Debating Atheists & Agnostics
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- Watch the newest episode of Apologia Radio in which we review the recent debate with Dr. Deen Chattergee and Jared Anderson at the University of Utah. We pray that this blesses you and equips you! Tell someone about it!
Check out The Ezra Institute at... www.ezrainstit...
Check out our store at shop.apologias...
![BAK Jay - Find Out (For Your Love) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/10FJO_XBCvY/mqdefault.jpg)
I laughed when dr. Chatterjee said that Jeff sounded like a broken record. It's like: yeah! That's called having a consistent Theology and worldview!😂
These guys are like hippie philosophers. They’re so “deep” in the thinking, and at the same time, it’s sheer madness when they explain.
Yeah I'm not buying that
Wouldn't it be something if a murderer on trial defended himself by saying "I'm just part of the conversation."
LOL exactly, and imagine these 2 gentlemen on the jury of a murder case like this or any criminal case really...
Why do theists even bother with the topic of morality? Try to present evidence of a single objective moral value. You can't do it by asking me my subjective feelings on murder (because being based on feelings _is what make something subjective_ ). You can't say that if I call something bad I'm saying it's objectively bad, because that's illogical: if you said a movie was bad are you calling it objectively bad? No, you're saying it doesn't fit your movie preferences (and with morals we use good/bad in exactly the same way).
So the entire topic is just theists saying something is true for no reason.
Worse, even if it was true...so what? If we imagine an objective moral value existed and a theist could actually prove it, how would that get them one step closer to proving a god existed? The only connection is theists saying (again completely without evidence) that a god is related to morality, and yet once again if you try to use evidence to prove out that case...you can't. There's no evidence of a god causing morality.
@@majmage - First ask what do subjective and objective mean? An objective truth is one that is true regardless of what any individuals think. It is true regardless of anyone’s opinion to the contrary. An objective truth is still true even if everyone in the world does not subjectively believe it. It is an objective truth that water is H2O. This is always true, even if people don’t know about it. There was a time when no one in the world knew that water is H2O. They did not subjectively believe this to be true, and yet it was still true. If someone said that he preferred to think that water is not H20, he would not be correct.. We know he would be wrong because the truth about water is objectively true independently of what anyone thinks. It wouldn’t matter what anyone’s subjective preferences are. They may not like it, but that doesn’t take away its truth.
Subjective is something that is felt or experienced entirely within an individual’s mind. Personal preferences are entirely subjective. So, what about moral statements? Can they be true? If so, are they objectively true or subjectively true? Consider the statement “Hitler is evil.” Could it be objectively true, just as much as the statement that water is H2O? However, if morals are just statements about my own personal feelings, then a moral statement could only be subjective in nature and never objective. But if the statement “Hitler is evil” is a purely subjective statement describing my own personal feelings, then I am not really talking about Hitler at all; I would only be talking about myself and my emotional reactions.
So that’s the question for you, when you say that Hitler is evil, are you talking about Hitler or are you talking about yourself?
@@Klee99zeno So do you agree with me that we don't know objective morality exists? I noticed your post contains no evidence of a single objective moral value.
I think most theists are smart enough to know that when I say, _"Transformers (2007) is a bad movie,"_ I'm not making a statement of objective fact. Basically what I'm saying is, _"I have subjective movie tastes, but this particular movie didn't meet them, and when that happens we call it 'bad'."_
Well morality works exactly the same as that: when a person calls an act good or bad, they're saying it relative to their subjective morality. A given Muslim says it's good to behead apostates. I say it's bad. Neither of us seem to be describing an objective fact (though one of us may _pretend_ their opinion is objective fact).
So if you want to say objective morals exist, you need evidence of one. After all, it might've turned out that the Muslim has an objective basis for calling it bad (not just some arbitrary reason, but an objective fact of reality which means it's objectively bad for all people no matter what). Yet mysteriously evidence of objective morality _never, ever surfaces._ Nobody who argues it exists can ever prove it exists.
(Just like gods. Nobody ever provides strong, logical evidence of them either.)
@@majmage - If our moral statement “Hitler is evil” is purely subjective, then we must consider the consequences of this. I may think that Hitler was evil, but there are some people today who think he was good. They are the small population of true believers who think Hitler was the greatest leader ever and that he did a lot of good. Suppose you were to have a conversation with one of these people. You think Hitler was evil and he thinks Hitler was good. You would find yourself disagreeing with him. I think you would want to tell him he was seriously mistaken about Hitler. You would probably think that there is some truth about this matter that is true, and not just someone’s subjective opinion. You would want to say that your moral position is correct and his is mistaken.
Now do you see the problem? If moral statements are just purely subjective expressions of someone’s personal feelings, then the Nazi you might converse with has just as much a legitimate moral position as you do. He has his subjective feelings, and you have yours. There’s no way you can tell him that you have the correct position on this matter. You could not have any rational objection to his position.
Moral statements can only be true if they are objectively true. There is no such thing as subjective truth. There are only subjective feelings, and subjective opinions. Truth must be objective truth or it isn't true.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Jeff and James did fantastic at this debate. 👏
I am horrified that Mr. Anderson is a chaplain.
Chaplin is a misleading title I've discovered...they are not all believers
I have already commented this but my husband and i have lost two children. I am so glad that the chaplain we had was a believer and not anyone like this guy. I cannot imagine having to go through that with this man. Our chaplain was so helpful and even to this day, several years later, sends us a card/hand written letter every year on our child's birthday. We prayed together, cried together and it was so helpful to have someone like this. Idk what we would have done if it had been this guy telling us we would never see our child again and he was just gone. Having experienced a few deaths of not only my two children, but many relatives and friends, i can tell you that isn't true.
Hey Allen, Chaplain Anderson here. I'm so grateful and honored to be a Chaplain and serve people, helping them in their most difficult moments. If you have any questions, let me know.
As a Chaplain, I meet people where they are. I pray with them. I read Catholic prayers. I read Muslim prayers. I work to find their religious leaders, to find people who can provide what they need. I want everyone to have what is most helpful for them.
