Make 3 assumptions, or explain how things could be otherwise. The most suffering of everything that can suffer is to be avoided, Things that are repeatable are more likely to be real/useful in our environment, The more factors one can consider the more accurate one's understanding can be. ua-cam.com/video/Hj9oB4zpHww/v-deo.html If suffering does not matter, say the purpose of the universe is to do a task like a program and it does not matter how many die. Then nothing meaning anything beyond how it helps or hinders the goal. If things are not repeatable, a step takes you a foot, the next a km, the third further back than you started, then you can't do anything. If things are not connected, if hitting one object does not effect another, then action is useless. You care if you are in pain, you expect logical progression, and you anticipate the consequences of your actions based on a consistent and interconnected world. Just as a thrown ball is governed by physics, our lives are influenced by a network of cause and effect. If our actions didn't lead to predictable outcomes, if suffering had no impact, and if there was no logical order, life would be chaotic and meaningless. Our understanding of the world, our planning for the future, and our sense of justice and morality, all rely on a universe where events are interconnected and consequential. Science is the process for questioning everything. Dogma are answers that cannot be questioned. They are opposites. Religious people can put aside their dogma and do science, but then they are not being very religious. When we refuse to admit we could be wrong, then we refuse to grow. This is why echo chambers and yes men are dangerous, and a temptation the powerful must resist. Atheism is starting line instead of a false finish line, and some are further down the path of self-improvement than others. Religion is gasping its last breaths, and figures like Peterson are administering the lethal dose. In the Muslim faith, the term 'kafir' (often equated with atheism) serves to ostracize the outsider. Yet such labels invariably turn inward, becoming weapons against those within the faith who dare to dissent. In their eagerness to take on atheism, some theists shift their stance, only to find themselves at odds with their own brethren over what their faith even means. All religions are the same this way, it is basic tribalism. You do not need an imaginary, abusive friend to see the wisdom in kindness and selflessness. Making the world better for others makes it better for one's self. The irony is, every inadequate answer given to a questioning believer strengthens our cause. Religious adherence is crumbling, not because of science's triumph, but because its own contradictions and failed answers are tearing it apart. ua-cam.com/video/QN7kmVjUGZA/v-deo.html
@@ZaShiesty Open the pages of the Bible, and you'll find a quagmire of ethical confusion and sheer depravity. Between endorsements of slavery, genocide, and misogyny, are the faint whispers of love and compassion. Theists cherry-pick these texts from an atheist moral stance (free from preconceived notions) and then use the remaining passages to justify actions that fall short of true humanist morality. This selective adherence to scripture unwittingly acknowledges that morality evolves beyond the stagnant pool of religious dogma, being shaped instead by human experience, empathy, and rational thought. It lays bare the hollow core of religious moral authority, replaced by values that echo our shared human decency. Why cling to an imaginary, abusive relationship when the simple, selfish act of improving the world for others inherently makes it better for oneself? Unlike the faithful, atheists don't need to consult an imaginary friend to know that murdering one's child is fundamentally wrong. The denial of evolution by some religious adherents is a bewildering stance, especially given our triumphs in artificial intelligence and machine learning. In the world of computer science, we proudly wield the tools of evolution itself to train and refine our algorithms. Genetic algorithms, neural networks, and deep learning are rooted in the principles of natural selection, mutation, and adaptation. If evolution is merely a fantasy, then how do we explain the success of these methodologies that mimic nature's own processes? Are we programmers truly wizards? Or are we harnessing the very mechanisms that have shaped life itself? The acceptance of evolution isn't just a matter of scientific consensus; it's a seismic shift that shakes the very foundation of Christian theology. By acknowledging the evolutionary processes that shape life on our planet, we are forced to confront the unravelling of the story of Adam and Eve. No Adam and Eve, no original sin. No original sin, no need for redemption, no crucifixion, and no resurrection. The entire theological structure begins to collapse like a house of cards. We can't simultaneously embrace the tools of evolution in one breath and deny its existence in the next. The connection between biology and technology makes this cognitive dissonance all the more stark and indefensible. To deny evolution is to cling to a belief system that is rendered logically incoherent in the face of modern understanding. It's a refusal to see the world as it truly is, and an insistence on holding onto a myth that has been laid bare by science. Recognizing evolution doesn't merely challenge faith; it obliterates the very heart of Christian doctrine.
@@CitizensCommunity Blind atheist love simplicity and thinks slavery is evil and freedom is good. Also according to American Atheist atheist are the largest group in USA who supports abortion at 90% .... genocide. Abortion = those in power sacrificing the powerless. Some people have to be forced to work and stop living off others ... like the lazy living off welfare. The Bible holds a more realistic view ... everyone has a master whom they serve. Atheist are hypocrites failing to see they condemn themselves by their own judgement they use on others. I wonder if God will allow the aborted babies whom He gives back their life to condemn atheist who think they are in the position to judge God. Israel accused God of not caring for the "children" and God judge them and proclaim 20 and under will enter the promise land.
