The argument I have heard from secularism is that they do not need a God for morals, but can understand through biology that the immediate gratification of their desires does not bring the most biological success, and rather they cognitively decide that altruism is their best option
Jacob trogan secular atheists who believe they can cognitively decipher that altruism is the best option end up falling for every selfish lie that our culture teaches them: abortion on demand, unrestrained sexuality, etc. They have no one to answer to except themselves if they do not feel like being altruistic. They can always come up with a rationalization for anything - from normalizing sexually destructive behaviour towards children to oppressing the voices of those that stand for truth. We also know from history what happens when a government fails to acknowledge God as a higher authority. For example, the nightmare of communism and the Nazis. Hundreds of millions of dead bodies piled up.
Im muslim and Im happy there are still christian left. to fight the truth. If all christians gone scular and liberal. Who else gonna help the world from our sins? I miss 90's world without these mess up things.
I got you! I envy old days of Western union where ladies and gentlemen are living their day, working hard and meeting in a bar at the end of day. Gosh. I want to live in that times 😊
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. Finally I find a video that names our Lord Jesus and points He is the way for life. The other videos merely touched a moral point of view and didn’t named God so couldn’t really help anyone.
while I agree most said in the video i don´t think secular people don´t think there is a moral law. They still have some sort of it which usually goes like: "you can do whatever you want, as long as you don´t hurt anyone"
I consider my self a secular humanist and I don’t hold any of the positions this man put out for seculars. Not all secular people are the same. I have a strong indigenous background that also gives me an appreciation for spiritual matters. But I don’t believe I came from nothing. I don’t even know what nothing looks like. No one does.
Very ambiguous, if you don't believe you came from nothing, then you believe you came from something. However, if you cannot know what that something is then you are again left to your own imaginations of what that something is which ultimately leads back to a moral relativism. To support your position you may want to look into "emergent Morality" which is the study of morality in animal social structures.
Why must it be one way or no way for Christians though, (coming from a practicing Catholic for 23 years), I don’t understand why there cannot be links between the 2, who cares who someone marries? Or that they have tattoos and what about other religious beliefs and expressions? Are we going to deny that Christianity borrowed concepts from other religions? To what end? Everyone is different and should be treated equally as is one of the fundamental teachings in Christianity.
Thanks for opening the discussion and focussing on what we have in common. But I have to tell you that atheists are not less moral or purposeful than Christians. Actually, it looks like even Christians can be called only moral if they make their own moral choice instead of following religious orders, especially when it comes to situations people didn't know anything about 2,000 years ago. Moral values can be found around the world, and they're pretty much the same among various religions and among atheists. Also, you will find radical hedonists among Christians as well as in other religions and among atheists too.
valentino1000 no one said atheists can’t be moral and that there have been Christians who were immoral. The question is, who grounds moral values and duties? Does the government, society, or the individual? Christians ground morality in God because his very nature is the meaning of good.
@@ThatReadingGuy28 It could also be argued that Christians ground morality in their culture/individual beliefs which they see in God's nature. Though many religions claim their values as those of an immutable creator, each individual has their own ideas of what God's morality is. Some Christians don't believe in Hell because in their view, God wouldn't torture people. Some Christians disagree over the value of works as compared to faith. Yet all of these people claim their morals are derived from God, who represents immutable truth and good. In that sense, the stability of God's morals have little effect on the influence of individual beliefs. So it begs the question, if Christians ground morality in God and yet they disagree, where do individual ethics end and divine morality begin?
I know its hard to understand cause everybody wants to do the right thing whether you believe in God or not. I m a believer and i dont always do the right thing but try to do whats right for others and sometimes its telling the consecuences of choices we all make brings problems and they affect others also by believing in Gods purpose i make other peoples lives better
I don't know what anyone would consider me because I find myself way more conservative than liberal but I do have liberal stances on certain topics...like marriage. Who is anyone to tell anyone else who they can love? Who is a gay person hurting by marrying one of the same sex? Just because it is not traditional doesnt mean it is wrong. Conservatives say truth is all that matters. Which they are consistent with when it comes to gender transformation but when it comes to gay love thats pretty inconsistent. Telling someone who they can and can't love goes against conservative principles and if God is as accepting and loving as Christians believe then I'm sure God would approve... "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you"
jimmy mulligan we dont care who they love or if they marry but we warned and were right that the law would be used to force Christians into secular or sinful behaviors such as promoting, participating, serving in and even forced to CELEBRATE a gay wedding. We just want to retain our first A rights to disagree, freedom of association, worship, expression and speech. President Trump does not want to take away gay marriage rights but only to define and protect our existing rights which are being taken away and attacked.