I know that Chaplaincy can be hard to understand, so I'd be glad to clarify.
It’s amazing that the gospel is simple and the opposing side literally opens like “there are many intricacies that we can’t get into tonight” really? Because you have like two hours.
I was agnostic for years. The throwing up of hands on everything “bigger than us” in false humility is honestly nauseating. His smirk shows he knows something is silly or off, this isn’t just a fun experiment: May God touch their hearts
Appreciate these follow-ups to the debates. I wasn't able to catch everything you pointed out while watching them but I do now. Thanks!
In that debate, it seemed like neither of those men really understood what Jeff and James were presenting. They both just kind of acted like moral absolutes are innate. Like humans know right from wrong just because. I notice the atheists that you debate often get defensive as well. When you say they have no objective standard for morality, they bring up that atheists can know right and wrong, but that's not what you were presenting. It's that they have no justification for their morality.
That’s it>>>they believe humans know right from wrong “just because” like you said. They don’t really think too deep into it and just skip over why it’s that way.
I work with an atheist with the same attitude - this was gold for me...
They assume the Christian worldview when it comes to morality and then they try to assign it to atheism without justifying it. They literally steal from the Christian worldview and then try to convince you (and themselves) that the atheistic notion of ethics is in any way defensible.
Atheists say there is no objective standard for morality….because there isn’t. There is no such thing as objective morality. It’s never been demonstrated to exist after all.
We can obviously still know what’s right and wrong. It just has to be determined subjectively. Just like you do subjectively as well.
Personally I didn’t feel like Dr Chattergee really understood what he was there for.
That debate was terrible on the opposing side. Chatergee was very under-prepared and it showed. It was sad that they could not actually give any great intellectual response.
My family noticed that too, he definitely wasn't ready for the debate. He didn't even seem to be getting the points.
@@willbrown6298 even worse, his best counter was constantly saying everything was a caricature. He didn’t know how to respond
@@chinesekilla60 "What about other religions?" Kept asking about that even though that was answered.
@@willbrown6298 for sure. The opposing side was very ill prepared. It got worse when Anderson started saying this was a terrible debate. Dude knew his side was not bringing it
@@willbrown6298 jk l
Attempting to explain common sense and Spiritual Truth to an atheist is analogous to attempting to explain a symphony orchestra concert to someone who is deaf and blind.
THIS IS A GREAT IDEA- WE NEED THIS ANALYSIS!👍
At the point where he mentions that victims have a greater voice in the “conversation” of whether what was done to them was ethically right or not, he completely closed and locked the door on rationality and moral absolutes. The victim would obviously disagree with the perpetrator of the act. Two opposing things cannot be true at the same time, that goes against the law of non-contradiction.
When he says “the cultural conversation,” it is just a weak way of saying that morality is subjective and totally determined by every single individual situation. In other words, murder is wrong UNLESS the person felt justified. Theft is wrong UNLESS the person really needed what he stole. Etc etc.
He made what sounded like an intellectual response, but just simply pull one string and his arguments completely fall apart.
The logical conclusion of this thinking is that the ends justify the means.
We all know how well that worked out for 10s of millions (if not over 100 million) of people.
Was the mellow yellow/mt dew looking drink at the tables a ‘hat tip’ to the crazy antifreeze argument from the last joint debate???😂
Yeah, I was wondering what that was :D
it's yerbe mate, it's a caffeine energy drink tea
I have lost two children in my lifetime, and many other relatives and friends. When my husband and i lost our one month old baby especially, we were in a hospital and needed the chaplain. I am so glad that every chaplain I've ever dealt with has been a believer. I cannot imagine going through what we were going through at that time, and having that guy. I cannot imagine how that would feel. It's horrifying to me. Our chaplains were so helpful and honestly, they carried us through so much of this. Even to this day, we recieve a card every year from that chaplain on our child's birthday. We prayed with him. Cried with him. Talked with him. He was present as our child was dying, to support us and help us. I just can't imagine dealing with any of that with an unbelieving chaplain. I can't imagine that person being there, believing that my child is simply gone, it's over , you will never see him again. That would have been horrible and wrong.
The man talking about epistemic humility was the most arrogant and refused to change his beliefs despite being shown over and over again how inconsistent he is.
@@beppiek is pride believing in something based on faith? Or evidence?
@@beppiek what truth?
It seems to me that Chatergee has let the cat out of the proverbial bag regarding Cultural Marxism: if “the conversation” is the basis for ethics - the “surrogate God,” as it were - then whoever dominates or controls “the conversation” determines what is morally right and wrong in society and may enforce that through whatever means they please and can justify through their own twisted reasoning. They literally get to play god!
Starts 7:30
My guy
"There are absolutely no absolutes" Hmmm, that quote in and of itself is an absolute 😶
Hello from Boston!
Though I don't see eye to with you on some points as a Muslim, I sincerely love you and respect you folks.
God bless, Firat Yenyil.
Hey I just wanted to say thank you for posting this comment. I think comments like these help break down the walls that our American culture has built up between Christians and Muslims. I hate that actual conservative Christians have a bias against Muslims and tend to just name call and ignore or whatever. I hope relations get better between the conservatives of both of our religions.
@@repentorperish1386 I'm a conservative Christian. I have love & respect for Muslims, the same as I do atheists & agnostics. Put it this way, it's not a "bias" . It's a fundamental difference of theism.
I will stand in front of ANY Muslim and tell them that 1) your good is false, 2) Muhammad died so, only a prophet. The true living God has true powers both here on earth & in heaven, & 3) the Curran reads exactly how the true word of God describes what the antichrist is.
Now if that offends the Muslim, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with them going through life and only knowing what their own teachings say about Christ Jesus and the power of the living God. There is no difference between a Muslim, a Mormon, a Jehovah's witness, and all other false religions of the world.
