Is Morality Better Explained By God Or Science? (Frank Turek vs. Michael Shermer)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 фев 2018
- On April 16, 2015, The New York Apologetics hosted a debate at Stony Brook University between Christian apologist Dr. Frank Turek, co-author of the book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, and Dr. Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic magazine, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, and the author of The Moral Arc: How Science and Reason Lead Humanity Toward Truth, Justice, and Freedom.
#FrankTurek #MichaelShermer
Frank is one of my most favorite Christhian apologists
Funny isn't......something you think holds so much truth has apologists! Think about that, its literally Franks job to BS Christian beliefs into existence!
@@jacoblee5796 What do you believe to be eternal?
@Micah I don't know and I don't see your point.
@@jacoblee5796 If you have no idea about the most basic of beliefs, I suggest you do some critical thinking before calling others' BS. You sound foolish.
@Micah BAHAHAHAHA Theists just making a claim isn't critical thinking! Just stating god being real and eternal doesn't make it true! Critical thinking? LOL unreal!
Wow, Shermer lost the debate when he lost control of his emotions.
When did he lose control of emotions?
@Edward Russell Ok, how so, what did he lose on? Turek just made claims and provided zero proof. He just took some facts that scientific research proves and then twisted passages from the Bible to fit the narrative. Seems like Frank lost because he could not provide good evidence only claims.
And further, how is a Muslim wrong in asserting that the Quran is true because it describes a Powerful God that creates things too?
And besides the Bible was written by ancient Jews, not Christians. The old testament is not a Christian book but an appropriated book by Christians. Used and twisted to assert their Bias that an ancient Jew named Joshua from Nazareth was somehow the savior of all mankind,lol.
So clearly, you are a thief and ignorant or dumb on history.
Please, be useful and study science, not voodoo.
@@stelladavis7832 funny how you went and did the same thing you accused Turek of. Everyone knows the old testament was written by Jews and that Jesus was a Jew. The Messiah was prophecied in the old testament so the new testament is just the fulfillment of that. And Muslims aren't wrong for saying their God gives them objective morality. But in a case by case study the Bible comes out ahead in creation, philosophy, prophetically, is more historically accurate, and has an insane amount of manuscripts. The Quran and the Hadith contradict each other so there you go.
Stella Davis
Let’s see Jesus was a Jew all of the apostles and disciples were Jews and all of the 500 followers who saw Jesus resurrected were Jews. And those JEWS risked their lives to go against what was being taught. Because they were taught wrong and Jesus came to show the way. And the Jews who spread that word were Jews. It had to be spread to the Jews first and THEN it was spread to the Gentiles. The term Christian is just to set people apart. Because Jews of today who find Jesus are called Christian Jews. They are still Jews. But they follow Christ. And just because some Christians did evil things just shows they were false Christian NOT that Christianity is wrong. Many will say to Jesus lord lord did I not do this and that in ur name and Jesus will say depart from me I knew you NOT!! So many will not be Christians ... this is Satans way to try and make people question it. Don’t judge faith in Christ by people. They will fail you
@Isaac Marshall You say: "but he is wrong in asserting the Qur'an is the direct word of Allah and Muhammad is a prophet of God;"
Why?
I was an atheist but after watching Michael Shermer talk, I become a Christian.
I hope and pray u still following Jesus 🙏
Praise the LORD.
Praying for you🙏
Really?
Sounds like sarcasm to be honest
Brother, please don't do that Muslim thing 😂😂😂 we don't need that
LOL Shermer rose from the grave of his last debate with turek just to get murdered again. RIP
Lol right. But I think this debate came first.
PariaH
Yeah I just finished that one right now haha. Are there only two or are there more?
@@graypokedri1024ya its just the two. The second one wasn't from too long ago. But Frank also has 2 debates with Christopher Hitchens. Check those out. Although in one i truly hate to say it Hitchens got Turek pretty bad.
There is also a decent debate with David Silverman. Silverman is not very smart. The guy was terrible. But anyways. They're all good for a watch
Frank doesn’t answer any of the questions asked.
@menervah Shermer gave an exact answer to where he thinks morality comes from then frank went through the debate as if shermer said nothing proclaiming that shermer doesn’t have an explanation. Frank did this more than once.
During the q and a frank was asked, knowing people are fallible how does he determine what is fallible and what isn’t. Frank didn’t at all say how frank determines, just went on a diatribe about children’s books and then said god makes it infallible. Now in my opinion in no way is that an answer to how frank determines what is fallible. How does anyone know when god allows for something to b fallible or not? If god gave free will then people receiving revelation have the free will to make mistakes without doing it on purpose. So how does frank determine the difference. He never an answer that I or anyone else can use to determine the difference.
9:45 is when the Debate Starts. The Intro is worth the Watch, but just in case you wanna get right into it.
TY! My internet has gone super slow, so this helps!
The intro was DEFINITELY worth the watch hahaha
Shermer is only arguing emotionally which is ironic considering he’s arguing for only materialism
and frank isn't?
tell me, frank bangs on about the soul and how materialists are just robots, but what does the soul actually DO? what is the difference between a person with a soul being a robot and me with just my brain being a robot? what do souls do that brains don't?
frank talks horse poop.
by the way, if only god had invented the fence, he could have put one around the tree of knowledge and we would ALL be in paradise eh?
christianity is sillier than islam.
then explain the trinity. then explain what god is even.
@@HarryNicNicholas
That’s ridiculous, you presume Frank is wrong simply because he didn’t explain to you what the soul is? Also frank hardly mentioned the soul (I’m pretty sure he didn’t at all actually) and his case was more how do you know you’re right and not Hitler.
And even if he didn’t explain the soul that’s not seeking emotional response as justification like the atheist debater sought by saying “go ask the people being hurt!”. Redirecting to individuals who’d approve of his point of view in order to explain why it isn’t him (a man) that decides.
@@HarryNicNicholas
I’ll take you up on that challenge good sir.
“1 God but 3 persons, how’s that possible?”
Weirdly enough the Trinity solves more problems than it creates. In the Holy Trinity, each person is coequal and coeternal; the exact same in whatever essence makes up God. Not 1/3rd of God, 100% God.
Think of it as 1 What (Devine nature) but 3 Who’s (Persons)
The Son added a human nature by coming on earth, so He had 2 natures but they did not intermingle (both natures didn’t experience the same things).
To define God plainly I guess I’d use Frank’s definition
**God: the infinite, eternal & morally perfect Being (the Greatest Good) who is the source & sustainer of everything that exists**
That’s a pretty good one 👍
Note, these answers always existed for decades before I commented this to you. So you either never looked for answers or presupposed them to fit your narrative and your desires, maybe I read you wrong friend but seems to me you’re afraid of God. You don’t want Him to exist.
G’day 🙏
Frank turek is a monster with PowerPoint, no one stands a chance
With or without. Utter beast.
Turek straw man's the questions because he is unable to reason rationally without his powerpoints.
If you can not explain it simply, you do not know it well enough.
Michael won by default. Claiming objective morality through a single being is illogical and self defeating.
And, simply saying something doesn't make it true.
Depends if you are talking to believers or thinkers
@@robertlewis9132 you are assuming believers didn't think their way into their beliefs which ia absurdly false
@@maow9240 people think their way into a lot of unfounded absurdities. So if i think about something has no logical foundation and decide i simply want believe it that is not the same as concluding something on verifiable evidence.
They say santa clause brings gifts to every house on christmas eve and when you get up in the morning there are gifts then voila, it is proof. Nevermind that it is impossible, the physical proof is laying under the chrustmas tree.
I thought my way to that conclusion and you cant say i didnt so therefore it must be correct.
This was one of the most crushing defeats for an atheist in debate.
But atheist won't admit that
Jesus Ochoa too much hubris!
Lying is not winning frank lied the entire time.
Jesus Ochoa There is nothing to admit frank is a liar.
@@Jambuc829 Would be nice to have to substance behind your assertions. Seems like you expect people to believe something without evidence so you would apparently disagree with Matt Dillahunty when he says claims are not evidence. You're in some deep hole of denial if you think Shermer even came away looking respectable here; he was comfortably beaten.
The smudge in the bottom right is killing me
Lance Wren Ack! Now it’s all I can see! 😬
🤣😁
You mean Shermer?
Thanks.....now I cant unsee it.....
@@AnnoyingMoose 🤣🤣🤣
If this is the best atheism can do, it is very shallow indeed.
