Видео

Please drop the link to this episode

People have tried to claim it coming from god, that god is the standard but they fail too. Because if that would be the case all OT laws should still be moral.

the videos that tells the most truth in its 100% purity, are the ones with the less view. I'm so grateful for this video. You brought a very important issue of the truth no one able to scoop out to words, but it stuck subconsciously. The book of Job is one that brought to my attention when Holy Spirit started to work in my life. Thank you. Keep things going. Our LORD is with us.

_"it seems like secularism is coming to an end"_ Because the religious right is trying to establish a theocracy? Is that what you mean? In America, at least, the Christian Taliban is in firm control of our Supreme Court. But "coming to an end" seems like just... giving up on defending America, doesn't it? _"The reality is that people are not becoming more atheist"_ *Evidence?* The long-term trend seems solid. One problem, of course, is that "atheist" is a scary word for many people. If you don't believe in a god or gods, you're an atheist, by my definition. But lots of atheists don't like to use that label. Many people seem to think that "agnostic" is a kinder, gentler term which indicates that you're not _positive_ a god doesn't exist (which is not required of "atheists," obviously). And others simply prefer to not be very specific. Vagueness works in religion, right? At the same time, polls have noise in the short-term. Again, the long-term trend seems solid, though not nearly as strong as I'd wish. But maybe you have evidence that's not true? You didn't _present_ any in this video - not as far as I got in reading the transcript, anyway. _"They're remaining spiritual, but becoming less religious."_ Funny, isn't it? They're abandoning what's good about religion - or what's normal, at least (organization) - but keeping the believing stuff for no good reason part. It's just the _opposite_ of what I would prefer. They seem to be keeping the faith-based thinking part at a time when faith-based thinking is destroying my country and my world. But they're abandoning the "organized" part, while we human beings organize for _everything,_ good and bad. It seems very peculiar to me. Then again, "spiritual" seems to be a wishy-washy word with no real meaning, huh? At least, you didn't define it, and _I_ don't know what you mean by it. Certainly, different people seem to mean different things when they use that word. And in polls, vague words like that can just be interpreted as the respondent pleases, don't you think? _"How can we as pastors and parents demonstrate the truth, beauty, and goodness of the gospel that satisfies the deepest longings of the heart?"_ To my mind, that's the whole problem. You want to satisfy the _heart,_ not the head. You recognize that believing in a religion requires that you really, really _want_ the religion to be true. That's why, almost always, theists end up believing in whichever religion and whichever god or gods they were taught to believe as a child. The _truth_ of a religion seems to be an afterthought _at best_ to the faith-based. You start by _wanting_ it to be true. You're taught to believe in your god at the same time you're taught to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. So, when you lose members, your solution is to make your religion more emotionally appealing, not to demonstrate that any of it is actually real. Because that's why _you_ believe it? I mean, do you have even *one* piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, that your god is actually real, rather than just imaginary? Just *one?* Why is *one* always too much to ask? Do you have even *one* piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened? Again, just *one?* Yes, you have stories, but stories aren't always true. (And which stories faith-based people believe typically depends on which stories they were taught to believe as children.) _"Of course, secularism is this belief - movement - to create a world that is purely rational, devoid of anything supernatural, dependent on science"_ Yeah, sounds terrible, doesn't it? <LOL> In reality, of course, that's not true. That's not even _close_ to being true. "Secularism" is basically about freedom of religion - freedom of religion in the _old_ meaning of the phrase, not the new meaning that Christians get special rights that others do not get. "Secularism" is about the right to believe whatever you want, but not being able to force it on other people. It's about the strict separation between church and state. Believe whatever you wish, but don't use the power of the state to impose _your_ religious beliefs on everyone else. Now, I don't believe in gods. I see no reason - no good evidence - to think that _any_ god is real. But we don't have to agree about that. Indeed, we can have a polite conversation about our differences, if you wish. I would welcome that. But my _government_ should stay out of it. Yes, Christians control my government at _every_ level. Nonetheless, the government is for _everyone_ - Christian, Muslim, Jew, atheist, agnostic, Mormon, Scientologist, Raelian, etc. And no religion should have the right to use the government to indoctrinate our children or to push their particular beliefs. Indeed, I would be just as upset if someone was trying to use the government to push atheism (which is a silly thing to imagine, here in America, but if it _did_ happen, I would very definitely oppose that). _That's_ what "secularism" means. It means basing our policies on the evidence, not on whichever magic book you think has been given to you by some god. You can _believe_ that, if you wish. You can base your own life on it, if you wish. You just can't impose it on everyone else. It's *not* atheism. It's *not* anti-religion. Indeed, the separation between church and state here in America was originally described as a way for Christians to avoid being pushed around by _other kinds of Christians._ (As I recall - I don't have time to check right now, the Baptists were worried about being pushed around by the Episcopalians.) Oh, well, I don't have time for anything else right now, so I'll leave off here. Thanks.