I'm up for debate on that. If you never seen James White take on a Muslim in a debate I suggest searching one out (James White knows more than most Muslims about Islam). In the debate they're taking about here the older gentleman says that Muslims are a distant 2nd to Christianity when it comes to violence. He made more false claims than that but I laughed out loud when I heard that. The Taliban, Al- Qàida, and about a half dozen others running around right now and that guy had the nerve to say such a thing. Oh, Shariah law, the foundation of the Islam religion. Any Muslim true to their faith can't deny that.
So if that's bias, call me guilty. There isn't a Muslim in the world that I would tell that it's ok to be a Muslim. It wouldn't be very Christian of me. Glad he is here. I hope he gets baptized in the name of Jesus. I hope he accepts Him as Lord & Savior and repents. That is the same hope for the rest of the unsaved people in the world.
@@jacobjohnson5992 I don't think the comments section is a proper place to have an extensive theological debate. So, rather than responding to each of your statements with corrections, I'll say that I hope you have studied Islam (solo scriptura) with as much fairness and sincerity as I have been studying Christianity and Judaism over the years! You sound like you have probably not! Please forgive me if I'm wrong.
Regardless, again, though I don't always see eye to eye with them on every subject, I have great respect and love for people like Jeff for being a man and a friend of God in deed.
May God bless all who are peaceful followers of Him and may He guide them in the best direction and manner which He wants to see them follow Him.
@@repentorperish1386 Thank you for your kindness and uniting tone. It's an honor to know peaceful servants of God. May He bless you for that.
God will judge who best honor Him and live honorable lives.
After all, if we cannot even coexist peacefully and exchange good deeds and thoughts, we might as well not call ourselves the servants of God.
@bizadanaliyik8533 thank you
I just finished listening closely to the debate, this morning! (I'm so behind in videos to watch and things to read!) I'm REALLY REALLY REALLY looking forward to hearing Jeff 🔆 highlight 🔆 all of the obvious absurdities I noticed from his debate opponent!!
Chatterjee was the worst debater I have ever seen.
Steve tassi, that one was gold
Everytime I hear Mr. Anderson, I think about the protagonist in the Matrix.
Dr. DEEN was all over the place with his speech. Never made any sense. and he just sat there looking angry lol
The victim says, I don’t like being killed. It’s not good. The killer says, but I like killing you. It is good.
On humanism, there’s nothing above these two statements declaring that one is preferable over the other. There’s nothing below then supporting the assertion that one person shouldn’t hurt another of it gives him pleasure to do so.
I wan to say great work debating these two clowns, but they are clowns, so…
But seriously, you guys rock. Awesome job exposing the deficiency of the opposing worldviews.
On theism if god commands you to kill you have to, irrespective of whether the victim says I don’t like being killed or whether you hate doing the killing. So the problem remains
@@joygibbons5482 the problem only exists in your mind because you want there to be a problem.
If there is a God who created the universe, it’s His universe and anything He commands should be done. But the true God doesn’t command His people to kill innocents. That’s actually the opposite of what Jesus taught. He taught to love your enemies, you take care of those who use you, to bless those who curse you. As an innocent man, He allowed others to kill Him and did not retaliate, though, if He was God he could have zapped them out of existence.
Regardless of all of this, there’s no inconsistency in the Christian worldview. God could command all His followers to invade Canada and kill all the socialists and that would not be logically inconsistent. Theologically yes, but not logically.
However, the atheists still have a massive problem if they want to substantiate morality.
At like 1:15:00 when he's answering about pedophiles or whatever and he says "it's really what the victims think.."
That sounds 100% like someone who then would absolutely ( ;) ) be okay with adults GROOMING children. Those children won't know the gravity od the actions or know what's going on to them protest and protect their futures. Ugh. This infuriates me.
“It’s more important what their victims think.”
Why?
If I didn’t know better, I’d say these guys are plants. Hired to make their side look stupid.
1:20:40 My jaw hit the floor and I replayed that segment for my teenage daughter. He is done and dusted!
Morality by cultural conversation is survival of the fittest by another name. All the diverse lineages interact and the view that obtains dominance in the current environment is the most well adapted for the present conditions of the ecosystem. It will morph and adapt into something different in the future as the environmental conditions change.
What's your justification?
So slavery was ok when the majority said so...
Excellent post Umai
To be clear, I'm not endorsing this, just pointing out how their Darwinian worldview leads to Darwinian ethical systems. The fancy rhetoric obfuscates it, but when examined, it is the necessary logical result of their presuppositions.
@@umaikakudo Ethical systems do evolve over time, they change with environments and through necessity. It's not always pretty to our modern worldview but it's how the world has always worked
The Dr was clearly out of his element here. He did not back up any of his claims, he repeated himself, and he quickly got frustrated. I actually felt bad for Jared. He tried his hardest to carry his side which is hard enough. But doing it with a weak partner must have been really tough
Would love to see Jeff debate either Bart Ehrman or Matt Dillahaunty.
I think Matt D would be a better match.
@@Lambdamale. Would love to see that and would also love a John Lennox vs Matt D or Bart E debate as well!
Would love to see him debate Matt Dillahunty. Especially after that Ray Comfort debate.
@Quint Dang I never saw that one. MD and Ray debated?
@@Lambdamale. Yep! I think they've debated, twice, if I'm not mistaken.
1:10 is a great point by Zach (?). Epistemic Humility goes out the window considering the guys pride in his own self-sufficiency, in thinking he can create a pantheon of gods that hold any value to anyone, including himself. Very arrogant.
I would love to see a show with Pastor Jeff & Ruslan 😊😊😊😊
Jeff I would love to see you or Dr. White debate Matt Dillahunty please! I know he has said he is open to debate anyone and would love to see it.
He won’t do it B/C Dr white made a claim about the jab not being effective and he got all hurt about it and canceled their debate. Wonder how he feels now knowing what we know about the pokey
Matt would get dunked on, they should set it up
I would like to see Jeff on Joe Rogan’s show first. That would really be interesting.