@R.J.J- El ganador don’t forget cosmic skeptic
@@megamillion2461 Yeah Cosmic Skeptic is a smart kid I am sure he can do better than Michael Shermer
@@arunmoses2197 smart but arguments are weak
If god is real and acts in the material world, there should be material evidence. No such evidence has been provided. Therefore we can ignore the god hypothesis until evidence comes forth, like the Bigfoot hypothesis and the Santa hypothesis. Maybe there’s an immaterial god that does metaphysical things like, idk, keeps water wet or something, but that’s another argument and another god. What’s so irrational about that?
@@Detson404 If you treat God as an object or some kind of "real" force which can be touched and measured, you will never find anything.
The "Ask principle"... So how do you ask an unborn child if it's OK to take their life?
Ask the mother who is the sentient life being used to sustain the unborn child.
The attempts to grant special rights to the unborn to overthrow bodily autonomy rights is about as authoritarian as it gets.
And, Jesus never said a word about abortion or the unborn. In the old testament, if a man killed a pregnant womans unborn child but not the mother they paid a fine. If the mother also died they then were put to death. The bible specially preaches an eye for eye, life for a life.
Clearly not even God put the rights of the unborn ahead of the living.
That’s false and you know it. Murder is always wrong, to hide behind this idea that abortion should be allow because of basic human rights and that we live in a society that is against authoritarian worldview. Then by your logic, does the fetus>baby>toddler>Child>pre adolescent>adolescent>young adult>adult>elderly etc, have any said human rights same as the mother? which of these phases of a human being is okay to murder? Just to preserve and sanctify the rights of the mother? Who’s murdering the baby, (or not a Baby due to “its” development stage in life 🤦🏻♂️) because if it was caused by rape which is only 4% of abortions which apart from that it’s done because it’s an inconvenience to the mother’s social life, financial stability or comfort?
I’ll wait...smh😂
@@RIPZSmoke420 read His word again. If the CHILD comes out maimed pay life for life, eye for eye. God was clearly serious about protecting the unborn.
You cannot reasonably think He was referring to the woman in that passage. If He was, there was no point in specifying she was pregnant AND the fact that the delivery was premature.
@Kyle J Hartman actually, you are responsible. If you see someone in danger and do nothing to help when you could, you might as well have murdered the person yourself. With your argument, how could you POSSIBLY convict a parent of neglect by starving their child to death? The food belongs to the parent, right?
@Kyle J Hartman nothing you just said makes sense. Maybe think more? Are you really suggesting that a baby in the womb is NOT autonomous? WHEN does that baby become autonomous?
“Science better explains morality”
- voices his opinions
- still waiting for the science
He needed to spend more time on his side of the argument, and less time denouncing the other side
Evolution, psychology, sociology use the scientific method of experimentation, data collection and analysis to identify patterns and form predictive models that best fit reality.
Your assertion that Dr. Shermer simply voiced his opinion is without justification and was easily refuted.
@@RIPZSmoke420 so it uses what we already have....this doesnt explain the why still. Just the how.
So if something like murder becomes situationally beneficial for the human race, psychologically, sociologically, and evolutionarily (which there are, have been, and will be many compelling arguments of this type) it then becomes the moral correct to accept murder?
@@anthonypolonkay2681 yes. Or no. It depends on who’s opinion we are arbitrarily basing objective morality.
Very disappointed in Mr. Shermer's performance.
Typical smug irrational atheist.
Most atheist dont think for themselves they are very shallow and most of them hate god even though they dont "believe " in god. They believe what they are told and enjoy sucking up to authorities
D T this adds nothing to the debate.
@@normanwolfe7639 what debate wheres the debate??
@@dt7491 please tell us more of what you know about most atheists.
Ilive in a country where the majority of people are atheists. Haven't met a single one who hates God.
This was a TKO... Frank's footwork had Michael sweating before the debate began... it's not about winning arguments, it's about finding the truth. Thx Frank keep it up...
frank couldn;t find the truth if it was taped to his dick, there is no god, turek is selling books.
Harry Nicholas
You haven’t contributed anything by saying this. Based off your photo it seems like your elderly, and yet act like a child on the internet. Grow up old man.
Kyle J Hartman
Lol, I didn’t say Frank was a good debater. I was never defending him. All I said was that the guy above was acting like an immature child with his comments that add nothing to a conversation.
Kyle J Hartman
Lol
@Kyle J Hartman if you read that fallacy, you will see it surely applies to you, not Frank
and they say Christians are closed-minded, more than half of Micheals facts are distorted or wrong, it is painful to watch. not sure if he does not see the truth or just hates God so much
1) Turek said Old Testament is not perfect. God's word is not perfect? It needs New testament to improve it?
2) Whether you called it voluntary work or slavery, the fact is you can, according to Bible, beat slave, keep him from his family, he can't leave, people are allowed to sell their daughters as servants. Can Bible be a moral guide if it says you can beat your servants?
3) Turek still didn't answer direct question why so many Christians defended modern slavery in 19th century and now nobody does.
4) All of you Christians commenting here, you are all good moral persons. Would you ever beat your servant or keep him from his children? Bible says it's OK. But I'm sure you would not do that. Because you know that is immoral. And so is Bible, therefore.
@@goranmilic442 so i find it slightly amusing that you chose to respond on my post, however your response does not touch on what i was saying in anyway, however to respond to you.
1. frank did not state that, perhaps you should give direct evidence.
2. you are incorrect, what you have done is completely misinterpreted the passages, maybe on purpose?
3. silly comment, however let me answer if you were not satisfied, people are flawed, and people will use things to justify their evil acts, as an example Stalin and hitler used Darwinism to justify the evils they performed. so just because someone may try use the bible incorrectly to justify something does not mean that the bible is wrong or that God does not exist.
4. bible does not state this is OK
for you atheist's here trying to defend morality without an objective basis for morality is amusing to say the least.
bottom line if you are correct and there is no God, you win no prize, your fate an mine will be exactly the same, when i argue for God existence it fulfils me, when you argue for Gods non existence you are essentially wasting your limited purposeless time.
ultimately from your view your exitance will end in a meaningless fashion.
eventually everyone who remembered you will be Gone too.
this world will end
this solar system will collapse
the universe will burn out
and your existence will have amounted to absolutely nothing
perhaps you should use this short meaningless time you have disusing and arguing about things you actually believe in. just a though.
@@EugeneVerster 1) Frank said that. Time mark is 1:09:59.
2) Exodus 21 clearly says you can beat your slaves, unless they die in two days. If I'm mistaking about interpretation, which, of course, is always possible, give me your interpretation.
3) I agree on everything you said in your third point. See, your answer does answer that question, Turek avoided it all together. While I'm satisfied with your answer there, it opens two new questions-first, how so many people was wrong about Bible and how can we know our interpretations are true, since so many was wrong about it (in many issues), second, why is all-knowing God's word so poorly written that it is open to (so many) interpretations?
4) see point 2.
your additional point 5) I do believe in objective morality without God. I'm going to admit that I'm minority in atheist community, since they all do think there is only subjective morality. About your second point-you said basically that life without God is meaningless. I understand you when you say that it would be better if there was an afterlife, meaning, just judge etc. Does your opinion have effect on reality, what's real or not? Is some idea automatically true if it comforts us and opposite idea is scary? Show me example in nature where that happen, where idea is true because we like it more.
@@goranmilic442 you didn't answer him about his main point though: about you wasting your limited purposeless time on arguing about things you don't even believe in. He gets fulfilment for defending his belief in God while you just waste your time. Even if you end up being right, you still lost a lot of time from the useless arguments. It's a very sad lose/lose situation for you. 😢
@@worl9830 So what? I enjoy logical debates, although I find his arguments flawed, he still defended his position well and I enjoyed our brief conversation. So it's not a waste of time for me. And there was always possibility that he proves me wrong, so maybe I would start believing. Didn't happened, but nothing wrong with being open minded. Like I said, it would be better (probably) if your side is correct, I would very much like for all of you to have eternal life. However, like I said, my or your wishes don't have any influence on what is real.
I love how Frank presented multiple verses condemning slavery and Michael just didn’t acknowledge them🤦🏻♂️😂
probably cos god actually suggests the best practice FOR slavery. frank and all apologists have to lie to protect god from looking like a dork with no conscious, it's odd how the people who claim to have "objective morality" actually move the goalposts to make their morality whatever fits the narrative. jesus drowned babies, that's all you meed to know.
