@@ayybeealternative1999 Would you instill the morals you believe to be true into your children? If so, why would you not let them think for themselves? This question is so stupid. Edit: I apologize for saying the question is stupid; however, I fail to see its significance regarding OP's comment. Just to instill your morals in your children is not "indoctrinating" them, any more than sending them to public or private school is.
@@ayybeealternative1999 Of course I let them think for themselves. I can't make them think any certain way. My job is to train them the facts of the Bible. They think the way they want. You act like teaching something is the same as making someone think a certain way. Do I make them behave a certain way? At 5 years old, YES, yes absolutely I do. Because if I didn't they would eat nothing but candy, never take a shower, stick forks in power outlets, and be a drain on society. And really, that goes for them when they are 20 years old if they live in my house. But that's not going to happen. My kids are out at 18.
27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you. 32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
this statement by Christ refutes and fully satisfied hitchens' claim that such a statement cannot be done. Christ hits it on so many different levels, Hitchens' was entertaining and I loved listening to his slaps, arguments and his eloquence, but Matthew 5 in the beatitudes alone quenched this argument by the Hitch
“Hindus are more moral than Christians.” “Really? What’s something moral that Hindus do that Christians can’t do?” “Worship Vishnu of course” Edit: I had said Buddha and Buddhists before the edit but many have corrected me since, Buddhists don’t worship any gods.
You love buddha as you love a teacher. This man says it likes its good because he just is our creator. Considering the moral example god sets in the book. "God fearing" is apt
@@gianni206 just change the word “love” to “worship” and the analogy still holds. The point is, only Christians see loving the Christian god as moral, it’s a poor example of something moral that a Christian can do that an Atheist can’t. “Atheists are more moral than Christians.” “Really? What’s something moral an Atheist does that a Christian can’t do?” “Not worship any deities of course” Only an atheist would consider that moral so it’s an eye roll of an answer.
I agree. The premise is built on the difference in view. However I think it's pretty obvious. Anything moral based on its absolute ethic, not on some theoretical belief that is purely relative.
@@batteryacids5319 Did you hurt yourself when you made that big stretch? Hitchens’ question was answered, and all you guys can do is be butthurt about it. Theists are also capable of not worshipping deities, even ones they believe in, so your point is moot- which is ironic coming from the guy “eye-rolling”. Eye-rolling what, logic? Seriously, if this is a topic you feel the need to grasp straws at, then it’s no wonder atheism is losing members 🙄🙄🙄
This is a question that will stump most, if not all Christians. Why? Because morality doesn't define a Christian's life. Jesus does. Christianity ain't about moral works. It's about having faith in God which produces works to reciprocate the love He gave to us.
What was the question? You made a statement and the only thing I'm stmped about is how that's a question that will stump most of not all Christians...also it is about moral works. We are commanded to repent of unrighteousness. Repentance would be a change of heart, it's the Holy spirit who provides a person the ability to have a moral shift and now love what is good and hate was it evil. Your statement is flawed and only partially correct. The faith in the Triune God of the Bible is what causes morally good works. You can't claim to be for God and practice immorality. Especially if you think it's a get out of hell free card, as if anyone can trick God. Galatians 6:7&8 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Ephesians 4:17-32 Roman's 6:1-2
@@rebellee2364 Being saved from sin by Jesus's actions, does NOT prevent one from continuing to sin for the rest of their lives. The point is to honestly repent each time you do sin. The heart is what matters. The results are only evidence that your heart is honestly trying, not actual proof. For example a person can rarely sin, and not be a Christian, and another person can sin often and still be a Christian. The typical missunderstanding is from that all sin is the same to God. You either sinned or didn't sin. But our various cultures try to determine which sins are worse, and that changes depending on which culture. So in general some christians try to determine if someone is sinning to much to be a Christian. But we are bias acording to our culture. God is not bias. So only he can judge if someone's heart is honest even though they continue to sin at whatever rate. Us humans can only have general ideas of if someone who seems to sin too much to call themselves a Christian actually is or not. Only God can know 100%.
And therein lies the issue, Christians don't take responsibility for their morality, whether their morals be good or bad. Where as atheists do. We are responsible for ourselves, for all our actions whether they be moral or immoral. God is not responsible for my good deeds, Satan isn't responsible for my misdeeds. The credit for my accomplishments go to me, as does the credit for my mistakes. My actions are mine and mine alone.
Christopher answered his own question when he admitted that he knew that if he were to die, his brother Peter who is Christian would take care of his children. He then said he wasn't certain that he would do the same
@@rjserrano2 truism alert. If you want to be pedantic like that then literally an atheist can't believe in god because then he wouldn't be an atheist. Ruined yourself with your own stupidity
The thing is, though, there are some atheist who will take care of someone's children. It has to be something moral an atheist can't do, and loving God is by definition something an atheist can't do
@@cilharrington5457yeah because we love God we mutilate the genitals of babies. We oppress and cast out homosexuals because we love God! We burn the 'witches' at the stake because we love God! How moral!!! So much love 🖤!!!
@@cilharrington5457 Saying "Loving god is moral" is not a substantiated argument, it´s just a statement without any proof behind it. And citing the bible isn´t proving anything, only that the one citing it loves circles (an inherently moral thing ofc)
1. Love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind.. 2. Love your neighbor as you love yourself.. --- these are 2 things that can ONLY be accomplished by the Holy Spirit working in us.
That is what the people that declare themselves as the mouthpieces of God and so are 100% trustworthy make you believe - in the US they make 150 billion dollar yearly into their own pockets with that, tax-free.
What I find odd here is that I've never seen an answer infuriate atheist and pagans so much. It's strange because you would think that they wouldn't care about this moral statement, given they don't believe in God to begin with. If they truly believe God isn't real, then this moral statement is of zero consequence to them and their behavior should reflect this. I suppose it might not be an issue of disbelief in God then, that or a need to be seen as absolutely morally superior.
Loving your enemy is not moral. It may be a moral virtue, but its not moral. But by all means. Anyone who shows love to genocidal maniacs like certain german dictators could not be moral.
@@claymenefee6999 Could you please explain to me the difference between a moral and moral virtue? Also, love is not the same as acceptance. You can love someone and acknowledge that a bad thing that they’re doing is bad. It’s the “love the sinner, hate the sin” mentality which, admittedly, is a very tricksy and nuanced thing to do, but not impossible.
What are you talking about? The right answer is always be kind to others because you want to make someone’s day and because happiness makes the world a better place to live. That’s it. We don’t need a man-written book to tell us to be good people. If YOU need the threat of hell to ge a good person, then your most definitely NOT a good person.
@@ROVA00The threat of hell is not the reason why we are good. We do it because we love God and we want to bring Him glory. We want to be with Him after we leave this Earth. The only reason why people do good is because God is good, and we are created in His image! Yet doing good just isn't enough because we are all sinners. We live in an evil world filled with evil people so everyone is not doing good. Many people are choosing to do what is wrong. Who is going to punish such evil people? The judicial system? It does not always bring people justice. The Bible is written by man. Who else was going to write it? If we said the book was written by God Himself, I am sure you would have a problem with that too. There is just no way to win with some people.
@@marleeglenn1945 I would love to believe you but I simply don’t. I think you love the idea of God and the idea of heaven. Let me ask you something… if you KNEW for sure God didn’t exist (just for a second)… would you still try to be a good person? If the answer is no, then you’re not a good person. If the answer is yes, then you don’t need god to be a good person. You say “the only reason why people do good is because God is good, and we are created in His image”. However, you also say we are all sinners… if God created us in his image, why do we reflect the “good” in god, but not the “sinner” part? And finally, the reason why I don’t put my faith in the Bible is BECAUSE it was written by men. If God is all powerful, why does he need evil sinner men to speak for him. Is he not powerful enough to speak for himself? I’ll tell you, if the Bible was written by God it would be undeniably Godly. It would have no contradictions. It would have knowledge far beyond that which the people of the time had access to. And it’s simply not the case. The Bible is a book that is written with the knowledge and morals of the time. If the Bible was written by God it would not have ambiguous lessons that can be misinterpreted a hundred different ways. Most importantly; If it was written by God and intended for ALL humans, the Bible would have been written by people in the Americas and Asia as well. There is no reason why it should have only been revealed to people in the Middle East and put them in charge of “spreading the word” around the world.
Athiest can’t Pray. Bcs they don’t believe. They can’t have faith in God. Bcs they don’t believe. They can’t Worship Gof bcs they don’t believe. The thing we can do that they can’t is love God. Bcs *they don’t believe* .
If you are an atheist is there a difference between a moral statement or a personal opinion? If there is no external judge on morality then there cant be any right or wrong without it just being a personal opinion. You cant base it on what is good for humanity as a whole because that is down to personal opinions too
Love is a moral thing. So if a person does not love God, then that is a moral thing they can not do but a Christian can. So this is a generic moral statement, not a personal opinion. Morality is objective and not subjective.
Okay but that is where you both disagree. Whilst you believe it’s an opinion, he believes it’s a fact. So the question is invalid in itself because it meets this dichotomy.
The problem with this, is what is meant by "moral". Morality to a Christian is that which appeals to their God, and does not actually have anything to do with temporal consequences/impact.
@@shocklobster6266 The same way a wife gets mad at her husband when he tries to Cheat on her It IS not bad Plus The 1 Commandment IS meant for our own good not God's good
@@Guilherme-JK fornournown good yet God has all these things he gets upset over. Other gods dont exist in your world. Why on earth would he get upset over that. Your analogy doesnt work.
Atheists complaining this is a circular reasoning response or something of the like, don't realize they are assuming atheism is true to even make that point. Mike is making an excellent point here. If Christianity is true, then yes, the most important moral thing is to love God, and an atheist would fail completely at it. Sure, if it isn't true, then there is no failing and it's not really a moral act. But you have to assume one way is true over the other. So all in all, Hitchen's question was just stupid to begin with if people are going to assume atheism true and not take anyone's Christian response seriously. 🙄
Of course we assume atheism is true, you haven’t shown us anything to show your claims to be true. Second, there isn’t any moral value to loving a god. If God is real, you are obeying a commandment. It’s not a choice and that is the root of every moral value. You are either obeying a commandment or disobeying it. Atheists have the ability to obey a commandment. If the atheist is correct you are not performing a moral act because you are effectively doing nothing at all, which, unsurprisingly, is a thing an atheist can do.
@@Mostlyharmless1985 The concept of "assuming x to be true" is a matter of the person's inability/lack of desire to do a simple thought exercise. As a Christian, I can still put aside my personal worldview and attempt a thought exercise on "what would the world look like if atheism were true?" I'm just noting that most the atheists in the comments section here display a complete inability to exercise their imaginations and work out the implications of other worldviews (or their own.) No one needs to give you evidence that Christianity is true in order for you to work out a simple hypothetical scenario. As for your claim, "there isn't any moral value to loving God," I just have to ask- how on earth do you substantiate such a claim? What if I said, "there is no moral value to loving (your parents,) (your children,) (your neighbors,) etc" would that strike you differently? Do you really think loving others is not a moral value? If you do, how can you be sure you can exclude God from this list, given that the Christian God existd? It makes sense under Christianity why there is moral value to loving God. He, like the others in the example, is a personal being. Moreover He created you! So Mike's argument stands: an atheist cannot love God, the highest moral commandment in Christianity is to love God, therefore there is a moral thing to do that only a Christian could do that an atheist cannot. Let me do a thought exercise regarding Hitchens' question "given atheism." If atheism is true, there is no god. Everything that exists, exists without design, purpose, or intention. There is no transient law giver, no transcendent purpose or meaning to life. All morality is therefore an illusory concept we have created for our societies, "for human flourishing," so there is no moral objective standard- only emotionally driven or otherwise logically driven codes of ethics that vary. Who is to say eugenics is really wrong, since it promotes human genetic flourishing? So no, there is no moral difference between the actions of an atheist or a Christian. But this is only the case given atheism. So what I said still stands: the atheists here are answering this question only according to the hypothesis "given atheism" and not putting forth any effort to consider the question "given Christianity"
@@spazzyjazzy6367Let’s play along. If Christianity is true, morality can’t come from your god, because he is a monster that’s killed and tortured more innocent people than all genocidal dictators combined, so if you are a decent person, your morality literally cannot come from him, so your point is moot.
@@dross4207 Wow, you really got us there. Never heard an atheist try that before. 🙄🙄🙄 Sorry God's just wrath is a difficult concept to grasp, but it just goes to prove my point again how many atheists just simply can't fully work out the logical implications of a different worldview being true, because if that's your conclusion, then dang lol good luck with that one. See if that works before the God of Christianity. Don't even try to work out the math to reconcilr his justice, grace and mercy. Don't even try to understand. Does it really make logical sense that you would have better morality than the one who created you?
Do you know where morals come from? U don’t Believe in God. Human morals change every day. How do you know what is right from wrong? The thing u athiest cannot do is worship God. That’s an action has much as faith and love. U cant pray or have faith in God or worship God. Therefore u cant love God
The problem is that what qualifies as a "moral" to an atheist may vary to that of a Christian, such as withholding from conceiving out of wedlock. The atheist wouldn't see that as a problem, but sexual immorality wouldn't be considered bad by anyone at all, unless an outside person said otherwise. What would keep a man from multiple wives or a women multiple husbands? Why would a man and a woman wait to marry before conceiving a child? Only a non-human entity would provide that kind of moral code. Otherwise there would be no reason to withhold oneself from whatever actions they see fit.
Not only that, but while it’s possible, but far less likely, is the command to love your enemies. While we as Christians aren’t always perfect in this, I think it happens far more regularly amongst Christians than our atheist counterparts.
@@Mostlyharmless1985 Well, the Bible does give reasons for things, but if there was any being that had the authority to say "do as I say" it would certainly be the being who created me, you, the earth, and the universe. Of course, if you don't agree with God, that's okay, you can form your own subjective moral code; you wouldn't be the first to do that.
@@claytonhall989 by what right does a creator have to demand obedience from their creation? Answer: they don’t have any such right. Deistic fiat is still subjective.