These theists are ridiculous. Deities most likely don’t exist. There’s zero tangible evidence for anything supernatural.
Dilly hunter has already been defeated by presup.
Durbin is taking right after the "father" of debate... JAMES WHITE!
Your debate skills are impressive.
The Dude abides
I liked the debate. A question:
Nature is amoral. A fox that kills a rabbit is not accused of murder. If the rabbit escapes and the fox starves to death, we don't accuse the rabbit of killing the fox. Their actions are morally neutral. I heard of chimpanzees turning on one of their own and ripping him limb from limb and if I remember correctly, they ate him. Yet nobody called the cops. Just doing what chimps do.
But from the atheist worldview, we share a common ancestor with the chimps, and if you go far enough back, the fox and the rabbit too. Yet, they say humans have standards of behavior while the animals do not. They cannot condemn Jeffrey Dahmer eating people.
This seems fairly simple, but it is almost impossible to get an atheist to admit this. Why do you think this is? Dishonesty? Spiritual blindness? Or do they not see morality the same way we do?
Atheist here. You made a lot of false assumptions about me. Jeffrey Dahmer is bad. That was easy. “Impossible” lol.
@@UgliestManOnEarth-69 Why was Jeffrey Dahmer bad? What gives you the moral authority to say it's not right?
@@UgliestManOnEarth-69 no, you just didn’t understand. You have no objective standard or basis on which to judge good and evil. You have your own subjective opinion and feelings about what seems right and wrong, but again that isn’t an objective standard. In order to make objective judgments, you need to appeal to an objective standard (one that applies to everyone regardless of their opinion.) You simply cannot appeal to objective good or bad if you believe the world exists purely as a result of time and chance acting on matter.
@@bullgiraffe because he inflicted harm on people. Undue harm. My brain gives me moral authority to say it’s not right. I’m a thinking rational being.
You do not have a moral authority to say what’s wrong or right either. Gods word is not objective. It’s subjective.
@@UgliestManOnEarth-69 I didn't state it clearly. It's Impossible to get an atheist to understand that without God you have no basis call anything evil, or good.
God please Bless us with your Spirit through all the challenges, mysteries, fun, and suffering in this life 🤲
"Ceiling: if you approve of what I'm doing, don't fall on me within the next 5 seconds". Aha! Confirmation!
@@user-ov8iz9vz4n no but that's okay
12:11 when someone calls a movie great, they're not appealing to the other's _emotions,_ they're saying the movie matched their movie preferences. Well morality (principles of right/wrong behavior) is our _behavior preferences,_ and so when someone calls an act good or bad they're telling us it did or didn't match their personal (and apparently entirely subjective) morality. They aren't appealing to emotion (or well...if they are that's super weird, but people often are illogical and weird like that).
If there is no objective ethics and meaning without god it does not mean god exists.
This was just an opportunity for Jared to try out all his catchy slogans and one-liner philosophies on a room full of people to see if they “ooo” and “aah”. He could care less about defending his position.
Who in the word edits these videos, constant volume level differences and background noise
Social contract? Social agreement?
Part of the conversation?
Mr. Anderson sounds like he wants to reinserted into The Matrix where ignorance is bliss.
*thumbs through index cards…
Something something…power dynamics…something…
All these humanists do is ignorantly presuppose transcendent moral law then claim there is no transcendent moral law, then pick and choose the laws they like and ignore the rest. Unbelievable.
About ethics: I don't believe there is proof that there is an objective ethics, if that is the case all we are left with is subjective ethics. That is not a problem tho: tastefullnes is also subjective, some people find some foods tasty and some don't, this does not mean we can't have a general agreement that earing fecal matter is not tasty.
I have a question and if anyone can answer, please do:
I’ve watched a lot of Jeff’s videos and debates. And every single time he’s in a discourse with someone who is atheist or agnostic, the main card that’s pulled is in a nutshell, “You can’t have a basis for what you believe, morally, because you reject God”. While I understand and have come to agree with it, are there any other arguments you could make against atheists or agnostics when talking about morals, ethics, and objective truth?
The only reasonable ethic in a Darwinian ideology is to reproduce. So if you have any other compulsions to do beyond that it would only prove your position incorrect.
It's actually not that you can't have a basis it's that any basis you have outside of God doesn't work consistently. Also, have you watched Jeff's or James "how to" videos on apologetics?
GOOD POINTS... WE ARE TO BE SEPERATE FROM THE WORLD...
An atheist can live by a Christian moral standard, such as it is wrong to cheat on your spouse. However an atheist does not have anything that is perfectly moral to hold them accountable, such as God, if they do break that moral standard. Also what happens when your moral standard comes in conflict with society or another person's view of morality. Which one is correct, they both can't because they would stand opposed to each other. there is no real answer for this with an atheist. Lastly I believe it was stated that we shouldn't feel shame for the things we do, so if we break our morals we shouldn't feel any shame in it? Why even have morals or ethics if that is your view?
@@zodiac3981 That’s dopey. God nor the Bible are objective moral standards or systems by any stretch of the imagination. Even as a young child I used to ask of religious family members who would talk about right and wrong coming from God and not us thinking people:
How do you know God is the good one and Satan is the evil one?
It was so obvious to me that it was an application of some outside set of right and wrong, good and evil we humans developed through trial and error and by living together as social creatures in a world where we had to share space (though I lacked the vocabulary to express it). God is the good one because he does good things and Satan is the evil one because he does bad things is the dopiest non-answer to how you determine which ones are good and evil I could imagine, and yet this is precisely what I have heard theistic morality arguments boil down to every time.
Beginning around 7 min....what is a "devout agnostic"? What is the "Darwinian model of origins"?
14:24 "If I can demonstrate that apart from God there is no such thing as valuing the dignity and worth of another person." Can you demonstrate it? I've never seen anything like that demonstrated. Nor do I know what it needs demonstrating. It's an "answer" to a question nobody asked.
15:33 "Christian soundbites are rooted in something that can be explained." No they aren't. They can be asserted.
