Atheists are primitive in their thinking (Greg Bahnsen)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 чер 2015
- In this clip Dr. Bahnsen makes his opening statement. Here are highlights:
- The atheists live inconsistent lives
- Atheists will presuppose human dignity by attending a friend's funeral then later affirm that human life is no different than an animal
- Atheists are primitive in their thinking
- Atheists do not have a workable worldview
- Evolutionists have an irrational worldview that life spontaneously erupted
- Atheists are unable to answer the tough questions of philosophy
- Atheists work hard to hide their intellectual poverty from themselves and others
It's interesting that everyone has a worldview. The question is does the worldview comport with reality. Which worldview is consistent, without arbitrariness. Dr. Bahnsen does a great job in confronting, challenging atheists to address the hard questions.
Atheism is not a world view.
***** I never said that.
Christianity is or is not a world view.
However, it tends to be.
There are several subsets of it.
I do not know what your world view is, or even if you have one.
Strange strawman you produced here. Want to debate on my channel live?
Deconverted Man you're right because you can't even make sense of the world you so-called know.
@ONEWAY science can ONLY purport what it CAN study so it's "breathtaking grip" on reality goes only as far as it can SEE, and then read through their materialistic viewpoint.
@ONEWAY both atheism and Christian theism as philosophical systems of thought, are indeed worldviews. If you have thoughts about man God and ethics you have a view of reality ......you have a worldview!
This guy is a beast.
untouchable, too bad God took him young
store.americanvision.org/collections/greg-bahnsen/products/defending-the-christian-worldview-against-all-opposition
❤❤❤❤
@Nick Jones
How is he dishonest?
@Nick Jones
Gimme one example from this debates, Nick
Nick James
So, the future will be like the past because…?
Wow. Dr Bahnsen was magnanimous just in those 10min. Did he not get to the core of why atheism fails on key issues like how life arises from non life, why treat humans as having dignity if we are no different than snails , what accounts for the uniformity of nature and induction; all rather reduced to absurdity when viewed through the atheist lens. The atheist counts but can not account for his counting. What eloquence! We have the physics equivalent of an Einstein with Bahnsen in the sphere of philosophy and his innate ability to convey ideas with passion and intellectual sophistication. I am so happy to have heard the few debates from this man who was blessed by God. I am saddened that he was taken from us at such a young age. Please Lord, raise up others like him in future generations to help the church in its ongoing fight against its adversaries, moreover to give people like myself the ongoing pride that your word is true even in the face of this worlds greatest intellectual assaults.
Men love sin and do not want to give it up to follow Christ. Atheism is just a mask to hide behind that looks rational and smart but it's just simply another form of open rebellion against our holy GOD.
@JO Hi Jo. Here's an interesting quote with my humble take...
Dr. Harry G. Frankfurt, Professor Emeritus in Philosophy at Princeton University, on the subject of Doubt:
“The claim, that a basis for doubt is inconceivable, is justified, whenever a denial of that claim would violate the conditions of rational inquiry.”
When Bahnsen speaks of the indubitable he's referring to the impossibility of the contrary. Reject Christ and His worldview and then justify the "preconditions of intelligibility:" [1] Logic, [2] Science (Induction), [3] Ethics, [4] Predication, [5] Universals & Particulars, [6] Free Will & Determinism, et cetera. Have a great day.
@@adamtmaguire Bahnsen’s arguments are self/refuting:
If their existed a being outside of Nature that could arbitrarily change Nature, we would have no basis to know that the future will be like the past. If there was in fact a god outside Nature changing Nature, the induction principle which Bahnsen’s cites as the precondition for rationality has no justification.
Only by can pre-supposing that there is nothing outside Nature changing Nature can we have an account for the uniformity of Nature ( and so have a foundation for induction ). Ironically, the reasoning in Bahnsen’s argument actually leads you to conclude atheism.
Of course he doesn’t address any of those things. His apologetic is “I assume it, therefore it is true.” He’s not interested in classical apologetics or giving “evidence” as all evidential apologetics fail.