@@Mostlyharmless1985I honestly thought I would never read such a sad response 😢. However, I guess I’m not shocked. If you don’t think that it’s a good idea to do what the creator of the universe says then you won’t be forced to. Lucifer also disobeyed God because he wanted to do what he wanted rather than what God asked of him. I just said a prayer for you.
Or like Tinkerbell. You just have to believe! Why can’t they understand how insane religion is? And why is there a thousand denominations of Christianity? I guess people just can’t admit they could possibly be wrong.
The ressurection od Jesus is an event so important that historian all over the world divide history with before and after Christ, Most of the early scientifique finding were the result of recherche from à lot of Christian We can read a book and say there is no auther but without the auther there can be no book We can see creation (because it is confirme that the universe isn't infinite expansion, black sky illuminated by stars, big band theory) And say there no God but without God there is no creation
Second, faith wouldn't be faith if you saw it and then believe it, Faith is an assurance it that wich can't see, it is believing, thinking and acting according to the believe that Jesus that on the cross for our sins and 3 days later rose again vaquinshing death, thus showing us the way to live and truth that is father God
@@pierrelundy5004 the Romans forced a single calendar onto all the nations they came into contact with not because of the importance of Christ but to make organisation and trade easier. They also had the most accurate calendar and other than a minor change by Pope Gregory it is essentially the same calendar we use today.
One of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
There is only one True God that Jesus Christ our saviour. It is rightly written that a Fool dispises knowledge and I can see why after I was an atheist and returned to Christian as Jesus showed me how it blinded me . May Jesus christ enlight us.
Glory to God, who allows priests in these churches to sexually abuse children, while God watches. Also this guy's response to Christopher Hitchens is to "love god". Which one? Your religion was prescribed to you by your parents or whatever part of the world you live in.
"for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lists shall they help to themselves teachers, having itching ears;" 2 Timothy 4:3 KJV
As a second, loving your neighbour as yourself. Some people are nice but dont actually love others, not truly love. You can only live others through loving God as we can love with his love. Its hard, i don't think its easy but anything is possible with God
You mean how more secular societies almost always fare better in crime rates, prosperity, equality, freedom, democracy, women’s rights, human rights, educational attainment and life expectancy? Yeah, maybe God is out on his lunch break still.
@@NeutralMjolkHotel Western secular societies are still held together by Judeo Christian values. Your analysis of the statistics is very low resolution thinking. Morality in any society is largely derived from some religious text. Show me a secular society that evolved from zero religion and we can have a conversation. Extremes in either direction will likely produce a society with bad outcomes.
@@heartpath1 There is not a single secular community on earth that hasn't "evolved" from a religion (funny you should phrase it that way, because you probably don't believe in evolution and evolution implies the end result is better than what you started out with). Morality is most definitely not derived from religious texts.
@@ronjones1414 Is it safe to assume you are siding with the Christian in this video? If so, the guy talks about the "Christian God". I don't understand how if you were to love, follow, obey, worship ECT, this Christian God, should be considered a moral action or proof it's moral in the first place? Wouldn't it be immoral to others religious faith, who dont subscribe to Christianity, biblical scriptures, doctrine ECT. Idolatry is immoral and considered a sin. A atheist could also convert. A atheist could love to hate the idea of the Christian God. What if someone genuine believes the Christian God is immoral and would be immoral to follow? The Christian God has done many questionable things like the complete destruction of entire cities and flooding the Earth.
In the Baltimore Catechism, the first questions is: Why did God make me? Answer: God made me to love , know and serve him in this world and to be happy with him in the next.
@@vincentrusso2707 John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
@@vincentrusso2707 Oh really then who is a God which gives 72 hoors A fake God Allah who said to kill the non believer. Jesus said in John ch 10:30 I and the father are same If you have seen me you have seen the God. In revelation Jesus christ said I am the Almighty God . When disciples of Jesus Christ called him God he didn't refused them. Moses was following the law and instructions of God and Jesus christ said I am the law of Moses so even a fifth grader could understand that Moses was praying to Jesus christ.
@@believers-km1xz As opposed to the "real" god you believe in who committed genocide. More than once. Among other actrocities. I know you'll tell me I'm wrong about your holy book, that I'm viewing it through a skewed lens. That's precisely what one of the world's 2 billion Muslims would tell me if I criticized theirs, & they believe just as passionately & earnestly as you do. That's one of the reasons why proclaiming that it is morally good to love a god, in & of itself, is pointless.
Well I don’t really believe in beating my slaves as long as they don’t die within a few days, or well owning another person at all for that matter. Not a big fan of genocide against the Malachites and Samarians. Forcing a virgin not pledged for marriage to marry her rapist, yeah not a big fan of that one. Atleast I know that I’m more moral than your god😚
The thing that pops into my mind is would it be moral to have the cure to cancer and not tell anybody? I don’t think so, so if you have the way to get to have eternal life shouldn’t you tell people? I think my answer would be a helping people get to heaven. I know a atheist could tell someone about Jesus but I don’t think they would if they didn’t believe it. There might be another flaw I don’t know that was just what I came up with.
@@Xerxes2005 willing the good of others is not an act. It's a shirking of responsibility. Not doing anything for their good. Just wishing them well. You cannot just define a word as something it isn't and call it job done.
@@fancypantsmanface2445 Of course if we're talking of moral acts it implies that willing the good of others is acted upon... I should have said that "love" is actively willing the good of others. When Christ commanded to love each other, He wasn't asking us to simply have good feelings towards each others. You can dislike someone, and still love him.
@@Xerxes2005 And how exactly is that not possible for an atheist? Even accepting that something that is not love or an act is both. Wishing someone well is something a dog is capable of. It's why they're worried when you're gone.
@@fancypantsmanface2445 The dog is mainly worried because it's alone... Anyhow, I never said an atheist is unable to love, although the part about loving your enemy (meaning actively willing the good of your enemy) may be a little harder. It's even hard for Christians, so... I was simply answering your statement that love is not a moral act. It can be. And if you believe in God and that God (who is the very act of Being itself) is the very source of your own being and the being of all that exist, then loving God becomes an important moral act. Furthermore, loving what (and most importantly who) God loves becomes a moral act.
Absolutely true❤ Another thing I always think of is… The blood… We need the blood. That’s the whole point …we can be good, we can do good, etc. but we must have His blood on the doorpost of our heart and mind… it’s all about the blood - most people don’t realize they need a savior. That’s the bottom line. I get why atheists or people that don’t think they need Jesus think the way they do. You have to KNOW that you need a savior. In other words “blessed are the poor in spirit“ because those are the people who know they need the blood.
God the Son Jesus Christ (God in the flesh) shed His Blood and died on the cross for our sins. He died in our place to atone for our sins because we cannot. Only Jesus Christ is worthy as the sacrificial Lamb for mankind. That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
I just saw "Blood" everywhere and thought it was a troll comment that was going to end up in "i love Satan" XDD. Do you actually believe in all of this cannibalistic stuff? You can say all of that with a straight face?
@@maxwell8758 which insinuation or what did I write that is not in the Word of God, or do you think is misleading? Does the truth offend you? The truth is not always easy why do you think the bible says in Matthew 7:14 “Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” And in 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” Luke 12:5 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!
@@CaveCanem74 Again, you’re citing the Bible to convince someone who doesn’t believe in the Bible. It’s useless. It’s not moral or immoral to love god. His response sucked because he should have just been honest and said that there is no good thing a religious person can do that an atheist can’t. He’s despicable for suggesting otherwise. Loving or believing in god is not moral or immoral. It is independent of yours goodness.
@@maxwell8758 The ultimate and most important good thing that a believer can do and is commanded to do that an unbeliever cannot do is to love God. You will never love God as long as you believe you don’t need Him. And if you don’t repent He will give you your hearts desire which appears to be to be separated from Him. Again no one here has attempted to answer how life can come from nothingness. The reason you deny God is because you “suppress the truth in unrighteousness. And whether you choose to trust in Christ’s death and resurrection or not is your choice, but God tells me to preach the gospel to all whether they want to hear it or not. So I will continue here as well as anywhere else. I will tell you the truth whether you want to here it or not. You have one life, and no one knows the day or hour it will end. So maybe you will not hear it but someone else here might receive the truth so as to save their soul. Ps. Doing good will not save you, only trusting in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
@@CaveCanem74 This is what I can’t stand about religion. You are so patronizing and immoral. You really think I suppress truth? How insulting. I don’t choose what I believe. I don’t choose not to believe in god. I don’t choose not to believe in Santa Claus. There is no evidence. And you don’t know what you’re talking about. The universe did not come from nothing. At least not in the way you describe. I’m studying physics and I’m getting my degree next month. I just defended my senior thesis two days ago. The universe did not come from nothing. No model suggests this. The only time scientists use the word nothing associated with the Big Bang, like Lawrence Krauss, he is using the scientific use of the word nothing; referring to the uncertainty in energy of the vacuum due to the fluctuation of quantum fields. The more I study physics, the less I see a need for god. Lastly, if your god says that the most moral thing you can do is love him, then you worship an evil god. A good god wouldn’t want his children to literally need him to be good. You are not a good person.
A profound distinction arises when comparing the capacity for a believer and an atheist to profess the sentiment, "I harbor affection for all individuals." The rationale behind this differentiation lies in the inherent contradiction of professing love for entities that an atheist, by definition, does not hold belief in. This contradiction undermines the very essence of love, as it involves the affectionate acknowledgment of a creator" Which is God, Jesus Christ Holy and blessed be his name", one who not only holds genuine love for the individual but also serves as the foundation of their existence, all of which is contingent upon the affirmation of the creator's existence.
First grade. Catholic school. My first trip to the principal's office. I had gotten a pretty good grip on what hell was all about. In class I told our teacher, a nun, that I understood: fire, torture, eternal suffering etc. But I was a bit hazy on heaven. Like what happens there? What do we do in heaven? Her answer was, "Love God." I thought about that for a second and, in my six year wisdom, replied, "All day?" The entire class burst out laughing and she never said a word; just pointed at the door.
@@fishjj76 one that no one has ever answered . No one has ever returned to give us a review and there is very little in the New Testament reputedly said by Jesus - maybe "in my father's house are many mansions" but that is hardly a description.
That's actually a really complicated question because nobody knows the answer. There are a bunch of theories though, and one of the most interesting ones is that heaven isn't a place so much as it's a state of being. Within that very going to heaven is somewhat to being invited to the cool kids party, with hell simply being the state of being not invited. In other words, the punishment for not fostering a relationship with god is simply not having one, and the reward for pursuing one is having one, which regardless of whether you believe it's the right interpretation or not, it would be rather fitting.
C.S. Lewis talks about this in Mere Christianity: Everything on earth that is good and brings joy to man has it's root in God, being the source of all good in the universe. Therefore being in communion with God in heaven is assuredly the highest joy possible. I'm sorry you got sent to the principal for asking a valid question.
I would add to that, obeying God. God's love language. To love God is to obey him (1 Jo 5:3). Thank you Mike for your ministry, a faithful servant of the Most a high God.
That's possibly even better. I don't know whether an atheist would consider 'love' a moral thing... because they don't understand that morality is actually from God.
There is only one True God that Jesus Christ our saviour. It is rightly written that a Fool dispises knowledge and I can see why after I was an atheist and returned to Christian as Jesus showed me how it blinded me . May Jesus christ enlight us.
So you could not love your mother, your siblings, your wife, your children, your friends before somebody told you "Love God, then you are able to love"? Or is it that since you could understand words you were hammered with "All is ONLY because God, you are NOTHING, God is everything, you can do NOTHING good unless it is given to you by God?" Then welcome in a society that declares slavery as the ONLY possible way of life. How convenient for the Master's representatives that call themselves preachers.
I actually was already aware of that question and after pondering and praying my conclusion was “pleasing God”. It feels good when we put things together and they work as intended. God feels the same way when we do as we are intended.
Christian morality is subjective. Slavery was explicitly endorsed and encouraged, with detailed instructions on how it should be done. Most christians today would say that slavery is evil, and rightfully so. Christianity has been catching up with morality over the ages. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming and eventually they have to reevaluate their supposed “objective morality” to remain relevant in the contemporary culture. Then they have the audacity to say that they’re the source of the good morals of today. It’s patently ridiculous.
@@avishevin1976 I could give you COUNTLESS examples of this. Let's begin with one and then you let me know when you'd like another. Recently, a Bishop in Australia was attacked by a man with an opposing theological worldview. IMMEDIATELY after being attacked, the Bishop not only told the man he forgave him, but placed a hand on his head and prayed for him and told him that he loved him. Please, let me know when you're ready for the next example.
@@avishevin1976 "When have theists ever done that in fact and not just in theory?" I was answering your very direct question with a very direct and literal response. Was that not what I was supposed to do? How would you have liked me to address your question? Let's try that.
@@robertdavis3036 The point is the number of examples where theists engage in genocidal wars and utter persecution of minorities such as Jews or homosexuals. There is literally no evidence that theists are more likely to be forgiving and non-violent toward those who wrong them.
It's very easy for a reasonable person to deny seeing any moral value from loving God especially given that we cannot yet prove or even provide decent evidence for his existence
My man!! Not just any love but agape love. Because any who loves with agape love has been born from God and knows God! The kind od love that no man can love with except it be from God.
And he would say Why is loving god a moral action? How is it immoral to not love a god that allows -insert travesty here-, how is it immoral to dislike a god that allows a parasite to exist in the wild who's sole purpose is to live, eat, and nest in the eyeballs of children? This is possibly the dumbest argument I've ever heard a self-righteous theist propose.
Anyone who deliberately include every person in the world in their ingroup/tribe will feel agape love towards everyone, or at least have that potential. Christians on the other side, have the ingroup and the outgroup of non-christians. Which will inevitably lead to disdain for the outgroup, dispute the commandment to "love your enemy". This command just set up an impossible goal, doomed to failure.
Hitchens' question presupposes the non-existence of God😂😂 If God is real than Mike Winger is 100% correct. If God isn't real than Hitchens is 100% correct. The truth is that morality is tied with religion whether you like it or not.
@@zacheryeckard3051 Please tell me what particle of matter describes to us that morality exists outside of a non-naturalistic transcendent existence, i.e. "religion".