16:17 "Having the freedom to believe something.....arises from a Christian framework." First, no it doesn't. Second, if you really revere freedom of religion, why don't you just practice your faith for what it brings you?
17:22 "God has given his revelation. God is the standard (never have understood how a person is a standard) for ethics, etc". All very interesting assertions. Demonstrate that any part of any one of them is true in the observable world.
20:30 Association of Darwinianism (don't know what that is) with Nazi Germany is a pathetic straw man. Darwin never ever observed that the strongest individuals would rule over all the others. He argued that survival depends on a POPULATION'S suitability to its environment, including factors of weather, predation, and all the other things which might prevent a population from reproducing. That's it. You're making an association with biological evolution with atheism, which doesn't exist.
23:49 "Either suicide or genocide". So stupid. Millions upon millions of non-Christian people have lived in societies that value life, that reward non-violent behavior and punish killing and assault. You fools automatically think that because life may be finite, it can't possibly have value. But you never seem to accept that some believe it has value BECAUSE it's fleeting.
What a smug bunch of self-congratulatory humps you guys are. I can't even watch the rest of this. You spend more time talking about how to avoid debate than debating.
*JEFF*, no offense to you, you are my Brother in Jesus, BUT, WAYYYY TOO MUCH SELF PROMOTION AND CHATTER INSTEAD OF JUST SHOWING THE DEBATE!!! COME ON JEFF.
While I find that most apologists are intellectually dishonest, I understand that's the nature of apologetics itself. But, and I'm not typically this blunt, I'm actually surprised at just how philosophically unsophisticated these arguments are.
A person's capacity to engage their free will in an ethical way is almost entirely dependent on their level of self awareness. It has nothing to do with religion or effort, and everything to do with their nature and life experience. The argument that everything is simple and absolute, perfectly black and white, betrays a superficial understanding of being human. Without an exploration of their inner impulses, desires, struggles, conflicts, and fears, how could this Christian know anything at all?
Biblical cosmology declares the glory of God.
Heliocentricity declares the glory of the Big Bang.
go watch nefarious.....do as thou wilt is referenced.
Good ol Mr Anderson. Boy he just loves “the conversation” phrase doesn’t he? That phrase is truly bizarre. Talk about smacking of worldliness
It was me that Pastor Durban ran in to at Safeway!
That Guy gave me a Glimpse of what Hell would be like
Hopeless
how many 'conversations' involving millions of people have ever resulted in cultural agreement? ...Exactly none!
Folks, if you want to avoid all the self promotion and jabber, go to 18:25min. This is said with love.
This seems to be a rule. I've watched several videos, and it usually takes 18 minutes for them to get to the point.
If you want a video that gets right to the point, I don't think a podcast is the place to expect that. Every podcast has to self promote for the continuation of their content.
As someone raised Christian, and taught to be "Christ-like", the most striking thing to me is that Mr Anderson's words, tone, and patience was more Christ like and loving -regardless of belief- than the 3 gentlemen here with "absolute ethical values" He gives genuine thought to the bombardment of poor arguing that rested entirely on the extremes (pedophilia, murder). It's a disappointment too see such arrogant and self righteous "debate" from people claiming to be devout Christians. Would Christ not love every person, regardless of sin? As he did on the cross? Saving the criminals along with him? Saving all of the filthy sinful individuals along with the saints? Look in the mirror y'all. 1:16:10
You must be joking!! Watch the debate again-he continually shows smugness in his face, uses the power hand pose, talks about himself constantly (I did this, I taught that), says Jeff and James were projecting when he was doing that very thing, and blathered on about the absolutely heretical unproven claim that Christ's body was removed and hidden, to which he provided no evidence. I could barely watch him talk do to this.
Why do humans think there’s some specific meaning to life? You’re here for awhile, then you’re not. Simple as that.
Perhaps you need to watch the entire debate...
@@TheB1nary There’s zero evidence for anything supernatural. From a realistic point of view, I’d say human life has as much “meaning” as any other sentient being, which is either zero or what you make of it.
@@chuckiepeoples zero evidence of the supernatural? So you have evidence that there is no supernatural element to life? At all?? That's a big statement.
@@chuckiepeoples what incredible hubris…
Where were you the day the universe formed? Where were you when the Earth’s land was measured and formed, holding the oceans in their place? Where were you when birds started flying, the ants started building nests, the lions started hunting? Could you hold your own head up when you came out the womb? Could you wipe your own rear end? Can you hunt prey for lions? Can you tell where the wind comes from and goes? Can you hold your own atomic existence together? Is this whole wide universe bending under your will? I would encourage everyone to stop engaging with this person in the comments. There’s no sense arguing with this.
@@chuckiepeoples do you not get how ignorant you sound? No evidence right? Surely you must believe that if you think life is meaningless. Well i say there is zero evidence that evolution is real. Zero evidence that the earth is millions of years old. Zero evidence that there is no life after death and therefore Zero evidence that God DOES NOT EXIST!!! He has proven Himself and given all the evidence you need to know He is there outside of hitting you over the head with a rock that says here I am.
How about some science since people like you like who say that science disproves God. Conformity in nature is definitive proof that we have a designer. Meaning we know that the oceans have boundaries. That tomorrow when you wake up there will still be gravity. How about the fact the earth revolves around the sun at a specific time, speed and distance? If any closer and the earth is too hot, further too cold. Any other time the plants and the trees would not grow therefore no life can exist. You know what all that points to? DESIGN! A DESIGNER!
If it were really chance acting on matter we would have to hit the cosmic lottery numerous times which is absurd. So do you get it? Only a fool says in his heart heart there is no God. You've come to the wrong place to make such wreckless claims. We as Christians ARE NOT the indoctrinated ones. Atheists, humanists, and evolutionists are. We know where the Ark landed. We know where the red sea was parted. We know where Sodom and Gomorrah once was. Have evidence for all of it. You have to have a much larger amount of faith than a Christian to believe what you do.