i enjoy these videos

"god" is a subject. Thus any god morality is subjective by definition

This whole discussion is so devoid of reason. The main argument is "a reality without God makes me uncomfortable therefore God exists." With different self-contradictory variants such as "I can't conceive a morality without God therefore God exists." (This is self-contradictory because a God-based morality is presented as an objective standard where it's just another subjective one. The subject here being a God that never tells us anything clearly, so it's going back to thousands of different subjective interpretations anyway.) This is *not* is a show of reason and evidence. You can't stand being insignificant, so you want to believe in a God that makes you feel special. You stared into an immeasurably vast and old universe, got frightened and decided to make yourself the very reason that this whole stage exists at all. The only truth I take from this video is that learning how insignificant you are on a cosmic scale made you lose sight of your own subjective importance. You don't need to be special to the world at large. You just need to be your own special person. Set a goal for yourself, picture a path forward and maybe you can leave some lasting trace in the world. Then again, if an imaginary friend helps you deal with the dread of an endless abyss that surrounds us... you have freedom of religion... assuming you live in a secular country. I'm fine with it just as long as you don't badger others with your absentee father figure and your personal ideas about his questionable moral commands. As for the problem of evil, you're twisting it, alright. So much so that you're using a strawman version rather than the commonly referred version. This makes it pointless to discuss.

The Problem of Evil is a Problem for Atheists?? This is one of the most clear examples of psychological projection you can find on the internet. *_Psychological projection_*_ is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves by attributing them to others. For example, a bully may project their own feelings of vulnerability onto the target, or a person who is confused will project their own feelings of confusion and inadequacy on other people._ _Projection incorporates blame shifting and can manifest as shame dumping._

These 2 guys want objective morality to be true so bad, they fooled themselves into believing an imaginary deity exists. This is plain wishful thinking.

I have always been an atheist. There certainly doesn't appear to "a plan". So what? Make your own plan, pursue your passion, and be kind to people and animals. If you believe in objective moral laws bestowed by an invisible law giver. Prove that this law giver exists. Morals are just a by-product of our empathy and altruism. Traits that our species needed to succeed in a cold, indifferent universe (which may be interpreted as "evil") since we aren't particularly strong or fast compared to many other animals. I really don't see the issue.

No, the problem of evil is _specifically_ a problem for Christians, seeing as they believe in a being that is all-loving _and_ all powerful and therefore have to find excuses as to why such a being would allow evil, leading to all kinds of weird mental gymnastics. Atheists don't have to do any of that.

As a moral anti-realist, I see the problem of evil as a greater challenge for Christians. Our shared values and reactions to injustice don't need divine origins, they arise from social evolution for group survival. The innate desire for justice reflects our psychological drive for social cohesion, not absolute morals. Evil's existence which causes suffering conflicts with an all-good, all-loving, all-powerful God. Thus, the presence of evil is actually a problem within Christianity than in a worldview without an overseeing tri-omni God.

I think xtians need to stop with the straw manning about atheists where our humanity is diminished just because believers think that some god they can't demonstrate real has given us morals or anything that makes us human. In short, when it comes to god, that which can be asserted with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.

It’s simple: genetics. In small groups, nice people get to pass on their genes and mean people don’t. The rest is a waste of time.

Let me get this straight. Your unhappy with the lack of purpose and great suffering in the world, therefor God? People can't come up with objective morality, therefor God? How about; people can think and work really hard to build a moral structure. Like all things that people build there will be room for improvement. We can build this moral structure using science. I won't get into why people care for each other but here is a starting point ruclips.net/video/m-1etGWVvb8/видео.html I know there's a critique about moral relativism, but people come up with a lot of things with relative value, and we do OK.