It would’ve been nice if any of those verses actually condemned slavery.
Did you bother read any of the verses Frank cited?
they condemn slavery against jews, Leviticus clearly states that other people are fair game, and those peoples children in fact
Michael Shermer
was crushed.
I have only one word for his performance: Embarrassing.
True. And then he used a hitler and a men are guilty for abortions trick to get a weak aplause.
He was ranting most of the debate
Absolute nonsense! He may have won the debate with his phony authoritarian and condescending style, but lost every argument, and those are what really count! Face it there's ZERO viable evidence for your man made up god, and a crap load of evidence that morality is in fact subjective and a human concept we have refined, no god needed!
@@Bob-of-Zoid the audience was full of
Christian virgins.
@@Bob-of-Zoid I can't take what you're saying seriously since, according to your "faith" , you're just dancing through your DNA. You are just a bunch of randomly formed molecules.
Michael got to he point where he was just pretty much yelling, saying stuff about “bigotry”, and kept yelling it when Frank tried to say something. He had to be told so many times, “questions only”.
Sadly I agree with you, on the other hand, I kinda hate that the only argument on the other part was "We are only molecules" and "who decides whats right on wrong" (wich Cherman basically just said Well being)
Because the ground he was standing on was quickly shrinking due to simple logic and truth.
When your faced with bigotry, sometimes shouting 8s all that works
@@rickb.4168 oh bless you!
@@animelafuerza that is because he would never answer the question, because he CANT answer the question, which proved Frank's point, You know morality is real and God is the source.
Michael's rant was just silly and emotional...
Absolutely he talked too much on homosexuality
So I think that he might be covering up for something
@@Spedclassprod lol
@@Spedclassprod LOL
@@Spedclassprod no for sure... I've commented this exact thing too on his debates with Kent Hovind.... Shermer doesn't even seem like an atheist or agnostic... He's definitely suffering from something and blaming the wrong person.
He did lose patience yes.
Hardly surprising faced with FT baloney.
"The least we can do after what he's done for us is stand up for him" Frank Turek
Amelia Herrera give me a shout girll,.)
He didn't do anything for me. The military is based solely on the acquisition of goods and maintaining our conquests of said goods. Moreover, he's a charlatan. Everything he says about slavery in the Bible is patently false!
Just one point the where you were born determines is absolute bull. My mom's agnostic my dad's atheist I came to christ on my own. Where i was born determined nothing
I'm glad you are one. My parents are also secular and I'm the only Christian in my family. I'm 19 now and I only decided to come to Christ and be saved in 18 February 2018, because I knew I was ignorant and that morality comes from Him. Keep following Jesus because He will never forsake you. Hope you're still loving Jesus with all of your heart, soul, and mind.
Lol yes it did kid. If you were born in India you would have gone to Hinduism. If you were born in Afghanistan youd most likely be a follower of Allah. Your environment influenced you to pick up the bible whether you realize it or not. That's what happened.
Yep same with me.
I, Spartacus so you know for a fact there are no native Indian Christians or native Christians in Afghanistan?
@@ispartacus1337 Praise God. but where u come from doesn't say if it is true or not. If i apply the same consistency to atheism then guess what happens if u were in the UK you would most likely be an atheist. Wow. Is Atheism false because of where i live? no. So reason would tell us that Christianity isn't false just because i live in a certain area. An ideology is true or false base on the evidence not on the distance from the truth. Praise God.
“Love without evidence is stalking” is not deep at all... stalking is a selfish self-seeking lust. To love is to give.
For God so loved the world He GAVE........
Exactly. If love requires take, then you don't love the person. Its only love for what you can get from that person.
Andrew G
Not meant to be deep. Just making the point that Love does have evidence.
Amen brother
@Kyle J Hartman
Hey again Kyle.
This is a question believing Christians have wrestled with for about 2 thousand years.
If you're truly curious and not just trying to do the gocha stuff, you can listen or read really smart people contemplate the subject.
Cs Lewis is a beautiful writer, a friend and contemporary of Tolkien, his book the problem of evil is a good read no matter what your beliefs are.
He wrote the lion witch and wardrobe series. Which you might be familiar with.
This is a man who was a WW1 veteran, a man who lost his wife early. No stranger to evil. He was an atheist because of the evil of the world, but he became a Christian. Not due to wishful thinking, but due to his own critical thinking.
At the very least you can learn the position of us dumb Christians better to be able to knock down our arguments more easily.
Dr Shermer lost it during question time.
Wished he debated better.
This debate clearly shows the lack of knowledge you have by just trying to use your human brain alone. But with God on your side, look how easy it is. Dr. Frank you rock.
That shows nothing. I can give you few reasons on the top of my head.
1st. Bible itself teachings evil things.
2nd. Morality is still subjective(it's god's mind) and majority of humans disagree with not small part of christian doctrine. So either majority of humanity are evil and morality is still subjective or simply morality is subjective.
3rd. Hypothetically if human is able to live by teachings of bible, then that person is simply amoral(not a moral agent) he is simply a servant that blindly follows orders.
So either way, objective morality doesn't work. What theists are doing is simply using something as a standard. And that can be done on multiple things(other religions, laws, evidence, etc.).
Yes God is a nice cheat whenever you find something hard to figure out. Just insert God and be done with it. Easy.
@@dariusnoname12 I'm a atheist but those arguments are not the way to attack the Moral argument.
1 - How do you know it's evil ? Where did you get the idea that whatever it taught was evil ? If it was by God then it is absolutely good because he is supposedly the highest standard of good.
2. God is the standard of Morality, everyone gets their morality from higher and higher authority, this can go ad infinitum but at the end the highest authority you get is God and just because Humans disagree doesn't mean the objective rules set by God are false. Some humans think Earth is flat, some think Gravity is fake, some think God exists etc. does that mean there isn't a objective truth for all these things ?.
3. Following the law doesn't mean someone is immoral, it does mean he is servant of the law but it doesn't make him immoral, same goes for following the highest objective authority.
Bruh that last argument is just trash. Law /=/ Moral necessarily, How do you know what religion says what God says, what evidence ? again the question comes up "Who says whats right and whats wrong ?"
@@prathmesh4662
1.
"How do you know it's evil ?"
>>I can use judgement based on multiple standards, like wellbeing, laws, opinion and even god of bible(without special pleading)
"Where did you get the idea that whatever it taught was evil ?"
>>I got that idea, by making a logical judgement based on our societies standards. But I comment things like that based on standards of bible.
"If it was by God then it is absolutely good because he is supposedly the highest standard of good."
>>If god is a standard you can't use his standards to check if he is good, cause you will get a bias answer. For example rapist is good based on rapists standards.
2.
"God is the standard of Morality, everyone gets their morality from higher and higher authority"
>>Would depend on how you define an authority. Cause if you define logic as an authority then, everything we do is based on authority. If not, then morality isn't based on authorty. For example even when we use laws of secular society, we can use logic, sciience and phyloshopy to find a reasons behind those laws.
Blindly using morals from authority makes you amoral, or a slave in other words.
"just because Humans disagree doesn't mean the objective rules set by God are false."
>>I agree with that statement. Which is why when arguiing against a specific religions I like to look from within those religions to find rebutals. Like for example perfectly just and merciful god, which ultimatelly leads to god being unjust. Or omniscience, human free will are mutually exclusive terms.
Or even using logic about religion. For example, god can judge people based on faith. Yet religion(for example Christianity) is a thought concept. If you don't have any christian teachers(bible, religious parents, etc.) then you will never know anything about Christianity. And there are a lot of problems within characteristics of god, teachings of bible, and then religions itself.
"does that mean there isn't a objective truth for all these things?"
>>It just show that we can't be certain of everything.
3. "Following the law doesn't mean someone is immoral"
>>Not immoral. Amoral. Not being moral agent. It means that you don't make moral decisions.
"Bruh that last argument is just trash."
>>That was because you read it incorrectly. Mistook Immoral with Amoral
"How do you know what religion says what God says, what evidence?"
>>Well, I am arguing against god of specific religion. I take in what people believe, and then find flaws in their logic. I don't know if god ultimatelly exists or what are it's characteristics.
"Who says whats right and whats wrong ?"
>>Environment and our evolutionary desires do.
@@dariusnoname12
1. Again how do you know that well being is good, or your opinion and how are you going to judge God of the Bible using the Bible ? Please show me you doing it.