Gay sex hurts the men involved, that’s why Christians care. They place their identity in their sexuality, which should only be one aspect of it. Plus, marriage is an inherently religious practice, so why do secularists get to determine what counts as a proper marriage or not?
Yes we'll, again, that hasn't been what's going on when bakers and florists are compelled to do that which they don't want. Or compelled pronoun speech like Bill c-16
we want all of the people to be happy ? then lets say a sister and brother wants to marry each other what is the correct decision according to society?
We know that sex between family members leads to terrible genetical outcomes i.e birth defects and so on. That includes cousins as well. Secondly, there exist certain relations in society that have to be confined in one way or another, example a teacher and their student, a mother and a child, a brother and a sister. For the betterment of mankind, sex should only exist between two people if said people are not blood related, work related, without a big age gap, if it's consensual...etc. I know where you want to go with this. Notice how none of the reasons I mentioned involved religion? you can't just only rely on your religion to convince others that something is wrong to do. Remember that in Islam for example, marrying your first cousin is not a sin in fact some scholars may even encourage it. Also it's perfectly fine for a 50 year old man to marry a 9 year old girl under Islam. Reason is the only tool we have to decide whether or not something should be okay or not, not religion or any form of superstitious beliefs cause they'll always fail at one point or another.
“Atheists believe we came from nothing”, Well thats a bit of a straw man and a little bit of projection. Anyways, if you think believe you have a purpose from a diety, great. But atheists are not convinced yours is not any less man made than what drives them. Speaking of drives, not every atheist is driven by hedonism, as if that is the only choice. I am not a progressive by the way. I think there is a place for religion and peacefull respectful dialogue. The bible may not be true or accurate or moral in all stories, but it does have nuggets and great observations on the human condition. It is a foundational text that has influenced the west for the best part of 1800 years. We cant ignore that.
"But atheists are not convinced yours is not any less man made than what drives them", true but you could argue that it's the belief itself that has the greatest value rather the veracity of that belief. I personally think we need to believe in a greater purpose and it's one that we cannot begin to fathom, even if we don't believe in a personal creator.
@@madisondaniel3061 Apologies for the late reply. Atheism does not necessitate materialism. An analogy is that if a group of people believe crocodiles come from sewers and another group says they don't agree, that does not mean the other group believe crocodiles come from nowhere. Their non-agreement doesn't identify their belief. So it's a straw man, a rough and inaccurate imitation of the Atheist position used to simplify criticism.
@@TheRastacabbage I'm not sure I agree. Theism means you believe in a god or gods. Atheism means you don't. Both atheists and theists can have a broad range of philosophies about the origin of the universe, the meaning of life, and even the human soul. One group may attribute these concepts to a god, and the other wouldn't. A 'belief in nothing' is not the only remaining choice, there are many beliefs about the universe that don't directly correspond to a god or religion. For example, an someone may view life as a spiritual component to the universe, something with intrinsic meaning that carries a balance with everything else. They may believe that the human soul is special, or any manner of other things. If this person doesn't believe in a god, then they are still an atheist.
How is secularism not moral relativism Or at best humanistic altruism which again has not objective grounding outside of borrowing the core concepts from chriatianity
Secularist do not believe that the human existence is random and purposeless. It is not random since evolution is not random (natural selection), it is not purposeless since we make our own purpose! Accountability to someone is not important for us to be good, we do it because we think it is the right thing to do. An absence of a creator does not mean there is no moral law. There are very few secularist that believe there is no moral law, the vast majority does think there is such a thing (although not in the sense that is never changes). Your car analogy is utterly flawed since we know with absolute certainty the car is designed with a purpose. This does not go for a human, since there is no concrete (scientific) evidence that shows we are created for a specific purpose.
Hmmm...sounds like scientism to me🤔 Plus you are misunderstanding the moral argument. Christians acknowledge that atheists can be moral and Christians can be immoral, but it’s about how you ground that morality. Is it society, government, or the individual? Or is it God, and therefore objective, because God’s very nature is good?
"Secular people have no purpose or morals." How could you say something like that? Genuinely, how could you, someone who I assume is a person living to help others and be the best you can, knowingly tell your audience that a massive collection of people is immoral and purposeless because they didn't grow up Christian or changed their minds? How shallow is purpose if only Christians can have it? Do you believe the only elements of purpose in life reside in the book, faith or lack-thereof that someone follows? To me, this is the textbook definition of "My Dad's better than your Dad" taken to its logical extension. I grew up in a religious household/environment therefore all people with differing beliefs must be immoral. What a horrid way to see the world, not only as a person, but as a Christian too. To misunderstand what purpose is so much that you think it comes solely from a book or faith and nothing else. If all morals came from the Bible or another holy book, no one would have ever been courageous and moral enough to put an end to the slave trade. After all, Exodus 21 explains how it should work, and Ephesians 6 clarifies the new law pretty well. "5: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
Owning people as property, removing their freedom and using them for work is more than fine? Do you really believe that owning people as property against their will is ever "more than fine?" Are you actually willing to defend owning slaves in any capacity? Would you be willing to be a slave to someone else, condemned to serve their will and never live out a life of your own as long as your master respects you?