Here is a response video I made in response to Bahnsen's statements: ua-cam.com/video/ucJplxSFPM8/v-deo.html
Would you please add the DATE of the lecture to either the title or the description? It's always good to know WHEN someone said something.
01 Dec 1993, imprinted on the video.
Rational and honest people:
If there is no god, then everything attributed to a god has nothing to do with a god.
Irrational and dishonest people:
If there is no god, then everything attributed to a god couldn't exist. Therefore, this god must be presupposed in order to have all those things.
Really, if believers pretend their god explains reality (meaning their god is not part of reality), they first must show their god exists in the first place (independently of the things attributed to it). Because a god that doesn't exist can't explain things that do.
Instead they will continue to pretend atheists are the illogical ones because we don't believe in magical invisible beings that break the laws of nature and logic as we know them. I wonder why the pews are emptying... Lol
They have shown God exists. Type in *100 arguments for God's existence* and there's a video covering the syllogisms for each along with brief explanations
@@lightbeforethetunnel present the best one and I will show you why it's terrible lol. No joke I'm calling you out. Give your single best one and let's see how it holds up against logic.
@@lightbeforethetunnel didn't think so lol
@@49perfectss Well, technically you're already commiting a burden of proof reversal fallacy by claiming I must pick one. I've already listed 100+ arguments and if you want to claim you're able to refute them, it is up to you to declare which one you're claiming to have refuted and your reasoning for why.
Anyhow, I'll pick one for you but that's not particularly a good start to commit a burden of proof reversal fallacy like that when you're claiming to be superior in terms of logic.
Anyhow, I'll start with the Kalam Cosmological Argument by William Lane Craig. I pick this one because I already know all the common objections to it put forth by Atheists who don't understand the fallacies they're commiting. I'll list a few of them after the argument below, so I can address them before you even try them. Anyway, here's the argument:
A)Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
B)The universe began to exist. C)Therefore the universe has a cause.
It can be logically deduced that cause must have the following traits:
Spaceless - Because space came into being and did not exist until this cause brought it into existence, the cause cannot be spatial. It must be spaceless or non-spatial. You cannot be inside of something if you are that something’s cause. You cannot be inside of something if that something did not exist until you brought it into existence
Timeless - Since time did not exist until the cause, the cause cannot be inside of time. It must be timeless.
Immaterial - The cause’s non-spatiality entails immateriality. How so? Because material objects cannot exist unless space exists. Material objects have mass and ergo occupy spatial dimensions. If there is no space, matter cannot exist. This means that because the cause is non-spatial, it is therefore non-material.
Unimaginably Powerful (if not omnipotent) - Anything able to create all matter, energy, space, and time out of absolutely nothing must be extremely powerful, if not omnipotent.
Supernatural - “Nature” and “The universe” are synonyms. Nature did not begin to exist until this cause caused it to. Therefore, a natural cause (a cause coming, by definition, from nature) cannot be responsible for the origin of nature. To say otherwise would be to spout incoherence. You’d basically be saying “Nature caused nature to come into being.”
Uncaused - Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. To have a beginning to one’s existence entails a before and after relationship. There’s a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. It’s beginningless.
Personal - This is an entailment of the cause’s immateriality. There are two types of things recognized by philosophers that are immaterial: abstract objects (such as numbers, sets, or other mathematical entities) or unembodied minds. Philosophers realize that abstract objects if they exist, they exist as non-physical entities. However, abstract objects cannot produce any effects. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number 3 isn’t going to be producing any effects anytime soon. Given that abstract objects are causally impotent, it, therefore, follows that an unembodied mind is the cause of the universe’ beginning
All these traits that are logically deduced for the necessary cause of the universe's beginning match precisely with descriptions of God.
Now, I already know you'll likely attempt to commit a fallacy of scientism to claim scientists don't know the universe began to exist and it may have always existed in order to dispute the second premise.