Again why is Societal standard good ? What if Societal standard is "Murder all the gays" or "Murder your Parents after they are the age of 40". Just because society said so doesn't make it good. Again I want to see you laying your judgement upon the Biblical God using the Bible.
The problem with that example is that Rapist by definition isn't Good, God is. God must be good to be "God". Also that sounds so wrong, "If you judge Law using the Law then you'll get a bias answer".
2. Definition of a authority was given is the video, it was like the example for the Football game that Turek gave. But I'll just use the oxford definition, Authority - the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.
Also God has to be the highest authority possible if not then he isn't God.
Also using the morals given by God by definition won't be immoral because the morals are perfectly moral, also you don't have to follow them, you have free will.
Also I don't know why you are getting religion mixed up here, this is just about "God" not from any particular religion. Also God can't do unjust things, God can get rid of everything and it still won't be injustice. It's like us Human building a card tower and breaking it, but the difference between God and Human is bigger than the human and the card tower. The Biblical God in his own book can't do unjust acts because he is the standard of good and you can't bound him by the Laws that he gives to us, he has no bounds.
It's not God that judges people based on faith, its Yahweh. Again it's not a problem if Biblical God exists, he decides who will get the Gospel and who won't, who are we to question perfection ?
My examples were just saying how people can think Earth is flat yet can still be wrong but we still know it is round, people can be wrong.
3. Ah sorry for the amoral and immoral confusion. So I'm guessing you are using this definition of Amoral - lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something. There are some problems with this, you *can* be concerned with rightness or wrongness of God's moral Law, you *can* be a moral agent.
Why argue about of God of specific religion and not about God ?!?
The last point... how do you know our evolutionary desires are Good ? How do you know following the environment and fitting in it is Good ? How do you know living is Good ? How do you know why reproducing is Good ?
Frank "Power Point" Turek. Hes awesome!
if you need power point you don't understand your own argument.
@@HarryNicNicholas It's an accommodating device. You need to understand what your arguments first before you can put anything there. because what in buggs bunny's carrots would you even put there if you don't know your thing? You seriously need help pal.
Yes! He does so many College and University speeches, he has just about every commonly asked question there is, so he has them all on point.
@@HarryNicNicholas
Turek needed the "Power Point" slides for Shermer.
Man Michael isn't debating hes expressing his anger toward God which says a lot
I'm sorry to say that most atheists are angry at God they're not atheist they are theist they are just mad at God because I don't know maybe God did not give him the bicycle they prayed for when they were a kid
@@darin1701, you claim to know what other people believe better than they do??
That is about as arrogant a statement as I have ever heard.
Michael was clearly frustrated with the audience. The consistent disrespect shown by those who would cheer for losing arguments and bigoted behavior towards others would make any rational person fight back. In fact, this point was made and demonstrated by Michael many times. It was part of his winning arguments.
And, it is impossible to be angry towards a person or being that you do not even believe in. This is common sense logic. Give it a try sometime.
Claiming to know the mind of others immediately gets you disqualified from respectful debate forums. It is the embodiment of narcissism on a prolific scale.
If you need to attack others to champion an argument, you have utterly failed rationality and reason all together.
@@RIPZSmoke420 Hey I'm just making judgments on what I've seen you guys act like you're angry towards either The Bible to the Christian or to God himself by your demeanor by the way you speak and the amplified voices that you guys always Speak out of And to be honest with you I was attacked 1st I'm just attacking back don't feel salty about it now
@@darin1701, I care about what's true.
You didn't even make an attempt to respond to or refute a single point I made.
This is what it is like for an atheist to debate with a Chrisitian. Your appeal to emotions is irrelevant to me. It's not what you know, its what you can prove.
Sure, Jesus died to save you because you were created sick and are now being commanded to become well again. The perfection of abjection. The wish to be a slave.
You can keep your delusion
@@RIPZSmoke420 yeah and you keep yours
Wow, I could have debated Dr. Shermer. This was a very sad showing on his part.
Yeah, I'm only 13 but I think I could have a crack at him
he definitely didnt seem prepared. just argued off the top of his head, i dont think he took the event seriously
Arman Raider he should’ve listened to Franks arguments before he came. But frank is also completely wrong and doesn’t know the correct positions
Kevin Purnell
How is frank wrong?
He's arguing a losing position. It's objectively true that morality is objective only if God exists. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Shermer claims we do good because it "feels good," but he seems to forget that doing bad also feels good. If you go to a store, what exactly is stopping you from stealing? You aren't hurting anyone so you probably don't even feel bad about it. In fact, you got something for free so you probably feel good about it! If you feel "guilt," it's probably because you've been told by Judeo-Christian culture that stealing is ethically wrong. Perhaps you're scared because you're now a criminal. But it's certainly not because evolution made you feel the need to not steal. If anything, evolution prompted you to steal.
Conclusion: Shermer is trying to argue for a self-defeating argument.
Frank Turek you are so brave Sr! You bring hope in your speech & that is priceless. Thank you!
You don't teach Spanish no more?
But dont you think Frank's argument is all mystical rhetoric? We just don't have any evidence to support his claims except that it is written on his heart. Humans are far to fallible to recognize that with any sincerity.
Amen! Praise God for Apologetics!
@@piijay14 why? apologetic is the same as spin doctoring, find something immoral god did, make up some cock and bull story about why it's actually moral, it's purely lying for god. tell me, if you have to "harmonise" the bible, what are you harmonising?
immorality and plot holes.
why didn't god put a fence around the tree of knowledge, harmonise that if you will
@@HarryNicNicholas Okay let me first try and understand your objection.
Your first question "Why? Why what? What are you asking?
How do you determine God is immortal when all morality is founded by God not mankind? As mankind we don't get to determine morality. If you feel that apologetics is all 'Cock n Bull' that's fine but can you prove it??
Scripture has it "He that believes shall be saved. He that believes not is already condemned." St John 3:18
Therefore Scripture has already suggested that NOT everyone will believe. Therefore you're skepticism has already been predicted long before your existence.
This is why God didn't put a fence around the tree because he wants us to do exactly what you've already done....Make a Choice!! That's all salvation is about...choices and consequences!!
Mark my words, Shermer is going to come out of the closet before long!!
Lol
@@gggfightklub8449 lol..he would then have finally made the point he wanted to make because he was mauled in this debate
I love how the cross examination had some real court moments. Frank did such a good job being to the point and asking short questions. And then he sat back and let Michael fall apart like a lunatic.
That’s how you do it.
frank just double talks, he's a carnival act nothing more.
“5 years from now you guys are gonna agree with me! Mark my words!” Wow this sure aged well in 2023 💀😂😂😂😂
No Michael we won't. Especially after your silly behaviour and arguments.
This guy is a groomer. What an angry little man, he really needs Jesus.
who is "you guys"?
@@THEBOLDWITNESSTVthe voices
Wow, for Shermer...we marked his words, he guaranteed it...obviously 5 years later we all don't agree with him, so his comments did not stand the test of time...makes you wonder about the longevity and rationality about the rest of his claims.
Michael Shermer shows amazing ignorance in this debate when he identifies the Enlightenment as the origin of both modern science and the west’s notion of individual freedom and dignity. He also doesn’t seem to understand the gulf that exists between science’s role in dealing with casual explanation and scientism, which is a metaphysical commitment to a belief that science explains everything (see Williams & Robinson below).
Peter Harrison (see the publications below) is the most respected living authority on the emergence of modern science, which he sees as nested within Christian epistemology and worldview, not the Enlightenment. The following elements contributed to the emergence of modern, formal practices of science.
1. Modern experimental and empirical science was understood as a method for ameliorating the fall of man by promoting epistemic reliability and responsibility, thus reigning in error-proneness. This also supported opting for counter-intuitive hypotheses that could be tested given that intuitive ones were often prone to error.
2. Science was understood as a divine calling to study the second book - as written in the language of nature. This involved using mathematics to analyse the said Book of Nature as authored by a rational, creator God. Kepler thought scientists as: “ Priests of the most high God with respect to the book of nature.” Galileo thought that because God was rational and truthful, his creation could be explored through rational enquiry using mathematics and geometry. The empirical methods used by Robert Boyle, the father of modern chemistry, and the revolutionary way John Ray went about using empirical methods to develop the discipline of ornithology, testify to this same desire to better understand God through studying the second book. Both were deeply religious men, as were the vast majority of the members of the Royal Society.
