Will God Save Us from the State?

[vspqbd]

And while I'm at it: /watch?v=V7UVQ9KRxew

More evidence in your favor. :)

[vspqbd]

Regarding the bible verses commanding obedience to government, I can already imagine my conservative agnostic ex-friend saying, "they only wrote stuff like that to avoid the persecution of that awful government..."

[prnena80]

Religion doesn't get you a ticket to eternity your relationship with Jesus Christ and faithfulness will.

[nurbSoldier]

@prnena80 ...according to his "followers" who provide no proof whatsoever

[prnena80]

@nurbSoldier The Proof is in the bible if you read his word.

[nurbSoldier]

@prnena80 why should I trust your 'holy' book over other 'holy' books? Where is the evidence that the bible uses to support its arguments?

[prnena80]

@prnena80 The bible was written with the anointing of the holy spirit meaning the authors of the bible got their words directly from the living god. Faith is the only proof that you need.

[CJLewis20]

@prnena80 yeah, faith...so much proof there. proof comes from actual facts, not blindly casting away any logic and using nothing but hope. Tell me, why would you not believe in any other religion? they have just as much "proof" as you do. the only ones who seem to bring any facts to the table are the athiests who can actually back up what they believe in. and you believe there should be only one religion, YOUR RELIGION, that's a bit hypocritical isn't it.

[prnena80]

@CJLewis20 Christianity is not a religion get your fact straight it is about having a relationship with God. Oh and religion if you don't know what it is obviously is a list of do's and don't's like living in the old testament. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.Proverbs 1:7

[prnena80]

Relativism " there is no such thing as an absolute truth"

Subjectivism "I have the right to determine what is right and wrong without submitting my judgement to any authority outside myself"

According to scripture, there is an absolute truth. Living in a culture that has belief systems of relativism and subjectism causes a shift in virtues and values, leading people away from the true core of living for GOD. 2 Timothy 4:3-4. TRUE(ish) beliefs are myths.

[timstillinghast]

This is Satanic propaganda. This kind of intellectual indulgence will only cause you to stray from a loving God that promises Heavenly rewards to serving eternity as a slave to a cold and hateful demon.

[InFromTheVoid]

It seems the real question should be centered around "collectivism" and "individualism".

[InFromTheVoid]

I always think of religion as outdated politics and science. It lingers because of the emotional comfort is gives one when they believe they have 100% certainity.

[InFromTheVoid]

I am anti-religious but am ok with people having their beliefs. It is best to ignore religious people. Persecuting them only makes it worse and respecting them is dangerous. I think it's best to just keep putting logic on the front line....that and capitalism :)

[spartoncrawler]

religion is void of freedom choice , void of freedom of thought and void of freedom of will.

[joemoin]

@spartoncrawler religion is a way of controlling people nothing more

[saharafennec]

Atheism is just another religion . . .

So what applies to other religions applies to Atheism too . . .

[Swordsquire]

Really? So, who do athiests worship?

[MaikUniversum]

very good point about totalitarianism and how "it" views religion (as competitor)

[Stargazer5781]

Oh, and stefbot, your videos have changed my life and way of looking towards the world. Thank you for being such a brilliant man and communicating your ideas to the world :-)

[Stargazer5781]

Religion has undeniably been the greatest murderer and manipulator in the history of the world. It is every bit as threatening to freedom as a tyrannical government and uses the same primary weapons: fear and guilt. God has nothing to do with religion. God is not concerned with financial gain or political influence. He is concerned with the quality of your soul. While God's existence or non-existence cannot yet be proven by science, a Godly lifestyle is not incompatible with philosophy.

[SansAuthoritas]

Stargazer, what religions were Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Hitler members of? And did they faithfully live out the tenets of their supposed religions?

[Stargazer5781]

Dude, I posted that 5 months ago. My opinions have changed dramatically. Don't post on comments more than a week old, lol. To answer your question, Stalin was an atheist, Paul Pot a Muslim, Hitler a Catholic, and I don't know about Paul Pot. All my google searches talk about Paul Potts or Ron Paul legalizing pot. For your second question, obviously there are no tenets to atheism. As for the other two, I guess it depends what sections of the Qur'an and Bible you read :-p

[SansAuthoritas]

Stargazer,

Pol Pot was an atheist. Stalin and Hitler were baptized as Catholics. But isn't a Catholic someone who believes and holds as true the teachings of the Catholic Church? What part the Catholic faith, or "religion," played in Hitler's slaughter of 7 million non-Jews and 6 million Jews, and Stalin's slaughter of 20 million? Were they acting according to the teachings of the Church? Absolutely not. They certainly spat in the faces of all the contemporaneous popes, as well.