They just pretend he doesn't exist and wasn't 1) smarter 2) more honest than they are. At least he knew that if God isn't real everything is permitted and nihilism is the only rational conclusion. The rest of these poor fools think they can just generate these things by force of will. If you ask them "what stops me from just doing whatever I want to you?" they start complaining about fairness and other things that don't exist outside of objective standards.
@@TmanRock9 "how is everything permitted if god isn’t real?" - No moral standard outside of humans, therefore everything reduces to mere preference. Why should a lion care about the thoughts of a sheep? - No certain punishment. If I can do something and get away with it. Why not do so?
A funny trend I noticed is that all the boomer atheists have Alex on their subscribed list. If this is their best guy I think they are heading for an early grave
@M.E-Martinez I never followed his content via subscription but have been exposed to his videos for many years, and quite frankly, he was more entertaining and engaging a couple years ago. For some reason, he wants to make speeches at Oxford now like a professional yet his YT content has gotten dumbed down, and it's more or less just the same old atheist rhetorical complaining and Bart Ehrman citing nowadays. I promise he did offer some good content for Christians to take in before, now it's just the dime a dozen stuff, Alex hasn't proven himself to innovate any arguments at all really so now it's stagnating and boring.
Religion is gasping its last breaths, and figures like Peterson are administering the lethal dose. In the Muslim faith, the term 'kafir' (often equated with atheism) serves to ostracize the outsider. Yet such labels invariably turn inward, becoming weapons against those within the faith who dare to dissent. In their eagerness to take on atheism, some theists shift their stance, only to find themselves at odds with their own brethren over what their faith even means. All religions are the same this way, it is basic tribalism. You do not need an imaginary, abusive friend to see the wisdom in kindness and selflessness. Making the world better for others makes it better for one's self. The irony is, every inadequate answer given to a questioning believer strengthens our cause. Religious adherence is crumbling, not because of science's triumph, but because its own contradictions and failed answers are tearing it apart. ua-cam.com/video/QN7kmVjUGZA/v-deo.html
Alex never been punched in the face before or actually experienced life outside of a sheltered bubble. If he did he would be crying about an immoral injustice that had befallen him. Two faced coward.
Open the pages of the Bible, and you'll find a quagmire of ethical confusion and sheer depravity. Between endorsements of slavery, genocide, and misogyny, are the faint whispers of love and compassion. Theists cherry-pick these texts from an atheist moral stance (free from preconceived notions) and then use the remaining passages to justify actions that fall short of true humanist morality. This selective adherence to scripture unwittingly acknowledges that morality evolves beyond the stagnant pool of religious dogma, being shaped instead by human experience, empathy, and rational thought. It lays bare the hollow core of religious moral authority, replaced by values that echo our shared human decency. Why cling to an imaginary, abusive relationship when the simple, selfish act of improving the world for others inherently makes it better for oneself? Unlike the faithful, atheists don't need to consult an imaginary friend to know that murdering one's child is fundamentally wrong.
Regardless of who is doing the cherry-picking, it shouldn't be done. But this is exactly what you are doing. "It's a quagmire of all these bad things!" You're supposed to take it in its totality. "Unlike the faithful, atheists don't need to consult an imaginary friend to know that murdering one's child is fundamentally wrong." This is just more atheist bullshit coping. You're always the better person because your feelings tell you so. But it never seems to occur to you that theists have felt those same things and actually questioned whether or not there is an objective moral foundation to give meaning to those feelings. And so that is how someone may start questioning those intuitions and how others seem to simply ignore them, if they even have them. They want answers so start seeking them. The atheist, on the other hand, ruling out objective morality and an ultimate moral arbiter (God) has no foundation for their beliefs other than their feelings. No reason or suggestion as to what you should do about those feelings. So you FEEL killing a baby is wrong (it is), but someone else can feel just fine about it, and who are you to argue? On what basis? YOUR feelings? Good luck! @@CitizensCommunity
@@fredo3161 If there was a higher power out there, science would be very interested in finding it. It is the religious that hold us back in this endeavor as they think they already have the answer. Science is the process for questioning everything. Dogma are answers that cannot be questioned. They are opposites. Religious people can put aside their dogma and do science, but then they are not being very religious. When we refuse to admit we could be wrong, then we refuse to grow. This is why echo chambers and yes men are dangerous, and a temptation the powerful must resist. Atheism is starting line instead of a false finish line, and some are further down the path of self-improvement than others. Make 3 assumptions, or explain how things could be otherwise. The most suffering of everything that can suffer is to be avoided, Things that are repeatable are more likely to be real/useful in our environment, The more factors one can consider the more accurate one's understanding can be. ua-cam.com/video/Hj9oB4zpHww/v-deo.html If suffering does not matter, say the purpose of the universe is to do a task like a program and it does not matter how many die. Then nothing meaning anything beyond how it helps or hinders the goal. If things are not repeatable, a step takes you a foot, the next a km, the third further back than you started, then you can't do anything. If things are not connected, if hitting one object does not effect another, then action is useless. You care if you are in pain, you expect logical progression, and you anticipate the consequences of your actions based on a consistent and interconnected world. Just as a thrown ball is governed by physics, our lives are influenced by a network of cause and effect. If our actions didn't lead to predictable outcomes, if suffering had no impact, and if there was no logical order, life would be chaotic and meaningless. Our understanding of the world, our planning for the future, and our sense of justice and morality, all rely on a universe where events are interconnected and consequential. Theists lack a morality, to them it is subjective.