3. The Reformed Christian emphasis on the ethic of hard work understood experimental scientific research - getting one’s hands dirty - as a virtue.
4. Science was seen as a “Christian” redemptive method for improving people’s lives through practical utility. Francis Bacon was one of many who promoted this idea.
5. The use of new instruments to investigate things created by God but invisible to normal vision was influenced by and echoed in Paul’s suggestion (Romans 1.20) that the invisible things of God were evident in the created order.
6. The Protestant Reformation promoted vernacular translations of the Bible, which made it open for all literate people to read it in a personal way. This undermined the authority of the Catholic priest craft tradition. In parallel, it undermined received notions of the natural world based on scholastic thought rather than empirical, eye-witness investigation.
7. The Protestant Reformation lead to a new ‘revolutionary’ cultural paradigm of thought and practices. One such way of acting resulted in the English Civil War and developments in parliamentary democracy.
8. The idea of God’s moral absolute law was extended to the field of science, which became identified with discovering scientific laws as authored by God.
These are historical rather than ‘religious’ arguments given they are excavated from historical facts and events.
Larry Siedentop (book listed below) clearly identifies that the West’s liberal, secular freedoms emerged from Christianity’s vision of individuals possessing unique value.
A FEW SOURCES
Alexander, D. & Numbers, R. L. (Eds.) (2010) Biology and Ideology: From Descartes to Dawkins, London, University of Chicago Press.
Harrison, P. (2007) The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Harrison, P. (1998) The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Modern Science, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Siedentop, L. (2014) Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism, London, Allen Lane.
Williams, R. N. & Robinson, D. N. (Eds.) (2015) Scientism: the New Orthodoxy, London, Bloomsbury.
Argument from authority. Straw man fallacy. A fallacious shifting of the burden of proof. Arguments from credulity. Arguement Ad Populum fallacy.
Honestly. There was not a single point you made that wasn't either factually incorrect, completely taken out of context, or incoherent.
Copy paste, much??
If you can not explain something simply, you do not know it well enough.
When I started reading this, the Jews were still in Egypt. Brevity my dude.
@@Detson404 Many times less is less. Clarity, my friend.
Michael Shermer is a very angry man.
And Frank is a very incorrect man.
Shermer is frightened because his credibility is at stake and all his books need to be burnt
He needs prayer.....
@@deVeresd.Kfz.1515 Nobody tell all of the worlds population before 30 AD and most of it after how immoral they’re being. For fricks sake talk to a non-Christian for once in your life.
@@Detson404 Sorry, my friend. I have rejected many of my views on protestant christianity, so I understand your argument. I am now an Orthodox Christian, so we go by the traditions of the Apostles and the Church, which they set up.
As for who gets to go to Heaven, I understand that protties will throw a few Bible verses to judge, but I don't go by their random interpretations, but a whole wider context and forensic definition of the Bible. I believe non-Christians can be saved and go to Heaven, but it would be up to God's judgement. He will judge everybody fairly, both Christians, atheists, and other theists. Some Christians can go to hell too, it's not just atheists. Atheist may have a chance and we as Orthodox do pray for friends and families both religious and irreligious when they have died that God will grant them mercy. It's up to God to be the judge, not us
Shemer is just screaming. And his arguments are easily refuted.
i never see them refuted, just ignored. turek is a con man.
@@HarryNicNicholas
He's handily refuted at about 1 minute 23 in as far as I can tell.
Frank is right. Michael is not dealing with the key question.
Screaming out "JUST ASK THEM"
Isn't a refutation to "what is"
If it's materialism, pain and suffering is merely electrical signals being sent to the brain, the reaction of the meat bag is just noise without meaning as far as I can tell.
Is your claim about Frank being a con man based on anything? Or are you lashing out towards good arguments that infer you might be held to account for your life without an advocate?
Which is pretty terrifying.
MALLYGEEZ1 , can you give an example, which of his arguments was refuted?
@@HarryNicNicholas how so
@Kyle Hartman Music sure, so the floor is yours, show your work.
A "gentleman" isn't really how I would describe Michael...
I'm really disappointed of Dr. Sherman presentation. It was very important for me to learn the opposing side and this was just terrible. Dr. Sherman should never step in another debate again. I really cannot believe that someone of Dr. Sherman's position would have a lousy argument!!!
PhD degree Michael Shermer, sounded irritating, illogical and irresponsible. Every single word out of his mouth is his wrath and ignorance against the omniscient benevolent God. I hope he found Christ, so he would finally find peace. Pray for his soul.
@Kyle Hartman Music That the declaration of independence implied the rights come from evolution.
That humans are the authority on what is moral despite some of them being nazis.
That Christians object to women rights despite the fact that Christianity liberated women and they were the FIRST ones that Jesus Christ appeared to after the resurrection.
He contradicted himself several times, like when he said that we VOTE on morality, and after he was asked "what if we vote to kill gays" he immediately flipped.
He says natural selection is not unguided but when Frank asks him by whom he says by natural selection.
I am writing these as i am hearing him say it, it took a couple of minutes. It goes on like this for the entirety of the debate. He is a raging imbecile.
@@oldscorp excellent
Kyle is spot on
My, we’re threatened by different opinions, aren’t we? Poor oppressed Christians can’t burn free thinkers like they used to, poor you…
Shermer messed up. His examples is all about being good. WHERE does that come from? He couldn't answer it.
But dont you think Frank's argument is all mystical rhetoric? We just don't have any evidence to support his claims except that it is written on his heart. Humans are far to fallible to recognize that with any sincerity.
@@zachg8822 no it's written in a book to...aswell as some stones I belive.
@@zachg8822 mystical are you listening? he gave realibale example MAP and baseball rules to determine his point.
@@zachg8822 its bettter than the atheists that dont haver any explanation
He did say Individual experiences answers that.🤷🏽♀️🤷🏽♀️
Michael Shermer keeps yelling at straw man. It's almost like he's trying to re-convince himself rather than convince the audience. Insulting your audience is not a very effective convincing argument.
Rampaging Libertyphile YEP! Too many straw man arguments.
rosssilver OMG! 😂
Wow! Mr. Shermer is displaying the opposite of a respectful, tolerant, "highly evolved" individual with great self-control.
rosssilver why have you copied your comment everywhere
@@rosssilver Christian here. I gotchu
I really enjoyed this debate, Michael didn't really scream or throw a tantrum I found it hilarious.
Keep up the good work Frank
I was in a good debate for 3 days just from a short clip from this debate. Good stuff in here.
Frank Turek is legendary
He wasn't so legendary when he tried to debate the great Chrstopher Hitchens
@@ATOK_ wdym, Frank destroyed Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens avoided Frank’s questions in there debate watch it again if you think otherwise
@@ROBOT3050 it doesn't matter because Frank believes in fairy tales and Hitchens did not
@@ATOK_ That's not a proper reply, lol
@@m3ow21 ok
Evolved morals go straight out of the window with natural disasters. Robbing, looting and more, are the examples of this.
He would just say they’re psychopaths so we shouldn’t care and disregard them
@@gbritto98 So all robbers and looters are atheist?
Why did god create planet earth having tectonic plates? Why did god create rats and roaches ?
Did you listen to anything Schermer said? When neighbors come together to aid one another (which happens consistently after disasters) that’s ALSO an example of evolved morality. We didn’t evolve to be solitary sociopaths. Lions act like lions, prairie dogs act like prairie dogs, and humans act like humans, and love, charity, and self-sacrifice are human qualities across all times and cultures.
I didn’t know an atheist could lose so bad
I love Chris, the mediator.."Questions please...ok questions....only questions"!
When Michael continued to get angry about same sex marriage instead of staying on topic you know he lost control of the debate.
No, he actually refuted the religious opinions of those who would deny the same rights of others on a particular group of individuals.
He rightly called those who would deny marriage rights to others because of their own personal beliefs bigoted. The same arguments were made against interracial marriage in the 50s and 60s.
The wrong side of history. The moral ark. Pretty simple stuff when you are educated.
Exactly. He got emotional and Frank dealt with him so easily😂
Lol he’s right though. If you’re not in favor of same sex marriage, your children will be, and they’ll probably cite God as the reason why. Ex post facto all the way.
I find it so interesting that only Frank uses his fellow debater's book as an argument, other debater's never use Frank's books to tell him that he's wrong. Two options for that:
1: They haven't read it
2: They don't know how to respond to it (so they know it's right)
Maybe there's nothing to respond to.