[Stargazer5781]

Oh certainly. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the various Passion-motivated Jew slaughterings in the Middle Ages. People who call themselves Christians have certainly behaved in extraordinarily un-Christian ways. I don't protest Christianity. I don't protest Islam. I protest organized religion and those who use the ideas of these faiths to gain power. Mass organization and exploitation in the name of God or gods resulted in these mass murders. Not Jesus.

[SansAuthoritas]

Stargazer,

I agree: anyone who uses the ideas of faith to gain [coercive] power is not a Christian. That no one who kills for the sake of power (or even under the guise of 'saving souls') does so in accordance with the will of God or his Son. Absolutely true that it was exploitation that resulted in the name of God that resulted in murders. Now what does "religion" has anything to do with murder? Is "religion" defined as "exploitation" and "twisting the teachings of Jesus?" No.

[andrushek11]

That video was the BOMB!! Thanks.

[SansAuthoritas]

If people are ultimately responsible and culpable for morally good and evil (evil being the lack of a due good, not an entity in itself) acts, then there must be someone that holds us responsible. If we are responsible to no one but those with earthly power, then you have no reason to be morally good, so long as you aren't caught by someone with more force at his disposal. If, however, you believe in a moral law of any kind written into men's hearts, you must believe in a moral lawgiver.

[utubehayter]

"if you believe in a moral law of any kind written into men's hearts, you must believe in a moral lawgiver"

Why? On what basis do you make that claim?

[SansAuthoritas]

What can be the source of such a moral law? It has to be something outside ourselves if we did not create it. Surely you don't believe as the spontaneous generation scientists held, that things merely are for no reason? Why would human beings look for any reason if there is no reason? If all we are is clumps of matter that can manipulate other clumps of matter, how can you get any basis for reason at all? Force rules, if you hold such a mindset. Might makes right.

[utubehayter]

Not really.. if something exists it does not need a creator. Maybe you need to read Stephan's book on ethics.. Infact I would question the existence of a "moral law". Note that scientists do not hold something that can be broken (i.e. disproved) as a law, and if they find out a break in the idea, they quickly "unregulate" and search for new laws. There is a difference between reason and law, but maybe you need to grapple with that difference before you hold a coherent position on moral laws.

[SansAuthoritas]

Oh, laws can be suspended, or denied, and their their power may be overridden for a while, certainly. But they are never broken. Not in the long run. Not ultimately.

Most people question the existence of a moral law as long as it's not their human dignity and life that are being systematically violated. But when one witnesses the most horrible acts of cruelty the human animal is capable of, and you try to tell them, "There is no moral law. Those who commit these acts often go insane.

[utubehayter]

very high and mighty of you to assume that those question the existence of a "moral law" are inexperienced to the violation of dignity and being systematically violated. Personally I have been violated much more by these so called laws and those that believe their existence.. than those that act beyond them. So why should I believe in their existence?

It seems you have a lot of baggage and crap to break through, go through your own growing pains - so to speak.

[SansAuthoritas]

I am sorry if that's what you got out of my words.

How have your life and liberty been violated by those who strive to live out the teaching that there is a universal moral law, and that everyone must respect the human dignity of others?

Hypocrites? Sure. There are lots of them. Also a lot of people who claim to be something they're not. (Christians, for example, being someone who actually believes in and strives to follow the teachings of Christ.)

[SansAuthoritas]

There is something inside of every human being that knows some things are wrong. A moral law. You didn't create it. If you did, you'd be able to eradicate it. It's in you, no matter how much you try to stifle it or deny it. You know when you've done wrong. If there were no moral law, and no one to hold everyone accountable for their crimes in this world there would be no reason to exist. Why bother? In such a world, might makes right. Goodness is subordinate to violence and power.

