Slavery Anti-Apologetics (Introduction)
Loading...
Top Comments
All Comments (75)
-
@DiscoveringReligion 4. There is nothing in the observation of nature which tells us what we "ought" to do. In fact, there is nothing in the observation of nature that tells us that we "ought" to try to explain every phenomenon naturalistically! Nature just IS. And you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is". The fact that we have a moral sense, and that there is a general (very crude) consensus concerning "right and wrong" constitutes evidence against naturalism. (ends)
-
@DiscoveringReligion 3. Your idea of "freedom" is incredibly naive. I actually agree with your proposal: freedom of speech as long as it doesn't incite hate. I think that those who protest here in Britain with placards saying: "Behead those who insult Islam" should be arrested, charged and punished. But this is my opinion. I can't see how such an opinion can be termed "objective" within the framework of naturalism, because naturalism provides no moral guide. Continued...
-
@DiscoveringReligion 2. Then you say that a potentially offended person is free to stop listening or move away. That may be true in many cases, but not in every case. Some people cannot just walk away from objectionable or offensive viewpoints. Perhaps those viewpoints are being expressed within their own family. Perhaps certain people are being forced to accept certain ideas in the classroom, and they are mocked if they disagree. Continued...
-
@DiscoveringReligion You say that the action of potentially (or actually) hurting someone's feelings does not significantly decrease their overall quality of life. But that is just your opinion!! Where is the objective evidence that supports such a view? I believe in freedom of speech, but my agreement with this issue is irrelevant. Even if we both agree on something, that does not, by itself, make the issue "objectively" valid necessarily. Continued....
-
@The1066Al Further to my last comment - I notice that you did write a comment about the conflict associated with "quality of life" as it relates to freedom of speech, but you addressed it to yourself!! Hence I never saw it (I was waiting for it to come into my inbox). OK, so I'll address this issue....
-
@DiscoveringReligion Sorry to disappoint you, but my "failure to respond" is due to two factors: I don't have unlimited time and I am still waiting for your response to my comment about the subjectivism of secular morality. You still haven't answered the question about "the lesser evil" concept, and also I made a point about how you cope with conflicting definitions of the "quality of life". Does your silence therefore mean that you have conceded the debate to me?
-
I can I assume from your failure to respond any further that you've accepted my explanation of secular morality and thus concede the debate?
-
Although I might run the risk of offending someone or hurting feelings with what I say, such an action does not significantly decrease their overall quality of life. They are free to stop listening or move away from me. However, if I begin harassing them then that is is a different story. Furthermore, if my speech incites hate or causes others to harm that person then yes, my speech IS immoral, for it is causing a detriment to that person's well-being. See how that works?
-
Back to my point (AGAIN)...
Now you brought up the issue of freedom of speech. As I said, Secular Morality (SM) does not tell people how to live, it only preserves their freedoms and promotes well-being. The only time SM can influence behavior is when one's freedoms or well-being is placed in jeopardy. I must have the ability to do and say what I want, so long as I do not infringe on the autonomy or well-being of others.
-
Ok then, let's stop this line of questioning. You obviously don't agree with me and I don't agree with you. I am trying to explain secular morality to you and you keep getting sidetracked with communism. I don't care about communism. I am not a communist, so end of story. Judge me by my beliefs and I'll do the same to you.
10:22
This was too awesome not to mirror.by calebnf42,279 views- 8:13
Is Slavery in the Bible? (Part 1)by Discern41,303 views
- 9:27
Discovering Religion: Ep 22 - Moral Absolutes and The Motivation to be Moral (2 of 2)by DiscoveringReligion5,451 views
- 6:01
Who Knows God? - Atheists vs Theistsby thruthem1,517 views
- 1:23
Quick Moral Quandaries: Introduction to The Seriesby DiscoveringReligion2,245 views
- 10:14
I am not an Agnostic Atheist. Seriously.by ZOMGitsCriss44,831 views
- 14:38
Finally Matt Dillahunty in a real debate : The Source of Human Morality PART 1/9by eminescinescu32,674 views
- 3:42
Faith-based morality gets Hitchslapped. (Christopher Hitchens)by bdw50008,070 views
- 3:37
Identity Theft- Introductionby maozisrael1,349 views
- 4:28
Is Slavery in the Bible? (Part 2)by Discern41,212 views
- 1:35
49. Frank Turek - What is Apologetics?by oneminuteapologist3,128 views
- 9:33
Slavery in the Bibleby religiontoday3,955 views
- 9:49
Your God's an ass... again (2/3) Matt Strikes Backby FireDragons4230,161 views
- 6:17
Conversations With Muslims: An Introduction to Islamby pixeljournal7,436 views
- 3:40
Does the Bible call Christians to defend the faith ?by nofearinlove418158 views
- 10:50
The atheistic moral problemby TheCartesianTheist2,628 views
- 9:34
The Myth of Dostoevsky's Tortured Atheistby LifeIsPietzsche1,616 views
- 2:33
Richard Dawkins - Absolute Moralityby AtheistMediaBlog123,344 views
- 47:04
Asking the Right Questions (N. T. Wright)by rfvidz8,346 views
- 7:53
what is black atheism?by Antichrist916721,029 views
best channel on youtube!
ghettobrown209 1 month ago 19
@ari1234a
Do you belong to a very religious family? Are you highly active within your church, as are most of the people you associate with? Are you concerned what your friends and family might think when you reveal your disbelief in God? The people that can answer "yes" to these questions are the ones private messaging me for help expressing their atheism to those they known.
DiscoveringReligion 1 month ago 11