_Igor,_ are you saying you ignored the entire talk to weirdly fixate on who replied to the other person's book? Why are theists constantly implying that they're completely irrational by saying things like this? I mean some atheist comments imply irrationality too, but theists _constantly_ act wrong.
In case you're unclear:
* Turek didn't present strong, logical evidence of a god
* So then he naturally didn't continue to also present evidence of that god causing morality.
* Meanwhile we know evolution is a fact (go to the references section of "evolution" on Wikipedia if you're unfamiliar with the evidence proving it; there are hundreds of scientific papers there)
* and evolution definitely caused morality. It gave us _instinctive morals_ by giving us instincts of right/wrong behavior, and it enabled _learned morals_ by giving us memories able to learn from life events that teach us morality (either through firsthand experience, or learning from culture/family/etc).
Now hopefully in the 2 years since you made that comment you've already realized these things and stopped believing in a god, but if not then you really owe it to yourself to start caring whether your beliefs are truth.
As a Christian you know when God is telling you something. For me is a heaviness of my heart and my thought goes to what God wants from or for me. What God wants will never go against the bible.
If Jesus had Godly powers, he would be alive today living in the Middle East somewhere. Anonymous hoaxer Christian writers have made up the resurrection hoax by falsely passing themselves off as someone who existed years before them and claiming to be eyewitnesses.
@@AtamMardes no one claims to be Jesus that is called the anti christ
The bible is man-made.
Frank came off way smarter, more composed, more prepared, and basically won this debate!
Nobody can win in debates... I'm sorry. If you on Frank side than you tell that "He is a winner!". But if you on the other side... "Michael win". This thing happened every time objectively.
shame he isn't though eh. did you buy one of his books, that's his prime motivation you know.
Yes he won
@@HarryNicNicholas I didn't even know he sold books
@@Uskov_Oleg you make a fair point. I guess a more accurate description is that frank certainly defended his position well, and articulated it so people can easily understand his position.
I loved Frank Turek's presentation. His analogy of MAP was great. Morality requires (M)oral standard, (A)uthoritative person and (P)urpose to life.
If morality is dependent upon God, then your morals are subjective to the mind of that God. Therefore, your morals are subjective.
Basic logic 1.0.1
You absolutely can define morality that way. Dr. Schermer defined it differently and so came to different answers. If two people have different metaethical positions, there’s not much to discuss at that level.
We can wake-up a person sleeping, but we cannot wake-up a person (atheist )pretend sleeping .
Or maybe we came to different conclusions for reasons that seem good to us. Nah, can’t be…
The Father has never spoken to me directly. He has used His word to communicate with me.
David Anderson How do you know it was god’s word?
How do you know it wasn't? You stated above that Christians haven't proven God exists once in history. Since when are we supposed to command God appear before you? The Bible doesn't command us to prove God exists, it commands us to love Him and each other and everyone else, and to share the gospel with everyone. Not once does it say "And thus thou art required, by the crutch 'Burden of Proof' set to thee by atheists, to proveth My existence to said atheists, because they are fools in need of proof of everything except science, which they taketh by faith and by the word of scientists."
Face it, atheists came up with that burden of proof nonsense so as NOT to have to disprove God, which they can't, so they hoist this burden of proof on the Christian, who is not required to prove His existence at all. We live by faith. It is by faith we will continue to live. I have never seen God, Jesus, the things that happened in the Bible, but by faith I believe it. Did you see the planet being formed billions of years ago? What evidence do you have that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and not thousands of years ago like I believe? Is it because of the SCIENTIFIC scale created by atheist scientists? Yeah, that's not unbelievable at all.
Basically science wants us to take what scientists say at their word (and these are called theories, mind you, which is a sciency way of saying "by faith" or "wild guessing") and never question it, but they are 100% positive that God doesn't exist and did not create everything and everyone. So, basically, by this burden of proof crutch which atheists love to lean on, it is the atheist that needs to back up their claims because it is YOU saying that God DOESN'T exist. I have never come to an atheist and and laugh in their face and say God exists, but I did have an atheist come to me laugh in my face and say God doesn't exist. So, where is their proof, I asked. And they leaned on that old crutch of theirs and chuckled while sweating, the smile leaving his face. So, he switched to ridicule and calling me names (you see, that's what they do, atheists) instead of explaining how they came to that conclusion.
Dyre Logan Fail. :-)
That's all you'll say? Fail? No explanation? No rebuttal? Nothing? Just throwing up your hands in a juvenile tantrum? Please, explain.
Dyre Logan Boy, you are one stupid and dishonest bunt. You really need to look up what the scientific definition of theory actually means. This way you’ll get to understand why intelligent people know, not just believe you are stupid and ignorant.
Have a great day. :-)
The whole time it seemed Michael was just grabbing words out of the air even while reading everything he said
But dont you think Frank's argument is all mystical rhetoric? We just don't have any evidence to support his claims except that it is written on his heart. Humans are far to fallible to recognize that with any sincerity.
@@zachg8822 No I don't
That was a great debate by Dr. Frank Turek! He is one of the reasons why I understand God better.
F*ckin hell. If Turek comes out well Schermer must have really shat the bed.
Your being duped.
@@zachg8822 Who is? Me or Two Wardrobes Wardrobes?
I'd be ashamed to say that!
Do you understand World Mythology also?
This Michael guy is just screaming, not debating
How so? He's asking for Frank to back up his claims and all Frank can do is just repeat the word, "God!" Frank makes claims, inserts that a God must have done it and Mike is like, "What? Prove that. There is no difference between someone claiming Harry Potter is real and just saying over and over again, that "Harry did it!"
Frank talks lies with no proof at all defending bull
Jose Galeano leftist culture sucks
@@stelladavis7832 he is not
.. he is very emotional... He is just jumping from one to another...
@Kyle Hartman Music no... He is not... Your intellect is limited and you are one sided and you are brainwashed emotional guy...
Michael Shermer just threw a tantrum didnt he?
Stuff like this makes me proud to be a Christian
Frank defeated himself when he said "you don't need God to be moral, you just need God to justify it"
That is a claim he made with ZERO supporting evidence. And, which God?
You must first prove God exists.
Christians have all their work still ahead of them
Ignorance is bliss
Careful... Pride brought the fall you silly christian
@@Gamer528
Lol. its not wrong to be proud of being a christian, as long as we dont boast in ourselves.
In fact, we are to boast in nothing else but the fact Jesus died for our sins.
@@RIPZSmoke420
Oh but you can logically deduce that we live when our bodies die.
Firstly we dream every day and can literally be alive anywhere when our physical bodies are not present with us.
That proves the metaphysical realm exists.
And secondly by the ultimate balance of all things on earth that we scientifically observe, we can deduce that the metaphysical things like justice will also be balanced out in time.
So when bad people prosper and good people suffer their whole lives, there must, must be a balance of justice to both the wicked and the good when their physical life ends.
Secondly, nothing on earth has been seen to evolve by itself or from something from a different kind as itself. So the bible has got modern fake science there by the scruff.
Both are a logical deduction and supported by science. And we have faith in this science because we have faith in the God of all science.
@@theazure4171
"Firstly we dream every day and can literally be alive anywhere when our physical bodies are not present with us.
That proves the metaphysical realm exists.
"
>>No. Dreams only prove that our brain works when we dream. Brain scans prove that(cause they show activity). Anyway given that you provided no evidence, you should start by show that proof(about metaphysical realm).
"And secondly by the ultimate balance of all things on earth that we scientifically observe, we can deduce that the metaphysical things like justice will also be balanced out in time."
>>Assumptionts. What balance? How particles stay stable? That is a no. How gravity stays the same? That is also no, cause with mass it would change. What balance do you mean?
So for now, everything you said above literally mean nothing.
"So when bad people prosper and good people suffer their whole lives, there must, must be a balance of justice to both the wicked and the good when their physical life ends."
>>1st. Again assumptions.
2nd. To our observation, good is relative. I mean, even your so called good god, is even worse than Hitler, Satan(based on a bible). Yet Christians call him good(while ignoring his evil actions). So your premise is wrong. And second part of your sentence(justice part) has nothing to do with start(good people suffer). Basically wishful thinking.
"Secondly, nothing on earth has been seen to evolve by itself or from something from a different kind as itself. So the bible has got modern fake science there by the scruff.