[utubehayter]

There are no moral laws inside me. or maybe I did eradicate them, which means I did create them and then destroy them. So what? Might does make right in the world of this so called goodness - just ask any Iraqi.

[SansAuthoritas]

But none of these behaviors are in accordance with the teachings of Christ. So when someone claims to be acting in accordance with His teachings when he is initiating violence, or trying to "force someone to believe something," know you are listening to an hypocrite who does not know the teachings of the One he claims to believe in and follow.

Tell me: who tried to use violence to make you believe anything? Who oppressed you by saying something about God?

[utubehayter]

Let me also state that there is nothing that alerts my BS sensor than someone that claims "Goodness" and "Law giver". If you want to believe in God, go ahead, just don't force it on others. Unfortunately for you - organized religion has always forced people and children to obey - and usually irrationally.

[SansAuthoritas]

Utubehayter, organized religion has never forced me to obey anything. Any people of any "religion" that attempts to force anyone to believe anything is contradicting reality. Belief is the free acceptance of a truth as perceived by the intellect. Once you inject force into that equation, you no longer have belief. Show me where Christ said to use force to make others believe his teachings and I will renounce Him immediately.

[utubehayter]

I don't know what Christ taught. And anyone that claims to know that either has to have lived with Christ -and gotten the message perfectly and then honestly transmitted that message to you/me. That is not possible - so anyone who claims to know what Christ taught is a fucking liar. For all I know Christ could have been a hippie or a genius, a dufus or a scientist. I don't know nor do I trust liars.

[SansAuthoritas]

Utube, you seem to have a lot of anger. That can be a good thing, but it has to be directed at proper recipients. I don't think a proper recipient is me.

When I say "The teachings of Christ," let us say that I mean "the words allegedly spoken by him" as recorded in the generally accepted Bible. Now, given such a definition of Christ's teachings, tell me which ones are unworthy of being adhered to, or are the words of a fool, a liar, or an insane man.

[SansAuthoritas]

Do you want an entity that forces people? It is the mental illness known as the State. The followers of the secular religion of the State have killed millions more people than "organized religion" ever did. Stalin believed that men are nothing but matter. And he acted accordingly. Hitler believed that some men are genetically superior to others. He acted accordingly. Statists believe they have a right to initiate violence against their neighbors. And they act accordingly.

[utubehayter]

And Stalin was an atheist? How do you know? How do you know the pope is a christian/catholic? Unless you are a mind reader, you have no way of knowing either. What you are saying is that forget the history of more than 2000 years of slaughter and warfare of religious sanction, just focus on one Stalin, who was a psychopowerhungry idiot. No one said that being atheist made you psychoproof, but then even religion doesn't give you that guarantee.

[SansAuthoritas]

Utube, do you believe we have the ability to know anything for certain? Can we know anything for certain? Yes or no? If no, are you certain about that? Yes or no?

Do you really believe that one cannot hear a person's words about what they believe, and judge whether or not they act upon what they say they believe?

The Popes have all said they are Christian/Catholic. Some of them have acted like they are, and left little doubt that they strive to follow Christ's words.

[utubehayter]

No - We will never have the ability for certain. No you cannot take a person's words and judge them upon whether or not they act upon what they say. Popes following "Christs words" - hahaha... really? What is "Christs words"? You don't know - for all you know it could be a poor quality fantasy novel.

[SansAuthoritas]

Utubehayter, you're right. No one said that being atheist makes someone psychoproof. Not even me. Why are you alleging that I did? I said atheists have systematically been responsible for the deaths of more people in the 20th Century alone than in the history of "organized religion." If anything, believing that yourself and other people are nothing but clumps of matter leads one to psychosis. No one may act as though one believes other people are merely matter.

[utubehayter]

Check out the deaths of people by the way of Jihad and Crusades and other conversion drives. There is absolutely no difference between a state and a religion. Psychosis? Have you been to church? Maybe you should go there.. they actually believe there exists a man in the sky that watches their every move (and yet they somehow get away with perpetrating every single offense as defined by this man in the sky) Psychosis - I think so.

[SansAuthoritas]

If I believed other people were nothing but matter, with no spiritual, individuating principle that makes people responsible for their own individual actions, I could do anything I wanted to them with no more guilt than if I were to do it to a rock. With such a belief, I could cut down trees and people all day, with no differentiation between the two. After all, they'd just be different chemical compositions of matter. But no one wholly lives like they really believe that kind of nonsense.