Are you guys drinking the antifreeze from the other atheist debate? 😂😅
If you claim that you have a least favorite pedophile, that means you also have a favorite pedophile. Most people view all pedophiles as wicked and disgusting, but this guy ranks them based on likability.
With all due respect to Jeff, I'd rather he does not say "God Cannot". There's no such thing. God is all capable, which means He Always Can. It's our representation of His will and action that paints the picture of His Will. He's omnibenevolent as well as being omnipotent and omniscient. That should give you an answer.
How would you answer an agnostic or atheist who brings up the argument of the theft on the cross? I often hear agnostics or atheists say “well if God can forgive the horrible person that accepts him into their heart right before they die and now they go to heaven after living this evil life ! How is that fair? I can’t believe in a God who can do that “. I struggle to answer this because this was kind of the same problem Jonah had. I know God forgives often what we can’t because He is able .
Another problem is God's ability to forgive a sinner without bloodshed before they have manifested any sign of remorse (Luke 23:34). So the idea that god's holy nature "needs" to punish sin, is false.
Richard Dawkins: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
Repeat after me…”Blind,Pitiless,Indifference”…”Blind,Pitiless,Indifference”…”Blind,Pitiless,Indifference…
Christian worldview: feet planted firmly on The Rock, Jesus Christ.
atheist worldview: feet planted "firmly" in the air, waving around aimlessly and, often, angrily.
They would also define their "theology" as "savior", and call their dolly "Jesus".
Pure nonsense. And the dude on the left knows it with his little smirk that he lets loose. The dude on the right just looks perplexed in understanding the English language.
Childish pretenders
Haha love the music dudes!
Can someone please tell me who intro music artist is!
I still like the "non-rock-a-boat-us" intro. . .
Evolution does not touche on those Filosofical points, evolution could be true and an objective morality exist.
Your podcast intro is SO long
It's hard to understand how a man can know so much about God's words, but still not believe it all. The rapture is there just as the death burial and resurrection is. It's hard to listen to someone who doesn't believe 5he whole word of God still a little blind
I wish they were pressed more on objective vs. subjective ethics. We believe in objective/nonchanging ethics, which is why we can say murder is wrong. Obviously, God gives us that standard and you can't have objective without a nonmaterial, nonemotional, nonchanging standard.
I would be curious if they would agree with a objective standard and wish that was asked. If so, then you can really press on how ethics have changed with culture and is therefore not objective, and if they say its only subjective, then you can say that there is no morality and there is no way we can come to a true agreement on what ethics are since "the coversation" cannot be completely unanimous. On top of that you could never read history and say anything was wrong since you weren't apart of "the conversation" at that time. You could then really anchor into their response and keep them pinned on their paradoxical viewpoint.
I feel like this was talked about in a round a bout way but using objective and subjective verbiage and getting them to commit to one could have made things a little more black and white and they couldn't slide around between the two to argue their view.
Great debate by the way! It's hard to keep them from slipping around and contradicting themselves when they are pressed and of course they justify it in their own minds as suppressors of truth!
Jenny Geddes was the woman that threw the stool 🏴
16:26 LOLing at the reformed guys complaining about the pagan view of "coercion" without a hint of irony.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Does jeff reads superchats live?
Idk what year this was done, but i am watching this in 2023, and in 2023 idk how anyone could rely on "society" for their standard of ethics. I mean, really. Lol.
Most don't. They're using a dishonest technique called a "straw man" by arguing against a position that almost nobody actually holds.
The entire topic of morality seems like a waste of time for theists because they don't have evidence a god (A) exists which they'd need to prove (B) a god caused objective morality, and to prove B they'd already need (C) evidence of at least one objective moral value. They don't have any of that.
Morality means principles of right/wrong behavior, and people clearly do have moralities. We also have evidence those principles vary by person, so we know subjective morality exists. But we don't know objective morality exists, which would mean something was right or wrong independent of anyone's feelings/opinions (even a god's).
I categorize morals in two types: instincts and learned morals. Instincts come from evolution. Learned morals come from all life experience (which does sometimes include society and religion(s); for example the Bible says owning slaves according to certain rules is fine, but probably (hopefully) you think slavery is really bad if you live in the US). Just because we have some morals from evolution that doesn't mean those are automatically going to be the best conceivable morals though -- in fact we know a lot of the instincts we have aren't particularly well-suited to large-scale civilizations, and so we should try to suppress some of those instincts and develop a broader empathy for others than is normally possible (at least is our subjective moral goal is well-being; if we value well-being, then in 2023 everyone's well-being is interconnected: meaning if I want to maximize my own well-being I must help increase the well-being of those around me).
It's pretty difficult for most theists to talk about morality though, because they're used to not thinking about the topic at all (they just do what the book tells them to do without thinking).
I now hate the word “conversation”.
Lol separation of church and state, soundbyte culture. The ignorance.
Wow
So Jeff has an absolute standard; something like 'what is morally right is what comports with the nature of God, but his understanding of what that nature is is subjective - it is his own view. His only way round this is to claim special revelation, which has imparted knowledge to him, and denied it to others. A humanist has an absolute standard that what is moral is that which promotes human well-being. They have an subjective view of what promotes human well-being in each circumstance, but they still have an absolute standard they are aiming for. So both sides are actually in the same position - using subjective interpretation of an absolute standard. Personally I would much rather live in a world were humans work out how to live together and grow, rather than the Biblical morality of genocide, slavery etc. Of course, Jeff rejects much Biblical morality, eg he doesn't stone his children to death for disobedience. He is right - but only be introducing his own subjective interpretation of the standard he claims to be absolute.
Thats ridiculous, if special revelation happened, its available to anyone. That well being garbage is subjective, as soon as you say well, you have to justify it as an absolute standard, which it never will be. It was a nice attempt to minimize the absolute down to your subjectivity, its lonely over there.
"he doesn't stone his children to death for disobedience"
Strawman alert.