"
>>1st. We have seen evolution(for example lizards of pod machu). We also are able to see similarities in species. For example chromosomes of humans and apes are extremely the same. Like copying mistakes in chromosomes that are the same in apes and humans. There is also new evidence that shows birds evolution to birds(or something like that).
2nd. Define kind. Cause by common definition it is possible to assemble all animals under same kind.
3rd. You provided no counter arguments. You simply used god of the gaps fallacy.
"Both are a logical deduction and supported by science. And we have faith in this science because we have faith in the God of all science."
>>There is no need for faith cause we have evidence. Don't mix religion with science.
One has evidence other has wishful thinking(religion)
“I’ve met many former homosexuals but I never met a former African American... ever” this is a perfect counter point, thank you frank for such patience ✝️
sexuality is ever changing but a race you were born with cannot.....thats a dumb comparison
@@just_eboniso youre saying theyre not born that way?
@@davids7646 I'm not saying they are not born that way....I'm saying you cannot change your race.....the person stated that they've met former homosexuals....and religion causes people to suppressed that part of their being.....but one cannot change their race that's why I said it was a crappy comparison
@@just_eboni this is where you miss the point, the phrase "born this way" was used to mean that their sexuality is not a choice, its just something theyre born with and cant change. mentioning the fact that some change their sexuality which to be very clear are mostly deliberate, begs the question if the phrase is really correct. its absolutely not a 1 to 1 analogy but its logical enough.
to add on sexuality is not ever changing. not all sexuality change is a decision based on religion
Religious people individually can be moral, but faith can't give them a framework to explain why anything is right or wrong.
59:55 is freaking hilarious😂😂😂 “the people who are killing love it!!”
Did he just say natural selection is guided by natural selection lol
Mee tooo I heard that..Frank cought it not😂
After watching this, even if we left God out of this, I found that Frank's argument had more logic and commen sense and logic than Michael's. And that is what got me thinking.
Is the god of the Old Testament commanding Abraham to kill his son Isaac your best source of morality ?
@@salvadoralvarado8685 if you put it into context then yes...and even if you dont still yes because it's literally the creator of everything..... he could've made the earth out of shattered glass with 10 x the gravity but luckily hes nice 🤷♂️
@@salvadoralvarado8685 and he told him to stop before he did lol he wouldn't have actually let him in the name of God. God was extremely against child sacrifice.
@@erincurrie1560 Our planet has 97% salty water and 3% drinkable water. There are more insects than people. A meteorite almost destroyed god’s creation 65 millions years ago. Any good reason for the existence of viruses ? Any good reason for the Black Death in Europe in the Middle Ages. Two year olds with inoperable brain tumor that die agonizing deaths ?
@@erincurrie1560 Why a good and loving being would give a command to kill someone ?
Shermer critisized multiple times the collectivist secular ideologies of communism and nazism, yet this whole idea about the "humanist commandments" that he proposes is based entirely on the survival of the group as the highest moral value. He is a collectivist who doesn't realize that he's a collectivist.
A 55 yo MD here, Psychiatrist for 30 years. Former soviet citizen, secretly baptized in Russian Orthodoxy, but raised as and accepted to be a militant atheist. Became initially agnostic in the US, then deistic, then theistic ...and now growing and hoping and perhaps praying to become a catholic Christian. I have heard the communist -atheist propagandists demagogues spewing their personally projected and emotional dogmas which they didn't believe themselves[ because when s***t hit the fan- they prayed to God, not to science]
And I have read and heard the best past and present Christian minds, topologists, apologists- and a revelation and grace slowly but surely came to me. And keeps attending me with the choke in the throat, tears of joy, whenever I am exposed to absolute BEATY, GOOD AND TRUTH, and whenever I am in church...
All the rational , but also humble philosophical , moral and even scientific arguments are the sufficient convergence of data that make me a BELIVER.
This exchange simply confirms again and again to me: The world can't BE without HIM. I feel sorry for my former comrades in arms- atheists...They are missing so much...
This guy is no where near Frank’s level lol Christians for the win on this one
It’s not about winning.
@@reinaldomanuel8488 it’s a debate. Normally one has more or better points than the other making them the winner of said debate. Both are there to try and win the debate so id say it is about winning.
God's word is eternal. People change, God does not. If people go against what the Bible says and claim to be Christian, they are not. They cannot change God's eternal law and expect to escape moral judgement.
Joshokitty
If god doesn’t change, explain how he went from no body form to a body form in Jesus but you said he doesn’t change? If law is eternal, does that mean that the 613 laws in the OT are to be followed today such as eye for an eye?
1981andybt here is the explain to your question...it is God's nature that doesn't change..His divinity.
His character and knowledge are without variation, He has always been holy, omniscient, omnipresent and pure, these things cannot change in God because they are aspects of His nature.
You obviously don't fully understand the incarnation because this shows that God's nature has never changed even when He became man... He was still divine, still fully God!!! It is a union of two natures both human and divine in one person..Jesus Christ the natures never mixing instead existing simultaneously.
He didn't change any of His divine attributes when He became man, Jesus showed a dual nature both God and man.. He wasn't "half man half God" rather both fully man bleeding suffering and dying and fully God being absolutely sinless, did miracles, raised people from the dead, forgave humanity for their sins and was eternal existing before creation.
He willingly took on the human nature along side His always existing divine nature...why was this necessary?? you might be asking... well human nature is of course the only possible way for Him to die because obviously the human nature can die...
The sacrifice for us required a sinless human not an animal because only pure human blood is equal because we're human. the reason only God could do it is because...we all know that NO man can be sinless UNLESS He is God... but God cannot die UNLESS He becomes man so God became man to live perfectly... sinless... making His human life the only life that was able to pay the sacrifice so by taking on human nature He could then die for us this was the only way and so this is the reason for the incarnation.
About the 613 laws, it's only the moral laws still stand because they are from God's nature which is unchanging so... do not murder, do not steal etc... they are the same forever!! now the punishment has changed for many of these moral laws because many of the laws were for the theocracy of Israel 4,000 years ago!!....in a time where no justice system or prison system existed!!
We are now to follow the punishment given by the government we live under, so the punishment of stoning murders is no longer used but we still kill murders in our society... which shows that the moral hasn't changed only the punishment has...
An eye for an eye doesn't stand because we now have a justice system, that takes care of that for us which is actually build on christian principles when Jesus came His teachings eliminated an eye for an eye. He taught us we don't have to become like our enemies to get justice, the people who do wrong are not unusual because we are all guilty of breaking God's laws to hate is to murder Jesus said.... so these people should be given a chance to recognise their wrong and turn from it.... if not then we will seek justice fairly not in a cruel uncivilised way.
1981andybt The laws were for a different time, and society of Hebrews. Most of it even says don't cut your hair at your temples. Its for the Jews who had tribes of different sets of people such as the Levites who were clergy. As for the commandments. They still stand today, not a single person standing on this earth right now has done all of them. If you break one you break all 10. If you break one then the old testament says to bring 2 turtledoves or etc for a sin offering and a peace offering. Okay so notice that doesn't happen other than the Jews do that, well not really now but they do it. So what changed? Jesus Christ was the sacrificial lamb prophesied about in the old testament he was the final sin offering for all who truly repent of their sins and call on the name of the king of kings and Lord of lords Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ did not come to abolish the law he came to fulfill it.
+Joshokitty
The improved morality from OT Bible to NT Bible is the proof that morality is an evolutionary process as man intellect improves. There is no objective morality and the Bible is not the words of any God. Religion has got you by the balls.
No sir, God's moral requirements have not changed. The 10 commandments are still valid.
I was really excited for Shermer, because every seemed nice and intelligent, but once he got his opportunity to 'ask questions' he totally fell apart. Sad.
thanks Frank love your work fantastic job I meant to say that you produce fruit for us Christians that will help us in our ministry and that that fruit is healthy is healthy for us Christians I learned a lot thanks
Up to 1 hour, and the argument of "morals from science alone" can be summarised as, "We should give people [and other sentient beings] rights, because people want rights, and what people want is good." Childish. What is "good" and to what end does it matter?
Lilac Milkshake Not many :D
Lilac Milkshake Stop using logic...the atheists won't be able to keep up.