[utubehayter]

Yes actually you can do what you wanted to them with no guilt. This is the problem with religion - It makes them hollow shells not being able to make a rational decision on morality - other than in religion. It is funny that you claim psychosis out of believing that people are matter.

[SansAuthoritas]

Now, Stalin did claim to believe that men are matter. He was a pure materialist. (At least, according to his words.) If there is no God and no individuating spiritual principle, then there is nothing but matter. And no morality whatsoever. Is a rock responsible for crushing someone to death? Is a hurricane responsible for drowning people? Are any of these things "natural evils?" How can something be bad?

[SansAuthoritas]

I will continue to adhere to the idea that we are all created as noble beings, in the image and likeness of God, meaning, we are created to know and to love. That we have real existence, and the purpose of our existence is to know and love God on earth so we can be happy with him in heaven. That every human being is deserving of being treated as a creature with a noble nature, destined for God. That because God is our creator, no man has the right to initiate aggression against another man.

[SansAuthoritas]

Why, as an atheist, do you believe that you may not initiate aggression against another person? With what line of reasoning do you ultimately back it up? If we are nothing but matter, and there is nothing beyond this material world, tell me why I should not do whatever I want to anyone I want, whether or not I ever get stopped by another earthly power.

[utubehayter]

Who told you that I was an atheist? And who told you that I may not initiate aggression against another person? Actually you can choose to aggress against anyone you want - go ahead - no body is stopping you - except that once you do, it will put your interests against someone's survival.

[Atheistjeremy]

Ummm, there ARE instances in which I have a right to "initiate agression" against another person.

A sky nanny isn't necessary to find meaning for one's life. To the contrary, there would be no point in the existence of a god. Why would anyone want to worship a slavemaster for eternity? Doesn't sound like much fun. It sounds like a cosmic North Korea.

[SansAuthoritas]

Jeremy,

Will you name some instances in which you have a right to initiate aggression? Remember, "initiate" means to start. It means that you use physical violence or fraud against another person who did not initiate force or fraud against you.

Jeremy, I don't live under a slavemaster. I live in a universe created by a God. If you create something, it is yours. God has no need of your help, or my help. He allows us to participate in his plan. If we recognize reality, we do well.

[Atheistjeremy]

I don't agree with your defintion, but anyway, if I see an armed man who is able to attack an innocent woman, I will defend her.

"I don't live under a slavemaster." The Thug of the Bible is much more than a slavemaster. "Obey Me or Burn!" are the words of a petty, cruel tyrant.

"If you create something, it is yours" Does that mean that parents have a right to burn their children?

"He allows us to participate in his plan" No, the deity of the Bible DEMANDS it.

[SansAuthoritas]

Jeremy,

You don't agree with my definition of what? "Initiate," or "aggression?" Neither is my definition. Nor is their conjunction a new term. If you see an armed man "able to," or "actually attacking?" Lots of armed men are able to. Now, if you were to stop him because he was initiating aggression, you are, by definition, a defender, not an initiator.

[SansAuthoritas]

Jeremy,

May anyone morally act any way he wants without any repercussions, ever? Or do you believe that physical force ultimately justifies any behavior? That, if you can get away with it, it is just? If all behavior is not just, then why not do it anyway, if you want to? There is no repercussion for your action, so long as you don't get caught, right? With no one moral lawgiver, there is no one moral law. Everyone has his own moral standard, which means there is no moral standard.

[Atheistjeremy]

"May anyone morally act any way he wants without any repercussions, ever?" No, we have laws.

Morality is not determined by sky nannies. Morality is a human endeavor and it's sad that I should have to point that out to you.

You strike me as someone who has never examined an argument from the other side, ever.

If your Sky Tyrant is the moral standard then we must accept anything He labels "good." If he decides that rape is good, then it is so.

Absurd.

[SansAuthoritas]

"No, we have laws."

Jeremy,

Laws? Is everything that is not illegal moral?

Laws? Like the ones that permitted slavery? Was slavery moral at one time, because it was legal? Can we change black to white because some politicians say "black is white?" Was state-enforced segregation moral because it was legal? Was imprisoning Japanese during WWII moral?