So what I got from this is that theists either don't understand the problem of evil or deliberately misunderstand it. It's not 'bad things happen and I don't like it.' It's 'bad things happen and GOD doesn't like it.' As a Christian, immorality is impossible to explain without contradiction. If immorality is that which goes against the will of God, and God is omnipotent, and God is morally perfect, then by definition God cannot allow immorality to exist. If God compromises with immorality, then God is not morally perfect. If God cannot stop immorality, then God is not omnipotent. If God is omnipotent AND morally perfect, then nothing that exists can be immoral. Christianity is a stool that rests on three legs: God is all-powerful, God is morally perfect, and God allows immorality to exist for the sake of free will. Belief in any two of these legs renders the third one impossible. As an atheist, I can explain immorality easily. Bad things happen because people can be diques to each other and the only ones who can stop them is us - and we're not perfect. I don't like it. I don't have to like it. In fact, I hate it. But it's not hard to explain.

Ridiculous! The dichotomy between Kurt Cobain and Thanos is that if God doesn't exist, tell more about what type of person you are than about the existence of God; you make more sense of the data; less than 01 % of the prisoners are atheists.

This dude fundamentally doesnt understand the problem of evil.....

This is like watching my left bollock talk to my right bollock or at least it’s just as informative.

I should not waist my time on this absolute idiocy. 👎"The Problem of Evil is a Problem for Atheists" 👎

it really felt weird to hear you say that saying “our flaws makes us beautiful” is antichristian because our flaws are sin and god hates sin and we require redemption?? like?? he chose to make us in his image and made us flawed but the flaws are a sin against him? ? he sinned against himself? also jesus died for our sins already so?? i’m kinda confused. how is it a sin to not be perfect when humans can not be perfect.

The very title of the video betrays, that you are either profoundly dishonest or have never engaged with the topic. Either way a very poor video.

I am going to explain the atheist logical fallacy one more time, almost infinite times. You are deceived and you have to understand how. An atheist and religious person got stranded in the desert and being tired and dehydrated they saw far away a well. The only question atheists should be interested in and are not interested in is "does water exist in the well?", "does God exist?". Ask yourself why atheists avoid like the devil from holy water the question "does God exist?", that means "was the universe created from an intelligent entity?". Go to any atheist platform any time and atheists would be talking about the Bible, am I right or wrong?. Atheists's best friend and refuge is the Bible. Atheists have made clear to humanity Jesus Christ doesn't exist, so what?!. We all know Jesus Christ doesn't exist thanks to atheists, so what?!. In the parable the religious person believes water exists in the well and the atheist doesn't believe water exist because the burden of proof is in the person making the positive claim. For the atheist water doesn't exist in the well unless it is proven it exists. Bear in mind both the religious person and atheist don't have evidence to support their understanding of reality, neither of them know if water exists or not in the well. In the analogy the well is the universe, and we have to discover if the well has water and it is eternal salvation or on the other hand the well has no water and death is the end. Atheists believe life has no meaning and death is the end for no reason. Do the religious person and atheist have a 50/50 chance of being right? Considering wells are constructions to extract water could be more likely that the well has water than not?. To understand God exists you have to understand it is better for you if water exists in the well. Atheists don't search for God because they believe it doesn't exist, what is the point of searching for something you believe doesn't exist and it is not good for you? Fortunately you don't have to believe in God because you can understand logically the creation was created by the creator. Creation is what has a beginning of existence, like for example you, you didn't exist before you were born. To understand God exists you have to understand reality is eternal because from nothing can not be created something, and the key question is "can the universe be eternal?". Logically it is impossible the existence of an infinite number of causes and effects, therefore an eternal first uncaused cause that caused what has a beginning of existence must exist. To understand God exists and you have been lied to and deceived you have to understand the greatest rationalist philosopher Spinoza discovered centuries ago God is literally everything that exist. God is the first reality all the rest came from. The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheists say "we don't know" when they should say "i don't know, I don't want to know and i want you to believe it is impossible to know". Should the atheist stranded and dehydrated in the desert go and check if the well has water, should atheists read Spinoza? Thank you.