Lilac - We all have our own ways of going about things. Mine is more direct. I call em as I see em. Not too concerned with "feelings" but rather what can be displayed as truth and what is falsehood. To suggest a false thing is false or that an illogical thing is illogical is not an insult but rather a plain declaration of what a thing is or isn't. If it's construed as an insult, then so be it. Couldn't care less so long as what is being presented is justifiably accurate and reasonable to conclude.
1 Corinthians 14:38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
If I wanted to get technical here and start listing the instances when God, Jesus Christ, the prophets, disciples, and apostles said something that wouldn't be construed as being very "nice" to those being spoken to, I'd soon be presenting the majority of Biblical texts.
I don't play the "nice" game. Not what I'm here for.
crazyworld54321 dude I'm not gonna pretend to know scripture off the top of my head, but I know we are to witness and defend the Word in love. Because attitudes like yours where you don't care for other people's feelings only drive people away, whether it's the truth or not. The bible says "come let us reason together" not belittle one another.
Lilac Milkshake you bring up a good point, however, even in catastrophe we would know the difference between right and wrong. Many might reconsider those morals for their own selfish gain. Kill or be killed. But I don't think it makes the moral argument any less true.
Gotta love how Shermer’s final quote from his book is from Martin Luther King Jr: a Christian. 😆
Great job Frank Turek
01:29:20 Exactly it’s not about your opinion it’s about the truth what Jesus said and whether (you want) to believe it or not-John 16:4.
1:09:00 What Frank said on Slavery & the Bible was on point 👍
Shermer lost it, literally!!
The notion that the “victim” of any act is in position to decide the morality of that action is dumb to me. If I withhold candy from my child they would get upset, that does not make my act wrong.
The enlightenment came up, not with rights, but with the idea that governments were required by moral law to enforce "right behavior" against "wrong behavior."
How is Shermer's 'Moral Arc' thing working out for the people in North Korea, China, and Russia?
33 min. To know if something is wrong, just ask the individual. Ok that's a perfect idea. Ask a kid that needs a shot or a sergery, that will hurt, if it's wrong 🤦🏻♀️
What a great reply. I didn’t even think about that
Michael got whipped! 1:12:00 he really melted down! Looked like a fool... earned every bit of it. Edited to add this: Dr. Turek, God may not speak to you but He speaks through you. God bless brother
CodeSearcher Kyle No he was simply annoyed by Turek’s wilful stupidity, dishonesty.and incorrigibly.
Plastic Vision I will admit that "we" have not won every debate but you have to admit that "you all" lost this one.
CodeSearcher Kyle How exactly do you reason that? Did Turek meet his burden of proof? If he did, I must’ve missed it.
Let’s be clear, no religious apologist of any religion, past or present, living or dead, has ever shown the proposition that a god exists, any god, is true.
This is just a brute fact that theists either aren’t aware of or are unwilling to admit.
This is failure on an epic scale and renders belief in the face of this failure about as irrational as it’s possible to be.
You shouldn’t confuse Shermer’s irritation with Turek’s stupidity, dishonesty and incorrigibility with him winning the debate. He didn’t, just as no apologist has.
Now you may be persuaded by invalid or unsound arguments and that is your right, but intellectually honest people hold such claims to proper account and find them not only lacking, but often outright fallacious. Tureks mischaracterising science is a case in point, and this is wholly apart from the philosophical refutations of theistic claims.
These are generally not well known by theists. Many are surprised at how simple refutations are and find they cannot accept such simple refutations are sufficient to refute their claims and thus beliefs. But the sad fact is for the theist that they are. Logic has no regard for what you think, believe or would like to be true. Sorry.
CodeSearcher Kyle Put simply, if such arguments were shown to be valid and sound there would be no rational reason to deny the conclusion. This is why the majority of atheists are open to persuasion, but never persuaded.
This is in stark contrast to many theists who cannot concede to fallibalism, which in and of itself is an indication of a fundamental intellectual dishonesty.
I’ve never seen Michael so embarrassed before, he has the losing face on and he’s got nothing left, no questions just outbursts of nothing....
Frank, I thank God for you.
i can't imagine a real god would like frank, frank is using religion to sell books, he lies and misrepresents the bible, i can't believe so many people fall for this snake oil job he does on you.
Shut up
I remember watching a clip where he said stuff about slavery and got roasted
Wow! I'm at 43 minutes into it and am amazed at the circular reasoning and useless information that the atheist presents!
I'm going to keep watching but, if he doesn't get better than this, my hope for logical argument from him is dashed. 😯
@doug nut There wouldn't be a better way for God to seperate those who are good and those who are sinners.
@@IM-tl7qv uh oh, looks like someone deleted their own comment.
@@dcmurphy5157 Wow, I can't even remember what he said 😆 😆
All metaethical positions are circular, ultimately, deist and atheist. Why should we obey gods law? Why should we be moral? These questions don’t have answers and aren’t very productive.
@@Detson404 Well, because God is necessarily all good logically as if He created everything, all good comes from Him. We should obey it because it is a universal law and by necessity to make any decision at all on what to do regarding this is to be moral so we should should do good rather than evil, which is a lack of good hence wrong objectively. (If you say you don't believe in God so that explanation doesn't make sense, I'd like to point out I'm only trying to show why it isn't circular on the theistic worldview.) The question is productive because if we know we already have objective moral values, then we can try to work out things about reality.
Sherman has a lot of guts agreeing to debate a topic that atheism has no answers to. He did the same in this debate, no good answers. Dancing around the answer and saying "It's wrong because someone says it's wrong", doesn't make it wrong. I don't know how atheists miss this so much. For all the knowledge they have on so many topics, this simple thought process overloads their brains...
Atheism is "I am not convinced a god exists".
That's it.
@HuxtableK , my experience, atheists are convinced God does not exist.
The atheists is embarrassing. He’s getting angry too.
54:55 "Hello, McFly?!?" LOVE IT!!
Hilarious
Dr. Michael Shermer is just... wow. That anger. And I'm ok with everything he says with respect to letting gay couples marry but no by obligating the churches that don't want to do it.
Dr. Frank you are so wonderful and brave man of God and learning from you so many things.
Tell it Frank!😍
Boy was the presence of God moving through that building. Amazing debate.
When people lose an argument they will be yelling nonsense
I'm a Christian but I don't see how this is an open and closed case without using presupposition. Why couldn't humans just decide that EVERYONE agrees about certain things?
Even animals protect their young and collectively try to stop intruders and work towards a greater benefit to the tribe.
I dont think micheal has ever read the bible, his begining statements about rape in the bible are wrong and also about slaves. Shame to him
The best I’ve seen and heard!
Currently May 5, 2020 more than 5 years later. Our morality hasn't changed as Shermer predicted.
Yes, and I’m sure there’s a few hateful holdouts who don’t want interracial marriage. Welcome to the saddest club imaginable. Luckily, such ideas tend to die out with their adherents.
It’s currently May 18th, 2023. While some “progressive christian” churches are accepting homosexuality, Christians and the faith haven’t changed the view that homosexuality is a sin. We are seeing more evil in the country and the world but Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. God is good and we must endure the rising evil and fight with truth and righteous
Great debate! Thanks from Chile 🇨🇱
Michael Sherman shows his morality with his opening statement "Who would you do" already evident where his thinking is! Repent and belive on the Lord!
The comments section really reinforces how ‘young’ we still are. Loved MS presentation/views! How anyone can believe FT has the correct worldview is astounding and deeply depressing.
What's depressing is thinking life is meaningless and has no ultimate purpose. What's depressing is thinking people can define morality for themselves and others should just have to deal with it
@@knxcholx well I do hope you take care of all of that which is contributing to your depression. Life doesn’t owe you the answers you apparently seek through your flawed belief system. Sometimes you just have to roll with the facts as they are, even if they’re scary or uncomfortable for you. I wish you the best on your journey of discovery.
But you can’t say with certainty that anything is “depressing” if God doesn’t exist, because there is no objective standard of what is depressing versus what is uplifting. Maybe you think something is bad, but somebody else might think it’s great. Nothing can be objectively bad because, according to you, you have no objective standard against which to judge good and bad. This is precisely Frank’s point.
Shermer: *goes on a childish, emotional rant*
Atheists in the comments:
"You are like little baby. Watch this."
The irony
Oh, how ironic indeed
Thank you CE
Fantastic debate enjoyed the insight on both sides of the spectrum! Much to take in, process, meditate, pray , reason and share...👊🏽🎆🙏🏽☀️ Hope to see deepak chopra debate with frank turek someday that would be enlightening.