Not in middle ages and not now. But I think that slavery was the only way to progress B.C. up until let's say first century. Of course it depends what slavery are you thinking about. I'll give you an example. In ancient Rome if you didn't have enough money to pay your debt you had to become a slave for the person that you owed until you repaid the debt with your work. Was that removing of freedom? Yes. Do I think that it was ok? Yes. "against their will" well they didn't want to be slaves so I think that I can say that it was against their will. I still think it's better than killing them so yes, I think that's just fine (ofc it would be better if they didn't get in the debts but once you get there...). Am I willing to defend slavery? It depends on what kind of slavery. And yes, I would love to become someones slave if the opposite variant was my death. In this case I would be glad that we have rules that save my life and that there is some moral code (for example in the Bible) that tells my masters to threat me with respect.
I appreciate the invitation to a dialogue, but it seems insincere. You wear the guise of empathy, but really you're just building strawman arguments to woo other people on your own side - which isn't really in the spirit of effective communication is it? Your own team already agrees with you. "You don't make peace with your allies, you make peace with your enemies." "Secularists believe that human existence is random and purposeless." 1. You're confusing secularism with atheism. Secularism is the use of a-religious policies regardless of religious belief or lack thereof i.e. secular law. Atheism is just the lack thereof. Even if atheists didn't exist, heck even if other religions didn't exist, secularism is useful as a mediator between differences in religious thought - not just different denominations but even different individual interpretations, anecdotes, etc, and all the various things never mentioned by religion. 2. Many atheists do not believe that human existence is random and purposeless. Did you know it's possible to be an atheist and believe in ghosts? It's not one ideology, just as theism is not one ideology. "We were not created by anyone, so we are not accountable to anyone." We were "created" by our parents. Does that mean we should be accountable to them? Being your creator doesn't give infinite authority, only a baseline level of respect. "We appeared out of nothing and will return to nothing." 1. Again, not a universally accurate assertion. A lot of atheists believe in the concept of legacy. 2. This is kinda true regardless of religious belief in terms of what happens here on earth isn't it? Sure religion may promise a heaven afterwards, but that doesn't change the void you leave behind here, as anyone who has ever mourned can attest to. "Because there is no creator, there is no moral law." 1. Some atheists believe in objective moral law. 2. Subjective moral law should not be disregarded as a valid form of moral law. That's basically the idea behind every judicial system in the west. 3. As a rebuttal - the existence of a creator would not imply the validity or justness of their given moral law - only their early claim on the idea and ability to enforce it. "The best we can hope for in life is to simply be happy." I see what you're getting at with this, but you really underestimate a lot of atheists here. Yes you get the vapid lefties who live their lives chasing constant frivolous happiness highs, but anyone with half a brain can see they will have deathbed regrets. Atheists are quite capable of living life for purpose - you simply cannot comprehend the idea of finding (or making) that level of purpose outside the tenets of a religion. What if I told you that the biggest happiness kick of them all is religion. You're actually attacking your own side.
As a Christian, I’d like give my thoughts about your thoughts: “Secularists...” 1. I’d agree wth mostly everything you said here 2. How can existence be anything but random and (objectively) purposeless on an atheistic worldview? “We were created...” What he means (in the video) about creation by no one, he means the universe as a whole, including our existence (and importance). To point out our parents as our creators is obvious, and not his point here. “We appeared out of nothing...” 1. I’ll address this in point two 2. On legacy and what happens on earth when you die, no one is objecting to that. What he means by returning to nothing is that your soul doesn’t live on. In atheism, everyone dies in the end, and that’s it. End of story. Whether you lived the most moral like possible or you lived the most criminal life possible, you both have the same fate. “Because there is no creator...” 1. Agreed. Here’s one: ruclips.net/video/rACl7ea-jIg/видео.html 2. Subjective morality shouldn’t be considered a valid form of moral law because its unliveable. Subjective morality means morality is either up to the government, society, or the individual. The judicial system does NOT run on subjective morals, because if the were the case, then no one would ever be committing a crime. What if murdering someone was part of a criminal’s morals? Take the Nuremberg trials, where nazis were judged for doing evil even though everything they did was legal under German law. 3. I disagree, if we were created by God for a purpose, and our universe was designed by God’s nature, than his moral law would be *the* moral law, since his nature reflects what a moral law is ontologically. “The best we...” No one is saying atheists can’t have their own purpose in life, what he means is that one’s own created purpose is unstable. At any moment it can shaken. If your spouse, job, children, sports, science, money, sex, etc make your life not just meaningful, but your whole purpose of existence, you are extremely vulnerable and you will never get enough, ie be completely fulfilled. None of those things will ever fulfill you. You’ll find flaws in your wife, you’ll get bored of your job (or retire, now what?), inadequacies in your children, your athletic ability will inevitably fade, science will leave you impatient with its slow progress, you’ll never have enough money, sex will lose its potency, etc. On your last jab: statistically speaking, religious people live more fulfilling lives. As he said in the video, we find joy in fulfilling our created purpose in life.