@@zacheryeckard3051 Morality is derivative of religion. Your fundamental beliefs about reality inform what you believe is good or bad behavior. Even "atheists" have to have a morality derivative of transcendent ideas that could just as easily be called "religion".
@@johnathanl8396 Nope. There are no transcendent ideas, least of all atheist ones, from which morality needs to describe. You're not even arguing, just blindly asserting that your way must be the case. Demonstrate your claims, the burden of proof is on you.
Always learning but never come to the knowledge of the truth. The man thinks he has wisdom, but is foolish in his pursuit of truth. Be not wise in your own eyes and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Thanks Mike and God bless you!
A yeah, a christian can try to please God, depending on what sect they are in and how much of the Bible they cherry pick on practicing. It gets even better if you add other gods in the equation, tons of ways of failing at pleasing the god you believe in, or maybe you don't believe in the correct one? The fact is, not all of the interpretations of the Bible can be correct, and not all the gods that are claimed to exist can exist; but they can all be wrong.
@@Cyborg_Lenin You’ve a problem with healing people or healing people in the name of God. The point is that atheists can’t do the latter which is the thread here.
@@snackler6102 first, is Atheist. Second, France. Third, i would, if any theist could present any evidence of its existence. I don't need to see it or feel it, we can demonstrate de existence of invisible and untouchable things with machines, like we did with Neutrinos and cosmic rays. So go on, present evidence that your god exists (and not any other god, it has to be evidence that only points to yours and have no other explanation), any convincing evidence would work. I am not resisting, i was a christian, i did not want do become an Atheist.
Those are the laws of the old covenant, not Christianity. Jesus said “a new commandment I give you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you.” But the Old Testament law was something you kept or you were in violation of the law. Jesus’ new commandment isn’t the new covenant. The new covenant is that God saves us through faith in Jesus and puts His laws in our heart. But we are saved by faith, not by keeping even Jesus’ new commandment.
The problem with this answer is that you're presupposing God exists. You can't do this here because the whole point of the argument that Hitchens is countering here is that God is the source of our morality. You can't just presuppose God exists in your response. You have not yet proven God exists and thus haven't proven that it is somehow "moral" to love him... No atheist will accept your presupposition and thus this answer will be monumentally unsatisfactory...
@@amac9044 Same goes as one cannot presuppose that God doesn't exist, when evidence around you shout for an intelligent creator, Christ himself is God in the flesh with many witnesses. I pray God will appear before you. Why believeing a moral God is still the best option? When you die, and you have faith in God and indeed God exist you will be living in an eternal bliss or if he didnt then just nothing, while if you dont and God exist, you shall be measured and be found wanting and terribly suffer eternal damnation. The problem with atheists whose hearts are hardened by their unbelief is that they will not afford salvation even if God is infront of them.. the sin of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Btw Mike opined on this check it out. “If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes. It cuts its own throat.” - cs lewis
@@josiahjudah3126 If you can't presuppose either answer then isn't the only intellectually honest answer "I don't know"...? The theist is the one making the positive claim though, so he/she takes on the burden of proof... What is this "evidence" that you claim "shouts for an intelligent creator"? I don't see it. How do you know that Christ existed and was divine? Because your holy book says so? Don't you realize that every other religion has their own holy book with their own similar divine and miracle claims? How did you determine yours were true and theirs were false? Why would you need to pray for God to appear before me? If he was all-powerful and wanted me to believe in him wouldn't he just take that responsibly upon himself? What you're doing in your second point is just rehashing Pascal's Wager (The "why not just believe just in case god does exist" argument). You're hedging your bet on the off-chance a god actually does exist. The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it doesn't account for the thousands of different, mutually incompatible god's out there....What if you chose the wrong god to believe in and we're both screwed? What if the Muslim god is the one true god and we're both doomed to eternal damnation? This is why the "what if you're wrong" argument utterly fails. The best option is always to look at the evidence and follow where it leads. On a sided note: do you think it is rational to follow a god I don't know how you could begin to categorize all atheists as with "hardened hearts" (whatever that means), but I assure you it's not for lack of rationality. It's for lack of evidence. I don't see naturalism as being irrational or impossible but you must understand that atheism and naturalism are not one in the same. I've never claimed to be a naturalist and I don't know whether or not naturalism is true but I don't see the same problem with it that you and C.S. Lewis apparently do. Just because we don't fully understand something does not give us justification to make up an explanation....
@@amac9044 Stating a negative, means having burden of proof as well. A positive can be proven, and a negative can be proven. When you claim something does not exist, you have burden of proof, that it doesn't. If I say, there is no Treasure Planet movie, or, I don't believe there to be a Treasure Planet movie, then I would assume burden of proof for that negative claim. You online atheists, come to Christian videos and channels, stating and making claims, either directly or in context, for the non-existence of God, and so you are indirectly assuming burden of proof. While we know now, there to be a Treasure Planet movie, what about 100 years into the future, or 2000 years. What would be convincing you, that the movie existed? Physical proof? There is archeological evidence for Jesus, and DNA is very much complex genetic information, that works and behaves according to a design, that if anything was in the wrong place, it would break down and cease to function. You know water that is so important for life? It breaks down DNA, it damages it, if no mechanic to somehow protect DNA was already in place, it could not be in the first place. What came first, the stomach, or the acid to break down things in the stomach? When claiming macro, you cant have both things, it's either or, because the claim of evolutionism is one thing after another over long time. Problem with this, is the cambrian explosion, that shows sudden appearance of species, like trilobites that have perfect eye lenses, that photographers have found out solves the fish eye lense perspective effect. Since it appear sudden, with no prior lineage, then it could not have evolved. Genetic information is lost over time, not gained, and so by proxy, by default, macro-evolution is impossible. Humanity is becoming dumber, not smarter, claiming increasing intelligence, is to claim increasing complexity and gaining of information, which is in opposition to and conflicts with science. So, if you hold to the idea of evolutionism, which many atheists are, then in truth, it is you who are opposed to science, not believers. In your belief, nothing matters, and life is meaningless, humans are nothing but biological machines ruled by chemical signals that reacts depending on situation and surroundings, but despite not having basis for free will, acts and behaves very much like they believe free will to exist, and tries to convince believers to become nonbelievers, when believing in God is simply just a nature that is neither wrong nor incorrect, yet atheists view and treat belief in God as if anything opposing their naturalism view and belief, is somehow, wrong, incorrect, false, and immoral. LOL XD
You are mistaken. A large majority of Atheists are actually ex-Christians who studied the bible, saw the Ja-heesus grift for what it is, and then left the religious cult of control freaks ASAP.
I was lost when I was younger a drinking, partying, christian by name rather than by practice or belief. When my brother died, I realised that there was more to life than being the Lad and acting to impress people. After I turned to God and read passages of the Bible and I feel so much more fulfilled because of this, as Jesus’ most important teaching said Mark 12:30-31 “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself'. There is no commandment greater than these.” Please tell your children my story, when they grow to an age where they become more independent, that they can live their life how they please but to always remember and abide by God’s teachings. Amen ❤️❤️
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. This passage alone is enough to know youre worshipping a monster. Oh but there is so much more
I have questions. How is loving your god a moral act? How do you love a god? What does that look like? I'd say it like this, first prove your god exists and THEN you can show how you love your god.
The problem with this answer is that you're presupposing God exists. You can't do this here because the whole point of the argument that Hitchens is countering here is that God is the source of our morality. You can't just presuppose God exists in your response. You have not yet proven God exists and thus haven't proven that it is somehow "moral" to love him... No atheist will accept your presupposition and thus this answer will be monumentally unsatisfactory...
@@thelandofnod123 I don't understand the phrasing "pray back" as of God was praying to us, but sure, we are commanded to pray often which entails praying for others.
@@Nov_Net seems like the definition of self defeatism. Or perhaps the commandment to pray is just another device invented by your religion to assert control over you. Because we all know if you don’t pray you mustn’t love god and you will be judged and punished.
Truth. Agape is something many say is "Love as God loves" or "A Divine Love" versus the 17 other Greek words for love like Philia, Storge, or Eros. Difficult to show "Divine Love" if you don't believe in the Divine
Well, I certainly didn't know this was going to be a "Tell me you don't know what a moral act is without telling me you don't know what a moral act is. I'll go first." video
Impossible. You can’t love something you don’t know. Do you love your future girlfriend yet? No, you have to meet her first, find out things about her, then you can begin to feel love for her and towards her in the stirrings of your own heart. The same is of course true of god.
Whenever I hear these types of arguments and see how some try to belittle Christians, I remember 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 (especially the NLT version) and I just smile to myself. To think that God understands humankind so well that he predicted this kind of thinking, and had the wisdom to instruct us about it 2000 years ago, is just amazing.
Another simple one is creation. Because if an atheist believes in creation they can no longer be an atheist because they would have to admit to a power outside of creation. Which oddly enough would be the definition of a creator. Another one, an atheist can never be a believer of any faith based religion. For the same reason. Once they believe they are no longer an atheist.
What athiest would believe that everything was creating by something? Can you give me evidence to prove that everything was created by a god/person, whatever? And with the faith based religions, yes you’re literally just describing the definition of an athiest😭
We could also pose another possible answer. The one thing a Christian ( religious person) can do that an atheist can not. Have morals. A true atheist will have no need for morals because to believe that you are just a random piece of life means it's survival of the fittest. There would be no right or wrong. Simply existing. So if you claim to have morals you can not also claim to be atheist. For there to be right or wrong someone somewhere had to decide what was right and wrong. But what's the point of that if we are just random clumps of flesh? You could claim to control people. But then there wouldn't be any universal sense of right or wrong. And yet there are. Possibly shown in different ways through culture but still present. For example, stealing. Through most ever culture this is considered wrong to some degree. It might not be seen as wrong to steal from an enemy but to steal from a friend would be considered wrong. In other cultures stealing to any degree is wrong. But it will still be viewed in a negative way to some point in every setting. If morals are only for controlling people why would that naturally apply as it does? Little children who have no idea what right or wrong is still know that getting something taken from them doesn't feel good and they argue constantly over it. Universal morals can not be explained by an atheist in a way that does not include some form of creator. To set the standard for morals to begin with.
@@berbberb6029 we could go in circles trying to convince each other of our personal views. So I will answer your question with a question. Have you ever tried to explain the concept of color to a person blind from birth? For a believer it's the same issue explaining God. There is evidence but the one being shown must be willing to see it. Otherwise they will be blind to it. Then no argument will be enough. That's why the entire principal of a relationship with God is based on faith.
Sounds liek God made him expressly not to beleive so god had an excuse to torture him while pretending it wasn't predetermined. Doesn't suond lovable at all. You wouldn't want to love a creator who made you just to torture you forever and ever and ever.
Morality simply means maximising the welfare of our fellow man without causing harm . What's that got to do with god who belongs to the category of Peter pan, voldemort, tinkerbell , thanos , son gocu? 🤣🤣🤣
Made me immediately think of this verse “Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” -John 6:29 We believe
I think when an Atheist speaks of Morality, He has no Grounds to stand and define what Morality consists and Justify why is it Moral... You'd now point the fact that the Govt. sets the moral standards, but that's again a council of the same human with 26 chromosomes who'd have lied, committed sin in their heart, and would have even committed adultery in heart... Atheists at first can't justify the Moral Standard, and thus it's pointless for answering the question of "What is it that Atheist can't do which Christians do calling it Moral?" All of us are Immoral, none of us are Moral and none can ever be Moral... The one person who was Moral and is Moral is Christ Jesus, and it's because He is Moral, we are made Moral for what that Moral and Just GOD in person did on that cross..❤
@MemeLordCrusader no one follows.. We are all Sinners, we make mistakes and fall short. That's why we need a Savior to save us from the wages of Sin... That's why Jesus came to Earth, Died the Death and paid the penalty that we had to pay, and rose again from the Dead so that we can also rise again from the dead and be with The Father in Heaven...
@MemeLordCrusader nope... Fear is a Part in the Journey, but Fear isn't Ever the Beginning of the Walk... Never... If it is, then it isn't Faith pal... Even if the beginning was of Fear, if that person truly searches through the scripture and reads about what GOD did for him/her, the Fear of Hell WILL BE Overshadowed by LOVE because of the Calvary..
Hey, when an Atheist speaks of Morality, He has no Grounds to stand and define what Morality consists and Justify why is it Moral... You'd now point the fact that the Govt. sets the moral standards, but that's again a council of the same human with 26 chromosomes who'd have lied, committed sin in their heart, and would have even committed adultery in heart... Atheists at first can't justify the Moral Standard, and thus it's pointless for answering the question of "What is it that Atheist can't do which Christians do calling it Moral?" All of us are Immoral, none of us are Moral and none can ever be Moral... The one person who was Moral and is Moral is Christ Jesus, and it's because He is Moral, we are made Moral for what that Moral and Just GOD in person did on that cross..❤
@@pravaltojefersondo you understand what morality is? There is a set definition of “good,” and “bad.” Anyone can provide a reason as to why they believe something fits either of those two words. The whole grounding argument is nonsense. Morality is subjective based on values; both personal and societal. The government has nothing to do with morality. What you’re referring to is societal laws. Those have nothing to do with morality. Please educate yourself.
@@Sti0131 You can't define the core of what good is and what bad is until you have the source of good and bad. You can't tell that rape is bad until you explicitly get into the details of it. Anyone can say what's right & wrong, but never be able to Justify it.. That's the point.. You can't prove why self-harm is bad, why suicide is bad.. you can say its bad, and tell few cons of it, but you'll never be able to understand the realm of thoughts and the unknown until you get into the details of it. All you can do is distinguish, and that too is done on a relative basis, but never an absolute standard, because atheists don't really even have a stance on absolute as a whole. We humans are relative in many ways which is what causes divisions, disharmony, discourse, discord and finally wars and wars between groups... If there existed a true standard of an absolute morality and every human is bound to it, then there will be no such classification of what is good and what is bad since everyone is in the standard.. Since the standard is no more absolute, the relativity difference between individual causes disharmony... Sit down and think pal, you never thought these and I bet on it. And yeah, I request you to educate yourself first before asking me to educate. Thanks!