God does not pretend to make something good by saying it is good. Foolish man does that. God acknowledges something as good.

[Atheistjeremy]

"Is everything that is not illegal moral?" I'm not sure what you mean. *I would say that not all laws are great because our legal system is imperfect.

The Bible supports slavery. Are you really bringing that up to support your religion? You must be joking.

Okay, if god acknowledges something as good, becauses it's good, then there's a standard of good beyond your god...so we can skip your Thug and go right to real moral standard.

That standard is humanity.

[SansAuthoritas]

"The Bible supports slavery."

Jeremy, please provide one verse, New or Old Testament, that speaks approvingly of slavery.

"Okay, if god acknowledges something as good, becauses it's good, then there's a standard of good beyond your god"

All goodness, insofar as it exists, exists in God, Jeremy. There's no logical contradiction between God approving of something because it is exists and acts in accord accordance with its nature, and "a moral standard beyond God."

[SansAuthoritas]

Rather, the last paragraph should say, "All goodness, insofar as it exists, exists in God, Jeremy. There's no logical connection between saying that something is good because it exists and acts in accordance with its nature, and saying that this fact proves that there is a "moral standard beyond God."

If God created everything, including the natures of the things, and if goodness is a thing acting/being in accordance with its nature, then how can there be a standard "beyond God?"

[SansAuthoritas]

The essence and nature of God is to exist.

[SansAuthoritas]

Jeremy,

Goodness comes from a thing acting in accordance with its nature. Whether it is a good baseball (good stitching, uniform weight, proper size) or a good person (a person acting in accordance with human nature.)

[Atheistjeremy]

"Goodness comes from a thing acting in accordance with its nature." Let's follow your "logic" for a moment. Bad must come from a thing acting in accordance with its nature. Does that mean, then, that your god creates things with a bad nature?

WTF does baseball have to do with any of this? Why are you comparing "good stitching" to good people?"

[SansAuthoritas]

"Bad must come from a thing acting in accordance with its nature. Does that mean, then, that your god creates things with a bad nature?"

No, Jeremy, badness is not a nature. It is only a perversion of a nature. Evil is the privation of a due good: the absence of a good that should be there. There is a reason "evil" is compared to "darkness." Darkness is the absence of light. Evil is the absence of good. Not vice versa. Evil is not a thing in itself.

[Atheistjeremy]

"Darkness is the absence of light." That's an interesting analogy. But you can't have one without the other. If there was no light, you wouldn't even understand what "dark" was. It follows that you wouldn't realize what "good" is unless there was also "bad." Therefore, your god must have created both.

Here's what your bible says about evil:

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

[SansAuthoritas]

"Why are you comparing "good stitching" to good people?"

Jeremy, why are you choosing to be so rude? Have I been rude with you?

I am making an example of goodness. We consider something good because it serves its purpose: it has qualities that are in accordance with its nature: what it is designed to do. A gun that misfires every other shot is a bad gun. A baseball whose outer shell comes off as soon as it is hit is a bad baseball. A person who kills innocents is a bad person.

[Atheistjeremy]

"Jeremy, why are you choosing to be so rude? Have I been rude with you?"

Rude? My question was a pertinent one.

"We consider something good because it serves its purpose" I don't agree with your definition. "Bad" can also serve a purpose.

"[good] has qualities that are in accordance with its nature" I assume then that you know what the nature of "goodness" is. What is it?

"A gun that misfires every other shot is a bad gun." Are you joking? Should we punish the gun for being bad?

[SansAuthoritas]

"right to real moral standard.

That standard is humanity . . . We don't always do a good job."

Humanity is the standard of morality? Humanity, as in, how humans act? We've seen how humans act: murder, rape, genocide. Now how do you insert the premiss "ought" into "what humans do?" If man himself is the final arbiter of what he may and may not do, how can you possibly say there is any way we "should" act? All is matter? How can "should" or "morality" enter into anything? There's only "can."

[Atheistjeremy]

Yes, human beings do terrible things. We are also capable of doing good things.

At the very least, human solidarity is necessary for our survival and co-existence. That's one main reason why we bother with this morality business.