Odd that you point out the ways secular beliefs change and not the way we, as Christians, translate the Bible's meanings. For instance: We don't stone people for crimes of indecency. Read the Old Testament. People would stone a man who commits infidelity, the married woman he cheated with, the woman he was married to and the children he had so no further sin would continue from that family. One man's actions got at least four people killed. It also states in that same area that having sexual relations with an un-married woman while the man is married is fine as long as the man pays the girl's father a wife's wage. That sounds a lot like prostitution. ...Which is a sin. It used to be a woman's place (according to the Bible and Christian following) that a woman's place was at home with the children. Now, thankfully, women work, vote and even preach in Christian establishments. My job as a Christian is not to judge the actions of others. That is God's job. I am not God or His equal. My job is to inform others so they can form a healthy relationship with Him. Demonizing people and talking down to them is a hard way to influence people to trust in His loving embrace.
KA Lewis Do not judge by external appearance but judge righteously. John. We are to judge but it depends on what and can we provide a solution to the problem and prevention for incidents to occur in the first place.
Why do you think women in the old testament did not work? There are examples of women owning their business, working for the family (undervalued domestic work which has to be done even today), even most men in those societies did not go "out to the office" to work, because they worked at home or the fields near home.. call to arms was only during the times of war and after the threat was over, the men returned home to work on the land. There is an example in the old testament of a woman who functioned in the office of a judge and a military advisor, a co-ruler of a nation as a queen, etc. While it was rare to occupy that high positions, it did happen on occasion, and nowhere was it said that a woman should not hold that position. Some priestly offices were limited to males only i think, but women were still playing active roles in the religious service as well, some may call it preaching which should also be called teaching the law of God. Which is not a recommended office to anyone, because teachers will be judged more harshly, according to the scriptures.
mrmiura story you mean curropt pastors who influence uneducated and illiterate people caused that not the religion itself. Atheists should stop using that false line.
mrmiura story I'm not angry. I'm just saying get your facts straight before commenting. It was corrupt pastors influencing people not the religion itself.
mrmiura story I know it is bad to blame all of a group for the actions of a few. To get the confusion out of the way I was saying that the religion was not the problem. The problem was that most people were illiterate so they had to depend solely on those who could read for information. The priests normally could read so they had the control over what the congregation thought the bible said. Such power corrupted many of them. They told the congregation lies to gain power and influence. Why do you think that after the renassaunce these actions stopped? This is because people started learning to read and so could see what the bible actually said. I was just trying to inform you that this was the cause of it and not the religion itself sorry if I came off as angry or agressive.
mrmiura story I never said there wasn't. Every religion and even atheism has extremist groups. What I was refering to is that the religion christianity itself is not to be blamed for these groups just like there are extremist atheists who are not that way because of atheism.
Teen Vegans if it weren't for religion the human race would still be small tribes living off the land dying of starvation and domestic violence. Don't be so shallow
Great video! Keep up the fight in prayer and courage, we're with you👍
The argument I have heard from secularism is that they do not need a God for morals, but can understand through biology that the immediate gratification of their desires does not bring the most biological success, and rather they cognitively decide that altruism is their best option
The people who don't remember which bathroom to use can rely on biology as their moral compass?
Jacob trogan secular atheists who believe they can cognitively decipher that altruism is the best option end up falling for every selfish lie that our culture teaches them: abortion on demand, unrestrained sexuality, etc. They have no one to answer to except themselves if they do not feel like being altruistic. They can always come up with a rationalization for anything - from normalizing sexually destructive behaviour towards children to oppressing the voices of those that stand for truth. We also know from history what happens when a government fails to acknowledge God as a higher authority. For example, the nightmare of communism and the Nazis. Hundreds of millions of dead bodies piled up.
Let's all pray for Joseph and FPIW.
I'm in Ontario Canada and have been very blessed by these videos. Keep up the good work!
Fantastic presentation of the gospel. Thanks again Joseph
No it was crap
Sorry, what he said was true but that is not the gospel lol
As a Muslim.. I relate to this so much 🌹
May Allah lead us all to the right path❤️❤️❤️
Im muslim and Im happy there are still christian left. to fight the truth. If all christians gone scular and liberal. Who else gonna help the world from our sins? I miss 90's world without these mess up things.