@@pravaltojeferson I just explained it to you. It is based on the definition of “good” and “bad.” It’s that simple. I can come up with what I define as good and then lay out why something would fall under that category. Everyone’s definition of “good” and “bad” is different depending on values. I don’t care how many times you say I can’t justify it. I just did. Also, morality based on Christianity or any other religion is also subjective because it doesn’t cover every single scenario. For example, is killing in self defense bad? Show me where in the Bible you derive your answer from. Oh that’s right you can’t. It’s subjective. Now you sit down and go do more research before getting back to me. Everything you said above is pure nonsense and a waste of my time to had to have read it. You have no idea what you’re talking about. You don’t realize how ridiculous and contradictory your belief and position is, and yet you think it is more rational and logical than actually providing a rational reason.
@@pravaltojefersonI remember the priests in Rwanda who called for genocide - I remember God telling Moses to kill the midianites and keep the virgin women. Religion has no right to preach why is moral
Anyone who is dying. An atheist cannot comfort someone who’s dying. However a belief in the afterlife doesn’t mean you believe in god. Apparently the spiritual realms are full of people who Still don’t believe in God. For faith in god only comes through coming to know him by the personal emotional relationship.
@@winterroadspokenword4681 To me it still seems pretty comforting that we will just turn into something else and will still be a part of this universe. "The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another"
If you practice loving god, it's basically being present and feeling your being, which is becoming more aware/conscious. Being aware, you are likely to behave and think more healthy.
Christopher Hitchens discussed this very well. He does not believe that loving God is moral, because God commands us all to love Him, on the pain of eternal damnation. He believes that compelled love is not moral.
The key in that is he believes that. What an individual believes is opinion not moral. If morality is just what we think it is then there is no morality at all. Morality literally cannot exist to an atheist. They can have a common opinion on actions that are bad for society as a whole and need to be prevented, but no true morals.
That is not a moral answer. especially with the imorality that is god. That has literally nothing to do with god. but i do not expect much from this person who made this video he does not understand what he is doing. it is just so sad that people like yourself gets tricked by him.
@@havtor007 take it uo with hitchens. You guys always claim morality is subjective yet we're not allowed to use our own moral standard when answering a question like this.
@@HalcyonVoid It absolutely is, but just saying "nuh, uh" isn't much of an argument. Christ sums up the entire law by saying, "Love God above all else, and treat your neighbor the way you want to be treated." Paraphrasing of course.
@@UgliestManOnEarth-69 Do you believe love is a moral good? To love people, earth, and ideas? You’d agree this is good or not? Hatred is a moral evil. When does hate provide something good? Then if you can answer those then you have to address loving your enemies, because you have three options imo. But typically only two when confronted with your enemy: love your enemies, hate your enemies, avoid your enemies. So what is the moral thing to do for your enemies?
It’s a moral thing because if you give love to a being that may not exist, then you are giving your heart to the ideals that you feel that being embodies and rewards people for. The idea that people will do good with the belief that the reward for that good comes in the hereafter inspires people to do much good with no thought of reward coming from another person. Or in other words, they engage in charity which is a moral act. Go read the book “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Tom Woods. With as much as you may disagree with the title, you will see undeniable good and monumentally influential things done by many people for thousands of years with no thought of reward. And I say that having never been a Catholic with ZERO chance of ever becoming a Catholic. Who cares if people also believe in a fictional being? It’s more harmful to believe in real politicians and governments than to believe in God.
@@FTTLOMS your thoughts are very amazing But I think you are mistaking 1 thing, that a person can respect and embody someone's personality like say Gandhi, without needing to having to love them or pray them and stuff like that Plus with a lots of religion the biggest emphasis goes on not to becoming a person like him , the god , instead to just pray to him consistently even no matter how rotten to your core u are
@@FTTLOMS for example the worst sin in Christianity is blasphemy against the holy spirit What does that thing tells u about what the main motivation of this religion is
@@endlesslearning26 thank you for the response. But I did not mistake that people can also feel the same about a non-deity such as Gandhi. That would be a valid argument of you were also posing the same question as Mr. Dawkins who asked if something moral can be said by a person of faith that an atheist cannot also say. Your question was simply about the morality of believing in a non-existent entity. Which is what I answered. Of course people can feel the same about a living person. One might say people felt that way about Jesus while he lived. Others may feel that way about a pope. If I were to answer Mr. Dawkins’ question, however, I would say saving ordinances and performing blessings by the power of the priesthood. I am of the LDS faith and all worthy men are priesthood holders and are authorized to give blessings of healing and comfort, counsel and direction. Each geographic area called a Stake is assigned a patriarch who performs special blessings for those who seek them and these are recorded as a once-in-a-lifetime blessing and all are statements of moral direction, belief and faith that a non-believing person would not be able to utter. But that’s just what I’d say as a first thing off the top of my head. Hope that helps.
@@endlesslearning26 I am not certain what it would say to you about Christianity if they say the worst sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. From my understanding that sin is only possible if one has been the receiver of such miraculous manifestation that you have a sure knowledge of the existence of God such that you no longer even need faith because that faith has been laid to rest by first hand knowledge and then you turn away again, then it is your own knowledge that puts you in a place where Gods mercy cannot extend and justice holds full sway. It’s unforgivable because one is refusing forgiveness. It’s like if you hear that your father dies in a plane crash far out to sea and you grieve but then move on with life and 5 years later he is found and returns home alive and you look him dead in the face and maybe even touch him physically and then say, “Well I’ve already learned I can live without you, so you might as well remain dead to me” and you just turn your back on him. Assuming he was a good dad and never hurt anyone and fulfilled his responsibilities as a dad previously, people will say, “hey, what’s wrong with you!?” and keep inviting you over to see your dad, to visit at the holidays etc. but you keep saying, no, I’ve learned that I need no father. It’s just as well that I never had a father. But then when he really dies and it turns out he sold books about his adventures lost at sea and is now a mega millionaire and he leaves you nothing in his will, then you don’t get to whine about it. That’s my understanding of it. And I don’t think it says anything about Christianity. I think is says exactly what is reasonable about relationships. Hope that helps.
A profound distinction arises when comparing the capacity for a believer and an atheist to profess the sentiment, "I harbor affection for all individuals." The rationale behind this differentiation lies in the inherent contradiction of professing love for entities that an atheist, by definition, does not hold belief in. This contradiction undermines the very essence of love, as it involves the affectionate acknowledgment of a creator" Which is God, Jesus Christ Holy and blessed be his name", one who not only holds genuine love for the individual but also serves as the foundation of their existence, all of which is contingent upon the affirmation of the creator's existence.
Issue is that they will always move the goalposts to redefine what is “moral” because they don’t actually have any beliefs other than their belief of self-superiority rooted in hedonism
Hitchens said moral ACTION and then you tried underhandedly to switch it to moral IMPERATIVE. That is a very important distinction that completely changes the question entirely.
@@masterful1234567890 murdering innocent’s is the worst action you can commit to another person. But Mankind was not created to “not kill” but to bring glory to God, so as bad as killing the innocent is, it technically does not directly conflict with our primary purpose of existence. Though it does rob others of their ability to love God
@@masterful1234567890 if one Loves God, then one would know that God hates those who lay and wait to murder the innocent. I dont really see the problem.
@@iagoofdraiggwyn98 Actually he doesn’t hate them as long as they repent. So who cares about morality under Christianity as long as you repent? Under Christianity, if you’re a good person but simply just don’t believe in God, you’re doomed. But, if you did evil things then “repent” you get into Heaven. Seems like a broken, immoral system to me.
@@masterful1234567890 IF they repent, then yeah. However, if you simply think repenting is just saying sorry, then I dont really think you fully understand what that entails and the absolute depths that can be reached when one understand what repentance is. Aside from that, you seem to offer a rather narrow means of viewing morality. In your example, of the 'good' non-believer and the 'evil' repenter. Good, by which metric? Evil in which context? And who said that either was the other?
I love when you get quiet and listen to the guidance of the 7 Spirits of God Ahayah and you get enlightened with deeper truth and revelation of a subject.
![Summer Walker - Heart Of A Woman [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SFddctbZzw8/mqdefault.jpg)
I tell my kids, "The MOST important thing we do is love God. Everything else is just a reflection of that."
@@ayybeealternative1999 Would you instill the morals you believe to be true into your children? If so, why would you not let them think for themselves? This question is so stupid.
Edit: I apologize for saying the question is stupid; however, I fail to see its significance regarding OP's comment. Just to instill your morals in your children is not "indoctrinating" them, any more than sending them to public or private school is.
@@ayybeealternative1999 Of course I let them think for themselves. I can't make them think any certain way. My job is to train them the facts of the Bible. They think the way they want.
You act like teaching something is the same as making someone think a certain way.
Do I make them behave a certain way? At 5 years old, YES, yes absolutely I do. Because if I didn't they would eat nothing but candy, never take a shower, stick forks in power outlets, and be a drain on society. And really, that goes for them when they are 20 years old if they live in my house. But that's not going to happen. My kids are out at 18.
Erikk, you are a parent of guiding light.
"The reflections of that" done biblically, causes serious pain and suffering to others.
@@paulustarsus I don't always feel like it, but I sure am trying.
27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
This was a solid "click" moment for me. Thank you for posting it. I need to read my bible more.
All of these are either not unique to religion, or have nothing to do with morality, or are flat out immoral.
@@Rallylabs which are immoral?
@@RallylabsI still love you, and hope for you is not lost.
That is the TLDR. Slap away, my cheek is ready.
this statement by Christ refutes and fully satisfied hitchens' claim that such a statement cannot be done. Christ hits it on so many different levels, Hitchens' was entertaining and I loved listening to his slaps, arguments and his eloquence, but Matthew 5 in the beatitudes alone quenched this argument by the Hitch
“Hindus are more moral than Christians.”
“Really? What’s something moral that Hindus do that Christians can’t do?”
“Worship Vishnu of course”
Edit: I had said Buddha and Buddhists before the edit but many have corrected me since, Buddhists don’t worship any gods.
But I’m a Christian who loves Buddha
You love buddha as you love a teacher.
This man says it likes its good because he just is our creator.
Considering the moral example god sets in the book. "God fearing" is apt
@@gianni206 just change the word “love” to “worship” and the analogy still holds. The point is, only Christians see loving the Christian god as moral, it’s a poor example of something moral that a Christian can do that an Atheist can’t.
“Atheists are more moral than Christians.”
“Really? What’s something moral an Atheist does that a Christian can’t do?”
“Not worship any deities of course”
Only an atheist would consider that moral so it’s an eye roll of an answer.
I agree. The premise is built on the difference in view. However I think it's pretty obvious. Anything moral based on its absolute ethic, not on some theoretical belief that is purely relative.
@@batteryacids5319 Did you hurt yourself when you made that big stretch?
Hitchens’ question was answered, and all you guys can do is be butthurt about it.
Theists are also capable of not worshipping deities, even ones they believe in, so your point is moot- which is ironic coming from the guy “eye-rolling”. Eye-rolling what, logic?
Seriously, if this is a topic you feel the need to grasp straws at, then it’s no wonder atheism is losing members 🙄🙄🙄
This is a question that will stump most, if not all Christians. Why? Because morality doesn't define a Christian's life. Jesus does. Christianity ain't about moral works. It's about having faith in God which produces works to reciprocate the love He gave to us.
Hit the nail right on the head. Props to you
“Christianity ain’t about moral works!”
🤡🤡 🤡
What was the question? You made a statement and the only thing I'm stmped about is how that's a question that will stump most of not all Christians...also it is about moral works. We are commanded to repent of unrighteousness. Repentance would be a change of heart, it's the Holy spirit who provides a person the ability to have a moral shift and now love what is good and hate was it evil. Your statement is flawed and only partially correct. The faith in the Triune God of the Bible is what causes morally good works. You can't claim to be for God and practice immorality. Especially if you think it's a get out of hell free card, as if anyone can trick God.
Galatians 6:7&8
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Ephesians 4:17-32
Roman's 6:1-2
@@rebellee2364 Being saved from sin by Jesus's actions, does NOT prevent one from continuing to sin for the rest of their lives.
The point is to honestly repent each time you do sin.
The heart is what matters. The results are only evidence that your heart is honestly trying, not actual proof. For example a person can rarely sin, and not be a Christian, and another person can sin often and still be a Christian.
The typical missunderstanding is from that all sin is the same to God. You either sinned or didn't sin. But our various cultures try to determine which sins are worse, and that changes depending on which culture. So in general some christians try to determine if someone is sinning to much to be a Christian. But we are bias acording to our culture. God is not bias. So only he can judge if someone's heart is honest even though they continue to sin at whatever rate.
Us humans can only have general ideas of if someone who seems to sin too much to call themselves a Christian actually is or not. Only God can know 100%.
And therein lies the issue, Christians don't take responsibility for their morality, whether their morals be good or bad. Where as atheists do. We are responsible for ourselves, for all our actions whether they be moral or immoral. God is not responsible for my good deeds, Satan isn't responsible for my misdeeds. The credit for my accomplishments go to me, as does the credit for my mistakes. My actions are mine and mine alone.
Christopher answered his own question when he admitted that he knew that if he were to die, his brother Peter who is Christian would take care of his children. He then said he wasn't certain that he would do the same
You should probably do totals a favor and learn what “can’t” means.
@@rjserrano2 truism alert. If you want to be pedantic like that then literally an atheist can't believe in god because then he wouldn't be an atheist. Ruined yourself with your own stupidity
The thing is, though, there are some atheist who will take care of someone's children. It has to be something moral an atheist can't do, and loving God is by definition something an atheist can't do
@@johnlewis8934 “Loving God” isn’t actually a specifically moral thing to do.
@@rjserrano2 well I'd he meant it in that literal sense then the one thing he can't do is believe in god 😆 dumb dumb
love that he thinks this is somehow a gotcha moment
@@cilharrington5457yeah because we love God we mutilate the genitals of babies. We oppress and cast out homosexuals because we love God! We burn the 'witches' at the stake because we love God! How moral!!! So much love 🖤!!!
It's not a "gottcha" moment, it is TRUTH.
@@cilharrington5457 Saying "Loving god is moral" is not a substantiated argument, it´s just a statement without any proof behind it. And citing the bible isn´t proving anything, only that the one citing it loves circles (an inherently moral thing ofc)
Scripture, is just that. Writing on a page written by humans. It's meaningless.