Jeff's position isn't that special revelation is given to some and denied to others (@17:28 in this video). His position is that revelation is given to all, and some choose to suppress the knowledge of that revelation. He probably would also say that the core revelations of God's nature and that he created everything are not subjective, but that secondary issues like infant baptism are subjective. I say this from having heard his debates before, but I don't want to put words in his mouth though.
The humanistic view correctly asserts, does not prove certain base assumptions it operates on, such as why human well-being matters. It just assumes that you view humanity's success as an objective ultimate goal without addressing that we are an infinitesimally small piece of the universe. Though we are the current apex land creatures in evolutionary standards, the world / evolution doesn't ultimately care any more about whether humanity thrives or dies out than it does about any other species. Without a divine authority to proclaim that humanity is special, you just have to assume that, for whatever reason you choose, we morally should ascribe greater importance to human evolutionary success than we should morally ascribe to the evolutionary success of something like an octopus. To take it further, why is our continued existence something that is more moral to uphold than the existence of others, considering that all we are, and all consciousness is, just a cluster of matter and energy: slaves to the body and brain chemistry we were assigned at birth, and being acted upon by time, space, and other physical forces? If that's all that we are, then how is free will a thing - as we are just involuntarily responding to external stimuli based on our brain chemistry? It would also follow that that people could not be held responsible for their actions, because they had little to no control over their own brain chemistry or the external stimuli that they reacted to. Both free will and responsibility for ones' actions are essential to the topic of morality.
The humanistic view also doesn't do well in instances where one group of people is promoting themselves at the expense of oppressing another group of people. For example, the Nazis made several major medical discoveries during the holocaust by using unwilling human test subjects in unethical experiments. Post-war, doctors debated whether or not it was ethical to use the Nazis' data in their research, as some of the Nazi experiment results showed things that would be useful to apply towards medicine and treatments. In this case and in others, is there a point where the suffering of the few outweighs the benefit of the many? If so, where is that point? I'm not aware of the humanistic perspective having an answer other than appealing to your own personal thoughts about morality - at which point it ceases to be an absolute standard.
Lastly, humanistic objective standards are man-made, and change based on the person evaluating the moral situation. Your definition of what promotes human well-being probably differs greatly from what Hitler's definition (as he thought the holocaust was purging the human race of those with undesirable genes in order to promote a stronger Aryan race). While we can hopefully agree that the Hitler's definition is seriously flawed, the humanistic framework lacks true authority to say what is absolutely right and what is absolutely wrong, as everyone's view of what is good or evil can be different based on the era, location, circumstances, etc. As long as the Nazis believed what they was doing was bettering humanity, the humanistic framework offers nothing to say they were objectively wrong. You could cite human suffering but they could either claim that their victims suffering was unimportant due to their worldview, or they could claim that the societal benefits would've outweighed the cost of the suffering if the holocaust was allowed to play out to its ultimate conclusion. The scary thing is that, if the Axis powers would've won WW2 and if the history of the war was ultimately written from their perspective, chances are that those kinds of moral paradigms would be more widespread today. How does a humanistic perspective help you navigate which definitions of human well-being are valid when there are wild differences between what people can think that means?
>
man stealing was punishable by death and ""slavery"" in the bible is no different then actors and athletes as you had a signed contract. its just the word "employee" didn't exist back then. they had a singular hebrew word which lumps slave, employee and servant together.
and when i comes to genocide why do you atheist always have to white knight for human sacrificers and gang rapest? these people you are saying "oh my gosh that is evil killing them" is in the same ball park as saying invading and bombing germany in 1940s was evil
@@jacobpintos6398 - how convenient! At least it stops him sounding like Joseph Smith, but its just another linguistic trick leading to the same outcome - 'I'm right and everyone else is wrong'. How does he know he is the one not suppressing?
Anyone notice the how Jeff's voice kept coming through on the microphone all distorted ?
Nope
@@jesuschristiskingofkingslo2023 in the debate they posted previously that this is referring to?
The Lord is mentioned in Article 7 of the US Constitution.
Weird... I got a notification from some constitutionally ignorant woman (I think) named Christine Vress who said, "Uh wrong, the US constitution does not make a reference to god, the only time it mentions religion at all is when it says for the government never to establish one " My answer to Mrs. Vress is that I literally cited the Article that mentions the Lord. Who do you think the Lord is if not God? Second, the Constitution does not "say for the government never to establish" a religion. It says CONGRESS shall not make a law respecting the establishment of religion. CONGRESS. And it shall make no law RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT. That doesn't prohibit state religions. It says Congress can't legislate on the topic. For or against. And only Congress. States can have state religions and many have had them in the past. They don't now, but there is nothing stopping Oklahoma from establishing Christianity the state religion. But guess what? The 1st Amendment DOES say that if Oklahoma establishes a religion that CONGRESS can't write a law respecting the establishment of that religion. Cool, huh? Reading comprehension is as rare as hens teeth, I get that. But it sure does come in handy for those of us who have mastered it.
Christine deleted her post, I guess. I can only surmise that she realized that she was wrong and got embarrassed about it.
i want to see you debate some 33rd degree freemasons
There are two different languages. There is the language of the atheist and there is the language of Yahweh. There is no communication between the two because the atheist does not want to communicate in the same way that Yahweh wants to communicate. For example, Yahweh says, “Let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet...” (Isaiah 1:18). The first thing on Yahweh's lists for discussion is your sin. However, for the atheist that topic is the last thing on the list. Also, it's not what you believe in, it's about what you love (Mark 12:33).
The atheist's remedy to explain all his theories and to discredit the Genesis story is to add the construct of billions of years. But on the other hand, everything in Genesis is created in its adult form from the beginning. The trees, the animals, mankind are all created in their adult form. That also includes the universe. And an adult universe would and should appear to be billions of years old.
Atheist do not understand that consciousness is not a chemical formula which could ever be created in a lab. When we talk about the elements we are talking about our experience of the elements through the miracle of consciousness.