Quote on Natural Selection from "The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry" by Suzan Mazur (an evolutionist herself): "“Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community also knows that natural selection has little to do with long-term changes in populations [emphasis added, ellipsis in original]” (p. v).
I've been thinking about how "might is right" not only lead's to moral relativism but also other issues. For instance, does it not lead to determinism as well? If every choice is valid because you will it, then there are no wrong actions, choices, thoughts. Everything that is "willed" is equally valid. But if all choices are the same, there is no choice anymore. And since you can not will yourself to not will, you have no control. You are "forced to will" - a contradiction. As a syllogism it could look like this: 1. If "might is right" is the sole valid moral directive, 2. Every choice is deemed valid because it is willed (based on might is right). 3. If all choices are equally valid, there are no false choices, only will. 4. Therefore, if every choice is valid, the notion of genuine individual will is undermined, as even the act of willing is predetermined and lacks true choice or agency. I don't know if I am making sense here, but it seems like any preference based system will necessarily lead to determinism. If there is no objective standard to appeal to, so you can measure the quality of your choices, how are you making choices? You are choosing from nothing, based on nothing. This is probably where a lot of propaganda gets its foot in the door, like with the voting system in Democracies. They create arbitrary standards to define yourself against. Like party participation and voting. The quality of your choice is determined by what choices you make in the system, and what rewards you get. If your ultimate standard is God, how can you even have a democracy? If anything, you could only have different factions proposing different agendas on how to get closer to the divine Ideal. But even that is ludicrous. There is only one way to God, and that's through the church. It's almost like democracy is based on willfulness. The truth is not up for debate.
When people say "might makes right", they are trying to describe how individuals/collectives enforce ethics and laws on other collectives and individuals. AND. To say that rights *technically* don't hold any power, if there are nobody to enforce them. So, I would say, that you overthinking it (especially in regards it relationship with determinism)(and with P1 and P2, since "might makes right" is more like a observation about history of law)
It's simple: Until you can provide exclusive, objective, sound evidence for your god or the supernatural existing there is no rational reason to believe you.
@@MadebyJimbob IQ of 140. Intergallactic space pixies from a parallel dimension whose natural laws are different than ours entered our space through a rip in the space-time continuum and passed gas into it which was the Big Bang. Do you believe me or do you require evidence? No different than your god claim.
Can't forget the goodies they pump kids full of at doctor's offices before they allow them in government schooling. That's my guess on the three leading causes.
Instead of challenging atheist positions how about just providing sound evidence for your god without going all presuppositionalist on us? Because you don't have any sound evidence.
@MadebyJimbob You can claim anything is evidence but if I can show it is logically unsound, a misrepresentation of the facts or not exclusive to your god then I don't accept your evidence. But again your presuppositionalist tactics don't impress me because you are in the same boat.i am and it doesn't lead to anything proving your god.
@MadebyJimbob Yes I did. Anything can be "evidence" but to be sound, objective and exclusive means it must survive the tests of logic, facts and only be applicable to your god. Now tell me yours. You.wont because you are a presuppositionalist.
Would you say that TAG is not too dissimilar from Molyneux's Universally Preferable Behavior? I know that moral theory seeks to validate moral claims by testing them empirically (Have a moral proposition i.e. Murder is good, and watch that system implode as you have two people trying to both enact "the good" in that system, murdering while necessarily allowing themselves to be murdered, which disallows the fulfillment of "the good" in murdering, since they are dead, having allowed the other to enact "the good" on them.) In this way, what is Universally Preferable also shows this characteristic of the impossibility of the contrary, and that all immorality is at a fundamental level irrational. Is TAG the metaphysical fullness of UPB?
_"It's a Reductio ad Absurdum. It literally means "taking a statement to its logical conclusion.""_ LOL That's got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read! So, you call concluding, from the proposition _'All triangles have three sides',_ that therefore all _scalene_ triangles have three sides-- you call such concluding, "Reductio ad Absurdum"?