@@seniorquakthethird4788 THIS
1. Love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind..
2. Love your neighbor as you love yourself..
--- these are 2 things that can ONLY be accomplished by the Holy Spirit working in us.
That is what the people that declare themselves as the mouthpieces of God and so are 100% trustworthy make you believe - in the US they make 150 billion dollar yearly into their own pockets with that, tax-free.
The Holy Spirit can even work on atheists.
What I find odd here is that I've never seen an answer infuriate atheist and pagans so much.
It's strange because you would think that they wouldn't care about this moral statement, given they don't believe in God to begin with.
If they truly believe God isn't real, then this moral statement is of zero consequence to them and their behavior should reflect this. I suppose it might not be an issue of disbelief in God then, that or a need to be seen as absolutely morally superior.
When I was an atheist my favorite hobby was trying to appear morally superior to my friend and family that still believed.
Personally, I would’ve gone with “Loving your enemy.”
Do you think atheists are incapable of that? Do you even think Christians are truly capable of this?
Loving your enemy is not moral. It may be a moral virtue, but its not moral.
But by all means. Anyone who shows love to genocidal maniacs like certain german dictators could not be moral.
Atheists can love their enemy as well. Next
@@claymenefee6999 Could you please explain to me the difference between a moral and moral virtue?
Also, love is not the same as acceptance. You can love someone and acknowledge that a bad thing that they’re doing is bad. It’s the “love the sinner, hate the sin” mentality which, admittedly, is a very tricksy and nuanced thing to do, but not impossible.
@@trentabberfield9162 Cool, do you have an example of an Atheist doing so, or???
An atheist defines his own morals. Therefore, there is no right answer.
I think morality is univesely recognised. Except by Christians it seems
What are you talking about? The right answer is always be kind to others because you want to make someone’s day and because happiness makes the world a better place to live.
That’s it.
We don’t need a man-written book to tell us to be good people. If YOU need the threat of hell to ge a good person, then your most definitely NOT a good person.
Lol. Tell that to your god thats ok with mass murder and slavery.
@@ROVA00The threat of hell is not the reason why we are good. We do it because we love God and we want to bring Him glory. We want to be with Him after we leave this Earth. The only reason why people do good is because God is good, and we are created in His image! Yet doing good just isn't enough because we are all sinners. We live in an evil world filled with evil people so everyone is not doing good. Many people are choosing to do what is wrong. Who is going to punish such evil people? The judicial system? It does not always bring people justice.
The Bible is written by man. Who else was going to write it? If we said the book was written by God Himself, I am sure you would have a problem with that too. There is just no way to win with some people.
@@marleeglenn1945 I would love to believe you but I simply don’t. I think you love the idea of God and the idea of heaven.
Let me ask you something… if you KNEW for sure God didn’t exist (just for a second)… would you still try to be a good person?
If the answer is no, then you’re not a good person.
If the answer is yes, then you don’t need god to be a good person.
You say “the only reason why people do good is because God is good, and we are created in His image”. However, you also say we are all sinners… if God created us in his image, why do we reflect the “good” in god, but not the “sinner” part?
And finally, the reason why I don’t put my faith in the Bible is BECAUSE it was written by men. If God is all powerful, why does he need evil sinner men to speak for him. Is he not powerful enough to speak for himself?
I’ll tell you, if the Bible was written by God it would be undeniably Godly. It would have no contradictions. It would have knowledge far beyond that which the people of the time had access to. And it’s simply not the case. The Bible is a book that is written with the knowledge and morals of the time.
If the Bible was written by God it would not have ambiguous lessons that can be misinterpreted a hundred different ways.
Most importantly; If it was written by God and intended for ALL humans, the Bible would have been written by people in the Americas and Asia as well. There is no reason why it should have only been revealed to people in the Middle East and put them in charge of “spreading the word” around the world.
Thats not a generic moral statement. That is a personal opinion
Thank you!!
Athiest can’t Pray. Bcs they don’t believe. They can’t have faith in God. Bcs they don’t believe. They can’t Worship Gof bcs they don’t believe. The thing we can do that they can’t is love God. Bcs *they don’t believe* .
If you are an atheist is there a difference between a moral statement or a personal opinion? If there is no external judge on morality then there cant be any right or wrong without it just being a personal opinion. You cant base it on what is good for humanity as a whole because that is down to personal opinions too
Love is a moral thing. So if a person does not love God, then that is a moral thing they can not do but a Christian can. So this is a generic moral statement, not a personal opinion. Morality is objective and not subjective.
Okay but that is where you both disagree. Whilst you believe it’s an opinion, he believes it’s a fact. So the question is invalid in itself because it meets this dichotomy.
The problem with this, is what is meant by "moral". Morality to a Christian is that which appeals to their God, and does not actually have anything to do with temporal consequences/impact.
The first commandment: love God
Exclusively. Because he gets quite petty when you love other non existent gods
Can you prove your assertion?
@@Deadman1000 me?
@@shocklobster6266 The same way a wife gets mad at her husband when he tries to Cheat on her
It IS not bad
Plus The 1 Commandment IS meant for our own good not God's good
@@Guilherme-JK fornournown good yet God has all these things he gets upset over. Other gods dont exist in your world. Why on earth would he get upset over that. Your analogy doesnt work.
Atheists complaining this is a circular reasoning response or something of the like, don't realize they are assuming atheism is true to even make that point. Mike is making an excellent point here. If Christianity is true, then yes, the most important moral thing is to love God, and an atheist would fail completely at it. Sure, if it isn't true, then there is no failing and it's not really a moral act. But you have to assume one way is true over the other. So all in all, Hitchen's question was just stupid to begin with if people are going to assume atheism true and not take anyone's Christian response seriously. 🙄
Excellent point.
Of course we assume atheism is true, you haven’t shown us anything to show your claims to be true. Second, there isn’t any moral value to loving a god. If God is real, you are obeying a commandment. It’s not a choice and that is the root of every moral value. You are either obeying a commandment or disobeying it. Atheists have the ability to obey a commandment.
If the atheist is correct you are not performing a moral act because you are effectively doing nothing at all, which, unsurprisingly, is a thing an atheist can do.
@@Mostlyharmless1985 The concept of "assuming x to be true" is a matter of the person's inability/lack of desire to do a simple thought exercise. As a Christian, I can still put aside my personal worldview and attempt a thought exercise on "what would the world look like if atheism were true?" I'm just noting that most the atheists in the comments section here display a complete inability to exercise their imaginations and work out the implications of other worldviews (or their own.) No one needs to give you evidence that Christianity is true in order for you to work out a simple hypothetical scenario.
As for your claim, "there isn't any moral value to loving God," I just have to ask- how on earth do you substantiate such a claim? What if I said, "there is no moral value to loving (your parents,) (your children,) (your neighbors,) etc" would that strike you differently? Do you really think loving others is not a moral value? If you do, how can you be sure you can exclude God from this list, given that the Christian God existd? It makes sense under Christianity why there is moral value to loving God. He, like the others in the example, is a personal being. Moreover He created you! So Mike's argument stands: an atheist cannot love God, the highest moral commandment in Christianity is to love God, therefore there is a moral thing to do that only a Christian could do that an atheist cannot.
Let me do a thought exercise regarding Hitchens' question "given atheism." If atheism is true, there is no god. Everything that exists, exists without design, purpose, or intention. There is no transient law giver, no transcendent purpose or meaning to life. All morality is therefore an illusory concept we have created for our societies, "for human flourishing," so there is no moral objective standard- only emotionally driven or otherwise logically driven codes of ethics that vary. Who is to say eugenics is really wrong, since it promotes human genetic flourishing? So no, there is no moral difference between the actions of an atheist or a Christian. But this is only the case given atheism. So what I said still stands: the atheists here are answering this question only according to the hypothesis "given atheism" and not putting forth any effort to consider the question "given Christianity"
@@spazzyjazzy6367Let’s play along. If Christianity is true, morality can’t come from your god, because he is a monster that’s killed and tortured more innocent people than all genocidal dictators combined, so if you are a decent person, your morality literally cannot come from him, so your point is moot.
@@dross4207 Wow, you really got us there. Never heard an atheist try that before. 🙄🙄🙄 Sorry God's just wrath is a difficult concept to grasp, but it just goes to prove my point again how many atheists just simply can't fully work out the logical implications of a different worldview being true, because if that's your conclusion, then dang lol good luck with that one. See if that works before the God of Christianity. Don't even try to work out the math to reconcilr his justice, grace and mercy. Don't even try to understand.
Does it really make logical sense that you would have better morality than the one who created you?
It is not a moral action... It is an emotion. It's that simple.
Love being an emotion is a very shallow and incomplete understanding of love.
Do you know where morals come from? U don’t Believe in God. Human morals change every day. How do you know what is right from wrong? The thing u athiest cannot do is worship God. That’s an action has much as faith and love. U cant pray or have faith in God or worship God. Therefore u cant love God
Love in itself is an action. The world has turned it into an emotion.
The problem is that what qualifies as a "moral" to an atheist may vary to that of a Christian, such as withholding from conceiving out of wedlock. The atheist wouldn't see that as a problem, but sexual immorality wouldn't be considered bad by anyone at all, unless an outside person said otherwise. What would keep a man from multiple wives or a women multiple husbands? Why would a man and a woman wait to marry before conceiving a child? Only a non-human entity would provide that kind of moral code. Otherwise there would be no reason to withhold oneself from whatever actions they see fit.
Not only that, but while it’s possible, but far less likely, is the command to love your enemies. While we as Christians aren’t always perfect in this, I think it happens far more regularly amongst Christians than our atheist counterparts.
“Because I say so.” Isn’t a moral choice. It’s a demand.
@@Mostlyharmless1985 Well, the Bible does give reasons for things, but if there was any being that had the authority to say "do as I say" it would certainly be the being who created me, you, the earth, and the universe. Of course, if you don't agree with God, that's okay, you can form your own subjective moral code; you wouldn't be the first to do that.
@@claytonhall989 by what right does a creator have to demand obedience from their creation? Answer: they don’t have any such right. Deistic fiat is still subjective.
@@Mostlyharmless1985I honestly thought I would never read such a sad response 😢. However, I guess I’m not shocked. If you don’t think that it’s a good idea to do what the creator of the universe says then you won’t be forced to. Lucifer also disobeyed God because he wanted to do what he wanted rather than what God asked of him.
I just said a prayer for you.
@@claytonhall989 Lucifer is just the name for Venus. Planets can’t “defy god” deistic fiat is not objective.
The trouble is that someone probably said this to him already and he dismissed it
You first have to show he/she/it exists otherwise it's as relevant as loving santa clause
Or like Tinkerbell. You just have to believe! Why can’t they understand how insane religion is? And why is there a thousand denominations of Christianity? I guess people just can’t admit they could possibly be wrong.
The ressurection od Jesus is an event so important that historian all over the world divide history with before and after Christ,
Most of the early scientifique finding were the result of recherche from à lot of Christian
We can read a book and say there is no auther but without the auther there can be no book
We can see creation (because it is confirme that the universe isn't infinite expansion, black sky illuminated by stars, big band theory)
And say there no God but without God there is no creation
Second, faith wouldn't be faith if you saw it and then believe it,
Faith is an assurance it that wich can't see, it is believing, thinking and acting according to the believe that Jesus that on the cross for our sins and 3 days later rose again vaquinshing death, thus showing us the way to live and truth that is father God
@@krissykatportalGod isn’t real because I believe, I believe because God is real.
@@pierrelundy5004 the Romans forced a single calendar onto all the nations they came into contact with not because of the importance of Christ but to make organisation and trade easier. They also had the most accurate calendar and other than a minor change by Pope Gregory it is essentially the same calendar we use today.
One of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
I found a church today. I'm so happy. I live in the UK and the churches are crazy here. Glory to God.
Amen! Just always remember to keep your faith in God, not fellow humans. Definitely gather together to learn and grow.
There is only one True God that Jesus Christ our saviour.
It is rightly written that a Fool dispises knowledge and I can see why after I was an atheist and returned to Christian as Jesus showed me how it blinded me .
May Jesus christ enlight us.
Glory to God, who allows priests in these churches to sexually abuse children, while God watches.
Also this guy's response to Christopher Hitchens is to "love god". Which one? Your religion was prescribed to you by your parents or whatever part of the world you live in.
@Matt Diamand First question would depend on the religion. Second question is the 7th day the true Sabbath. Next question!
@mattdiamand3374Watch Steven Bancarz's video on why he's not an "Egyptian rip-off"
".....to know, to love and to serve God."
I love God with all my heart, can’t wait for the day I’m with Him!
Why wait?
I too can not wait to die
So you can go to bone Town? I get it his package must be HUGE 😂😂😂
@@marcellofunhouse1234 cause people like you exist
@@Nov_Net not sure what i did wrong
"for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lists shall they help to themselves teachers, having itching ears;" 2 Timothy 4:3 KJV
As a second, loving your neighbour as yourself. Some people are nice but dont actually love others, not truly love. You can only live others through loving God as we can love with his love. Its hard, i don't think its easy but anything is possible with God
I think the most compelling argument for spirituality and God is what happens when you remove them from society.
You mean how more secular societies almost always fare better in crime rates, prosperity, equality, freedom, democracy, women’s rights, human rights, educational attainment and life expectancy? Yeah, maybe God is out on his lunch break still.
@@NeutralMjolkHotel Western secular societies are still held together by Judeo Christian values. Your analysis of the statistics is very low resolution thinking. Morality in any society is largely derived from some religious text. Show me a secular society that evolved from zero religion and we can have a conversation. Extremes in either direction will likely produce a society with bad outcomes.
You mean we stop hanging innocent women and let them vote instead?
@@heartpath1 There is not a single secular community on earth that hasn't "evolved" from a religion (funny you should phrase it that way, because you probably don't believe in evolution and evolution implies the end result is better than what you started out with). Morality is most definitely not derived from religious texts.