Why should we not murder? Because if we allow people to murder, no one will ever be reasonably safe. There's a practical reason for judging murder as immoral.

Again, WE determine what is moral. Without humans, there would no one to judge.

[SansAuthoritas]

Jeremy,

Does the Deity say he wants everyone to obey him "Because he says so?" Or is it because he wants us to act according to our human nature, and that, if we act contrary to our nature, people get hurt? If you tell your children not to play with guns, are you a cruel Biblical taskmaster, or are you looking out for the wellbeing of your children? Do you reprimand them if they disobey, or say, "Oh, it's all right. Go ahead, beat up your sister." Would punishing that act that be "cruel?"

[Atheistjeremy]

It doesn't matter why He wants you to obey Him. The point is that if you refuse, you'll be burned for ETERNITY. That's a bit extreme. And Christians claim this is a "choice."

"If you tell your children not to play with guns, are you...cruel ?" I won't burn my children FOREVER if they disobey me. Please come up with a better analogy.

Many "offenses" punishable by death in the bible are not deserving of such punishment. Do you believe that sabbath workers should be stoned to death?

[SansAuthoritas]

Jeremy,

You want to know something that I find extreme? That people consider an eternal punishment (the worst part of which is separation from God, not the pathetic fire) as an "extreme" punishment for an obstinate, stubborn refusal to live in accord with one's human nature.

Do you know what I find more "extreme?" That you think that your existence at all isn't "extreme." That man sometimes wants to be the arbiter of reality, saying that it's not extreme that we're here, but guidelines are.

[Atheistjeremy]

Have you never read the bible? Jesus ranted about burning furnaces and lakes of fire.

Seperation from your god? What's so bad about that? I'm "seperated" from your god now and I'm doing fine.

Again, humans DO decide what the guidelines are. We don't always do a good job, but there's no one else to do it for us.

[SansAuthoritas]

"Have you never read the bible? Jesus ranted about burning furnaces and lakes of fire."

I never said that Jesus never spoke about hellfire. I did say that the fire is nothing compared to the agony of separation from your creator. From hating everything and everyone: hatred for oneself, for others in hell, and God himself.

You may be separated from God, Jeremy. Then again, you may not be. The fact remains that you have not yet fully made your decision. That you still exist is proof of that.

[Atheistjeremy]

Really, how could "seperation" from your silly god be worse than being burned alive?

I don't hate people. I don't hate myself. I don't hate your god because that would be ridiculous. That would be like hating a comic book character.

"You may be separated from God...Then again, you may not be." Look at my name. I'm an ATHEIST. I do not associate with your deity in any way.

Yes, I did make my decision. My existence doesn't depend on your imaginary friend.

[SansAuthoritas]

"Again, humans DO decide what the guidelines are. We don't always do a good job, but there's no one else to do it for us. "

Jeremy, how can you possibly say that humans are the final arbiters of morality itself, then go on to say, "we don't always do a good job?"

That is a contradiction. Your contradiction is an admission, flowing from your common sense and human nature, that there is, in fact, a moral code that is not arbitrated by mankind.

[SansAuthoritas]

For all the talk of being "enslaved to an imaginary being" or "an imaginary moral code?" We're no more "enslaved" to the universal moral law than we are "enslaved" to the law of gravity, or other laws of physics. We're not "enslaved" because we live in a world where if we don't work, we starve to death. We exist in a world. The world has boundaries. Refusal to accept natural law is a rebellion against nature. Against our very beings.

[Atheistjeremy]

"Refusal to accept natural law is a rebellion against nature."

What is this "natural law" you speak of?

[SansAuthoritas]

Make the proper analogy of my statmement, Jeremy: if your children spent their lifetime spitting on you and other people, would you want to spend time with them? And furthermore, would they want to spend time with you? Wouldn't it be more cruel to force them to be somewhere they didn't want to be, as proven by their actions throughout their entire life? "You're going to sit here with me for eternity, though you hate me, and like it." Far more cruel than punishing someone for their bad choices.

[Atheistjeremy]

No one will sit with each other for eternity. People don't live forever.

I didn't say I hated anyone. It's very arrogant to assume that I'm hateful simply because I don't believe your myths.

[SansAuthoritas]

"I didn't say I hated anyone. It's very arrogant to assume that I'm hateful simply because I don't believe your myths."