The reason it's a fallacy of scientism is because Atheists appeal to the hypothetical speculation of *theoretical physicists* in which they say how the universe MAY HAVE always existed. They then act like this has equal scientific validity to the scientific knowledge the universe definitely DID begin to exist. It's always a fallacy of scientism to conflate scientific claims with non-scientific claims like that.
Atheists who do this don't understand the role of Theoretical Physicists, who only deal with the hypothetical ideas. Scientists, on the other hand, work on verifying those ideas with the scientific method.
Beyond that, there are many other fallacies you may try. You may appeal to Mereological Nihilism to claim premise 1 isn't true (whatever begins to exist has a cause). Therefore, atheists who do this claim *Nothing begins to exist.* This is such a silly objection that it's my favorite. Atheists making this argument are then left defending the position they, themselves, never began to exist. Either that, or that they always existed. If they always existed, then what were you doing the Jurassic Period? And if you never began to exist, why even respond to the objection as you don't even exist...
Anyhow, I won't list ALL the fallacious objections here... so feel free to tell me your illogical objections and I'll enjoy explaining which specific fallacy you commited and why. Like I said, I already know them all.
7:01 Morality on the Christian worldview is based on “might makes right”.
Christians assert that a personal (subjective) creator of the universe should be the ultimate authority on morality because their creator is powerful.
I don’t think most would say that. They have this whole apologetic where morality is defined as being congruent with god’s nature. Not a very useful definition granted.
@@Detson404 If “God’s nature” is simply congruent with morality, then there is a standard for morality that exists independent of “God’s nature”. Conversely, what Christians claim is that “God’s nature” is the standard for morality. And I ask them: “on what basis do you justify selecting ‘God’s nature’ as the standard for morality?”
@@MarkLeBay oh I completely agree.
@@MarkLeBaydo you argue with Honda over how to maintain their engines?
Why would you argue with the Author of morality?
@@thevulture5750 On what basis do you claim that there is an author of morality?
6:23 Composition division fallacy: Assuming that parts or members of a whole will have the same properties as the whole. This leads to wrong conclusions because what is true of the different parts is not necessarily true of the whole.
What a legend
@1:50, Bahnsen claims that the principle of Induction is "contrary" to the Atheist view of the universe. How so? The uniformity of the nature is simply grounded in the nature of the universe itself. The principle of Induction is a properly-basic belief in my atheistic worldview but my naturalist worldview can "ground" ontologically the principle of the uniformity of nature in the properties of the universe itself. We all start with unjustified presuppositions in our worldview so this is simply one of them. The atheist assumes the nature of the universe is what it is while the Christian simply moves the problem one step back and says the nature of their god is what it is with no further explanation for why that is the case. But there is nothing "contrary" about induction to the atheistic worldview. If no god exists, that doesn't make the universe totally random and unintelligible. It just simply has dispositions in which the universe does have brute regularities.
Presuppositionalists claim though that their worldview is superior since the have a rational ground to trust induction since their god revealed it to them. But that belief is one of their presuppositions that they can only take on faith as well. And this faith goes well beyond any provisional trust because Christians are taught they should continue to believe their metaphysics even if their experience contradicts it. Presuppositionalists posit an entire metaphysical back story on faith to serve as the guarantor of their beliefs and ground their epistemology. They are just moving their faith one level back. They believe on unjustified faith that 1) an all-powerful and all-knowing god exists and 2) this god isn't deceptive and 3) this god created humans in such a way to be able to receive divine revelations and correct information and 4) this god actually wishes to do those things and if that story is true then they can know what they claim to know. This is only an "account"(i.e. a just-so story) in name. They have no way of establishing that those things are real without begging the question. They are simply assertions. All they are saying is that if this story is true, then they can know things. They are appealing to their ontology to justify their epistemology.
I guess, "my book said so" is convincing to some people.
This. It's shocking how little insight these people have when it comes to atheism or even base logic.