I got you! I envy old days of Western union where ladies and gentlemen are living their day, working hard and meeting in a bar at the end of day. Gosh. I want to live in that times 😊
This guy is so amazing , I love this channel.
Well said thank you for your insight
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
Finally I find a video that names our Lord Jesus and points He is the way for life. The other videos merely touched a moral point of view and didn’t named God so couldn’t really help anyone.
This dude is too damn good! I am glad to have found this channel
What can answer our moral questions is nothing but science.
Tried and failed. Look up eugenics
while I agree most said in the video i don´t think secular people don´t think there is a moral law. They still have some sort of it which usually goes like: "you can do whatever you want, as long as you don´t hurt anyone"
I'm a secular rightist
Nice contradiction.
I consider my self a secular humanist and I don’t hold any of the positions this man put out for seculars. Not all secular people are the same. I have a strong indigenous background that also gives me an appreciation for spiritual matters. But I don’t believe I came from nothing. I don’t even know what nothing looks like. No one does.
Very ambiguous, if you don't believe you came from nothing, then you believe you came from something.
However, if you cannot know what that something is then you are again left to your own imaginations of what that something is which ultimately leads back to a moral relativism.
To support your position you may want to look into "emergent Morality" which is the study of morality in animal social structures.
Why must it be one way or no way for Christians though, (coming from a practicing Catholic for 23 years), I don’t understand why there cannot be links between the 2, who cares who someone marries? Or that they have tattoos and what about other religious beliefs and expressions? Are we going to deny that Christianity borrowed concepts from other religions? To what end? Everyone is different and should be treated equally as is one of the fundamental teachings in Christianity.
Why are you christian and not Muslim? Is there any reason why you believe in exactly this religion?
We disagree because there is absolute truth and that doesn’t sit well for those who reject God.
Thanks for opening the discussion and focussing on what we have in common.
But I have to tell you that atheists are not less moral or purposeful than Christians. Actually, it looks like even Christians can be called only moral if they make their own moral choice instead of following religious orders, especially when it comes to situations people didn't know anything about 2,000 years ago.
Moral values can be found around the world, and they're pretty much the same among various religions and among atheists.
Also, you will find radical hedonists among Christians as well as in other religions and among atheists too.
valentino1000 no one said atheists can’t be moral and that there have been Christians who were immoral. The question is, who grounds moral values and duties? Does the government, society, or the individual? Christians ground morality in God because his very nature is the meaning of good.
@@ThatReadingGuy28 It could also be argued that Christians ground morality in their culture/individual beliefs which they see in God's nature.
Though many religions claim their values as those of an immutable creator, each individual has their own ideas of what God's morality is. Some Christians don't believe in Hell because in their view, God wouldn't torture people. Some Christians disagree over the value of works as compared to faith. Yet all of these people claim their morals are derived from God, who represents immutable truth and good. In that sense, the stability of God's morals have little effect on the influence of individual beliefs.
So it begs the question, if Christians ground morality in God and yet they disagree, where do individual ethics end and divine morality begin?
6 leftists were triggered
I know its hard to understand cause everybody wants to do the right thing whether you believe in God or not. I m a believer and i dont always do the right thing but try to do whats right for others and sometimes its telling the consecuences of choices we all make brings problems and they affect others also by believing in Gods purpose i make other peoples lives better
Very good message though that initial cadence sounded quite annoying.
I am Christian like if you are, comment if not
I don't know what anyone would consider me because I find myself way more conservative than liberal but I do have liberal stances on certain topics...like marriage. Who is anyone to tell anyone else who they can love? Who is a gay person hurting by marrying one of the same sex? Just because it is not traditional doesnt mean it is wrong. Conservatives say truth is all that matters. Which they are consistent with when it comes to gender transformation but when it comes to gay love thats pretty inconsistent. Telling someone who they can and can't love goes against conservative principles and if God is as accepting and loving as Christians believe then I'm sure God would approve...
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you"
jimmy mulligan we dont care who they love or if they marry but we warned and were right that the law would be used to force Christians into secular or sinful behaviors such as promoting, participating, serving in and even forced to CELEBRATE a gay wedding. We just want to retain our first A rights to disagree, freedom of association, worship, expression and speech. President Trump does not want to take away gay marriage rights but only to define and protect our existing rights which are being taken away and attacked.
GodBless America GodBless America who is forcing anyone to celebrate a gay marriage? If you don't want to celebrate it....don't? 🤔🤔🤔🤔
Gay sex hurts the men involved, that’s why Christians care. They place their identity in their sexuality, which should only be one aspect of it. Plus, marriage is an inherently religious practice, so why do secularists get to determine what counts as a proper marriage or not?