I never said you hated anyone either, Jeremy.

I spoke of people who willfully refuse to live in accordance with their human nature. Who have some understanding of goodness, yet wilfully reject it. They spend a lifetime refusing goodness, until their life has become one big refusal of goodness. That, Jeremy, is hate.

How can you hate that which you do not believe exists?

[Atheistjeremy]

"They spend a lifetime refusing goodness, until their life has become one big refusal of goodness. That, Jeremy, is hate."

You mean, you call people people "haters" when they don't agree with your idea of what "good" is.

"How can you hate that which you do not believe exists?" If you're referring to your deity, I don't hate it. That would be silly. It would be like hating a comic book character.

[SansAuthoritas]

Jeremy,

Last, a child is not "created" by the parents. While each of them provides biological material, neither of them provides the child's soul. (The soul being the individuating principle which allows us the capacity to be responsible for our own actions. If we are pure matter, then every single one of our actions are predestined. We cannot be responsible. And genetically identical twins would have the same personalities.) Atheists don't believe in souls, but they act as though they exist.

[Atheistjeremy]

"a child is not "created" by the parents" Call it what you like, but no sex, no child.

What is a "soul?" Where is it? What evidence do you have that it exists?

Your blabbering on about "souls" makes little sense.

[SansAuthoritas]

Jeremy,

What evidence do you have that the soul exists? The court systems. Laws. The notion of morality. All of these are wholly meaningless if we are pure matter. Meaningless. There is no basis for responsibility if all our actions are directed by a few atoms bumping into each other: guided by the utterly materially-determined sequence of synapse firings. There's nothing wrong with manipulating pure matter however you want. So why shouldn't we manipulate other humans however we want?

[Atheistjeremy]

You didn't provide evidence for this "soul," whatever that means. Please try again. What is it? Where is it?

Like I said earlier, morality is a human endeavor. Getting along with each other is in our own best interests, it's common sense. It has nothing to do with a "soul," whatever that is.

[SansAuthoritas]

Jeremy,

The soul is the individuating principle that makes you who you are as a distinct individual. It is what makes genetically identical twins have distinct personalities. The human soul is why monkeys, which share over 95% of human DNA, have absolutely no artistic sense, while humans have been making art and music for millenia. We have a will and intellect. The ability to understand the good and choose it. Otherwise, we are pure matter, and we can use or abuse other humans as mere tools.

[SansAuthoritas]

Every law has a legislator. As one author wisely put it, "To say that everyone has his own moral standard is to say that there is no moral standard whatsoever." If there is any moral law, there is a universal moral law. In other words, some actions are always intrinsically morally wrong, no matter who does them. If such a moral law exists, and you did not create the moral law, then someone must have created it. I did not cause myself, and neither did my ancestors scores of generations ago.

[SansAuthoritas]

Are we, as Marx said, merely clumps of matter that happen to exist and happen to be able to manipulate other clumps of matter? If so, what is your basis of morality? How can matter do evil? Only if there is an individuating spiritual principle can we have any moral code. A non-material individuating principle that allows us to be responsible for our individual actions. It is what makes genetically identical twins able to have entirely different personalities.

[SWASTAFIX]

you're just affraid of not having a reason for existance.

[SansAuthoritas]

Your statement is illogical. Why would I fear not having a reason for existence if there truly were no reason for existence? It would make as much sense as fearing death when there's no such thing.

If there were no innate drive for perfect happiness in every human being, there would be no reason for the innate drive. But there is an innate drive. That indicates a reason for the drive. The mere existence of your post is evidence that you cannot logically believe what you just said.

[SWASTAFIX]

My statement was not to acheive perfect happiness. I did in fact have a drive for the existance for my post. So it is logical that i bleive what i said. Indeed we all desire happiness in our life, but it will only last around 80-100 years dependingly. After that, you claim that there is even longer life after death. That must mean you also believe in "zombies", but they just happen to live in a different place, correct?

I admit my comment before is flawed. I will restate it in a reply.