The biblical transmission is evidentially in the clear, also with undeniable propecy and corroborating historical details. The bible is not just like any other book. So no, we dont just say "my book said so" in isolation. That would be fideism. See "bahnsen university" for Bahnsen's lectures at apologia studios that they are uploading at no charge to you.
@@josht1901 What theological beliefs do you have that aren’t from your book?
Plus when you say “the Bible isn’t like any other book” you are making a special pleading fallacy. Muslims can and do say the same thing about the Koran, and at least they read it in the language it was originally written in. Can you read the original autographs in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? Oh wait I forgot, there aren’t any original copies of the them. Plus the first evidence of the New Testament dates to around 250CE, that’s over 200yrs after the purported death of Jesus.
@thenightster07 that's called the fallacy of reification
Thank you Dr Greg Bahnsen for exposing the mindset of the fool by the Word of God.
@Nick James
Obviously you took my comment personally; therefore identifying yourself with the mindset of the The Fool.
Congratulations!
Amazingly if you start by assuming you’re right about something, you’ll conclude that you were right about that thing! Yes truly humbling…
Poor audio.
Jesus made the world and everything in it
@Nick Jones Ad ignorantiam fallacy.
"X doesn't exist their isn't sufficient proof"
Empty claims are impressive
I was 2.5 months old. So weird
The number of likes is wild! 😂
I hear many, many fallacies in this speech but to poke holes in one: yes, humans are a bag of chemical interactions that create consciousness. But no, this does not mean the emotion of love is not meaningful. We create meaning and being able to place the needs of your children or loved ones above your own, even sacrificing your own life for them if needed, is incredibly selfless and beautiful! Our human capacity to do these things is fascinating, unique, and wonderful 💜
Why is it good to be selfless? Why don’t atheists ascribe virtue to selfishness when it comes to intimate human relationships? This is the arbitrariness in atheism that Dr. Bahnsen was talking about.
Toby Moore - For one, atheism is not in any way a set of ideas, dogma, commands, morals, etc. Atheism is simply a word that describes a person who does not believe in god / the supernatural / non-observable phenomena. Period. It is just a term that describes someone’s religious beliefs. As some say, we are all atheists about most gods - atheists just go one god further.
However, I acknowledge that many atheists do ascribe to the same ideas such as evolution (easily proven with fossils), the Big Bang (way more theoretical and questionable since we can’t observe something we didn’t exist prior to), etc. And these types of common threads make a lot of sense given that so many atheists live their life based on what we experience and know. We can’t know about something we have never witnessed. Evolution and the Big Bang are simply the best models we currently have for understanding the universe based upon what we already know, and when better evidence arises we should change our beliefs accordingly / follow the evidence.
But again, atheists belong to every political belief, in every country, every culture, every era, every race, sexuality, gender, and so on. *There is no binding body of thought other than the rejection of the assertion that god exists.*
When it comes to valuing something like being selfless, no I don’t believe there is a universal code of specific morals that are always “right.” However, we can observe than many animals far less complex than us engage in compassionate behaviors toward other members of the same species especially, but even toward members of different species even though it may be a disadvantage for them (real examples: a tortoise who adopted a baby hippo, sperm whales who adopted a deformed dolphin that had been kicked out of its group, cats adopting baby rabbits and allowing them to suckle alongside their own kittens).
These animals to our knowledge have no conception of god or an afterlife and no code of ethics, yet they engage in compassionate behaviors toward others. In humans - being far more complex socially and emotionally - we have a strong understanding of self and other, and we are readily able to recognize that because I want to not experience pain and I want to be fed, we should help those who are in need of these things like by sharing our food or money or shelter of looking after each other’s children. Forming connections with others brings all of us, human or animal, so much companionship, joy, love, and so many other things - and this is how we build cooperative societies where everyone benefits.
This is a very big issue to tackle and communicate what I mean, so I probably didn’t do it justice. But I truly believe that every single one of us has an extraordinary ability to care for and love others, no matter our religion or anything else.