I would agree that the churches today are defective. In fact, the Apostle Paul pronounced a curse on most churches today because the main Christian denominations of today preach a different gospel than what Paul preached. To quote exactly what Paul said, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8). Both apostle Paul and Peter preached the same gospel and quote from the prophet Joel (2:32) saying, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of Yahweh shall be saved." (Romans 10:13 and Acts 2:21). The English translations say “Lord” instead of “Yahweh.” But “Lord” does not translate “Yahweh” it is a substitution of a totally different word altogether. This substitution activates two additional curses because if you substitute a word you are both adding and subtracting at the same time. “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18, 19)
We are commanded by Messiah that, “...repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:47). In other words, we are supposed to preach the gospel that came out of Jerusalem and not preach the gospel that came out of Antioch, or Rome, or England, or New York, or Chicago, etc. By the time the gospel got to Antioch it had already been perverted as we read, “...And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26). The problem with this is that Yahweh spoke of a people called by His name (Deuteronomy 28:10; 2 Chronicles 7:14; Isaiah 43:6, 7; Daniel 9:19; Amos 9:12; Acts 15:17). Yahweh did not choose the name “Christian” for Himself. The people of Antioch chose that name and all the so called main denominations of today embrace that name “Christian” for themselves. When Peter and Paul preached the gospel they quote the prophet Joel, “Whosoever shall call on the name of Yahweh shall be saved.” (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13). I ask you, how many of the church fathers and so called main denominations of today preach that gospel? None of them. Absolutely none!
Paul makes it very clear that the end result of him preaching the gospel was that the people would call on the name Yahweh. He says in (Rom. 10:14,15), The preachers are sent. They preach. The people hear. The people believe. The people call on the name Yahweh (Rom. 10:13). I ask you, how many of the church fathers and so called main denominations of today preach that gospel? None of them. Absolutely none!
It took only one generation after the death of Joshua for the children of Israel to forget the mighty works of Yahweh which He had worked through Moses and Joshua and to began to serve the idols of the people around them (Judges 2:7-13). It took only one generation.
I get what the agnostic chaplain is saying when he goes to see someone and says he is not the expert on them. It is what one is taught as a chaplain. And it is true in one sense. I am not God so I do not know your thoughts, goals, feelings, dreams, etc. I am also a chaplain and when I see a patient, it is not helpful to assume I know and understand the patient without asking them who they are. That is humility. That is fine.
But in the sense that it is being used here it makes no sense. While I do not know the person I am seeing, I am know the true and living God and I know many of his moral laws and truths. So I might not know the patient but when he says he is an atheist and likes to take things that are not his own without permission then I know he is not a believer and unless he repents then he is going to hell. I also know that he is doing something immoral. That I can know even though I cannot just know a person before I meet them and talk to them. Jesus could because he could see their heart. I do not know because I cannot see it.
Have a conversation.
There are no absolutes then makes absolute statements.
Can't answer without using academic speak.
❤❤
43:08-43:50
Is there like an article written online with these arguments so I can simply copy and paste them?
If you understand the argument you wouldn't need a source to copy and paste from, and if you want to argue in good faith then you shouldn't be putting forth an argument you don't understand.
@@ajhieb I don’t have the time to write out an essay replying to every scoffer
@@grislygrimhorrorchannel _"I don’t have the time to write out an essay replying to every scoffer"_ Then don't. But if you want to copy and paste something, write out your own version of the argument and copy and paste that. If you don't understand the argument well enough to state it yourself, then you shouldn't be engaging with scoffers (using that argument) if you're trying to engage in good faith.
Oh but I forget... It's not about engaging in good faith is it? It's about "shutting the mouths of the unbelievers."
yea, read the bible
The question to the naturalists is who decides what is moral and what is not? Why does a popular opinion of a culture matter? If I believe taking things that are not mine is morally good then why must I care what society thinks about my moral view? Who decides and why should they decide? I do not think a naturalist can give a credible answer.
If youre a naturalist you cant use logic. Its not measurable, observable, and repeatable.
_"why must I care what society thinks about my moral view?"_
Well, Carl, it is not that difficult: If you want to stay longer in
a community and benefit from its advantages, then you should
not anger your fellow citizens or even challenge them to punish
you.
We as a collective species and society decide what is moral and what is not.
Stealing is not beneficial to society, and harms fellow man. Therefore it’s not moral.
I would ask you the exact same thing. You do NOT have objective morality, and what you claim is objective morality is actually subjective.
The idiocracy of subjective truth lol...
Great honor to be with a bunch of atheist yiu serious I would not be cordial in any way their beliefs damn souls to eternal damnation. also if you can bring non believers to Christianity why make that more impactful content have a price? Is it not written in the word to lay down all you have and god will provide? The Christian today have so many excuses as to why they do what they do. Bend and twist the word so they can profit so much. Jesus said “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. But none of you can do that. When you go to judgement remember the look warm scripture. These are the last days and before the rapture god will have to sort the wheat from the tares but many will be tares. This was still a good debate.
👍✌️🙏
It (the atheistic worldview of no free will) is an absolute mess and utter foolishness, Jeff. Thanks for bringing this into focus!
@@TNOne-dq1ps Atheism absolutely is a worldview-it's a conception of the world from a specific standpoint, namely a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.
Knowing what is going to happen isn't the same thing as controlling others. You are conflating the two.
@17:43 And that’s the problem I have with certain people like William Lane Craig. They tend to argue for a general form of theism and not the one, true God who has revealed Himself in Scripture.
I think that is more of just staying on topic.
Exactly my feelings as well
So why is paedophilia wrong given your world view?
An atheist would say pedophilia's wrongness does not arise from anything higher than the predispositions and environmental conditioning of the person who is manifesting their moral judgment on the matter.
because God said so
@@throwawaypt2throwawaypt2-xp8nx according to your Bible god also said you can own slaves, you can't eat pig, prawn, you can't work on Sunday. God commands the murder of children when he told Joshua to leave nothing alive including the children. All these are morally good yea?
Those 2 atheists looked soo foolish.