If not, then why not.
@richsuga I have not flip flopped we have reached an impass on the first premise because you have not demonstrated its veracity and I am under no rational obligation to accept a premise without justification.
No it was not objectively wrong for the Nazis to exterminate 6 (not 60) million jews. Obiously it was not objectively wrong, or the nazi's would have known it was.
While on examples, was it objectively wrong for Moses and gang to totally annihilate neighboring tribes?
@VeritasLuxMea100 My position was (and still is) that the same sort of belief (i.e. a properly basic belief) that you invoke when you assert that a premise needs to be justified is invoked to establish the logical necessity of an absolute moral law-giver to produce an absolute moral code. I would argue that your insistence on justification is usually true but breaks down in the exception of properly basic beliefs. I am waiting on your reasoned rebuttal to mine.
@Gexx420 Okay, I believe you. I'm a neuroscientist by training; not a historian...lol. I could have run a 20-second google search and verified, but since it wasn't central to the POINT of the argument, I just inserted the question mark (recognizing my uncertainty) instead. Cheers!
@VeritasLuxMea100 Gotta run for now. It's been fun. Check out non-doxastic justification (vis-a-vis my second premise). If you can establish that non-doxasticity does not apply here, please let me know how you defend that position. Have a great night! --Rich
@richsuga I'll check it out, haven't heard of it. I'm not defending a position Rich, I haven't really made any positive truth claims, I'm evaluating your claims and I remain skeptical of your conclusions until you can demonstrate the veracity of your claims. I fully admit the possibility of a deity but I'm not going to accept assertions as truth, I need good reasons to validate a belief.
Have a good one, I look forward to continuing. - Ashley
@VeritasLuxMea100 :) Cool. That is reasonable. And I do think it's actually quite silly to think one can "prove God." For the four years that I was an atheist (including the year I served as faculty advisor for my university's atheist group), nobody proved Him to me!
@richsuga Morals are always subjective, in the court case example I would submit "Justifiable Homicide" There are situations when things people find immoral can be justified. The fact that you can find people in any culture in any country that have extremely differing morals is pretty convincing evidence that either there is no absolute moral code or no one knows the absolute moral code. If there is an absolute moral code what is it and how do we know?
@richsuga Of course it is wrong. The main reason people reject the idea of a God is they don't want to submit to gods rules. They want to be able to do the selfish and sometimes evil desires of their heart. If there is no god then how can your actions ever be wrong?
@richsuga I would say that it is wrong and evil and the person that would do that is mentally disturbed. There are few things we as a society can agree are always wrong. For example say it's world war 2 and you and a bunch of people trying to escape are hiding from soldiers nearby. A baby with you starts to cry and won't shut up. The soldiers will find you if it doesn't stop and you will all die in the camps. Is it morally wrong to kill that child to save everyone's lives or do you all die?
In what way are piranhas not eating each other a moral issue? Ravi Zacharias aside, this is yet another in a long string of misdirections and false analogies used by atheists not to prove their own points, but to discredit their opponents. In my studies it doesn't really take much in the way of "conditioning" to make ANY person go against their own "morality" to one degree or another. However, not every event in life is a moral issue, unlike the manipulations of this gravelly-voiced Brit.
I think I saw a rule34 image of Jesus using the nail holes in his hands. It had a caption that said "Jesus is coming. Quick, somebody get a towel!" I remember nerd-raging about the fact that the holes were in the palms of his hands, not through the wrist. There is linguistic evidence that it was from the wrist. Greek term for "hand" included the wrist. Also, anatomical proof: Hand bones would give under the body weight, bones in the wrist would not.
One thing you are forgetting, creationist believe God created all creatures. So if god created Piranhas why are you surprised they do not eat each other? God created them that way. Do you look at a watch and ponder how the watches parts know how to work together to tell time?
Ofcourse not because you know someone created the watch to function that way.
@mike4432 I think he was more so getting at the fact that if a species does NOT work together, it can't continue to exist. Therefore, removing god from the picture completely, simply the fact that a species exists means we MUST have morals.It's not possible for this to not be the case.
God is not necessary as an explanation to morals. Basic logic is the explanation to morals.
Why is it so hard to believe that god made animals with that imformation in their DNA?
Something doesn't create itself. All you need is a little faith. If you honestly humble yourself and ask God to show you that he exists your life will never be the same; you will see the beauty of nature in a whole different way. God bless you
@mike4432 Two reasons. Firstly, there's no reason to believe a god exists (where is the connection between DNA and god, other than "Its just impressive so god musta done it"?). Secondly, alternative explanations exist that have some form of evidence to back them up.
It's only logical to conclude that the more likely explanation is the one that can be backed up, vs the one that is a complete philosophical guess...
@Ceonsamea The bible is not a philisophical guess. Have you read it? You would be surprised the facts that are in the bible that were there hundreds of years before scientist discovered them, May I ask you how do you believe life became to be?
@mike4432 I am not sure if you are a male or a female, but have you ever just considered the beauty of a female and the female body? When you look at a beautiful female with beautiful eyes and she smiles, could that really be the product of nothing plus chance plus time?
"So if god created Piranhas why are you surprised they do not eat each other? "
Because according to the Bible, God likes it when his creations destroy each other.
The watchmaker fallacy is stupidly simple to refute. We know a watch was created because we've seen people make watches and it can be demonstrated that human intervention is necessary.
Magic is not necessary to explain biology, physics, or anything else about nature.
You say we have seen people make watches. So my question to you is where you there at the beginning of creation to tell me God did not create them? Or is your answer creation is a matter of millions of years? Is that really good logic or the denial that there is a God?
@mike4432 So you're saying that since no one can prove that god didn't do it then he must have done it? You're going to take some story books word for it over logic and physical evidence?
@mike4432 I have read the bible, I saw nothing more than a story. It doesn't take any faith at all to admit that I don't know all the answers. Faith is belief without justification and is utterly worthless.
@mike4432 If god crated all these animals, how come 99.9% of all species that were ever alive on earth are now extinct? Is this just god's work in progress?
@VeritasLuxMea100 The great flood is the answer. and may I remind you that the Earth and the animals where created for Humans. It's crazy, we will spend millions to save an endangered species but we will do nothing to save unborn babies from abortion.
@mike4432 Please... The story of the "great flood" has more holes than substance too it. If you still believe that story then you have never really sat down and thought about it.
@mike4432 Size of the boat, number of species or kinds exceeds space, not enough water to cover the earth, nowhere for said water to go, no time for flowering plants to develop in 7 days for turtledove to bring back olive branch, only 2 animals = insufficient genetic diversity for animals to propagate, Noah and his family again = insufficient genetic diversity, time it would take for animals to congregate and board ark,
how do you know noah's ark wasn't a space ship? that noah was actually collecting these animals for DNA?
that noah's ark was a DNA bank?
where E.T's recreated humans?
how do you expain Incan natives across the world talking about a similar flood? which they said white gods like virochocha who walked on water created the flood. to kill off primitive humans that displeased them.