Changing the gender is as insignificant as changing a shirt for one's preference
Too true.
I'm sorry, this guy doesnt know what hes on about.
Edit: and I'm no leftist. Far from it.
you sound like a leftist
Just let people do what they want in a free market if they don't hurt you
Yes we'll, again, that hasn't been what's going on when bakers and florists are compelled to do that which they don't want.
Or compelled pronoun speech like Bill c-16
Christians and leftists disagree on a lot of things.
clif keen And agree on some things.
we want all of the people to be happy ?
then lets say a sister and brother wants to marry each other what is the correct decision according to society?
We know that sex between family members leads to terrible genetical outcomes i.e birth defects and so on. That includes cousins as well. Secondly, there exist certain relations in society that have to be confined in one way or another, example a teacher and their student, a mother and a child, a brother and a sister. For the betterment of mankind, sex should only exist between two people if said people are not blood related, work related, without a big age gap, if it's consensual...etc.
I know where you want to go with this. Notice how none of the reasons I mentioned involved religion? you can't just only rely on your religion to convince others that something is wrong to do. Remember that in Islam for example, marrying your first cousin is not a sin in fact some scholars may even encourage it. Also it's perfectly fine for a 50 year old man to marry a 9 year old girl under Islam.
Reason is the only tool we have to decide whether or not something should be okay or not, not religion or any form of superstitious beliefs cause they'll always fail at one point or another.
“Atheists believe we came from nothing”, Well thats a bit of a straw man and a little bit of projection. Anyways, if you think believe you have a purpose from a diety, great. But atheists are not convinced yours is not any less man made than what drives them. Speaking of drives, not every atheist is driven by hedonism, as if that is the only choice. I am not a progressive by the way. I think there is a place for religion and peacefull respectful dialogue. The bible may not be true or accurate or moral in all stories, but it does have nuggets and great observations on the human condition. It is a foundational text that has influenced the west for the best part of 1800 years. We cant ignore that.
What do you mean atheists believe we came from nothing is a straw man?
"But atheists are not convinced yours is not any less man made than what drives them", true but you could argue that it's the belief itself that has the greatest value rather the veracity of that belief. I personally think we need to believe in a greater purpose and it's one that we cannot begin to fathom, even if we don't believe in a personal creator.
@@madisondaniel3061 Apologies for the late reply. Atheism does not necessitate materialism.
An analogy is that if a group of people believe crocodiles come from sewers and another group says they don't agree, that does not mean the other group believe crocodiles come from nowhere. Their non-agreement doesn't identify their belief.
So it's a straw man, a rough and inaccurate imitation of the Atheist position used to simplify criticism.
@@creativebeetle no it's not. An atheist has to believe in nothing because that's the only choice. An agnostic is the fence sitter
@@TheRastacabbage I'm not sure I agree. Theism means you believe in a god or gods. Atheism means you don't.
Both atheists and theists can have a broad range of philosophies about the origin of the universe, the meaning of life, and even the human soul. One group may attribute these concepts to a god, and the other wouldn't. A 'belief in nothing' is not the only remaining choice, there are many beliefs about the universe that don't directly correspond to a god or religion.
For example, an someone may view life as a spiritual component to the universe, something with intrinsic meaning that carries a balance with everything else. They may believe that the human soul is special, or any manner of other things. If this person doesn't believe in a god, then they are still an atheist.
Thank you Joseph for a message known by most Americans years ago, but now mostly lost in this generation.
lol I didn't expect dharma in christianity
Hard to have a conversation when the secular worldview is so thoroughly misrepresented...
In what way?
How is secularism not moral relativism
Or at best humanistic altruism which again has not objective grounding outside of borrowing the core concepts from chriatianity
Start, perhaps, by reading some Parfit.
Secularist do not believe that the human existence is random and purposeless. It is not random since evolution is not random (natural selection), it is not purposeless since we make our own purpose! Accountability to someone is not important for us to be good, we do it because we think it is the right thing to do. An absence of a creator does not mean there is no moral law. There are very few secularist that believe there is no moral law, the vast majority does think there is such a thing (although not in the sense that is never changes).
Your car analogy is utterly flawed since we know with absolute certainty the car is designed with a purpose. This does not go for a human, since there is no concrete (scientific) evidence that shows we are created for a specific purpose.
Hmmm...sounds like scientism to me🤔
Plus you are misunderstanding the moral argument. Christians acknowledge that atheists can be moral and Christians can be immoral, but it’s about how you ground that morality. Is it society, government, or the individual? Or is it God, and therefore objective, because God’s very nature is good?
Mr.Backholm, do you know of a good church in Portland, Oregon that makes sense the way you do? Thanks.