"I'm not afraid of the world, I just reject it. I reject the world and all the hold that it has on me because I think Jesus is just better." What a quote.

Weak people make videos, weak people watch videos . We allow it all cuz we are brainwashed. Everbody waits for someone else to sacifice

What ridiculous nonsense. The proposition that morality somehow shows there's a god is a complete non sequitur. However that's not obvious to everyone is flabbergasting.

Borderline psychopath in the attempt to defend what's probably been indoctrinated since childhood.

Oh, good. There's a transcript. I don't actually have to listen to your bullshit. Ok. Got it. You don't understand what morality is grounded in. Ok. Well, if definitely isn't grounded in anything to do with the disgustingly evil fictional character named YHWH. Read Deuteronomy 20:11-20. Read Exodus 21 - especially verse 20. Read Leviticus 25. Read Numbers 31. Only a disgustingly morally bankrupt arsewipe would even TRY to defend those passages. The basis for human morality - and the morality of every social species - is that we're a social species and that we do better when we work together. So, that which enhances overall wellbeing is good. That which detracts from it is bad. See how that works? Yes, there are people - and animals - who work to the detriment of the group, and for their own advantage. And the group responds appropriately. That's pretty straightforward. But, of course, the universe doesn't care. The universe is just unthinking, mainly empty space. Cold, dark. And in the end, there is, indeed, no overall purpose to the universe. That's not to say there's no purpose in life. There is as much purpose in life as you put into it. You've got to make your own purpose - it doesn't get handed to you by some supernatural dictator. We have morals and ethics because of secular humanism, but bad things happen because the universe does not and can not care. So, the Problem of Evil isn't an issue for an atheist. But in your view - supposedly - there's supposed to be an omniscient, omnipotent god watching over everything. I won't bother saying that it's supposed toe be omnibenevolent, 'cos the god described in the Bible is ANYTHIGN but benevolent. But so many of you think this god of yours is supposed to be good, and yet not only do bad things happen - according to your Bible, your god does those bad things DELIBERATELY - so that's where the Problem of Evil comes in - it's not just "why do bad things happen if God is good?" - it's "Why does the Bible say that God not only do evil things himself, but why does he DEMAND that his followers also do evil things?" Of course, you COULD get around this by simply acknowledging that the god you worship is an evil god, and that your religion is disgusting and vile

I do not think we need religion to form a moral basis. However, I think it is important. We cannot dismiss religion. So many atheists(me included at one time) say that religion is evil or it's purpose is to control people. As I have learned more and heard people speak, my understanding of it has changed considerable. Religion is a method of trying to understand that which we do not understand. God is a symbol for the absolute. In the end, if our behavior leads to suffering(sin) does it matter if it is the "wrath of god" or just the natural outcome of such behavior? There is a lot to learn from religion once we understand what it is trying to tell us.

RUclips's "Suggested videos" just keep getting worse and worse #Nogods

16:30 if you feel like you’d end your own existance or the existance of countless others, just because your holy book wasn’t true, then I seriously, truly hope you stick to your holy book. Absolutely terrifying statement… You state that “naturalistic materialistic” worldview can’t have objective morals. I don’t think this is true, but let’s assume for sake of argument that it was. The morals from a diety, your god, are also subjective. They are based on the subjective whims of the god, who seems to flip between things being okay and not okay, especially when comparing OT and NT. One of the major pieces of evidence against the idea of objective morals are psychopaths and sociopaths. Apologists like William Lane Craig will say that moral intuition doesn’t come from nature or psyche, it comes from us being made in the image of god, reflecting that image when we *feel* that things are good or bad morally, this comes from the soul. So what about individuals who can’t understand good or bad moral arguments and have no moral intuition? Did god make them without a soul…? If so, pretty yikes. Around the half hour mark, you sort of misinform the watcher about chimps. They are violent, true, but they are mainly violent against *other groups of chimps*. Inside their own groups, much like humans, they tend to have deep affection and empathy for. You even touch on this minutes later when talking about human tribalism, all you need to do is connect the dots. The most important criticism I have is that in this video you completely misunderstand the problem of evil, just like all other apologists I’ve heard, like WLC, Greg Koukl, Sean McDowell, etc.. The problem of evil is not an issue for atheists or any other -ist, because it’s not an assertion of truth regardless of worldview. The problem of evil is an *internal* critique of the idea of the Christian’s gods characteristics that *assume a Christian moral paradigm* The argument is not “evil exists and neither of us can make sense of it” The argument is that the biblical gods alleged nature (all powerful, all good and all knowing) goes against the biblical idea of evil that persists in the world today according to Christian’s. I highly suggest you do some more research on it, as to not keep regurgitating the same talking point others have done for decades.