@MakeSoapOutofKIKES I don't know it wasn't a space ship or that ufo's were not involvled. I would certainly be interested in knowing if there was sufficient evidence; however until good evidence is presented I am under no rational obligation to believe that it is true. My point with this comment was to list my objections to the biblical account of the flood in which it was fairly clear (as clear as the bible ever is) that the ark did not fly and that the animals were not in DNA form. Ideas! :)
@MakeSoapOutofKIKES I don't, nor do I attempt to, this is not my problem. I'm simply giving reasons for why I disbelieve a story.
Long ago cultures linked anything they did not understand to their respective deities. Perhaps there was a large flood something akin to the ice on Antarctica's land-mass melting, perhaps (and more likely) they were different isolated floods. I do not know. Perhaps you are right and they were aliens, however I do not believe that to be true: insufficient evidence.
@MakeSoapOutofKIKES Perhaps they did link this to their deities; however, until there is actual evidence of this I find no reason to believe they were accurate. If you choose to believe this then fantastic but if you want anyone else to believe it you should give good reason to. Simply because a lot of people believe something is no evidence that they are correct. I am a marine biologist and I have not seen any evidence that we "evolved too quickly". Cite your sources.
This is why we continue to study the evidence available, just because something explains something better does not make it true. A deity who is all powerful explains it much better true, but once you settle on this idea you have stopped the search for answers and in effect given up.
Too accept these reasons is to stop your search for knowledge. Until you can demonstrate the veracity of these claims it is foolish to accept them.
@MakeSoapOutofKIKES It is not only that, with having this technology natural selection is no longer as valid as it used to be, because we can physically help people in rather unnatural ways, which then causes the genes that were suppose to be gone. Stay alive and reproduce.
humans take much longer to reproduce than most animals.
this means evolution would take much much longer than other animals.
but, we didn't. we have evolved more than any other animal & in a rather short period of time in reality considering how much longer our age of reproduction is & how far we evolved.
@MakeSoapOutofKIKES This is completely untrue...ive seen many scientists and papers published about how our brains are NOT that much different than ancient man and their ancestors. I will find one of these papers and post a link. If you're going to say ridiculous things like this at least give us some sort of site or source.
@explicitscience Dude, I wouldn't bother. Judging from his name and profile anything you explain to this guy will go way over his head. He's a white supremacist moron.
you are exactly what the world needs right now! don't let anyone stop you from injecting intelligence into the ridiculous cacophany of the world today. I am a permanent fan!
I feel kinda guilty looking at the woman having that spate of ecstatic bliss back there... It's just her dopaminergic pathways responding to stimulation, she's pushing the button in her Skinner box. I'm guessing she'll look for bigger and bigger fixes, giving more of herself to Jesus... Well, I guess she did choose to do it in public.
Moral law is based on society not by a giver. Whenever you have a society those things detrimental to the overall society are considered against it, i.e. immoral. I posit that from watching meerkats, wolves, chimpanzees and other social species you can clearly see that morals come from the society for the benefit of the overall society, not from some cosmic lawgiver.
"are you assuming there is a Moral Law on which to differentiate between good and evil?" No. We need not assume anything of the sort. We also don't assume there is good and evil, we know there is good and what is evil. Beer is good. Dagger in the groin is bad. We may have different ideas of what is good, but pain is pain and it's evil.
"The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense."
Uuhh. I think the Bible has a much better explanation…
Please listen closely to what the Bible says regarding this very thing:
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Rom 1:20
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” John 3:36
Please accept Jesus today as your Lord and Savior if you want salvation.
Dear theist, are there such things as natural laws? Then there must be a punishment for trying to break them. There has never been a law without a punishment for those who try to break it. How much hell time do I get for trying to build a perpetoom mobile, and what other homonymic conflicts would you like to have?
In fact, I challenge you to a duel! I'll take this bow and an arrow. Here's your arrow, and you can borrow this stick that my sister plays her violin with. Fair and square! Let's go!
@theNonexistentKnight the punishment is exile which leads to death. pack animals wolves in particular can be observed to do this challenging the alpha and loosing will almost always mean death to the challenger, no alpha females who breed are often exiled from the pack without a pack they will starve to death.
@mdiem porn? who said porn? I love porn! Wait, nobody said i love porn! What's the deal with porn? What's porn? Did i mention i love porn? I DON'T like porn!
Simple comment: a moral law does not, necessarily, have it's roots in the existence of a particular God-like figure. It could be genetic code - it could be a lot of things. The evangelist/preacher in this clip makes a dumb, fallacious argument that could be be attacked from a variety of different standpoints. Many eminently moral, ethical, kind, considerate people do not believe in God in a traditional sense - or at all. This guy's a buffoon - a snake-oil salesman.
Wait a minute... In the anecdote he ends with "What is your question" but there was never a question posed. As he tells the story, "A student came up to me and said there is no such being as God because of all the evil in the world. "
Great Video as always. I hate people who use this argument. It implies that without God they would start killing people willingly.
You'd be surprised how often creationists assert that constant belief in God is the only thing preventing them from going on streaks of murder, rape, and torture.
I've been saying for some time that the vast majority of creationists suffer from untreated mental illness, and I'm finding this to be more accurate every day.
@TheZooCrew i wouldn't be surprised at all; my ex-wife insisted that we attend a fundamentalist church in our area (years ago) and I made the same observation. The congregation was full of people who'd done atrocious things before "seeing the light", and, they would give testimonies to this effect. The only thing keeping these people, now, from engaging in anti-social behaviour was the Pavlovian system of reward and punishment offered by religion. At their core, they were still rotten.
Reminds me of Primo Levi's essay "The Gray Zone" the point of the essay was about how in hardship- just as you pointed out- morality goes out the window. He was forced to work as a Sonderkommando- a kind of drill sergeant that was in charge of leading others to the gas chambers. He was so ashamed of the memories that he had that he ended up killing himself in the late 70s.
The thing is - while we argue about whether or not there is a god, Asian countries are getting in the lead of proper science! Are you christians really SO desperate to make us believe in your fantasy that you are willing GIVE away our power? It is not going to get us to heaven, it is just going to make us fall behind. Eventually it is going make us inferior to the PR of C, they might even get to rule the world.
Since I can only see downsides in denying evolution, tell me what is the benefit?!
@VoxSweden Oh yes they are willing to do just that! And don't you know that once we become a third world country they will say it's gods will.Better get a serious handle on these people before it's to late.