Doug Brown
Trinity Portland led by Art Azurdia.
"Secular people have no purpose or morals." How could you say something like that?
Genuinely, how could you, someone who I assume is a person living to help others and be the best you can, knowingly tell your audience that a massive collection of people is immoral and purposeless because they didn't grow up Christian or changed their minds?
How shallow is purpose if only Christians can have it?
Do you believe the only elements of purpose in life reside in the book, faith or lack-thereof that someone follows?
To me, this is the textbook definition of "My Dad's better than your Dad" taken to its logical extension.
I grew up in a religious household/environment therefore all people with differing beliefs must be immoral.
What a horrid way to see the world, not only as a person, but as a Christian too.
To misunderstand what purpose is so much that you think it comes solely from a book or faith and nothing else.
If all morals came from the Bible or another holy book, no one would have ever been courageous and moral enough to put an end to the slave trade.
After all, Exodus 21 explains how it should work, and Ephesians 6 clarifies the new law pretty well.
"5: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
I feel like you forgot that it continues: And masters, treat your slaves in the same way.
Oh.
Yeah that makes slavery fine.
In those days this made it more than fine.
Owning people as property, removing their freedom and using them for work is more than fine?
Do you really believe that owning people as property against their will is ever "more than fine?"
Are you actually willing to defend owning slaves in any capacity?
Would you be willing to be a slave to someone else, condemned to serve their will and never live out a life of your own as long as your master respects you?
Not in middle ages and not now. But I think that slavery was the only way to progress B.C. up until let's say first century. Of course it depends what slavery are you thinking about. I'll give you an example. In ancient Rome if you didn't have enough money to pay your debt you had to become a slave for the person that you owed until you repaid the debt with your work. Was that removing of freedom? Yes. Do I think that it was ok? Yes.
"against their will" well they didn't want to be slaves so I think that I can say that it was against their will. I still think it's better than killing them so yes, I think that's just fine (ofc it would be better if they didn't get in the debts but once you get there...).
Am I willing to defend slavery? It depends on what kind of slavery.
And yes, I would love to become someones slave if the opposite variant was my death.
In this case I would be glad that we have rules that save my life and that there is some moral code (for example in the Bible) that tells my masters to threat me with respect.
I appreciate the invitation to a dialogue, but it seems insincere. You wear the guise of empathy, but really you're just building strawman arguments to woo other people on your own side - which isn't really in the spirit of effective communication is it? Your own team already agrees with you. "You don't make peace with your allies, you make peace with your enemies."
"Secularists believe that human existence is random and purposeless."
1. You're confusing secularism with atheism. Secularism is the use of a-religious policies regardless of religious belief or lack thereof i.e. secular law. Atheism is just the lack thereof. Even if atheists didn't exist, heck even if other religions didn't exist, secularism is useful as a mediator between differences in religious thought - not just different denominations but even different individual interpretations, anecdotes, etc, and all the various things never mentioned by religion.
2. Many atheists do not believe that human existence is random and purposeless. Did you know it's possible to be an atheist and believe in ghosts? It's not one ideology, just as theism is not one ideology.
"We were not created by anyone, so we are not accountable to anyone."
We were "created" by our parents. Does that mean we should be accountable to them? Being your creator doesn't give infinite authority, only a baseline level of respect.
"We appeared out of nothing and will return to nothing."
1. Again, not a universally accurate assertion. A lot of atheists believe in the concept of legacy.
2. This is kinda true regardless of religious belief in terms of what happens here on earth isn't it? Sure religion may promise a heaven afterwards, but that doesn't change the void you leave behind here, as anyone who has ever mourned can attest to.
"Because there is no creator, there is no moral law."
1. Some atheists believe in objective moral law.
2. Subjective moral law should not be disregarded as a valid form of moral law. That's basically the idea behind every judicial system in the west.
3. As a rebuttal - the existence of a creator would not imply the validity or justness of their given moral law - only their early claim on the idea and ability to enforce it.
"The best we can hope for in life is to simply be happy."
I see what you're getting at with this, but you really underestimate a lot of atheists here. Yes you get the vapid lefties who live their lives chasing constant frivolous happiness highs, but anyone with half a brain can see they will have deathbed regrets. Atheists are quite capable of living life for purpose - you simply cannot comprehend the idea of finding (or making) that level of purpose outside the tenets of a religion.
What if I told you that the biggest happiness kick of them all is religion. You're actually attacking your own side.
As a Christian, I’d like give my thoughts about your thoughts:
“Secularists...”
1. I’d agree wth mostly everything you said here
2. How can existence be anything but random and (objectively) purposeless on an atheistic worldview?
“We were created...”
What he means (in the video) about creation by no one, he means the universe as a whole, including our existence (and importance). To point out our parents as our creators is obvious, and not his point here.