I never had an imaginary friend but to carry it into adulthood I don't think that it's socially acceptable in fact they used to put you away for that
Perfectly clear and obvious to me the first time I heard the question Elohem eres Agape, and our obligation is to strive to emulate that
How exactly is this a moral action?
@@LeeLee-kk1qu sorry, I don't understand the question?
@@ronjones1414 Is it safe to assume you are siding with the Christian in this video? If so, the guy talks about the "Christian God". I don't understand how if you were to love, follow, obey, worship ECT, this Christian God, should be considered a moral action or proof it's moral in the first place? Wouldn't it be immoral to others religious faith, who dont subscribe to Christianity, biblical scriptures, doctrine ECT. Idolatry is immoral and considered a sin. A atheist could also convert. A atheist could love to hate the idea of the Christian God. What if someone genuine believes the Christian God is immoral and would be immoral to follow? The Christian God has done many questionable things like the complete destruction of entire cities and flooding the Earth.
You just said the perfect answer yes your so right thank u hope this man can find peace with God ❤❤
In the Baltimore Catechism, the first questions is: Why did God make me? Answer: God made me to love , know and serve him in this world and to be happy with him in the next.
Before you answered I said, “I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior”
What of the morality of a Muslim accepting Muhammad as Allah's chosen messenger? Is that just as moral as your devotion to Jesus?
@@vincentrusso2707 John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
@@vincentrusso2707 Oh really then who is a God which gives 72 hoors
A fake God Allah who said to kill the non believer.
Jesus said in John ch 10:30 I and the father are same If you have seen me you have seen the God.
In revelation Jesus christ said I am the Almighty God .
When disciples of Jesus Christ called him God he didn't refused them.
Moses was following the law and instructions of God and Jesus christ said I am the law of Moses so even a fifth grader could understand that Moses was praying to Jesus christ.
Good for you but that's not a moral thing 😂😂
@@believers-km1xz As opposed to the "real" god you believe in who committed genocide. More than once. Among other actrocities.
I know you'll tell me I'm wrong about your holy book, that I'm viewing it through a skewed lens. That's precisely what one of the world's 2 billion Muslims would tell me if I criticized theirs, & they believe just as passionately & earnestly as you do.
That's one of the reasons why proclaiming that it is morally good to love a god, in & of itself, is pointless.
I have a question for atheists,,, how do YOU justify morality without stealing from God or the Bible???
How do you without stealing from Zeus, pr Horus? The Vedas or the Havamal? Quite freaking easily, and without having to justify slavery.
Well I don’t really believe in beating my slaves as long as they don’t die within a few days, or well owning another person at all for that matter. Not a big fan of genocide against the Malachites and Samarians. Forcing a virgin not pledged for marriage to marry her rapist, yeah not a big fan of that one. Atleast I know that I’m more moral than your god😚
@@Matthew-zn3zm you didn't answer his damn question
@@elijahjohnson5282
It was a stupid question because morals existed long before the Bible or his god were invented.
@@ramigilneas9274 even at that you still don't have a moral standard. Plus that's a lie. Prove it.
The thing that pops into my mind is would it be moral to have the cure to cancer and not tell anybody? I don’t think so, so if you have the way to get to have eternal life shouldn’t you tell people? I think my answer would be a helping people get to heaven.
I know a atheist could tell someone about Jesus but I don’t think they would if they didn’t believe it. There might be another flaw I don’t know that was just what I came up with.
Love isn't a moral act. Acts committed due to love can be moral, immoral or amoral but the love itself is not an act at all.
Love, as defined in religion, IS a moral act. It is willing the good of others. It is not simply a question of emotion.
@@Xerxes2005 willing the good of others is not an act. It's a shirking of responsibility. Not doing anything for their good. Just wishing them well.
You cannot just define a word as something it isn't and call it job done.
@@fancypantsmanface2445 Of course if we're talking of moral acts it implies that willing the good of others is acted upon... I should have said that "love" is actively willing the good of others. When Christ commanded to love each other, He wasn't asking us to simply have good feelings towards each others. You can dislike someone, and still love him.
@@Xerxes2005 And how exactly is that not possible for an atheist? Even accepting that something that is not love or an act is both.
Wishing someone well is something a dog is capable of. It's why they're worried when you're gone.
@@fancypantsmanface2445 The dog is mainly worried because it's alone... Anyhow, I never said an atheist is unable to love, although the part about loving your enemy (meaning actively willing the good of your enemy) may be a little harder. It's even hard for Christians, so... I was simply answering your statement that love is not a moral act. It can be. And if you believe in God and that God (who is the very act of Being itself) is the very source of your own being and the being of all that exist, then loving God becomes an important moral act. Furthermore, loving what (and most importantly who) God loves becomes a moral act.
Absolutely true❤
Another thing I always think of is… The blood… We need the blood. That’s the whole point …we can be good, we can do good, etc. but we must have His blood on the doorpost of our heart and mind… it’s all about the blood - most people don’t realize they need a savior. That’s the bottom line. I get why atheists or people that don’t think they need Jesus think the way they do. You have to KNOW that you need a savior. In other words “blessed are the poor in spirit“ because those are the people who know they need the blood.
God the Son Jesus Christ (God in the flesh) shed His Blood and died on the cross for our sins. He died in our place to atone for our sins because we cannot. Only Jesus Christ is worthy as the sacrificial Lamb for mankind.
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
Evil
@@maxwell8758 Yup. Grotesque iconography used to terrify children into believing. At least in Catholicism.
I just saw "Blood" everywhere and thought it was a troll comment that was going to end up in "i love Satan" XDD.
Do you actually believe in all of this cannibalistic stuff? You can say all of that with a straight face?
Creepy.
Excellent response!
It was the wort response ever. People like this guy convert people away from Christianity with despicable insinuations like that.
@@maxwell8758 which insinuation or what did I write that is not in the Word of God, or do you think is misleading? Does the truth offend you? The truth is not always easy why do you think the bible says in
Matthew 7:14 “Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
And in
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
Luke 12:5 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!
@@CaveCanem74 Again, you’re citing the Bible to convince someone who doesn’t believe in the Bible. It’s useless. It’s not moral or immoral to love god. His response sucked because he should have just been honest and said that there is no good thing a religious person can do that an atheist can’t. He’s despicable for suggesting otherwise. Loving or believing in god is not moral or immoral. It is independent of yours goodness.
@@maxwell8758 The ultimate and most important good thing that a believer can do and is commanded to do that an unbeliever cannot do is to love God. You will never love God as long as you believe you don’t need Him. And if you don’t repent He will give you your hearts desire which appears to be to be separated from Him. Again no one here has attempted to answer how life can come from nothingness. The reason you deny God is because you “suppress the truth in unrighteousness. And whether you choose to trust in Christ’s death and resurrection or not is your choice, but God tells me to preach the gospel to all whether they want to hear it or not. So I will continue here as well as anywhere else. I will tell you the truth whether you want to here it or not. You have one life, and no one knows the day or hour it will end. So maybe you will not hear it but someone else here might receive the truth so as to save their soul.
Ps. Doing good will not save you, only trusting in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
@@CaveCanem74 This is what I can’t stand about religion. You are so patronizing and immoral. You really think I suppress truth? How insulting. I don’t choose what I believe. I don’t choose not to believe in god. I don’t choose not to believe in Santa Claus. There is no evidence. And you don’t know what you’re talking about. The universe did not come from nothing. At least not in the way you describe. I’m studying physics and I’m getting my degree next month. I just defended my senior thesis two days ago. The universe did not come from nothing. No model suggests this. The only time scientists use the word nothing associated with the Big Bang, like Lawrence Krauss, he is using the scientific use of the word nothing; referring to the uncertainty in energy of the vacuum due to the fluctuation of quantum fields. The more I study physics, the less I see a need for god. Lastly, if your god says that the most moral thing you can do is love him, then you worship an evil god. A good god wouldn’t want his children to literally need him to be good. You are not a good person.
A profound distinction arises when comparing the capacity for a believer and an atheist to profess the sentiment, "I harbor affection for all individuals." The rationale behind this differentiation lies in the inherent contradiction of professing love for entities that an atheist, by definition, does not hold belief in. This contradiction undermines the very essence of love, as it involves the affectionate acknowledgment of a creator" Which is God, Jesus Christ Holy and blessed be his name", one who not only holds genuine love for the individual but also serves as the foundation of their existence, all of which is contingent upon the affirmation of the creator's existence.
First grade. Catholic school. My first trip to the principal's office. I had gotten a pretty good grip on what hell was all about. In class I told our teacher, a nun, that I understood: fire, torture, eternal suffering etc. But I was a bit hazy on heaven. Like what happens there? What do we do in heaven? Her answer was, "Love God." I thought about that for a second and, in my six year wisdom, replied, "All day?" The entire class burst out laughing and she never said a word; just pointed at the door.
Excellent question. Even more impressive that you came up with it at age six.
@@fishjj76 one that no one has ever answered . No one has ever returned to give us a review and there is very little in the New Testament reputedly said by Jesus - maybe "in my father's house are many mansions" but that is hardly a description.
A nice example of how indoctrination.
That's actually a really complicated question because nobody knows the answer. There are a bunch of theories though, and one of the most interesting ones is that heaven isn't a place so much as it's a state of being. Within that very going to heaven is somewhat to being invited to the cool kids party, with hell simply being the state of being not invited. In other words, the punishment for not fostering a relationship with god is simply not having one, and the reward for pursuing one is having one, which regardless of whether you believe it's the right interpretation or not, it would be rather fitting.
C.S. Lewis talks about this in Mere Christianity: Everything on earth that is good and brings joy to man has it's root in God, being the source of all good in the universe. Therefore being in communion with God in heaven is assuredly the highest joy possible. I'm sorry you got sent to the principal for asking a valid question.
I would add to that, obeying God. God's love language. To love God is to obey him (1 Jo 5:3). Thank you Mike for your ministry, a faithful servant of the Most a high God.
Morally said and morally done.
That's possibly even better. I don't know whether an atheist would consider 'love' a moral thing... because they don't understand that morality is actually from God.
There is only one True God that Jesus Christ our saviour.
It is rightly written that a Fool dispises knowledge and I can see why after I was an atheist and returned to Christian as Jesus showed me how it blinded me .
May Jesus christ enlight us.
When I say that a christian can not be a moral person because they are not allowed to know what morality is, this right here is exactly what I mean.
I would respond by saying that a Christian can be a moral person, but it is in spite of their religion, not because of it.
You can't love at all without God. He shows you the basic intro when learning to love and that is the bible. - Coach T
So you could not love your mother, your siblings, your wife, your children, your friends before somebody told you "Love God, then you are able to love"?
Or is it that since you could understand words you were hammered with "All is ONLY because God, you are NOTHING, God is everything, you can do NOTHING good unless it is given to you by God?"
Then welcome in a society that declares slavery as the ONLY possible way of life. How convenient for the Master's representatives that call themselves preachers.
@@feedingravens I think your RUclips name is super cool
I actually was already aware of that question and after pondering and praying my conclusion was “pleasing God”. It feels good when we put things together and they work as intended. God feels the same way when we do as we are intended.
So if an atheist were to save a bunch of children from a burning building, that wouldn’t be “pleasing God”? Sounds logical…
If an atheist is correct, the definition of a moral act is totally subjective.
Christian morality is subjective. Slavery was explicitly endorsed and encouraged, with detailed instructions on how it should be done. Most christians today would say that slavery is evil, and rightfully so. Christianity has been catching up with morality over the ages. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming and eventually they have to reevaluate their supposed “objective morality” to remain relevant in the contemporary culture. Then they have the audacity to say that they’re the source of the good morals of today. It’s patently ridiculous.
Morality is ALWAYS subjective. Different religions have different subjective morals. Even different Christians have different moral beliefs.
@@Alexander1312thankyou For religious people it is not subjective because the decision is external to themselves. Atheist "morals" are internal.
@@MrErpmanok slavery. Moral or immoral
@@TheWeepingDalek Immoral of course.
Moral statements that MORE THAN LIKELY cannot be made by Atheists: "I forgive my enemies. Not only do I forgive them... I LOVE THEM."
When have theists ever done that in fact and not just in theory?
@@avishevin1976 I could give you COUNTLESS examples of this. Let's begin with one and then you let me know when you'd like another. Recently, a Bishop in Australia was attacked by a man with an opposing theological worldview. IMMEDIATELY after being attacked, the Bishop not only told the man he forgave him, but placed a hand on his head and prayed for him and told him that he loved him. Please, let me know when you're ready for the next example.
@@robertdavis3036
You can find singular examples. Yay. You're too literal.
@@avishevin1976 "When have theists ever done that in fact and not just in theory?"
I was answering your very direct question with a very direct and literal response. Was that not what I was supposed to do? How would you have liked me to address your question? Let's try that.
@@robertdavis3036
The point is the number of examples where theists engage in genocidal wars and utter persecution of minorities such as Jews or homosexuals. There is literally no evidence that theists are more likely to be forgiving and non-violent toward those who wrong them.
Amen brother “LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART SOUL AND MIGHT” they really can’t do that because they refuse to belive in Him.
It's very easy for a reasonable person to deny seeing any moral value from loving God especially given that we cannot yet prove or even provide decent evidence for his existence
we can, creation
@@yourlifetrulymatters but Thor did that so there is still no proof of yhwh
@@danubs8385 different Thor
My man!!
Not just any love but agape love. Because any who loves with agape love has been born from God and knows God! The kind od love that no man can love with except it be from God.
And he would say Why is loving god a moral action? How is it immoral to not love a god that allows -insert travesty here-, how is it immoral to dislike a god that allows a parasite to exist in the wild who's sole purpose is to live, eat, and nest in the eyeballs of children?
This is possibly the dumbest argument I've ever heard a self-righteous theist propose.
Anyone who deliberately include every person in the world in their ingroup/tribe will feel agape love towards everyone, or at least have that potential.
Christians on the other side, have the ingroup and the outgroup of non-christians. Which will inevitably lead to disdain for the outgroup, dispute the commandment to "love your enemy".
This command just set up an impossible goal, doomed to failure.
Agape is for loving military commanders, so if you love your commander, then you know it.
That has got to be one of the most god of the gaps worst response I have heard to his question .