Good vid. and very accurate analysis of human morals. Now if the world was devoid of all religion the world would be a far better place and people's morals would be totally natural, yes a great idea !
if there is no "moral law" there is no good, and if there is no good there is no evil - LOL! What a fucked up logic, same as old "if there is no king there is no country" - kings have been kicked out almost everywhere in the world, yet all the countries still exist LOL
I feel like we have diuscussed on this forum enough. We have all had our say. I suggest we finish this discussion with a last post. My last post is simply that i have never "imposed" my views on anyone past or present. I only reserve the right to my own views and those who teach me.
@tmmy773 My last post will be a pledge for you to give evidence for the things that I asked you to earlier.
Also: I hate saying things like this but it's really become the norm: Typical religious people NOT answering any questions directly but simply say that others are the cause and that the church is the solution to a problem that they have invented themselves.
Why do people who are religious come on these anti-religious videos spewing their nonsense? Believe it or not, there are people in the world who won't follow some ridiculous dogma that's filled with logical fallacies and contradictions blindly like all mindless drones of religion do. And please, don't bother trying to respond to me with some smart-ass reply or try to defend your faith. I don't engage cowards who won't even acknowledge how backwards their views are.
To be very clear i have NEVER advocated or suggested killing of innocent
people. The topic was "Spanish Inquisition" in the early 1500s which expelled Jews and Moslems who did not convert to Catholicism. Those that were tried by inquisition were Catholics by conversion thus placing themselves under the authority of the Church. Those condemmned as "heritics" were killed. This was unfortunate of course. But Queen isablea was preserving her nation and culture. That is what i'm referring to.
Even this video says that a child's smile is not from God bc other people smile. What logic is that? If anything it shows there is a "sameness" which shows the work of a single creator. He tries to say the "sameness" is a result of evolutionary forces which cannot be due to the converse idea that evolution is adaptation which is ramdom by definition and would still not explain human emotions such as love, happiness, sadness, or joy.
"evolution is adaptation which is ramdom by definition and would still not explain human emotions such as love, happiness, sadness, or joy. "
You say you use your "reason" but the truth is that you haven't demonstrated that you know anything about anything. You clearly don't understand evolution even when it's explained to you and you clearly have never even heard of a single scientific study done on altruism, of which there are many.
@TheZooCrew And she's said that the bible has scientific truths, yet when I tell her about the disc shaped earth and the curing of diseases by splattering birdblood onto someone she basically discounts it as irrelevant.
I'm sorry i have to be so harsh. But God is God, Life is Life, and Truth is Truth. We are all God children and He loves all of us. We CANNOT judge Our Lord or Question His will. That is not our place nor our responsibility. God Loves and God forgives those who follow Him. He has given us the truth in the Bible. How we live our lives has its base in truth.
@tmmy773 Truth is based on observations and what can be proven. Has anyone observed and/or observed a god? No. You're, once again, assuming that god exists. What's the evidence you have to show for it? What evidence can you present that proves, or at least supports, the existence of a god?
Morality Does not come from religion , It comes from intelligence , Religion was never moral in my opinion , Countless religions scarified people , encouraged probably the worst things in human nature , Religion is morals , Its the opposite of Morality ,Morality comes from kindness, Love, Law, Equality and compassion , Our Law are not based on religion , They are based on justice.
History not static but changes over time. This relfects a "Social Understanding" of Gods Law. Began with Adam and Eve. Mankind fell and lost this. But men learned over time with Abraham and the Old Law. The New Law by Jesus. Why so long? Becasue of sin. NO ONE entered heaven before His death.
In the New Law we are called to a higher understanding. We are called to
love our negihbor. This requires time to fulfil in a "social" way as our understanding increases from gen to gen.
I think there's a really easy was to refute morality: Morals were around in the start of civilisation; there's written sources from 3500BC (If I'm remembering correctly) that have moral/judicial laws. That's several thousand years before Judaism was even conceived. Ask the Christian then how if those morals which are the same as today's, and were created from a different religion that is, according to the Christian, incorrect, how is it the work of the Christian God? Forgive the rambling there.
RequiemFear 2 days ago
These are probably the best arguments to argue against any hard-headed believer
Well done
kannibaal9 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins has claimed, “As for religion … nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.” Harris debated Craig on 7th April. In his opening statement in that debate, Harris declared that Dr Craig is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.” After that debate, the atheist website Debunking Christianity reported: “Bill (Craig) has once again showed himself as the best debater of this generation.” ROFL
RosesOfTimes 4 days ago
Thunderf00t, I recommend reading Dawkins on group selection (on the issues he pointed out when you spoke to him on your channel) and even more reading Steve Pinker the causes of violence. You're making quite a few controversial statements in this video and seem to be unaware that they are controversial. The common idea that violence is often caused by diminished resource is not supported by the evidence even though it sounds so plausible.
sulljoh1 5 days ago
LOL... God jacking it...
RuinMnemonic 1 week ago
so???? god does "jack it"?
scribbie145 2 weeks ago
Actually, the argument itself isn't so bad:
A: There is no god because of all the evil.
B: -series of arguments suggesting that, had there been a god, there would be evil as well-
So yeah, presence of evil doesn't disprove god.
(Creationists are still retarded though)
skewCZ 2 weeks ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
@skewCZ
I think the point that's usually made to this effect is about if a God is benevolent or not, and that this moron used circular logic.
9454791 2 weeks ago
@skewCZ "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
It depends on how you qualify a diety. The problem is that people will all disagree on the attributes of this diety or even the number of dieties, even people who belong to the same religion/culture.
damasta00138 1 week ago
@damasta00138 "Is he able, but not willing?"
Well this is the time when people play the "God-works-in-mysterious-ways" card. And rightly so - it just might be the case that this universe is the least evil universe possible, but we are unable to see consequences.
What worries me though, is that people basically admit that God is unknowable, yet they are so sure about whole bunch of his features. They just believe, and thats the scary part to me. No need of proof, no need of hint.
skewCZ 1 week ago
"but we are unable to see consequences."
Just to clarify - i meant that we are unable to see consequences of changing the universe.
The whole argument "there is evil in the world so God doesn't exist" seems fallacious to me (and to my great disappointment, even The four horseman of new atheism use it).
skewCZ 1 week ago
@skewCZ If God is omnipotent, he is necessarily able to make a world without evil. Your appeal to mystery doesn't solve anything. Saying that "this universe is the least evil universe possible"necessarily means that your god has some kind of limit one what he can do, not omnipotent by definition. And if you say that god is unknowable, you have effectively made your claim both unprovable and completely useless, meaning that there is no benefit it making this supposition in the first place.
Tamizushi 1 week ago
@Tamizushi Well the Greek gods were not omnipotent and they were still gods. Just cause g/God is not omnipotent doesn't mean he's not worthy of worship.
People already (pretty much) worship other people, so the omnipotence doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
"And if you say that god is unknowable... ...in the first place."
Agreed.
skewCZ 1 week ago
@skewCZ That is correct. The problem of evil is only a problem for Omnipotent Omniscient OmniBenevolent gods, which means that it's perfectly valid against the classical definition of the Christian god but not against a god without one of these attributes.