Asserting something and providing justification for it are two different things, the latter being completely absent in your comment. "this does not mean the emotion of love is not meaningful", cool beans, what is your justification for that? In your view, why is self-sacrificial love meaningful and beautiful? Upon what basis can you make such assertions? It is beyond me how someone can state that human beings are "a bag of chemical interactions that create consciousness" and in the very same breath state that a bag of chemical interactions sacrificing themselves is somehow beautiful. I appreciate that you (although inconsistently) acknowledge that we are created in the image of God and in virtue of that possess personal dignity and freedom. I do not appreciate, however, your rejection of the very Creator who makes such things possible, which just shows, as the title of this video suggests, how primitive Atheists are in their thinking.
sukka 1P57 - Yes I agree; asserting something and providing justification are two different things. Please provide justification for your assertion that Creator exists.
@@user-ld9hs1mb1u I don't think you seem to understand the nature of a transcendental argument, but let's not shift the burden of proof. You made an assertion without backing it up, so once again, what is so beautiful about a bag of chemical reactions sacrificing themselves? Your inability to provide a justification demonstrates my point. This is the type of nonsense that you get out of an atheistic worldview.
ok go offf grandpa greg!! kingg
"It just happened!"
-atheism
That's... Not what atheists think. Are you really so scared you have to strawman us?
@Reformed Hillbillies about what specifically? The big bang? Evolution? What's my epistemology? Sorry I need a little clarity
@Reformed Hillbillies well let's address the first part where he not only conflates atheism to be equal to philosophical naturalism (false equivalence fallacy) but also claims that if we evolved then love is meaningless.
1. No as a matter of fact most atheists tend to be methodological naturalists but not all and almost no one is a philosophical naturalist. So that's a strawman.
2. On top of this being the appeal to consequence fallacy it's also not true. This would be like saying without a god cola can't be fizzy. As though chemical interactions would somehow be different. A claim he needs to support with evidence. He provides no good reason and is demonstrably wrong shown by every atheist that doesn't think there is a god and yet experiences meaningful love. Further we have a decent understanding of what we mean when we say that word and it has to do with interpersonal relationships and neural reactions. It would be that whether or not there is a god so that argument falls flat as well unless you can provide a mechanism that only a good could provide without which that would be different.
I think this would be easier if you said what you thought his best point was and we can address that. For me to do a full run thorough would need a lot more time than I'm willing to give this video haha. Especially as I'm at work.
@Reformed Hillbillies Well as an atheist my existence alone is enough to refute that lol. Could you give me an argument he makes that is not silly on it's face? This would be no different form me saying there are no real Christians and all of you pretend to believe to have peace about death. I assume you see how childish that is so it's odd to me that you would actually use such an obviously empty argument.
Before you go quoting Romans 1:20 please realize first that I can just quote a similar verse from the Quran saying you actually believe in Allah but you deny the truth in your heart. It's a sloppy and obviously flawed attempt to strawman the other side and is not worthy of adult intellect.
As far as evolution goes it is literally the most evidentially supported theory humans have. Even gravity has less evidence. So I think you have been lied to severely and you haven't looked at the literally metric tons of evidence for evolution in the fossil record alone. To say nothing about genetic evidence like ERVs or the predictions made using the model that pan out to be accurate.
@Reformed Hillbillies Ah I see. I do not believe your claim. Can you provide your Burden of Proof or are you going to try to shift it?
Going to do a thorough video response to this. I'll be charitable and call it confused.
Aww man, I was just going to... :/
now I don't think I should.
wait you dont have any videos?!?!?
+Joeff Ras
I did make the video but it wasn't getting many views and I took it down. His arguments are a joke... irrefutable lol.
+Mathew Steele I'd personally love to see what you have to say about Bahnsen's comments on atheism.
+MrAquamankilla
I'll re-upload the video and post the link here for you sometime in the next day or so.
He was a beast. Gone too soon.
Checkmate!!! Merry Christmas.
Arguing philosophy doesn’t really address the question. The TAG argument merely reasserts the claim. Do you theists have any good evidence to support a hypothesis that anything supernatural exists? If so, I have yet to hear it. To believe in something without good evidence that exists is just plain nuts.