@@stevendouglas3781 You asininely asserted: _"The definition of the word triangle isn’t a proposition"_ By your assertion that false proposition, you show yourself to be at least as dumb as the OP of this thread. Also, who brought up the definition of the word, 'triangle'? I did not. What I brought up is the definition of every triangle: _'All triangles have three sides'._ _'All triangles have three sides'_ is not a definition of the word, 'triangle'. The word, 'triangle', is not a triangle, and a triangle is not the word, 'triangle'; so, the definition of a triangle is not the definition of the word, 'triangle'. Now, whatever is either true or false is a proposition; that's what every proposition is: something that is either true or false. Every definition is a proposition, since every proposition is either true or false. The definition of a triangle -- _''All triangles have three sides'_ -- is true, and is thus a proposition. You wrote: _"there’s nothing to reductio [sic]."_ What (if anything) do you mean, there, by your idiotic non-sentence? Your phrase, "to reductio", is not grammatical, since the Latin word, 'reductio', is a noun, and not a verb; and thus, your choice to write it as you did is ridiculous. _"relax."_ That's a funny flick, projectionist. By your post, you did nothing to help the OP, and all you did was embarrass yourself by your poor thinking and hot-headedness. Enjoy your chagrin. 🙂
@@stevendouglas3781 _"The definition of the word triangle isn’t a proposition"_ You just asserted a false proposition. How self-defeatingly stupid one has to be to assert what you just asserted! The truth is, without exception, *every definition is a proposition.* Also, here's a definition of the word, 'triangle': the word, 'triangle', is an 8-letter, 3-syllable noun beginning with the letter 't'. That definition of the word, 'triangle', is a proposition, and a proposition that is _true._ Here's another definition of the word, 'triangle': the word, 'triangle', is a pulled-pork sandwich. That definition of the word, 'triangle', is also a proposition, and a proposition that is _false._ One of your problems, by which (in conjunction with your smugness) you make a clown of yourself, is your ignorance of the nature of definitions and defining. _"relax."_ But isn't it what you call _"relaxing"_ that has resulted in you being the idiot you've shown yourself to be?
Sorry but I don't actually think you listened to a word DG said. It's like you put the video on and paused at random points to say what ever talking points you have anyway.
He addressed specific claims that Alex made, repeatedly. It’s pretty crazy to say otherwise considering there’s a video of him doing so that we all just watched
The irony of this comment is funny. You didn’t reference a single thing I said. You clearly didn’t listen. Among other things we said in response to DG, one main one was that imagining a world without something isn’t a counter to the necessary existence of that thing.
@@TmanRock9 Free will involves real intelligence above material that evaluates and exercises influence over material, it’s not just material going through a process inevitably driven by physics and chemistry.
@@kokak4027You know Christianity has this doctrine called The Fall right? It explains all of "natural evil" from the Christian perspective. Just go google an Orthodox Christian view of The Fall and your question will be answered.
God so omnipotent. So omniscient . Yet needs to have worship and murder his creations when they do what he knows they will do. How about that great relationship starter , " love me and say the special words or I will torture you for eternity ". " oh yeah , I will remain hidden always so have faith". What a fantastic representation of all loving. Don't really follow atheists or even label myself that but there is a gentleman who is worth giving a watch on Mindshift.
Make 3 assumptions, or explain how things could be otherwise. The most suffering of everything that can suffer is to be avoided, Things that are repeatable are more likely to be real/useful in our environment, The more factors one can consider the more accurate one's understanding can be.
ua-cam.com/video/Hj9oB4zpHww/v-deo.html
If suffering does not matter, say the purpose of the universe is to do a task like a program and it does not matter how many die. Then nothing meaning anything beyond how it helps or hinders the goal.
If things are not repeatable, a step takes you a foot, the next a km, the third further back than you started, then you can't do anything.
If things are not connected, if hitting one object does not effect another, then action is useless.
You care if you are in pain, you expect logical progression, and you anticipate the consequences of your actions based on a consistent and interconnected world. Just as a thrown ball is governed by physics, our lives are influenced by a network of cause and effect. If our actions didn't lead to predictable outcomes, if suffering had no impact, and if there was no logical order, life would be chaotic and meaningless. Our understanding of the world, our planning for the future, and our sense of justice and morality, all rely on a universe where events are interconnected and consequential.
Science is the process for questioning everything. Dogma are answers that cannot be questioned. They are opposites. Religious people can put aside their dogma and do science, but then they are not being very religious.
When we refuse to admit we could be wrong, then we refuse to grow. This is why echo chambers and yes men are dangerous, and a temptation the powerful must resist. Atheism is starting line instead of a false finish line, and some are further down the path of self-improvement than others.