Tamizushi 1 week ago
People laugh at creationists because it's funny.
Funny = make people laugh
I solved your problem
MisterFro9 2 weeks ago
Well... There is no "good" or "evil". There is society and context.
bobderbaumeister1236 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TRUE examples of christian science:
Rings around saturn are Jesus foreskin. (True fact google it)
Earth is flat. (google Flat Earth map, christians still said earth was flat in the beginning of the 1900´s)
Creationism.
Christian science is as relevant and as useful as the stuff that comes out of my dogs butt...
The1VoiceOfReason 2 weeks ago
I did not like the picture at 6:10. I would much rather the female in the position that the male is at.
NorthCitySider 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
diegonikki 3 weeks ago
Good exists so evil must as well?
Some christens called the transcendentalists think otherwise.
wowdanalise 3 weeks ago
"If god is not JACKING it" lol
Not2Sane 3 weeks ago 2
God is jacking it!
nelitatoledo 3 weeks ago 2
Your penis fits perfectly into your hand. God made everything, so clearly this was intentional.
We're made in God's image, so his penis fits perfectly into his hand, too. Ergo, God's a wanker.
The sun rose this morning, which obviously means that God was jacking it.
If God isn't real and he isn't a wanker and he isn't jacking it dutifully every morning, THEN WHY ARE WE HERE, TF00T?!
AND WHO WROTE THE BIBLE, THEN!?
No answer? Didn't think so!
Creationists win again!
OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
TheCircusReject 3 weeks ago
That has to be the most well spoken and well thought out arguments Ive ever heard....... Of course creationists will just call it heracy :(
TheKimberRifleBloke 3 weeks ago 12
The moral law giver is yourself and society, how stupid can these people be?
ExthalionNightshade 3 weeks ago
life is so amazing... it´s bit sad this is all just coincidences and acidents..
but its beautiful
pinadeiro 4 weeks ago
@pinadeiro It's all accidents in the same way a grey mouse survives better than a rainbow mouse.
CHAOSin8bits 4 weeks ago
"if god is not jacking it, there is no sunrise." LOL
RickDemetro 4 weeks ago
I don't believe any theist calls God the magic man.
mattlewis66 1 month ago
I clicked on this video partly because I wanted to see the cute Redhead :)
leegeorgeson 1 month ago
.... WTF??? Fish having a moral code??? No, you fuckin' idiot, its called "Murder is bad for a community to prosper." These fish would have NO trouble killing each other if it was for the benefit of the group.
hellfencer 1 month ago
@hellfencer Yeah but religious people have killed even when it IS NOT for the benefit of the group.
leegeorgeson 1 month ago
@leegeorgeson Ummm duh? Trying to figure out your point...
hellfencer 1 month ago
@hellfencer I think thats the point of the video
TheKimberRifleBloke 3 weeks ago
Hmmm...
Why?
I think, but it is just a hypotesis, that talking about "piranhas moral code" might just be some reason for this.
hyperhumana 1 month ago
Search up "Einstein light and darkness" on Google, and you'll see where this idiot got his bullshit story from.
Paikerchu13 1 month ago
I CAME HERE FOR THE REDHEAD!!! WTF?!
Glenn138horror 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ground floor opportunity backed by a highly successful 10 year old company.
check it out! * amazingautosystem.weebly.com *
MultiAhka 1 month ago
stupid = believers of allah,jeebus,visnugh,bieber
bubbah671 1 month ago
i completely agree with you...now where in the holy hell is the red-head form the thumbnail?
drscratchnsniff2 1 month ago 47
@drscratchnsniff2 shut up and be patient stupid....see there she was...
drscratchnsniff2 1 month ago
@drscratchnsniff2 06:45
Crazy0Jay0Dude0 1 month ago
@drscratchnsniff2 6:45
upisoft2 1 month ago
@drscratchnsniff2 she´s at about 6:45
geyza0711 3 weeks ago
@drscratchnsniff2
I think it's the youtuber Suvarenee
OdinLowe 2 weeks ago
@drscratchnsniff2
6:44
skewCZ 2 weeks ago
@drscratchnsniff2 6:41
Harakashi 2 weeks ago
@drscratchnsniff2 6:42
JustSiouxMe 1 week ago
@drscratchnsniff2
6:42..
OndskapensHersker 2 days ago
I like how there's an actual audience of impressed dumb fucks. Lol. It wouldn't be a burden if that entire room were to die.
MrBrandonRead 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kent Hovind is in jail because he was trying to warn the world that their is a dark agenda out there that aims at destroying the morality of every man woman and child making them into beasts. In fact Darwinism states that we evolved from mere beasts. God says you should hold your head up because you have been given free will by an all powerful all wise and all loving Creator. Jesus answered "Woe to them who worship the Created (Monkeys/Primates) rather then the Creator."
JamesRideout123 1 month ago
Non-sequitur conclusions from arguable premises and reification fallacies: how apologists do their work.
kaixjin 1 month ago
I know you (Tf00l) hammer William Lane Craig on the Kalam Cosmo argument (and I think erroneously, but that's a different issue). What about WLC's formulation of the moral argument--as follows: (1) If there is no God, then there are no absolute moral values and duties. (2) There are absolute moral values and duties. Conclusion: It is false that there is no God.
Just curious how you (or the other atheists on here) would respond to that one. I thought I had a good answer when I was an atheist.
richsuga 1 month ago
@richsuga I would point out that there are no moral absolutes. For example if you state that killing is always wrong that is a moral absolute. However, If i were to ask you if you would just roll over and die if someone tried killing you or you kill them and you said you would kill them you are then stating that that absolute is not correct. Moral absolutism says that intention or context does not matter. Most people would probably agree that killing in self defense is often moral.
Azrael666Azazel 1 month ago
@Azrael666Azazel Famous atheist writer Sam Harris (and an increasing number of the "new atheists") would disagree with you. They maintain that absolute morality does exist. Would it EVER be either morally good (or even morally arbitrary) for me to abduct a newborn baby out of his baby stroller as his mother walked him along on the sidewalk, take him into a dark alley, and torture and kill him? Is this ALWAYS wrong?
richsuga 1 month ago
@richsuga I may think it's always wrong... but then... says who? Many serial killers don't feel that it's wrong. Just because most people can agree that something is wrong does not mean there are absolute moral values.
Can you demonstrate your first premise to be true? You can't simply state a premise as fact you have to show that it is true. False premise = I reject your conclusion (logically)
VeritasLuxMea100 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100 And what do the judges and juries do with these serial killers who do not seem to recognize wrong from right? Let them go because they just don't get it? No, the law is still there, and we recognize that they are abnormal and lacking. I think your point upholds the principle instead of negating it.