“We appeared out of nothing...”
1. I’ll address this in point two
2. On legacy and what happens on earth when you die, no one is objecting to that. What he means by returning to nothing is that your soul doesn’t live on. In atheism, everyone dies in the end, and that’s it. End of story. Whether you lived the most moral like possible or you lived the most criminal life possible, you both have the same fate.
“Because there is no creator...”
1. Agreed. Here’s one: ruclips.net/video/rACl7ea-jIg/видео.html
2. Subjective morality shouldn’t be considered a valid form of moral law because its unliveable. Subjective morality means morality is either up to the government, society, or the individual. The judicial system does NOT run on subjective morals, because if the were the case, then no one would ever be committing a crime. What if murdering someone was part of a criminal’s morals? Take the Nuremberg trials, where nazis were judged for doing evil even though everything they did was legal under German law.
3. I disagree, if we were created by God for a purpose, and our universe was designed by God’s nature, than his moral law would be *the* moral law, since his nature reflects what a moral law is ontologically.
“The best we...”
No one is saying atheists can’t have their own purpose in life, what he means is that one’s own created purpose is unstable. At any moment it can shaken. If your spouse, job, children, sports, science, money, sex, etc make your life not just meaningful, but your whole purpose of existence, you are extremely vulnerable and you will never get enough, ie be completely fulfilled. None of those things will ever fulfill you. You’ll find flaws in your wife, you’ll get bored of your job (or retire, now what?), inadequacies in your children, your athletic ability will inevitably fade, science will leave you impatient with its slow progress, you’ll never have enough money, sex will lose its potency, etc.
On your last jab: statistically speaking, religious people live more fulfilling lives. As he said in the video, we find joy in fulfilling our created purpose in life.
Clarity cuts through clutter.
You do you bro...
That slogan is inherently narcissistic
Odd that you point out the ways secular beliefs change and not the way we, as Christians, translate the Bible's meanings. For instance: We don't stone people for crimes of indecency. Read the Old Testament. People would stone a man who commits infidelity, the married woman he cheated with, the woman he was married to and the children he had so no further sin would continue from that family. One man's actions got at least four people killed. It also states in that same area that having sexual relations with an un-married woman while the man is married is fine as long as the man pays the girl's father a wife's wage. That sounds a lot like prostitution. ...Which is a sin.
It used to be a woman's place (according to the Bible and Christian following) that a woman's place was at home with the children. Now, thankfully, women work, vote and even preach in Christian establishments.
My job as a Christian is not to judge the actions of others. That is God's job. I am not God or His equal. My job is to inform others so they can form a healthy relationship with Him. Demonizing people and talking down to them is a hard way to influence people to trust in His loving embrace.
KA Lewis Do not judge by external appearance but judge righteously. John.
We are to judge but it depends on what and can we provide a solution to the problem and prevention for incidents to occur in the first place.
Why do you think women in the old testament did not work? There are examples of women owning their business, working for the family (undervalued domestic work which has to be done even today), even most men in those societies did not go "out to the office" to work, because they worked at home or the fields near home.. call to arms was only during the times of war and after the threat was over, the men returned home to work on the land. There is an example in the old testament of a woman who functioned in the office of a judge and a military advisor, a co-ruler of a nation as a queen, etc. While it was rare to occupy that high positions, it did happen on occasion, and nowhere was it said that a woman should not hold that position. Some priestly offices were limited to males only i think, but women were still playing active roles in the religious service as well, some may call it preaching which should also be called teaching the law of God. Which is not a recommended office to anyone, because teachers will be judged more harshly, according to the scriptures.
religion is bs. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris ftw
mrmiura story you mean curropt pastors who influence uneducated and illiterate people caused that not the religion itself. Atheists should stop using that false line.
mrmiura story I'm not angry. I'm just saying get your facts straight before commenting. It was corrupt pastors influencing people not the religion itself.
mrmiura story I know it is bad to blame all of a group for the actions of a few. To get the confusion out of the way I was saying that the religion was not the problem. The problem was that most people were illiterate so they had to depend solely on those who could read for information. The priests normally could read so they had the control over what the congregation thought the bible said. Such power corrupted many of them. They told the congregation lies to gain power and influence. Why do you think that after the renassaunce these actions stopped? This is because people started learning to read and so could see what the bible actually said. I was just trying to inform you that this was the cause of it and not the religion itself sorry if I came off as angry or agressive.
mrmiura story I never said there wasn't. Every religion and even atheism has extremist groups. What I was refering to is that the religion christianity itself is not to be blamed for these groups just like there are extremist atheists who are not that way because of atheism.
Teen Vegans if it weren't for religion the human race would still be small tribes living off the land dying of starvation and domestic violence. Don't be so shallow