Religion is gasping its last breaths, and figures like Peterson are administering the lethal dose. In the Muslim faith, the term 'kafir' (often equated with atheism) serves to ostracize the outsider. Yet such labels invariably turn inward, becoming weapons against those within the faith who dare to dissent. In their eagerness to take on atheism, some theists shift their stance, only to find themselves at odds with their own brethren over what their faith even means. All religions are the same this way, it is basic tribalism. You do not need an imaginary, abusive friend to see the wisdom in kindness and selflessness. Making the world better for others makes it better for one's self. The irony is, every inadequate answer given to a questioning believer strengthens our cause. Religious adherence is crumbling, not because of science's triumph, but because its own contradictions and failed answers are tearing it apart. ua-cam.com/video/QN7kmVjUGZA/v-deo.html
Thank you o enlightened atheist
@@ZaShiesty Open the pages of the Bible, and you'll find a quagmire of ethical confusion and sheer depravity. Between endorsements of slavery, genocide, and misogyny, are the faint whispers of love and compassion. Theists cherry-pick these texts from an atheist moral stance (free from preconceived notions) and then use the remaining passages to justify actions that fall short of true humanist morality. This selective adherence to scripture unwittingly acknowledges that morality evolves beyond the stagnant pool of religious dogma, being shaped instead by human experience, empathy, and rational thought. It lays bare the hollow core of religious moral authority, replaced by values that echo our shared human decency. Why cling to an imaginary, abusive relationship when the simple, selfish act of improving the world for others inherently makes it better for oneself? Unlike the faithful, atheists don't need to consult an imaginary friend to know that murdering one's child is fundamentally wrong.
The denial of evolution by some religious adherents is a bewildering stance, especially given our triumphs in artificial intelligence and machine learning. In the world of computer science, we proudly wield the tools of evolution itself to train and refine our algorithms. Genetic algorithms, neural networks, and deep learning are rooted in the principles of natural selection, mutation, and adaptation. If evolution is merely a fantasy, then how do we explain the success of these methodologies that mimic nature's own processes? Are we programmers truly wizards? Or are we harnessing the very mechanisms that have shaped life itself?
The acceptance of evolution isn't just a matter of scientific consensus; it's a seismic shift that shakes the very foundation of Christian theology. By acknowledging the evolutionary processes that shape life on our planet, we are forced to confront the unravelling of the story of Adam and Eve. No Adam and Eve, no original sin. No original sin, no need for redemption, no crucifixion, and no resurrection. The entire theological structure begins to collapse like a house of cards.
We can't simultaneously embrace the tools of evolution in one breath and deny its existence in the next. The connection between biology and technology makes this cognitive dissonance all the more stark and indefensible. To deny evolution is to cling to a belief system that is rendered logically incoherent in the face of modern understanding. It's a refusal to see the world as it truly is, and an insistence on holding onto a myth that has been laid bare by science. Recognizing evolution doesn't merely challenge faith; it obliterates the very heart of Christian doctrine.
@@CitizensCommunity Blind atheist love simplicity and thinks slavery is evil and freedom is good. Also according to American Atheist atheist are the largest group in USA who supports abortion at 90% .... genocide. Abortion = those in power sacrificing the powerless. Some people have to be forced to work and stop living off others ... like the lazy living off welfare. The Bible holds a more realistic view ... everyone has a master whom they serve.
Atheist are hypocrites failing to see they condemn themselves by their own judgement they use on others. I wonder if God will allow the aborted babies whom He gives back their life to condemn atheist who think they are in the position to judge God. Israel accused God of not caring for the "children" and God judge them and proclaim 20 and under will enter the promise land.
Irrelevant comment
Your entire 7 page essay starts from the assumption suffering is bad. False assumption
I suspect that atheists would find it hard to reject Nietzsche's moral perspectivism and will to power.
They just pretend he doesn't exist and wasn't
1) smarter
2) more honest than they are.
At least he knew that if God isn't real everything is permitted and nihilism is the only rational conclusion. The rest of these poor fools think they can just generate these things by force of will. If you ask them "what stops me from just doing whatever I want to you?" they start complaining about fairness and other things that don't exist outside of objective standards.
@@showmeanedgehow is everything permitted if god isn’t real? And how are things not permitted if gif is real?
@@TmanRock9 I've got an idea for you - read Nietzsche
@@TmanRock9 "how is everything permitted if god isn’t real?"
- No moral standard outside of humans, therefore everything reduces to mere preference. Why should a lion care about the thoughts of a sheep?
- No certain punishment. If I can do something and get away with it. Why not do so?
@@showmeanedge or you could just explain it.
This Posh guy be sounding like young Sir Christopher Lee.
A funny trend I noticed is that all the boomer atheists have Alex on their subscribed list. If this is their best guy I think they are heading for an early grave
Well, I know even christians subscribe to him.
@M.E-Martinez I never followed his content via subscription but have been exposed to his videos for many years, and quite frankly, he was more entertaining and engaging a couple years ago.
For some reason, he wants to make speeches at Oxford now like a professional yet his YT content has gotten dumbed down, and it's more or less just the same old atheist rhetorical complaining and Bart Ehrman citing nowadays. I promise he did offer some good content for Christians to take in before, now it's just the dime a dozen stuff, Alex hasn't proven himself to innovate any arguments at all really so now it's stagnating and boring.