I can rephrase the first premise to make it more focused for the purpose of the present discussion: (1) Without an absolute standard of moral values (continued)
richsuga 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100 (cont'd from below...) as a source, then there are no absolute moral values and duties.
Here is my evidence of the necessary existence of an absolute moral standard as source. Ask any naturalist, and she or he will affirm to you that nature is amoral. Atheists like Harris claims that an inherently amoral system has produced objective morality (and immorality). Impossible.
If you deny my premise, explain WHY it is false.
Cheers!
richsuga 1 month ago
@richsuga Judges and juries are subjective and decide on a case by case basis. These laws are based on our opinions and change as society changes. 1st premise is still not demonstrably true. I don't care what Mr. Harris says, he does not speak for me. I deny your premise because you have not demonstrated it to be true, I don't have to explain why it's false, I did not say it was false I said it was not demonstrably true. It's your claim, you prove WHY it is true.
VeritasLuxMea100 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100 Prove that I have to prove that it's demonstrably true. In other words, prove the principle that you are appealing to to insist that I demonstrate the veracity of my premise. If you can't, I'll be under no rational obligation to oblige you.
richsuga 1 month ago
@richsuga If you cannot demonstrate your premises to be true why should anyone (let alone me) believe your conclusion?
VeritasLuxMea100 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100 You haven't objectively demonstrated any reason to believe that your demand for demonstration is a rational prerequisite. Sorry. Looks like we're stuck here, unless we're willing to make certain presuppositions. All logicians do--even you. But I'll admit that we cannot make any progress while you continue to deny the existence of properly basic principles.
richsuga 1 month ago
@richsuga Next, explain why your second premise is true. How do you know there are absolute moral values and duties. What are these absolute moral values and duties? How come I am not aware of these absolute moral values and duties? If I'm not aware of them how can you claim they are absolute?
VeritasLuxMea100 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100 Ha! Exactly as WLC predicted in his podcast about the moral argument! Atheists will flip-flop from premise one to premise two. Try to deny the first. Realize they can't. Try to deny the second instead.
Let's use the holocaust to illustrate. Was it objectively wrong for the Nazis to exterminate the 60 million (?) Jews? Even if they had won the War and succeeded in either converting or exterminating everyone who disagreed? If not, then why not.
richsuga 1 month ago
@richsuga I have not flip flopped we have reached an impass on the first premise because you have not demonstrated its veracity and I am under no rational obligation to accept a premise without justification.
No it was not objectively wrong for the Nazis to exterminate 6 (not 60) million jews. Obiously it was not objectively wrong, or the nazi's would have known it was.
While on examples, was it objectively wrong for Moses and gang to totally annihilate neighboring tribes?
VeritasLuxMea100 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100 My position was (and still is) that the same sort of belief (i.e. a properly basic belief) that you invoke when you assert that a premise needs to be justified is invoked to establish the logical necessity of an absolute moral law-giver to produce an absolute moral code. I would argue that your insistence on justification is usually true but breaks down in the exception of properly basic beliefs. I am waiting on your reasoned rebuttal to mine.
richsuga 1 month ago
@richsuga 50 million was the death toll for the whole of WW2.
Gexx420 1 month ago
@Gexx420 Okay, I believe you. I'm a neuroscientist by training; not a historian...lol. I could have run a 20-second google search and verified, but since it wasn't central to the POINT of the argument, I just inserted the question mark (recognizing my uncertainty) instead. Cheers!
richsuga 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100 Gotta run for now. It's been fun. Check out non-doxastic justification (vis-a-vis my second premise). If you can establish that non-doxasticity does not apply here, please let me know how you defend that position. Have a great night! --Rich
richsuga 1 month ago
@richsuga I'll check it out, haven't heard of it. I'm not defending a position Rich, I haven't really made any positive truth claims, I'm evaluating your claims and I remain skeptical of your conclusions until you can demonstrate the veracity of your claims. I fully admit the possibility of a deity but I'm not going to accept assertions as truth, I need good reasons to validate a belief.
Have a good one, I look forward to continuing. - Ashley
VeritasLuxMea100 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100 :) Cool. That is reasonable. And I do think it's actually quite silly to think one can "prove God." For the four years that I was an atheist (including the year I served as faculty advisor for my university's atheist group), nobody proved Him to me!
richsuga 1 month ago
@richsuga Morals are always subjective, in the court case example I would submit "Justifiable Homicide" There are situations when things people find immoral can be justified. The fact that you can find people in any culture in any country that have extremely differing morals is pretty convincing evidence that either there is no absolute moral code or no one knows the absolute moral code. If there is an absolute moral code what is it and how do we know?
VeritasLuxMea100 1 month ago
@richsuga Of course it is wrong. The main reason people reject the idea of a God is they don't want to submit to gods rules. They want to be able to do the selfish and sometimes evil desires of their heart. If there is no god then how can your actions ever be wrong?
mike4432 1 month ago
@richsuga I would say that it is wrong and evil and the person that would do that is mentally disturbed. There are few things we as a society can agree are always wrong. For example say it's world war 2 and you and a bunch of people trying to escape are hiding from soldiers nearby. A baby with you starts to cry and won't shut up. The soldiers will find you if it doesn't stop and you will all die in the camps. Is it morally wrong to kill that child to save everyone's lives or do you all die?
Azrael666Azazel 1 month ago
PCS would slip out the piranha analogy easily simply by saying Go didn't give them "free will" and thus the need for moral law does not apply.
csmcmillion 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Conservative Christian Logic: /watch?v=UDBYGXWMAOw
csmcmillion 1 month ago
In what way are piranhas not eating each other a moral issue? Ravi Zacharias aside, this is yet another in a long string of misdirections and false analogies used by atheists not to prove their own points, but to discredit their opponents. In my studies it doesn't really take much in the way of "conditioning" to make ANY person go against their own "morality" to one degree or another. However, not every event in life is a moral issue, unlike the manipulations of this gravelly-voiced Brit.
necroticossuary 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100 99.9% of all animals probably suffocated when god crated them.
smeegandjim 1 month ago
the bible is not a book of morals
CookieWalka 1 month ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists? 3
God's not the only one jacking it.
Woolong742 1 month ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
@Woolong742
I think I saw a rule34 image of Jesus using the nail holes in his hands. It had a caption that said "Jesus is coming. Quick, somebody get a towel!" I remember nerd-raging about the fact that the holes were in the palms of his hands, not through the wrist. There is linguistic evidence that it was from the wrist. Greek term for "hand" included the wrist. Also, anatomical proof: Hand bones would give under the body weight, bones in the wrist would not.
thegameulost 1 month ago
I am the moral law giver dumb fuck
Deutschdude100 1 month ago
One thing you are forgetting, creationist believe God created all creatures. So if god created Piranhas why are you surprised they do not eat each other? God created them that way. Do you look at a watch and ponder how the watches parts know how to work together to tell time?