Simpletons.

This is a very silly video. This is an argument from wishful thinking - you want to believe in what Christianity tells you to do, and so you do. You take no time to even define, let alone prove that there exists such a thing as objective morality. The reason that most Atheists and philosophers don't believe that objective morality exists is because we believe morality is a rational endeavor - which is to say any system of morality must be backed up by a reason why. Thus any system of morality you can come up with has a referent/measuring stick that must be chosen. Religious morality is not exempt from this, and is therefore as subjective as any other system, in the context that we typically call morality subjective(in other contexts, some people such as Sam Harris argue for objective morality, as in once you have subjectively chosen a yardstick you can now objectively call some actions moral vs immoral). Morality can only be objective once you decided on a subjective (i.e. arbitrary, chosen) standard of value. As it is generally meant and discussed, subjective morality is simply inevitable, literally baked into the idea and definition of the discussion. To propose otherwise is to insinuate that 'morality' is an observable physical feature of the universe, like the concept of the color orange. Morality is not like orange. To suppose otherwise is gibberish. You failed to define or even understand your terms, entering a discussion where you look silly because you aren't talking about this on the same level as those who seriously study and think about these things. This is not an argument that would sway an atheist who has done a decent job seriously considering their position on this issue. I would guess at best it's an attempt to appeal to those who agree with you, as well as discourage them from straying from Christianity for fear of the repercussions. A poor false dichotomy + a scare tactic. Also, you don't discuss what is classically referred to as the "Problem of Evil" at all. Let's clarify what that is. It takes generally accepted Christian premises, and attempts to demonstrate that they are incompatible. The premises are: 1 - God is good (allowing the Christian to define good in whatever way they please). 2 - God is omnipotent, i.e. all powerful 3 - If God is good, he should want to wipe out/remove/destroy evil. 4 - Evil exists (again, allowing any chosen definition). This is a violation of the proceeding premises, (if God is all powerful and wants to wipe out evil, why does it still exist) so either those premises must not be true, or the existence of evil must be rationalized in another way. Most Christians say something about free will here, so I'll note that if God was all powerful, why not create creatures with free will that wouldn't use it to do evil? Very silly, most rationalizations of this issue run into the same problem here - if God is all powerful, the rationalization could be bypassed and we could proceed directly to a perfect state of existence with no evil. I realize for a channel with this many viewers, and with this caliber of intellectual discussion, my response is like using a tank to deal with an ant. But hey, I was bored, and for some reason this showed up in my recommended?

Man is a brute beast when his hope is taken from him. Its not foolishness, weakness, cowardice, or trickery to hope that the human soul can live again. Its beauty. It is bravery. It is love. It is kindess. It is good. Godless men making a mockery of faith because of the ignorance and weakness of men of faith create monsters of men when they destroy that faith. It is good and demonstrating of a love for humanity to hope that after we die we will again be able to enjoy the wind on our faces, the beauty of a sunrise, the touch of a loved one, the laughter of our children, the gentle voice of a loved one, their warm embrace. No reason to believe in God? A love for humanity and everything we are and have is the very real reason to hope and believe. This same love i saw demonstrated in the person of Jesus Christ. Athiests know not what they do.

Doesn't like the idea of reality so decides to abandon reason and believe in a god. Cool. I find the notion that the Christian worldview gives a deep understanding of evil is absolute nonsense. If a living thing endures unimaginable suffering, it triggers our innate empathy we have as a social species and we find it evil. suffering on a lesser scale is still bad but might not be evil. It's really not that difficult. And even if there is some objective standard we ground morality in, that doesn't mean it's a god.

Unless you can demonstrate the existence of a god there is no reason to believe that one does exist.

Good conversation, thanks for sharing 🙂

Amen

Good talk friends!