Yet there are those naturalists who hold vehemently to Darwinian evolution, which is thoroughly void of scientific credibilty. Not one single exanple can be given as evidence for maco-evolution, yet there are those who swear by it as if it is true with all certitude.
Do you have empiric proof for your last sentence?
Bahnsen just strawmans atheism. It is the Calvinist god of Bahnsen's that is arbitrary. Under Atheism, things are not arbitrary but rather DETERMINED by the properties of nature.
Under atheism those "properties of nature" are really just matter interacting randomly and what you decide to call properties when looking at that is arbitrary
@@PabloCardonaMusic Wrong. They do not interact randomly at all. They are DETERMINED and ORDERED by the laws of nature. In the Christian worldview things are arbitrary because they are decided by the subjective whims of an invisible deity.
@@FloydFp How can you say I'm wrong? What if the laws of nature DETERMINED and ORDERED me to think this way? How do you know I'm not more evolved for being Christian than you? If reality is determined to be a certain way, why do you act as if people could change their minds by debating? Where does free will come into play if everything that exists is determined by nature?
@@PabloCardonaMusic Free will? Bahnsen was Calvinist so he didn't even believe in libertarian free will.
Reasoning is performed deterministically based on the laws of physic as a reaction. Our brains are following a deterministic inferential mechanism that has developed over millions of year of differential reproductive successes operating under selective pressures where our minds will be much more reliable than if they are just "freely" choosing conclusions. The electro-chemical processes within our brains are the means in which we reason. Reason is deterministic since valid conclusions follow necessarily from certain premises. Think about how the phenomena of reasoning occurs in sequence. If I am told that the Statue of Liberty is in New York and I understand that New York is in the United States then I do not "freely" choose to believe the Statue of Liberty is in the United Status. I cannot make sense of any other possibility that is it in the US. The electro-chemical processes within our brains are the means in which we reason. The process of rational inference supervenes on neurological cause-effect process. If you do not think the brain plays any role in reasoning, I invite you to remove your brain and see what happens. Through millions of years of evolution, our brains developed into a thinking machine that is capable of following deterministic logical inferences that are required for reasoning. If this was not the case, our species wouldn't exist. Our brains act like an engine that tracks the states of affairs around us. It is a guidance system that systematically represents reality around us. They are required for mobile creatures like ourselves that have to find food and avoid dangers and other predators. Plants do not have brains because they don't move around like we do but they have other functions like phototropism where their leaves follow sunlight. So it makes sense in the evolutionary framework how humans developed brains that can reliably (albeit not perfectly) reason through the neurochemical reactions of the physical brain by the natural laws of the universe.
If our brains are following a deterministic inferential mechanism that has developed over millions of year of differential reproductive successes operating under selective pressures, than our minds will be much more reliable than if they are just "freely" choosing conclusions. What does it even mean for a mind to "freely" reason? Is the action of reasoning totally random? If your reasoning is not based on deterministic principles then how are you reasoning at all? How is positing an immaterial soul put us in a better position to trust our reasoning?
Then my belief in God is determined too. So you have no ground to criticize me. We are both just programmed.
Umm.. checkmate.
This guy is just using his subjective open and assume his world view coherent. His choice
Brilliant presentation!
This guy... Sounds like he has never talked to an atheist. Personally my epistemology improved by orders of magnitude in the years following my deconversion and that he talks about us with so shallow an opinion only reflects on how little he knows about us. Shame he is so scared of reality but that's his problem.
did you listen at all
@@anthonywhosanthony the guy said "everyone knows there are moral absolutes" which is just not true, the majority of naturalists don't hold to moral absolutism + moral abolutism leads a theist straight into the euthyphro dilemma.
@@yournightmare9562 which is what?
@@yournightmare9562 No moral absolutes, until I steal your wife. Then you will scream for moral absolutes.
Don't cast pearls before swine. =)
1 Peter 315 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man who asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.