Religion is gasping its last breaths, and figures like Peterson are administering the lethal dose. In the Muslim faith, the term 'kafir' (often equated with atheism) serves to ostracize the outsider. Yet such labels invariably turn inward, becoming weapons against those within the faith who dare to dissent. In their eagerness to take on atheism, some theists shift their stance, only to find themselves at odds with their own brethren over what their faith even means. All religions are the same this way, it is basic tribalism. You do not need an imaginary, abusive friend to see the wisdom in kindness and selflessness. Making the world better for others makes it better for one's self. The irony is, every inadequate answer given to a questioning believer strengthens our cause. Religious adherence is crumbling, not because of science's triumph, but because its own contradictions and failed answers are tearing it apart. ua-cam.com/video/QN7kmVjUGZA/v-deo.html
Alex never been punched in the face before or actually experienced life outside of a sheltered bubble. If he did he would be crying about an immoral injustice that had befallen him. Two faced coward.
Open the pages of the Bible, and you'll find a quagmire of ethical confusion and sheer depravity. Between endorsements of slavery, genocide, and misogyny, are the faint whispers of love and compassion. Theists cherry-pick these texts from an atheist moral stance (free from preconceived notions) and then use the remaining passages to justify actions that fall short of true humanist morality. This selective adherence to scripture unwittingly acknowledges that morality evolves beyond the stagnant pool of religious dogma, being shaped instead by human experience, empathy, and rational thought. It lays bare the hollow core of religious moral authority, replaced by values that echo our shared human decency. Why cling to an imaginary, abusive relationship when the simple, selfish act of improving the world for others inherently makes it better for oneself? Unlike the faithful, atheists don't need to consult an imaginary friend to know that murdering one's child is fundamentally wrong.
@@CitizensCommunitythis here feller hasn't been punched in the face either.
Regardless of who is doing the cherry-picking, it shouldn't be done. But this is exactly what you are doing. "It's a quagmire of all these bad things!" You're supposed to take it in its totality.
"Unlike the faithful, atheists don't need to consult an imaginary friend to know that murdering one's child is fundamentally wrong."
This is just more atheist bullshit coping. You're always the better person because your feelings tell you so. But it never seems to occur to you that theists have felt those same things and actually questioned whether or not there is an objective moral foundation to give meaning to those feelings.
And so that is how someone may start questioning those intuitions and how others seem to simply ignore them, if they even have them. They want answers so start seeking them.
The atheist, on the other hand, ruling out objective morality and an ultimate moral arbiter (God) has no foundation for their beliefs other than their feelings. No reason or suggestion as to what you should do about those feelings. So you FEEL killing a baby is wrong (it is), but someone else can feel just fine about it, and who are you to argue? On what basis? YOUR feelings? Good luck!
@@CitizensCommunity
@@fredo3161 Exactly. Thanks for typig this out so I didn't have to
@@fredo3161 If there was a higher power out there, science would be very interested in finding it. It is the religious that hold us back in this endeavor as they think they already have the answer.
Science is the process for questioning everything. Dogma are answers that cannot be questioned. They are opposites. Religious people can put aside their dogma and do science, but then they are not being very religious.
When we refuse to admit we could be wrong, then we refuse to grow. This is why echo chambers and yes men are dangerous, and a temptation the powerful must resist. Atheism is starting line instead of a false finish line, and some are further down the path of self-improvement than others.
Make 3 assumptions, or explain how things could be otherwise. The most suffering of everything that can suffer is to be avoided, Things that are repeatable are more likely to be real/useful in our environment, The more factors one can consider the more accurate one's understanding can be.
ua-cam.com/video/Hj9oB4zpHww/v-deo.html
If suffering does not matter, say the purpose of the universe is to do a task like a program and it does not matter how many die. Then nothing meaning anything beyond how it helps or hinders the goal.
If things are not repeatable, a step takes you a foot, the next a km, the third further back than you started, then you can't do anything.
If things are not connected, if hitting one object does not effect another, then action is useless.
You care if you are in pain, you expect logical progression, and you anticipate the consequences of your actions based on a consistent and interconnected world. Just as a thrown ball is governed by physics, our lives are influenced by a network of cause and effect. If our actions didn't lead to predictable outcomes, if suffering had no impact, and if there was no logical order, life would be chaotic and meaningless. Our understanding of the world, our planning for the future, and our sense of justice and morality, all rely on a universe where events are interconnected and consequential.
Theists lack a morality, to them it is subjective.
Quote on Natural Selection from "The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry" by Suzan Mazur (an evolutionist herself): "“Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community also knows that natural selection has little to do with long-term changes in populations [emphasis added, ellipsis in original]” (p. v).
I've been thinking about how "might is right" not only lead's to moral relativism but also other issues. For instance, does it not lead to determinism as well? If every choice is valid because you will it, then there are no wrong actions, choices, thoughts. Everything that is "willed" is equally valid. But if all choices are the same, there is no choice anymore. And since you can not will yourself to not will, you have no control. You are "forced to will" - a contradiction.
As a syllogism it could look like this:
1. If "might is right" is the sole valid moral directive,
2. Every choice is deemed valid because it is willed (based on might is right).
3. If all choices are equally valid, there are no false choices, only will.
4. Therefore, if every choice is valid, the notion of genuine individual will is undermined, as even the act of willing is predetermined and lacks true choice or agency.