Ofcourse not because you know someone created the watch to function that way.
mike4432 1 month ago
@mike4432 I think he was more so getting at the fact that if a species does NOT work together, it can't continue to exist. Therefore, removing god from the picture completely, simply the fact that a species exists means we MUST have morals.It's not possible for this to not be the case.
God is not necessary as an explanation to morals. Basic logic is the explanation to morals.
Ceonsamea 1 month ago
@Ceonsamea
Why is it so hard to believe that god made animals with that imformation in their DNA?
Something doesn't create itself. All you need is a little faith. If you honestly humble yourself and ask God to show you that he exists your life will never be the same; you will see the beauty of nature in a whole different way. God bless you
mike4432 1 month ago
@mike4432 Two reasons. Firstly, there's no reason to believe a god exists (where is the connection between DNA and god, other than "Its just impressive so god musta done it"?). Secondly, alternative explanations exist that have some form of evidence to back them up.
It's only logical to conclude that the more likely explanation is the one that can be backed up, vs the one that is a complete philosophical guess...
Ceonsamea 1 month ago
@Ceonsamea The bible is not a philisophical guess. Have you read it? You would be surprised the facts that are in the bible that were there hundreds of years before scientist discovered them, May I ask you how do you believe life became to be?
mike4432 1 month ago
@mike4432 I am not sure if you are a male or a female, but have you ever just considered the beauty of a female and the female body? When you look at a beautiful female with beautiful eyes and she smiles, could that really be the product of nothing plus chance plus time?
mike4432 1 month ago
@mike4432
"So if god created Piranhas why are you surprised they do not eat each other? "
Because according to the Bible, God likes it when his creations destroy each other.
The watchmaker fallacy is stupidly simple to refute. We know a watch was created because we've seen people make watches and it can be demonstrated that human intervention is necessary.
Magic is not necessary to explain biology, physics, or anything else about nature.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
You say we have seen people make watches. So my question to you is where you there at the beginning of creation to tell me God did not create them? Or is your answer creation is a matter of millions of years? Is that really good logic or the denial that there is a God?
mike4432 1 month ago
@mike4432 So you're saying that since no one can prove that god didn't do it then he must have done it? You're going to take some story books word for it over logic and physical evidence?
VeritasLuxMea100 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100 If you read the bible you will see the evidence. It takes more faith to believe that nothing plus time is the answer to life.
mike4432 1 month ago
@mike4432 I have read the bible, I saw nothing more than a story. It doesn't take any faith at all to admit that I don't know all the answers. Faith is belief without justification and is utterly worthless.
VeritasLuxMea100 1 month ago
@mike4432 If god crated all these animals, how come 99.9% of all species that were ever alive on earth are now extinct? Is this just god's work in progress?
VeritasLuxMea100 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100 The great flood is the answer. and may I remind you that the Earth and the animals where created for Humans. It's crazy, we will spend millions to save an endangered species but we will do nothing to save unborn babies from abortion.
mike4432 1 month ago
@mike4432 Please... The story of the "great flood" has more holes than substance too it. If you still believe that story then you have never really sat down and thought about it.
VeritasLuxMea100 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100 Please do tell me the holes in the story of the flood.
mike4432 1 month ago
@mike4432 Size of the boat, number of species or kinds exceeds space, not enough water to cover the earth, nowhere for said water to go, no time for flowering plants to develop in 7 days for turtledove to bring back olive branch, only 2 animals = insufficient genetic diversity for animals to propagate, Noah and his family again = insufficient genetic diversity, time it would take for animals to congregate and board ark,
Need I go on?
VeritasLuxMea100 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100
how do you know noah's ark wasn't a space ship? that noah was actually collecting these animals for DNA?
that noah's ark was a DNA bank?
where E.T's recreated humans?
how do you expain Incan natives across the world talking about a similar flood? which they said white gods like virochocha who walked on water created the flood. to kill off primitive humans that displeased them.
white gods? walking on water?
e.t's = close to white
uf.o's can hover over water
MakeSoapOutofKIKES 1 month ago
@MakeSoapOutofKIKES I don't know it wasn't a space ship or that ufo's were not involvled. I would certainly be interested in knowing if there was sufficient evidence; however until good evidence is presented I am under no rational obligation to believe that it is true. My point with this comment was to list my objections to the biblical account of the flood in which it was fairly clear (as clear as the bible ever is) that the ark did not fly and that the animals were not in DNA form. Ideas! :)
VeritasLuxMea100 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100
how do you explain of worldwide accounts of the same flood myths or perhaps facts?
with the people connecting to theise floods to their gods.
in the middle east judeo christianity linked the flood to their gods.
in incan peru they linked the flood to their gods too.
most u.f.o reports are u.s.o reports. (which are u.f.o's in water or near water)
some u.s.o's have been seen floating on the water before
so it is possible this was confused for noah's ark
MakeSoapOutofKIKES 1 month ago
@MakeSoapOutofKIKES I don't, nor do I attempt to, this is not my problem. I'm simply giving reasons for why I disbelieve a story.
Long ago cultures linked anything they did not understand to their respective deities. Perhaps there was a large flood something akin to the ice on Antarctica's land-mass melting, perhaps (and more likely) they were different isolated floods. I do not know. Perhaps you are right and they were aliens, however I do not believe that to be true: insufficient evidence.
VeritasLuxMea100 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100
why do so many cultures link their gods to the sky? some cultures even saying what star their gods came from
or calling them star people. some native americans called them star peopel & openly link them to eE.T'S
ancient astronaut theory has more anwsers for me.
how did we evolve to quickly? even scientists say we evolved too quicly
how was Sacsayhuaman cusco made with a 140 metric ton block put into place
ancient astronaut theory can explain it
science has not
MakeSoapOutofKIKES 1 month ago
@MakeSoapOutofKIKES Perhaps they did link this to their deities; however, until there is actual evidence of this I find no reason to believe they were accurate. If you choose to believe this then fantastic but if you want anyone else to believe it you should give good reason to. Simply because a lot of people believe something is no evidence that they are correct. I am a marine biologist and I have not seen any evidence that we "evolved too quickly". Cite your sources.
VeritasLuxMea100 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100
humans did evolve too quickly. there was an explosion in human developement about 200,000 yrs ago or so to present.
it does not fit with evolution very well.
the human brain is one of the most complex things in the universe
how can we evolve such complexity mostly within 200,000 years or so?
even most scientists admit this doesn't make sense. it would have taken far longer for us to evolve to this
but, if we were domesticated by E.T's then it would explain it
MakeSoapOutofKIKES 1 month ago
@MakeSoapOutofKIKES Again I would ask that you cite your sources.
This is why we continue to study the evidence available, just because something explains something better does not make it true. A deity who is all powerful explains it much better true, but once you settle on this idea you have stopped the search for answers and in effect given up.