LOVE GOD AND SEEK HIM WITH ALL OF YOUR HEART AND MIND ❤️ Putting GOD 1ST IN YOUR LIFE Also there is LOVE YOUR ENEMY AS YOURSELF 🙏❤️
Or that a Christian can forgive and love everyone including the humans that have committed horrible atrocities
You need to explain why an atheist would be incapable of doing this.
What about the Christians that hate certain people because their book tells them to?
Most horrible atrocities have been committed by Christians
Your answer presupposes the existence of a God. The question was about a moral action that does not need a God.
Hitchens' question presupposes the non-existence of God😂😂 If God is real than Mike Winger is 100% correct. If God isn't real than Hitchens is 100% correct. The truth is that morality is tied with religion whether you like it or not.
@@johnathanl8396 No it isn't. Morality predates religion, and exists independently of it.
@@zacheryeckard3051 Please tell me what particle of matter describes to us that morality exists outside of a non-naturalistic transcendent existence, i.e. "religion".
@@zacheryeckard3051 Morality is derivative of religion. Your fundamental beliefs about reality inform what you believe is good or bad behavior. Even "atheists" have to have a morality derivative of transcendent ideas that could just as easily be called "religion".
@@johnathanl8396 Nope. There are no transcendent ideas, least of all atheist ones, from which morality needs to describe.
You're not even arguing, just blindly asserting that your way must be the case. Demonstrate your claims, the burden of proof is on you.
Always learning but never come to the knowledge of the truth. The man thinks he has wisdom, but is foolish in his pursuit of truth. Be not wise in your own eyes and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Thanks Mike and God bless you!
I love this comment.
Wow, that was deep. Thanks for knowing the answer. God bless you.
There is nothing a Christian can do that an atheist cannot do outside of pleasing God.
Akshually there is: working to advance the kingdom, healing people in the name of God, praying in Jesus’s name etc
A yeah, a christian can try to please God, depending on what sect they are in and how much of the Bible they cherry pick on practicing.
It gets even better if you add other gods in the equation, tons of ways of failing at pleasing the god you believe in, or maybe you don't believe in the correct one?
The fact is, not all of the interpretations of the Bible can be correct, and not all the gods that are claimed to exist can exist; but they can all be wrong.
@@ajsirch Doing something in the name of god isnt a moral action just because its in the name of god.
@@Cyborg_Lenin You’ve a problem with healing people or healing people in the name of God. The point is that atheists can’t do the latter which is the thread here.
@@snackler6102 first, is Atheist.
Second, France.
Third, i would, if any theist could present any evidence of its existence.
I don't need to see it or feel it, we can demonstrate de existence of invisible and untouchable things with machines, like we did with Neutrinos and cosmic rays.
So go on, present evidence that your god exists (and not any other god, it has to be evidence that only points to yours and have no other explanation), any convincing evidence would work.
I am not resisting, i was a christian, i did not want do become an Atheist.
Amazing Mike, most Christian clergy forgot the 1st of the 2 laws in Christianity, Love God with all your heart, soul, strength and understanding.
Those are the laws of the old covenant, not Christianity. Jesus said “a new commandment I give you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you.” But the Old Testament law was something you kept or you were in violation of the law. Jesus’ new commandment isn’t the new covenant. The new covenant is that God saves us through faith in Jesus and puts His laws in our heart. But we are saved by faith, not by keeping even Jesus’ new commandment.
The problem with this answer is that you're presupposing God exists. You can't do this here because the whole point of the argument that Hitchens is countering here is that God is the source of our morality. You can't just presuppose God exists in your response. You have not yet proven God exists and thus haven't proven that it is somehow "moral" to love him... No atheist will accept your presupposition and thus this answer will be monumentally unsatisfactory...
@@amac9044 Same goes as one cannot presuppose that God doesn't exist, when evidence around you shout for an intelligent creator, Christ himself is God in the flesh with many witnesses. I pray God will appear before you.
Why believeing a moral God is still the best option? When you die, and you have faith in God and indeed God exist you will be living in an eternal bliss or if he didnt then just nothing, while if you dont and God exist, you shall be measured and be found wanting and terribly suffer eternal damnation. The problem with atheists whose hearts are hardened by their unbelief is that they will not afford salvation even if God is infront of them.. the sin of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Btw Mike opined on this check it out.
“If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes. It cuts its own throat.” - cs lewis
@@josiahjudah3126 If you can't presuppose either answer then isn't the only intellectually honest answer "I don't know"...? The theist is the one making the positive claim though, so he/she takes on the burden of proof... What is this "evidence" that you claim "shouts for an intelligent creator"? I don't see it. How do you know that Christ existed and was divine? Because your holy book says so? Don't you realize that every other religion has their own holy book with their own similar divine and miracle claims? How did you determine yours were true and theirs were false? Why would you need to pray for God to appear before me? If he was all-powerful and wanted me to believe in him wouldn't he just take that responsibly upon himself?
What you're doing in your second point is just rehashing Pascal's Wager (The "why not just believe just in case god does exist" argument). You're hedging your bet on the off-chance a god actually does exist. The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it doesn't account for the thousands of different, mutually incompatible god's out there....What if you chose the wrong god to believe in and we're both screwed? What if the Muslim god is the one true god and we're both doomed to eternal damnation? This is why the "what if you're wrong" argument utterly fails. The best option is always to look at the evidence and follow where it leads. On a sided note: do you think it is rational to follow a god
I don't know how you could begin to categorize all atheists as with "hardened hearts" (whatever that means), but I assure you it's not for lack of rationality. It's for lack of evidence. I don't see naturalism as being irrational or impossible but you must understand that atheism and naturalism are not one in the same. I've never claimed to be a naturalist and I don't know whether or not naturalism is true but I don't see the same problem with it that you and C.S. Lewis apparently do. Just because we don't fully understand something does not give us justification to make up an explanation....
@@amac9044 Stating a negative, means having burden of proof as well. A positive can be proven, and a negative can be proven. When you claim something does not exist, you have burden of proof, that it doesn't. If I say, there is no Treasure Planet movie, or, I don't believe there to be a Treasure Planet movie, then I would assume burden of proof for that negative claim. You online atheists, come to Christian videos and channels, stating and making claims, either directly or in context, for the non-existence of God, and so you are indirectly assuming burden of proof. While we know now, there to be a Treasure Planet movie, what about 100 years into the future, or 2000 years. What would be convincing you, that the movie existed? Physical proof? There is archeological evidence for Jesus, and DNA is very much complex genetic information, that works and behaves according to a design, that if anything was in the wrong place, it would break down and cease to function. You know water that is so important for life? It breaks down DNA, it damages it, if no mechanic to somehow protect DNA was already in place, it could not be in the first place. What came first, the stomach, or the acid to break down things in the stomach? When claiming macro, you cant have both things, it's either or, because the claim of evolutionism is one thing after another over long time. Problem with this, is the cambrian explosion, that shows sudden appearance of species, like trilobites that have perfect eye lenses, that photographers have found out solves the fish eye lense perspective effect. Since it appear sudden, with no prior lineage, then it could not have evolved. Genetic information is lost over time, not gained, and so by proxy, by default, macro-evolution is impossible. Humanity is becoming dumber, not smarter, claiming increasing intelligence, is to claim increasing complexity and gaining of information, which is in opposition to and conflicts with science. So, if you hold to the idea of evolutionism, which many atheists are, then in truth, it is you who are opposed to science, not believers. In your belief, nothing matters, and life is meaningless, humans are nothing but biological machines ruled by chemical signals that reacts depending on situation and surroundings, but despite not having basis for free will, acts and behaves very much like they believe free will to exist, and tries to convince believers to become nonbelievers, when believing in God is simply just a nature that is neither wrong nor incorrect, yet atheists view and treat belief in God as if anything opposing their naturalism view and belief, is somehow, wrong, incorrect, false, and immoral. LOL XD
Amen! Just talked to my kiddos about this today. Atheists aren’t even aware of the first command ❤
You are mistaken. A large majority of Atheists are actually ex-Christians who studied the bible, saw the Ja-heesus grift for what it is, and then left the religious cult of control freaks ASAP.
I was lost when I was younger a drinking, partying, christian by name rather than by practice or belief. When my brother died, I realised that there was more to life than being the Lad and acting to impress people. After I turned to God and read passages of the Bible and I feel so much more fulfilled because of this, as Jesus’ most important teaching said
Mark 12:30-31
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself'. There is no commandment greater than these.”
Please tell your children my story, when they grow to an age where they become more independent, that they can live their life how they please but to always remember and abide by God’s teachings. Amen ❤️❤️
Why should we?!? Your bronze age goat herders guide to life is not relevant.
Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
This passage alone is enough to know youre worshipping a monster. Oh but there is so much more
Brainwashing kids without it religion would be dead in the ground where it belongs
I have questions. How is loving your god a moral act? How do you love a god? What does that look like? I'd say it like this, first prove your god exists and THEN you can show how you love your god.
Yep, that’s the best answer. In fact it’s our very purpose of existence. In Him we live and move and have our being.
Except it's not an answer it is just restating the argument
The problem with this answer is that you're presupposing God exists. You can't do this here because the whole point of the argument that Hitchens is countering here is that God is the source of our morality. You can't just presuppose God exists in your response. You have not yet proven God exists and thus haven't proven that it is somehow "moral" to love him... No atheist will accept your presupposition and thus this answer will be monumentally unsatisfactory...
If our purpose is to love god, then god is very weak and far from perfect.
Baltimore Catechism question number 2: "Why did God make you?" A: to know, love, and serve him in this life, so we can be happy with Him in the next.
And torture you forever if you don't
This is why I listen to you, quote you & pray for you!!! Blessings, debby
Why would you need to pray for him, wouldn’t god have his back already?
@@thelandofnod123 well regardless of whether god has his back or not, god still commands us to pray, thus he prays
@@Nov_Net so god commands you to pray back to him on behalf of others?
@@thelandofnod123 I don't understand the phrasing "pray back" as of God was praying to us, but sure, we are commanded to pray often which entails praying for others.
@@Nov_Net seems like the definition of self defeatism.
Or perhaps the commandment to pray is just another device invented by your religion to assert control over you. Because we all know if you don’t pray you mustn’t love god and you will be judged and punished.
Truth.
Agape is something many say is "Love as God loves" or "A Divine Love" versus the 17 other Greek words for love like Philia, Storge, or Eros.
Difficult to show "Divine Love" if you don't believe in the Divine
If a god existed
Prove it please
Prove what ?
@joemama6557 prove that it does. Same energy
@@TheMcrico84 so we can't prove or disprove it? Interesting. It's as if we don't know😥👍🏻
@joemama6557 yes. Theres zero proof a god exist. And if it does which one is the one that really exist.
Well, I certainly didn't know this was going to be a "Tell me you don't know what a moral act is without telling me you don't know what a moral act is. I'll go first." video
An atheist could love God, they may not believe in him, but they can praise the concept
Impossible. You can’t love something you don’t know.
Do you love your future girlfriend yet? No, you have to meet her first, find out things about her, then you can begin to feel love for her and towards her in the stirrings of your own heart.
The same is of course true of god.
@@winterroadspokenword4681I love Leon S Kennedy who is a fictional character
So...your point falls apart now
@@Popirnotand I love Ada Wong 🤣
No
Ridiculous. Your use of the word love is a bastardization of the meaning of the word.
Whenever I hear these types of arguments and see how some try to belittle Christians, I remember 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 (especially the NLT version) and I just smile to myself. To think that God understands humankind so well that he predicted this kind of thinking, and had the wisdom to instruct us about it 2000 years ago, is just amazing.
Another simple one is creation. Because if an atheist believes in creation they can no longer be an atheist because they would have to admit to a power outside of creation. Which oddly enough would be the definition of a creator.
Another one, an atheist can never be a believer of any faith based religion. For the same reason. Once they believe they are no longer an atheist.
It takes a lot more faith to believe in nothing then it does to believe in God.
What athiest would believe that everything was creating by something? Can you give me evidence to prove that everything was created by a god/person, whatever? And with the faith based religions, yes you’re literally just describing the definition of an athiest😭
Just giving some ideas of answers to the question.
We could also pose another possible answer. The one thing a Christian ( religious person) can do that an atheist can not. Have morals. A true atheist will have no need for morals because to believe that you are just a random piece of life means it's survival of the fittest. There would be no right or wrong. Simply existing. So if you claim to have morals you can not also claim to be atheist. For there to be right or wrong someone somewhere had to decide what was right and wrong. But what's the point of that if we are just random clumps of flesh? You could claim to control people. But then there wouldn't be any universal sense of right or wrong. And yet there are. Possibly shown in different ways through culture but still present. For example, stealing. Through most ever culture this is considered wrong to some degree. It might not be seen as wrong to steal from an enemy but to steal from a friend would be considered wrong. In other cultures stealing to any degree is wrong. But it will still be viewed in a negative way to some point in every setting. If morals are only for controlling people why would that naturally apply as it does? Little children who have no idea what right or wrong is still know that getting something taken from them doesn't feel good and they argue constantly over it.
Universal morals can not be explained by an atheist in a way that does not include some form of creator. To set the standard for morals to begin with.
@@berbberb6029 we could go in circles trying to convince each other of our personal views. So I will answer your question with a question. Have you ever tried to explain the concept of color to a person blind from birth? For a believer it's the same issue explaining God. There is evidence but the one being shown must be willing to see it. Otherwise they will be blind to it. Then no argument will be enough. That's why the entire principal of a relationship with God is based on faith.
As he was asking the question, before he even finished " I love God" came to me. The sad thing is, his wager is his soul.
Sounds liek God made him expressly not to beleive so god had an excuse to torture him while pretending it wasn't predetermined. Doesn't suond lovable at all. You wouldn't want to love a creator who made you just to torture you forever and ever and ever.
That's a good answer. But I would probably just ask him what he meant by 'moral.'
Morality simply means maximising the welfare of our fellow man without causing harm . What's that got to do with god who belongs to the category of Peter pan, voldemort, tinkerbell , thanos , son gocu? 🤣🤣🤣
Made me immediately think of this verse
“Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
-John 6:29
We believe
how is to love anyone who expects submission from you moral? In my dictionary it is called a Stockholm syndrome.