[SWASTAFIX]

Okay, now to restate that flawful comment of mine;

You asked, "how can matter do evil?", I will

answer that. Only you, and several other Theists determine what is "good" and "evil". If you look at nature, and its habits, you will see that nature doesnt really care what is good and whats evil. It only cares about survival. For example, animals such as lions kill one another for territory.  Do you think they care that they commited a sin? If you did such an act, you would go to hell.

[SansAuthoritas]

Or he was the biggest liar and impostor the world has ever seen, who founded an institution that has lasted for over 2000 years. No man dies willingly for a lie. So an apparently sane man performed amazing acts (according to historians) said he was God, and his teachings are those of wisdom and peace, not mad, violent rantings like every other "messiah" or political savior that pops up. Now, as for "the ground up." What is your axiom?

[SansAuthoritas]

Let's go with Chesterton's gambit. Either Christ existed or he did not. Even contemporaneous historians (such as Josephus) acknowledged the existence of a man named Jesus (known as the Christ) who allegedly performed amazing acts. Jesus said he was God. "Before Moses was, I am." ("Jahveh" being the word Jesus used, the name given to Moses by God on Sinai.) Either Jesus was absolutely insane (and because of his teachings, most admit that he was the sanest man who ever lived.)

[MrBr3w]

Completely makes sense. Ive lived in a country that is very religious and had a dictatorship for decades. It is still a very religious country and the worst thing is, some people, especially the younger generations, are still thinking that dictatorship could still help the country. A Dictator that follows Christ's teachings. The thought of it just freaks me out!!!

[SansAuthoritas]

Jesus (and those who follow his teachings) recognize that belief (the free acceptance of a truth as perceived by the intellect) cannot be forced upon anyone. To force someone to believe something is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle. Jesus never commanded the death of the unbeliever. Mohammed, that demonically-obsessed/possessed man, did: "Slay the infidel wherever you find him."

Why do you slander Christ? What biblical verse and chapter support your uncited claim?

[kimuraftw]

ok, fine, so this Jesus guy seems pretty cool from what you tell us. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that he wanted his followers to love unbelievers. BUT, why am I going to bother with a character who may have or have not existed who taught morality as coming from a God who may or may not exist, when I can choose a rational, consistent set of ethics based on logic and reality from the ground-up? Noone sane wants you to stop being a good person - there's just other ways to go about it.

[SansAuthoritas]

There is a particular passage where the Apostles, when they are rejected by the Samaritans (who detested the Jews, and vice versa) asked Jesus "Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" Jesus rebuked them, saying, "You know not of what spirit you are. The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save." As Sobran points out, Jesus told the disciples to shake the dust from their feet and move on when they were rebuked, not to "kill the unbelievers."

[SansAuthoritas]

Where? What verse? -Sans Authoritas

[SansAuthoritas]

Now, if Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini Mao and Lincoln had been Christians, (meaning, had they constantly striven to adhere to the teachings of Christ,) would they have become the fascist thugs that they were? Is "religiosity" really the problem here?

[stefbot]

Actually, Christ the Biblical character commands the death of unbelievers.

[joemoin]

@SansAuthoritas umm yeah they probably would have

[joemoin]

@SansAuthoritas umm yeah they probably would have

[SansAuthoritas]

Do you ever define "religious?" Let's take Christianity, for example. Is not a Christian someone who believes in and strives to adhere to the teachings of Christ? Do any of Christ's teachings support the initiation of violence? It seems to me that Russia was "Orthodox Christian." Anyone who supports a totalitarian government and its violence is not a Christian, but is a hypocrite, if he calls himself a Christian. As Hitler and Stalin show, no one is more deadly and warped than an apostate.

[kimuraftw]

the Chinese Revolution was started by religious leaders? huh?

[stefbot]

No, of course, since Communism is officially atheist, but it took root in a highly religious culture.

[UnhealthySalad]

Given that most atheists accept or find necessary the government, they too are irrational I suppose. Humanity has a long way to go...

oelergodt, it's just an indication of how unfree all economies are, if you ask me. The US is in the top five, yet our economy is highly mixed and there is constant intervention.

[oelergodt]

lol... n I thought Denmark would score pretty low on the economical freedom scale... I mean we have insane taxes (69% marginal) and the government pays for everything from health care to student support (yep we are paid for taking a state financed education)... but I guess economical freedom is meassured somehow else.. awesome vid, though

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

Awesome vid.