Too accept these reasons is to stop your search for knowledge. Until you can demonstrate the veracity of these claims it is foolish to accept them.
VeritasLuxMea100 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100
it is a paradox.
as our longer developement rate helps us develope more complexity & leads to later reproduction
while, later reproduction leads to slower evoltuon
this means both are fighting each other. thus, our human evolution would have been much much slower.
MakeSoapOutofKIKES 1 month ago
@MakeSoapOutofKIKES It is not only that, with having this technology natural selection is no longer as valid as it used to be, because we can physically help people in rather unnatural ways, which then causes the genes that were suppose to be gone. Stay alive and reproduce.
TheRedAzuki 1 month ago
@TheRedAzuki
this is true.
today the lower iq people are reproducing more than the higher iq people.
thus we face the possibility of dysgenics of lower iq people outnumbering the higher iq people.
but, it seems it has always been this way.
as chimpanzees have a higher twinning rate & fertility rate & are at full reproduction age earlier.
so, as humans evolved we would have always been at odds with thsi problem
which would have slowed out & stagnated our evolution
MakeSoapOutofKIKES 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100
humans take much longer to reproduce than most animals.
this means evolution would take much much longer than other animals.
but, we didn't. we have evolved more than any other animal & in a rather short period of time in reality considering how much longer our age of reproduction is & how far we evolved.
MakeSoapOutofKIKES 1 month ago
@MakeSoapOutofKIKES This is completely untrue...ive seen many scientists and papers published about how our brains are NOT that much different than ancient man and their ancestors. I will find one of these papers and post a link. If you're going to say ridiculous things like this at least give us some sort of site or source.
explicitscience 1 month ago
@explicitscience
australopithecus some 3 million years ago had a brain size at about 300-400 cm
like a chimpanzee or a gorilla's brain size.
today modern humans have a brain size about 1300 - 1400 cm on average.
this means that the human brain has increased by about 4 times the amount in 3 million years.
thati s insane. that is indeed quick evolution.
which should not be because as humans came more complex we reproduced later & thus it would slow up even more
MakeSoapOutofKIKES 1 month ago
@explicitscience Dude, I wouldn't bother. Judging from his name and profile anything you explain to this guy will go way over his head. He's a white supremacist moron.
biggingeryeti 1 month ago
you are exactly what the world needs right now! don't let anyone stop you from injecting intelligence into the ridiculous cacophany of the world today. I am a permanent fan!
mesawoman1 1 month ago
"I remember years ago at the University of Nottingham...."
"As I said to the student at Harvard....."
Epic fail. Next time you make up a story, make sure you keep the details consistent.
TheSyrupMan 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos 12
"If god is not jacking it, there is no sunrise!"
AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAH.
HerGuardianAngel1991 2 months ago
I feel kinda guilty looking at the woman having that spate of ecstatic bliss back there... It's just her dopaminergic pathways responding to stimulation, she's pushing the button in her Skinner box. I'm guessing she'll look for bigger and bigger fixes, giving more of herself to Jesus... Well, I guess she did choose to do it in public.
gamerunknown 2 months ago
Moral law is based on society not by a giver. Whenever you have a society those things detrimental to the overall society are considered against it, i.e. immoral. I posit that from watching meerkats, wolves, chimpanzees and other social species you can clearly see that morals come from the society for the benefit of the overall society, not from some cosmic lawgiver.
CrankyTiger 2 months ago
Ah, combining a strawman argument with a non sequitur, truly we are dealing with professional intellectual dishonesty.
swordcollection 2 months ago
Of course there is another theory
Humans taste horrible all bony and stringy urgggh
lsynno 2 months ago
0:53 What the fuck is up with that bitch?
KajexFiredrake 2 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
"are you assuming there is a Moral Law on which to differentiate between good and evil?" No. We need not assume anything of the sort. We also don't assume there is good and evil, we know there is good and what is evil. Beer is good. Dagger in the groin is bad. We may have different ideas of what is good, but pain is pain and it's evil.
AnnRKey 2 months ago
Please, keep making all this kind of videos. They are very interesting. Thanks for take your time to upload them!
bauhauso 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
First Evolution:
"The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense."
Uuhh. I think the Bible has a much better explanation…
7777Ralph 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please listen closely to what the Bible says regarding this very thing:
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Rom 1:20
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” John 3:36
Please accept Jesus today as your Lord and Savior if you want salvation.
7777Ralph 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I lost it with "so god is jacking it"?...I guess even as an Atheist I too am easily amused. Well played sir! :D
socialambiguity 3 months ago
I hate you Thunderf00t. MORE THAN 30 VIDEOS!! I AND I FEEL OBLIGED to watch every single one of these epic works of art.
Thelegoterrapin 3 months ago 68
Dear theist, are there such things as natural laws? Then there must be a punishment for trying to break them. There has never been a law without a punishment for those who try to break it. How much hell time do I get for trying to build a perpetoom mobile, and what other homonymic conflicts would you like to have?
In fact, I challenge you to a duel! I'll take this bow and an arrow. Here's your arrow, and you can borrow this stick that my sister plays her violin with. Fair and square! Let's go!
theNonexistentKnight 3 months ago
@theNonexistentKnight the punishment is exile which leads to death. pack animals wolves in particular can be observed to do this challenging the alpha and loosing will almost always mean death to the challenger, no alpha females who breed are often exiled from the pack without a pack they will starve to death.
TheIronomega 3 months ago
lame.
Wasting your time...
KaminskiJD 3 months ago
the crazy white hair dude is quite funny
managarm1349 3 months ago
I kill the guy and make the weapons V for victory!
fbibarbie 3 months ago
I tried to "do unto others as I would like them to do unto me" But then I found out they want me to treat them better than I would be treated.
KasparHauser6 3 months ago
>God is jacking it.
I think I've seen a picture of that somewhere on the internet DX
thegameulost 3 months ago
@thegameulost
Rule 34?
mdiem 3 months ago 12
@mdiem
Yes.
thegameulost 3 months ago
@mdiem porn? who said porn? I love porn! Wait, nobody said i love porn! What's the deal with porn? What's porn? Did i mention i love porn? I DON'T like porn!
ergius1988 1 month ago
Simple comment: a moral law does not, necessarily, have it's roots in the existence of a particular God-like figure. It could be genetic code - it could be a lot of things. The evangelist/preacher in this clip makes a dumb, fallacious argument that could be be attacked from a variety of different standpoints. Many eminently moral, ethical, kind, considerate people do not believe in God in a traditional sense - or at all. This guy's a buffoon - a snake-oil salesman.
warrenfields1 3 months ago
Wait a minute... In the anecdote he ends with "What is your question" but there was never a question posed. As he tells the story, "A student came up to me and said there is no such being as God because of all the evil in the world. "
Great Video as always. I hate people who use this argument. It implies that without God they would start killing people willingly.
verted45 3 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
@verted45
You'd be surprised how often creationists assert that constant belief in God is the only thing preventing them from going on streaks of murder, rape, and torture.