I don't know if I am making sense here, but it seems like any preference based system will necessarily lead to determinism. If there is no objective standard to appeal to, so you can measure the quality of your choices, how are you making choices? You are choosing from nothing, based on nothing.
This is probably where a lot of propaganda gets its foot in the door, like with the voting system in Democracies. They create arbitrary standards to define yourself against. Like party participation and voting. The quality of your choice is determined by what choices you make in the system, and what rewards you get. If your ultimate standard is God, how can you even have a democracy? If anything, you could only have different factions proposing different agendas on how to get closer to the divine Ideal. But even that is ludicrous. There is only one way to God, and that's through the church.
It's almost like democracy is based on willfulness. The truth is not up for debate.
When people say "might makes right", they are trying to describe how individuals/collectives enforce ethics and laws on other collectives and individuals. AND. To say that rights *technically* don't hold any power, if there are nobody to enforce them.
So, I would say, that you overthinking it (especially in regards it relationship with determinism)(and with P1 and P2, since "might makes right" is more like a observation about history of law)
Peter Hitchens is a Christian., I think you have confused Peter with his brother Christopher who is an Atheist.
This guy is really good, he's very well rounded all around. His channel will go big. Glad I found you on a Dyer clip.
It's simple: Until you can provide exclusive, objective, sound evidence for your god or the supernatural existing there is no rational reason to believe you.
@@anthonymitchell9793 category error. Low iq atheist
@@MadebyJimbob IQ of 140. Intergallactic space pixies from a parallel dimension whose natural laws are different than ours entered our space through a rip in the space-time continuum and passed gas into it which was the Big Bang. Do you believe me or do you require evidence? No different than your god claim.
@@MadebyJimbob Which is your way of telling me you have no exclusive, objective, sound evidence and that I am correct.
@@anthonymitchell9793does knowledge require a Knower, something that can be Known, and a means of Knowing?
@@joshuaparsons887 Having a brain that can store information makes humans an knower.
1:30:00 Ignore the long the violent history of nature.
That's who I take life advice from. Some weirdo 17 year old kid.
Used to be kids did shit like write the constitution. wtf happened
@@jackisgallant yeah, now 26 year olds are self castrating and doing dope on skid row
@@Metanoia000The food supply and government schooling dumbing people down. That's my guess of what's causing it.
@@twn5858 oh those are for sure factors, I was honestly being rhetorical
Can't forget the goodies they pump kids full of at doctor's offices before they allow them in government schooling. That's my guess on the three leading causes.
Hitchens hates cosmic skeptic. I’ll give him that.
* hated
there is something that feels wrong about posh having audio visual that actually works
I don't see the resemblance between Jimbob and the midgets.
Great episode
You owe me so many American spirits at this point. 😂
Any chance you would do any more of those movie reviews with based lit? truman show and donnie darko reviews were great. All the best
Starts @3:14
Goooood shieeeeet
Why was one of the carpenters sperging out in the chat?
Carpenters journey has a chip on his shoulder with ortho bros so he automatically takes the side of any idiot who is the current target
To be the crabby crab...or not to be the crabby crab, thats the question.
Wait what is "TAG"?
The transcendental argument
Great stream
Instead of challenging atheist positions how about just providing sound evidence for your god without going all presuppositionalist on us? Because you don't have any sound evidence.
@@anthonymitchell9793 what’s your criteria for evidence? Derrrrppp that’s that fucking thing in question
@MadebyJimbob You can claim anything is evidence but if I can show it is logically unsound, a misrepresentation of the facts or not exclusive to your god then I don't accept your evidence. But again your presuppositionalist tactics don't impress me because you are in the same boat.i am and it doesn't lead to anything proving your god.
@@anthonymitchell9793 notice how you didn’t tell me your criteria for evidence
@MadebyJimbob Yes I did. Anything can be "evidence" but to be sound, objective and exclusive means it must survive the tests of logic, facts and only be applicable to your god.
Now tell me yours. You.wont because you are a presuppositionalist.
Bro who tf is niglord22😭 1:10
Cosmic septic
This guy speaks like peter hitchens
Would you say that TAG is not too dissimilar from Molyneux's Universally Preferable Behavior? I know that moral theory seeks to validate moral claims by testing them empirically (Have a moral proposition i.e. Murder is good, and watch that system implode as you have two people trying to both enact "the good" in that system, murdering while necessarily allowing themselves to be murdered, which disallows the fulfillment of "the good" in murdering, since they are dead, having allowed the other to enact "the good" on them.) In this way, what is Universally Preferable also shows this characteristic of the impossibility of the contrary, and that all immorality is at a fundamental level irrational. Is TAG the metaphysical fullness of UPB?
It's not a Slippery Slope. It's a Reductio ad Absurdum. It literally means "taking a statement to its logical conclusion."
_"It's a Reductio ad Absurdum. It literally means "taking a statement to its logical conclusion.""_
LOL
That's got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read!