Clowns.
+Yolandi you can't argue with idiots or you may just become one.
Dude, arguing with idiots is pointless. Nothing I say will work on people who do not value reason in the first place. I don't need to make space for your imaginary gods and me being skeptical of absurd claims is a good thing, very reasonable.
There are no good reasons to believe in any god let alone the Christian God, and the argument from evil, is actually evidence that god does not exist, especially natural evil that are free of the free will defense or rebuttals.
The path taken in the video is the wrong path, both sides depend on reason and faith in a god is not reasonable.
+Yolandi standards are easy. where do we get them for our laws? we create them, duhh
+Yolandi as for God why do you assume he is good? I just judged the actions and realized God has no excuse.
+Yolandi I am certain you are wrong, now what?
Too bad we have turned inorganic matter to organic matter.
You mean "we" (e.g., organic, intelligent material) turned inorganic material into organic material? So, organic material yielded organic. Welcome to the Christian worldview.
Not only that this would be evidence for intelligent design, but when did this happen?
No we haven't. Also, organic matter is not life, so even if we had, it would be irrelevant.
@@1godonlyone119 your ignorance is showing
@@BrianCochrum that makes no sense
I think the bible is more premitive. Because none of us know who god is. We are told that the bible will teach us who god is and we accept that
Try talking to Him.
one of God's great Marcos lopez - Brazil
Word salad. This is just an opening statement. It’s been written to cause this response.
A "debate" where we only hear one side. This is a clear display of dishonest cowardice.
There is clearly meant to be two people there. I don't know if you can view this debate somewhere. Bahnsen has on another occasion debated Gordon Stein and completely destroyed him, you can look that up, the whole debate is about 2 hours long.
when you see a hitchslap compilation is it not one-sided cowardice? It isn’t meant to be the full debate.
People are allowed to post clips or highlights, what rule says you must post entire 2 hour debates and nothing less. The atheist loses really badly here. It's Bahnsen vs Tabish, just UA-cam it
Against my better judgment let me explain the mistakes presented in the video
1. Bahnsen claims that atheists are inconsistent, because we evolved human cant have dignity. Its a false dichotomy, that relies on a faulty understanding of evolution, atheism, and morality. There is no doubt we evolved, and that morality has also evolved with us. One has but look back in time, no less than 100 years to see how much things have changed for the better.
2. Atheism, is only the rejection of theism, nothing more, nothing less. Conflating atheism and naturalism is a sophomoric mistake at best, or a down right dishonest ploy at worst.
3 Atheists understand love is just a human emotion and concept, no contradiction with evolution, or biochemical factors.
a. Anything does not go, simply because there are no moral absolutes.
b. Prostitution is okay morally because no one is being hurt, but the same is not true for pedophilia. Just claiming this much is a personal attack on his opposition, or what we call an ad hom attack. Necrofelia however is more complicated but deals with contract theory, ie if your sleeping its not okay to rape you..
4 mins in and this guy is a shit stained windbag of wet farts.
If you watched this and you think this is good apologetic, you are an idiot.
We cant account for uniformity in nature, so what, no one can and why should we have to?
Things will be as they are and it seems like its very uniform, but we are open to the possibility of something different if it pops up.
What is a morality?
Second, I think you have created a false dichotomy: "If you think this is a good apologetic then you're an idiot."
+Jack Stotts II what do you mean? morality is the rules and principles concerning right and wrong.
+Jack Stotts II you need to present a third option or consideration.
+pandorachild If the Neo-darwinian Materialist Naturalist reductionist theory is true than you can't make sense of morality, consciousness, or anything abstract.
The atheists here make his point with thier comments.
I disagree. How is that the case?
@@Detson404You started your sentence with "I disagree" as if you are the authority. Why should anyone give any credibility to your disagreement?
@@thevulture5750 Why are you asking if you don’t care about my opinion?
Atheism is dying.
Except no? Because of actual numbers. Your cult is dying.
Don't cast pearls before swine. =)