I've been saying for some time that the vast majority of creationists suffer from untreated mental illness, and I'm finding this to be more accurate every day.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@TheZooCrew i wouldn't be surprised at all; my ex-wife insisted that we attend a fundamentalist church in our area (years ago) and I made the same observation. The congregation was full of people who'd done atrocious things before "seeing the light", and, they would give testimonies to this effect. The only thing keeping these people, now, from engaging in anti-social behaviour was the Pavlovian system of reward and punishment offered by religion. At their core, they were still rotten.
warrenfields1 3 months ago
"If god is not jacking it" LMAO
joshkasper 3 months ago
Reminds me of Primo Levi's essay "The Gray Zone" the point of the essay was about how in hardship- just as you pointed out- morality goes out the window. He was forced to work as a Sonderkommando- a kind of drill sergeant that was in charge of leading others to the gas chambers. He was so ashamed of the memories that he had that he ended up killing himself in the late 70s.
TageSavage 3 months ago
Which movie is that at 8:10?
astroblaster56 3 months ago
@astroblaster56
I'm pretty sure that's the TV show "Band of Brothers".
TageSavage 3 months ago
@TageSavage thnx
astroblaster56 3 months ago
The thing is - while we argue about whether or not there is a god, Asian countries are getting in the lead of proper science! Are you christians really SO desperate to make us believe in your fantasy that you are willing GIVE away our power? It is not going to get us to heaven, it is just going to make us fall behind. Eventually it is going make us inferior to the PR of C, they might even get to rule the world.
Since I can only see downsides in denying evolution, tell me what is the benefit?!
VoxSweden 3 months ago
@VoxSweden Oh yes they are willing to do just that! And don't you know that once we become a third world country they will say it's gods will.Better get a serious handle on these people before it's to late.
420gma 3 months ago
Comment removed
VoxSweden 3 months ago
Comment removed
VoxSweden 3 months ago
Comment removed
VoxSweden 3 months ago
Good vid. and very accurate analysis of human morals. Now if the world was devoid of all religion the world would be a far better place and people's morals would be totally natural, yes a great idea !
brindow1 3 months ago
if there is no "moral law" there is no good, and if there is no good there is no evil - LOL! What a fucked up logic, same as old "if there is no king there is no country" - kings have been kicked out almost everywhere in the world, yet all the countries still exist LOL
VeryVeryMeanBastard 3 months ago
@VeryVeryMeanBastard Countries, kings, good, evil, moral and immoral are constructs strictly of humans.
kmikl 3 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
Gahhhh, what a scummy, manipulative question that apologetic jerk asks.
cy4nide23 4 months ago
I feel like we have diuscussed on this forum enough. We have all had our say. I suggest we finish this discussion with a last post. My last post is simply that i have never "imposed" my views on anyone past or present. I only reserve the right to my own views and those who teach me.
tmmy773 4 months ago
@tmmy773 My last post will be a pledge for you to give evidence for the things that I asked you to earlier.
Also: I hate saying things like this but it's really become the norm: Typical religious people NOT answering any questions directly but simply say that others are the cause and that the church is the solution to a problem that they have invented themselves.
Squiglypig 4 months ago
Why do people who are religious come on these anti-religious videos spewing their nonsense? Believe it or not, there are people in the world who won't follow some ridiculous dogma that's filled with logical fallacies and contradictions blindly like all mindless drones of religion do. And please, don't bother trying to respond to me with some smart-ass reply or try to defend your faith. I don't engage cowards who won't even acknowledge how backwards their views are.
jkellybrew 4 months ago
@jkellybrew actually i thought this was a creationist video. I would be more than happy to leave long ago if i wasn't obligated to answer questions.
tmmy773 4 months ago
@tmmy773 You don't answer ANY questions. The only thing you're doing is clinging on to dear life for your religion.
Answer our questions and please provide evidences for the things I listed earlier.
Squiglypig 4 months ago
To be very clear i have NEVER advocated or suggested killing of innocent
people. The topic was "Spanish Inquisition" in the early 1500s which expelled Jews and Moslems who did not convert to Catholicism. Those that were tried by inquisition were Catholics by conversion thus placing themselves under the authority of the Church. Those condemmned as "heritics" were killed. This was unfortunate of course. But Queen isablea was preserving her nation and culture. That is what i'm referring to.
tmmy773 4 months ago
Even this video says that a child's smile is not from God bc other people smile. What logic is that? If anything it shows there is a "sameness" which shows the work of a single creator. He tries to say the "sameness" is a result of evolutionary forces which cannot be due to the converse idea that evolution is adaptation which is ramdom by definition and would still not explain human emotions such as love, happiness, sadness, or joy.
tmmy773 4 months ago
@tmmy773
"evolution is adaptation which is ramdom by definition and would still not explain human emotions such as love, happiness, sadness, or joy. "
You say you use your "reason" but the truth is that you haven't demonstrated that you know anything about anything. You clearly don't understand evolution even when it's explained to you and you clearly have never even heard of a single scientific study done on altruism, of which there are many.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
@TheZooCrew And she's said that the bible has scientific truths, yet when I tell her about the disc shaped earth and the curing of diseases by splattering birdblood onto someone she basically discounts it as irrelevant.
Squiglypig 4 months ago
I'm sorry i have to be so harsh. But God is God, Life is Life, and Truth is Truth. We are all God children and He loves all of us. We CANNOT judge Our Lord or Question His will. That is not our place nor our responsibility. God Loves and God forgives those who follow Him. He has given us the truth in the Bible. How we live our lives has its base in truth.
tmmy773 4 months ago
@tmmy773 Truth is based on observations and what can be proven. Has anyone observed and/or observed a god? No. You're, once again, assuming that god exists. What's the evidence you have to show for it? What evidence can you present that proves, or at least supports, the existence of a god?
Squiglypig 4 months ago
Morality Does not come from religion , It comes from intelligence , Religion was never moral in my opinion , Countless religions scarified people , encouraged probably the worst things in human nature , Religion is morals , Its the opposite of Morality ,Morality comes from kindness, Love, Law, Equality and compassion , Our Law are not based on religion , They are based on justice.
djay00009 4 months ago
if god is not jacking it there is no sunrise!
mitch9294 4 months ago
Too bad the narration is soft voiced and muddled.
SnowFieldMusic 4 months ago
History not static but changes over time. This relfects a "Social Understanding" of Gods Law. Began with Adam and Eve. Mankind fell and lost this. But men learned over time with Abraham and the Old Law. The New Law by Jesus. Why so long? Becasue of sin. NO ONE entered heaven before His death.
In the New Law we are called to a higher understanding. We are called to
love our negihbor. This requires time to fulfil in a "social" way as our understanding increases from gen to gen.
tmmy773 4 months ago