I think when an Atheist speaks of Morality, He has no Grounds to stand and define what Morality consists and Justify why is it Moral... You'd now point the fact that the Govt. sets the moral standards, but that's again a council of the same human with 26 chromosomes who'd have lied, committed sin in their heart, and would have even committed adultery in heart... Atheists at first can't justify the Moral Standard, and thus it's pointless for answering the question of "What is it that Atheist can't do which Christians do calling it Moral?"
All of us are Immoral, none of us are Moral and none can ever be Moral... The one person who was Moral and is Moral is Christ Jesus, and it's because He is Moral, we are made Moral for what that Moral and Just GOD in person did on that cross..❤
@@pravaltojefersonyou don't follow your gods morals
@MemeLordCrusader no one follows.. We are all Sinners, we make mistakes and fall short. That's why we need a Savior to save us from the wages of Sin... That's why Jesus came to Earth, Died the Death and paid the penalty that we had to pay, and rose again from the Dead so that we can also rise again from the dead and be with The Father in Heaven...
@danubs8385 No, you submit out of fear, not love
@MemeLordCrusader nope... Fear is a Part in the Journey, but Fear isn't Ever the Beginning of the Walk... Never... If it is, then it isn't Faith pal...
Even if the beginning was of Fear, if that person truly searches through the scripture and reads about what GOD did for him/her, the Fear of Hell WILL BE Overshadowed by LOVE because of the Calvary..
You go Michael man of God!!!
He was asking lost people. Mike's answer highly indicates this.
BRILLIANT Mike!! ❤
That IS NOT a moral thing. That is a religious thing.
Hey, when an Atheist speaks of Morality, He has no Grounds to stand and define what Morality consists and Justify why is it Moral... You'd now point the fact that the Govt. sets the moral standards, but that's again a council of the same human with 26 chromosomes who'd have lied, committed sin in their heart, and would have even committed adultery in heart... Atheists at first can't justify the Moral Standard, and thus it's pointless for answering the question of "What is it that Atheist can't do which Christians do calling it Moral?"
All of us are Immoral, none of us are Moral and none can ever be Moral... The one person who was Moral and is Moral is Christ Jesus, and it's because He is Moral, we are made Moral for what that Moral and Just GOD in person did on that cross..❤
@@pravaltojefersondo you understand what morality is? There is a set definition of “good,” and “bad.” Anyone can provide a reason as to why they believe something fits either of those two words. The whole grounding argument is nonsense. Morality is subjective based on values; both personal and societal. The government has nothing to do with morality. What you’re referring to is societal laws. Those have nothing to do with morality. Please educate yourself.
@@Sti0131 You can't define the core of what good is and what bad is until you have the source of good and bad. You can't tell that rape is bad until you explicitly get into the details of it.
Anyone can say what's right & wrong, but never be able to Justify it.. That's the point.. You can't prove why self-harm is bad, why suicide is bad.. you can say its bad, and tell few cons of it, but you'll never be able to understand the realm of thoughts and the unknown until you get into the details of it. All you can do is distinguish, and that too is done on a relative basis, but never an absolute standard, because atheists don't really even have a stance on absolute as a whole. We humans are relative in many ways which is what causes divisions, disharmony, discourse, discord and finally wars and wars between groups... If there existed a true standard of an absolute morality and every human is bound to it, then there will be no such classification of what is good and what is bad since everyone is in the standard.. Since the standard is no more absolute, the relativity difference between individual causes disharmony...
Sit down and think pal, you never thought these and I bet on it. And yeah, I request you to educate yourself first before asking me to educate. Thanks!
@@pravaltojeferson I just explained it to you. It is based on the definition of “good” and “bad.” It’s that simple. I can come up with what I define as good and then lay out why something would fall under that category. Everyone’s definition of “good” and “bad” is different depending on values. I don’t care how many times you say I can’t justify it. I just did. Also, morality based on Christianity or any other religion is also subjective because it doesn’t cover every single scenario. For example, is killing in self defense bad? Show me where in the Bible you derive your answer from. Oh that’s right you can’t. It’s subjective. Now you sit down and go do more research before getting back to me.
Everything you said above is pure nonsense and a waste of my time to had to have read it. You have no idea what you’re talking about. You don’t realize how ridiculous and contradictory your belief and position is, and yet you think it is more rational and logical than actually providing a rational reason.
@@pravaltojefersonI remember the priests in Rwanda who called for genocide - I remember God telling Moses to kill the midianites and keep the virgin women. Religion has no right to preach why is moral
Yea, this is an inadequate response to Hitchens question.
We can't honestly comfort a dying child.
Honestly, bang on! Sad but true
KNOW the comfort received from God and it's very easy. (Not for you. But, that's selfishness on our part.)
Maybe they can. They not necessarily lie (like knowing if there is a afterlife for ex)
Anyone who is dying. An atheist cannot comfort someone who’s dying.
However a belief in the afterlife doesn’t mean you believe in god. Apparently the spiritual realms are full of people who
Still don’t believe in God.
For faith in god only comes through coming to know him by the personal emotional relationship.
@@winterroadspokenword4681 To me it still seems pretty comforting that we will just turn into something else and will still be a part of this universe. "The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another"
If you practice loving god, it's basically being present and feeling your being, which is becoming more aware/conscious. Being aware, you are likely to behave and think more healthy.
Christopher Hitchens discussed this very well. He does not believe that loving God is moral, because God commands us all to love Him, on the pain of eternal damnation. He believes that compelled love is not moral.
The key in that is he believes that. What an individual believes is opinion not moral. If morality is just what we think it is then there is no morality at all. Morality literally cannot exist to an atheist. They can have a common opinion on actions that are bad for society as a whole and need to be prevented, but no true morals.
But Hitchens has no basis to condemn anything as immoral, only something he does not prefer.
Such a perfect answer. You win, heaven is your reward. I wanna see Hitchens response, not good enough is my guess
That is not a moral answer.
especially with the imorality that is god.
That has literally nothing to do with god.
but i do not expect much from this person who made this video he does not understand what he is doing.
it is just so sad that people like yourself gets tricked by him.
@@havtor007 take it uo with hitchens. You guys always claim morality is subjective yet we're not allowed to use our own moral standard when answering a question like this.
@@Nov_Net Morality is an actual thing learn what it is please because you literally have shown here that you do not get it.
Love God with your whole heart ❤
Love from a pure heart, clean conscious and sincere faith.
I also came to this conclusion just by thinking about it for a few seconds.
That is not what he asked. Cheating is a sin.
Bro believes in cave paintings 💀
Wtf r u even talking about?
TRULY AMEN BROTHER IN CHRIST!
Fantasic answer, Mike!
I mean... its not, because that isnt a moral.
Pretty terrible answer actually
@@HalcyonVoid It absolutely is, but just saying "nuh, uh" isn't much of an argument. Christ sums up the entire law by saying, "Love God above all else, and treat your neighbor the way you want to be treated." Paraphrasing of course.
Beautifully said!
Love your enemies and those who persecute you. That’s my go to. Atheist have the ability to do this however they have no justification why.
Why is loving your enemy moral?
@@UgliestManOnEarth-69 what does hating your enemy accomplish?
@@JP-dp3kt I dunno but how is loving your enemy moral?
@@UgliestManOnEarth-69
Do you believe love is a moral good? To love people, earth, and ideas? You’d agree this is good or not?
Hatred is a moral evil. When does hate provide something good?
Then if you can answer those then you have to address loving your enemies, because you have three options imo. But typically only two when confronted with your enemy: love your enemies, hate your enemies, avoid your enemies.
So what is the moral thing to do for your enemies?
@@JP-dp3kt defeat them and end their desire to cause harm. Not to love them lol.
Love your God with all your heart, mind and strength. ❤
How is loving a being whose even existence is doubtful a freaking moral thing??
It’s a moral thing because if you give love to a being that may not exist, then you are giving your heart to the ideals that you feel that being embodies and rewards people for. The idea that people will do good with the belief that the reward for that good comes in the hereafter inspires people to do much good with no thought of reward coming from another person. Or in other words, they engage in charity which is a moral act.
Go read the book “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Tom Woods. With as much as you may disagree with the title, you will see undeniable good and monumentally influential things done by many people for thousands of years with no thought of reward. And I say that having never been a Catholic with ZERO chance of ever becoming a Catholic.
Who cares if people also believe in a fictional being? It’s more harmful to believe in real politicians and governments than to believe in God.
@@FTTLOMS your thoughts are very amazing
But I think you are mistaking 1 thing, that a person can respect and embody someone's personality like say Gandhi, without needing to having to love them or pray them and stuff like that
Plus with a lots of religion the biggest emphasis goes on not to becoming a person like him , the god , instead to just pray to him consistently even no matter how rotten to your core u are
@@FTTLOMS for example the worst sin in Christianity is blasphemy against the holy spirit
What does that thing tells u about what the main motivation of this religion is
@@endlesslearning26 thank you for the response. But I did not mistake that people can also feel the same about a non-deity such as Gandhi. That would be a valid argument of you were also posing the same question as Mr. Dawkins who asked if something moral can be said by a person of faith that an atheist cannot also say.
Your question was simply about the morality of believing in a non-existent entity. Which is what I answered. Of course people can feel the same about a living person. One might say people felt that way about Jesus while he lived. Others may feel that way about a pope.
If I were to answer Mr. Dawkins’ question, however, I would say saving ordinances and performing blessings by the power of the priesthood. I am of the LDS faith and all worthy men are priesthood holders and are authorized to give blessings of healing and comfort, counsel and direction. Each geographic area called a Stake is assigned a patriarch who performs special blessings for those who seek them and these are recorded as a once-in-a-lifetime blessing and all are statements of moral direction, belief and faith that a non-believing person would not be able to utter. But that’s just what I’d say as a first thing off the top of my head.
Hope that helps.
@@endlesslearning26 I am not certain what it would say to you about Christianity if they say the worst sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
From my understanding that sin is only possible if one has been the receiver of such miraculous manifestation that you have a sure knowledge of the existence of God such that you no longer even need faith because that faith has been laid to rest by first hand knowledge and then you turn away again, then it is your own knowledge that puts you in a place where Gods mercy cannot extend and justice holds full sway. It’s unforgivable because one is refusing forgiveness.
It’s like if you hear that your father dies in a plane crash far out to sea and you grieve but then move on with life and 5 years later he is found and returns home alive and you look him dead in the face and maybe even touch him physically and then say, “Well I’ve already learned I can live without you, so you might as well remain dead to me” and you just turn your back on him. Assuming he was a good dad and never hurt anyone and fulfilled his responsibilities as a dad previously, people will say, “hey, what’s wrong with you!?” and keep inviting you over to see your dad, to visit at the holidays etc. but you keep saying, no, I’ve learned that I need no father. It’s just as well that I never had a father. But then when he really dies and it turns out he sold books about his adventures lost at sea and is now a mega millionaire and he leaves you nothing in his will, then you don’t get to whine about it.
That’s my understanding of it. And I don’t think it says anything about Christianity. I think is says exactly what is reasonable about relationships.
Hope that helps.
That's really really dumb but thanks for proving Hitch right.
A profound distinction arises when comparing the capacity for a believer and an atheist to profess the sentiment, "I harbor affection for all individuals." The rationale behind this differentiation lies in the inherent contradiction of professing love for entities that an atheist, by definition, does not hold belief in. This contradiction undermines the very essence of love, as it involves the affectionate acknowledgment of a creator" Which is God, Jesus Christ Holy and blessed be his name", one who not only holds genuine love for the individual but also serves as the foundation of their existence, all of which is contingent upon the affirmation of the creator's existence.
@@arandomkid4882 Can I have some sauce with that word salad?
@@MLdoktor What are you implying
@@arandomkid4882 I'm implying that you just made a claim using fancy words, but without any good evidence to back it up.
Fancy words or not shall not discredit the statement itself if only you read it you would understand it.@@MLdoktor
Give God the Glory
For what?
@@stonemaze9925 because He is worthy
No
@@posirowe he is evil
@@maxwell8758 not he’s not 💀 He sent His Son to save a world that hated Him because He didn’t want to be deprecated from His beloved creation
“LOVE the LORD your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength.”
You can't oppose a pedophile. You have no moral basis to say it is wrong.
You meant to comment this on the short you watchedabout the NAP.
That’s like saying you have no basis for saying whether or not getting roundhouse kicked in the face hurts
What's the age of consent in the Bible?
That is in no way a ‘moral’ thing. It’s just a thing
Being a witness for Christ! Praying to God.
Issue is that they will always move the goalposts to redefine what is “moral” because they don’t actually have any beliefs other than their belief of self-superiority rooted in hedonism
Hitchens said moral ACTION and then you tried underhandedly to switch it to moral IMPERATIVE. That is a very important distinction that completely changes the question entirely.
Its the greatest commandment Our Lord gave us.
Yeah because loving God is more important than not murdering innocents, makes sense.
@@masterful1234567890 murdering innocent’s is the worst action you can commit to another person. But Mankind was not created to “not kill” but to bring glory to God, so as bad as killing the innocent is, it technically does not directly conflict with our primary purpose of existence. Though it does rob others of their ability to love God
@@masterful1234567890 if one Loves God, then one would know that God hates those who lay and wait to murder the innocent. I dont really see the problem.
@@iagoofdraiggwyn98 Actually he doesn’t hate them as long as they repent. So who cares about morality under Christianity as long as you repent? Under Christianity, if you’re a good person but simply just don’t believe in God, you’re doomed. But, if you did evil things then “repent” you get into Heaven. Seems like a broken, immoral system to me.
@@masterful1234567890 IF they repent, then yeah. However, if you simply think repenting is just saying sorry, then I dont really think you fully understand what that entails and the absolute depths that can be reached when one understand what repentance is. Aside from that, you seem to offer a rather narrow means of viewing morality. In your example, of the 'good' non-believer and the 'evil' repenter. Good, by which metric? Evil in which context? And who said that either was the other?
He doesn't realize it is exactly the contrary : loving the imaginary friend is immoral. 😂
I love when you get quiet and listen to the guidance of the 7 Spirits of God Ahayah and you get enlightened with deeper truth and revelation of a subject.