So, you call concluding, from the proposition _'All triangles have three sides',_ that therefore all _scalene_ triangles have three sides-- you call such concluding, "Reductio ad Absurdum"?
@@alltimeislikethepresentrelax. Your example is dumb. The definition of the word triangle isn’t a proposition, there’s nothing to reductio.
@@stevendouglas3781 You asininely asserted: _"The definition of the word triangle isn’t a proposition"_
By your assertion that false proposition, you show yourself to be at least as dumb as the OP of this thread. Also, who brought up the definition of the word, 'triangle'? I did not. What I brought up is the definition of every triangle: _'All triangles have three sides'._ _'All triangles have three sides'_ is not a definition of the word, 'triangle'. The word, 'triangle', is not a triangle, and a triangle is not the word, 'triangle'; so, the definition of a triangle is not the definition of the word, 'triangle'.
Now, whatever is either true or false is a proposition; that's what every proposition is: something that is either true or false. Every definition is a proposition, since every proposition is either true or false. The definition of a triangle -- _''All triangles have three sides'_ -- is true, and is thus a proposition.
You wrote: _"there’s nothing to reductio [sic]."_
What (if anything) do you mean, there, by your idiotic non-sentence? Your phrase, "to reductio", is not grammatical, since the Latin word, 'reductio', is a noun, and not a verb; and thus, your choice to write it as you did is ridiculous.
_"relax."_
That's a funny flick, projectionist. By your post, you did nothing to help the OP, and all you did was embarrass yourself by your poor thinking and hot-headedness. Enjoy your chagrin. 🙂
Yes one embraces the statement and follows it to a reductio not a valid conclusion@alltimeislikethepresent
@@stevendouglas3781 _"The definition of the word triangle isn’t a proposition"_
You just asserted a false proposition. How self-defeatingly stupid one has to be to assert what you just asserted! The truth is, without exception, *every definition is a proposition.*
Also, here's a definition of the word, 'triangle': the word, 'triangle', is an 8-letter, 3-syllable noun beginning with the letter 't'. That definition of the word, 'triangle', is a proposition, and a proposition that is _true._
Here's another definition of the word, 'triangle': the word, 'triangle', is a pulled-pork sandwich. That definition of the word, 'triangle', is also a proposition, and a proposition that is _false._
One of your problems, by which (in conjunction with your smugness) you make a clown of yourself, is your ignorance of the nature of definitions and defining.
_"relax."_
But isn't it what you call _"relaxing"_ that has resulted in you being the idiot you've shown yourself to be?
seraphim jimbob
The only thing failing is Jim bobs career
Redditor comment😴
Певај Србијо! 🇷🇸
Sorry but I don't actually think you listened to a word DG said. It's like you put the video on and paused at random points to say what ever talking points you have anyway.
? It felt like most of JBs comments were directly responding to what was said. What do you think was missed or miss represented?
He addressed specific claims that Alex made, repeatedly. It’s pretty crazy to say otherwise considering there’s a video of him doing so that we all just watched
Well not from the video I watched. Maybe you could lay out DGs points and then comment what JB said about them.
The irony of this comment is funny. You didn’t reference a single thing I said.
You clearly didn’t listen. Among other things we said in response to DG, one main one was that imagining a world without something isn’t a counter to the necessary existence of that thing.
@@MadebyJimbob I wasn't aware I had to reference something? I'm not making a video?
"machine spitting out inputs" You can have free will on atheism you should look up naturalist philosophers who are working on this jimbob
They can create a myth about it without any new evidence. How about you show any evidence or reason that what you just said wasn’t a machine output.
@@boltrooktwowhat’s the difference between a machine output and free will?
@@TmanRock9 Free will involves real intelligence above material that evaluates and exercises influence over material, it’s not just material going through a process inevitably driven by physics and chemistry.
If nature is amoral, why did god create it this way?
God created, and it was Good. It wasn’t amoral.
@@MadebyJimbob How is a gazelle getting eaten alive by lions good?
@@kokak4027 it may not be good but its based.
@@kokak4027You know Christianity has this doctrine called The Fall right? It explains all of "natural evil" from the Christian perspective. Just go google an Orthodox Christian view of The Fall and your question will be answered.
@@chocolateneko9912 Is your stupidity based too?
God so omnipotent. So omniscient . Yet needs to have worship and murder his creations when they do what he knows they will do.
How about that great relationship starter , " love me and say the special words or I will torture you for eternity ". " oh yeah , I will remain hidden always so have faith".
What a fantastic representation of all loving.
Don't really follow atheists or even label myself that but there is a gentleman who is worth giving a watch on Mindshift.
strawman. God doesn’t need anything so you’re whole postcard from nonsense land is invalid
Is mindshift a streaming platform?
Can you say the known creator of life is a murderer when he takes life back after his creations turn wicked?
@@fredo3161imagine giving God a speeding ticket 😂😂😂
"Is it possible for God to drive a car and receive a speeding ticket? If not, he's not omnipotent!"
@@fredo3161hahahaha