Sorry, but I have no respect for the views of people who think that the Universe was created with us in mind, that the Earth is 6000 years old, and that the first human was made of clay/soil. There are many other plainly absurd religious views such as moon splitting, but those will do for now.
@@jktech2117"how many fingers am I holding up?"... Yeah, I find myself easily annoyed by pushy religious folks but I ain't gonna do them no good without reciprocating respect. Actually, many cults (like the jehovah's) bank on non-believers lack of patience to strengthen faith by putting their converts in its way.
No where in the Bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old. This comes from a 17th century bishop who used math to attempt to calculate the age of the earth. Has been used by atheists for years to show Christians as crazy. Second clay/soil is more parable than anything. Meaning Satan was created of something not of the material world where Adam was created in the material. Third moon splitting only exists in Islam and I have not enough space to talk about it.
Cognitive dissonance really is an amazing thing. With it, we can take things that directly contradict our beliefs and twist them into supporting evidence of our beliefs.
But are they? More theists lose their faith than supposed atheists finding religion. Always gonna be some, though. People aren't, on average, that bright.
I remember Leah Libresco. She decided Catholicism was for her but had no rational argument for that choice, and just got a flash-in-the-pan sort of attention for it, and then everyone forgot about her. Until you brought her up again.
Well, having read her stuff now, it doesn't seem like she was much of a loss. She's trying to brand herself as a Christian feminist or whatever, and that includes forcing women to have unwanted babies. Fantastic stuff!
@@danger.snakes Dawkins' regular church attendances, and fawning love and praise for his precious Church of England, always put Dawkins in the 'possible death bed conversion' category, to me. I could be wrong, but that's never happened before, and at 56, I'm not going suddenly to start being wrong now, am I? 😏.
It's interesting how we hear the words rational and level-headed and stuff when referring to changing minds. But then it's all emotional. Even a lot of the biggest apologists fall back to emotional responses.
Unguided evolution seems far more probable than any intelligent designer (iRna makes that obvious to me). Also, unguided evolution best explains the Bible.
The other problem with the Romans 19 quote is this. If theists are right, that's exactly what The Bible would say. If I'm right, and God doesn't exist and The Bible was written by human beings who wish to endear themselves to an in group and turning them on a outgroup... that's exactly what The Bible would say.
Objective morality is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Are there things that are ok sometimes, and not other times, depending on the situation? Yes. Obvioisly yes. Therefore...not objective.
This kind of score keeping is really meaningless. It's used to make perceptions that aren't really accurate, and don't matter. I couldn't care less if some prominent atheist OR theist converts one way or another. On this topic, I'm far more focused on religious intrusion in society, and it's pretty clear it's been waning for some time. Which is part of the reason for all the desperate push back we're seeing from the theistic community. The last gasp of a dying concept. At least, so far.
Considering that (he who shall not be named) would _never_ have been elected (either the first time or _particularly_ the second) without the effects of religion, I don’t find the whole “waning effects on society” thing very convincing.
It has to be pointed out that children grow up in a majority theistic societies so they would adopt some forms of theistic thinking. "Nature vs nurture" is a very difficult thing to distinguish.
Agreed especially since religion has had it's chokehold on societies for centuries. Their influences are quite imbedded. However most only want to point out the "good" it's brought them and ignore everything that was horrible. It's cherry picking at it's finest.
I wrote in my journal once that theists already know the truth of the non existence of God, but they suppress the truth, and are with our excuse for their denial of reality. That is also a book. Checkmate theists.... Really? Your go to is that the bible says that people that say they don't believe actually do believe they just don't want to admit it? That's very disingenuous and arrogant.
And they have forgotten that Jesus was quick to dismiss false believers. They should be terrified that they don't see God in evolution which is part of the world that God has revealed to them.
@@goldenalt3166 no no no. If god wants me to believe, he knows what it would take. It is a demonstrable fact that different people require different levels of evidence to believe a claim. A universal "god revealed it so you should believe" is inefficient. If god wanted me to believe, he would be willing and able to meet that standard of evidence. If he is unwilling, and the penalty is hell, then he is just an asshole.
5:02 How is “God magic” more of an explanation than natural processes that we can test repeatedly? 😂 And congrats for nearly at 15k subs! We’re coming for you baby 😎😎
16:00 The first part of the Copan quote, the stuff about children's intuition, the whole teleogical argument, fall apart in the face of a simple observation. Humans evolved brains with insatiable curiosity and brains that make us manipulators of our environment at a grand scale. We _make_ things. So when we look at the universe, subjective creatures that we are, we assume it came into being just as the things we make come into being. We assume it was _made,_ and by inference, there is a maker. But all of that is just our subjective interpretation of what we see based on the evolution of our particular brains. There is, indeed, an evolutionary basis for why we are susceptible to supernatural concepts. But that does NOT mean those concepts are correct.
It's called projecting. Notice how god (a devine being) is as flawed, tempered and emotional as humans are. Almost as if he reflects their own predisposition because they put anthropomorphic qualities upon it.
I've always felt the "why do all cultures create religion if there's no god?" So stupid. If there's a god, then why do all cultures except one get absolutely every point wrong?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I considered theism for a few minutes once. But I looked at the universe as it is... and realized that if any sort of God existed it would not be a loving, moral God. It would be Q from Star Trek TNG. And that kind of God wouldn't be worth my time and the Klingons had the right idea.
When I was a kid, I went around telling people that I was a wizard from the planet Mercury and survived a massive death-war between Mercury and Mars. Then my own father took the "Wizard" part and tested out the foundations of a cult he wanted to build up. Kids believe in nonsense, and you can manipulate kids into thinking that nonsense is true without really lifting up a finger. The susceptibility of a child as an argument only serves to expose your point of view as manipulative.
One thing we really don't know at all is when religion, the concept of the supernatural, emerged in humanity. Some people point to cave paintings made 30-40 thousand years ago as a possible clue. But I think it's far from a consensus among anthropologists that these images were necessarily related to supernatural ideas, such as incantations to improve hunting and so forth. Religion could be much younger than that. We simply don't know and anybody claiming otherwise needs to be seriously questioned.
I'm not saying it's impossible to be an atheist and think objective morality is a thing, I'm just saying it's highly irregular. Besides that, I don't think religion makes a better case for it than irreligion, at least in the modern form of religion.
@danger.snakes oh sorry. I wasn't meaning to suggest a disagreement with you. I figured like most people you would not fully grasp the difference between moral relativism, objectivism, and subjectivism. For example when you said God's commandments are a kind or type of objective because we get the knowledge from a higher power, but that's literally subjective command. A commandment is the opposite of morality in the first place. A rule that changes based on the bosses orders, that's subjectivism. I was commenting to the advert and the "atheist" that converted (also never heard of her) but that her issue was that her belief in objective morality so she converted to Christianity. I was saying objectivism is an atheistic philosophy that holds an objective morality. Sam Harris is the opposite philosophy of objectivism and is also an atheist that holds an objective morality. So I was agreeing with your thumbnail, it's inventing a problem
The whole divine command idea is really interesting because it suggests that since god created everything, what he demands or commands is objectively correct. The Bible doesn't really have much moral consistency to it, which would seem to be a key component of something being objective (i.e. unchanging). Divine command is the Christian apologist way of getting around this problem. But it's kind of a bad one. In the end, if divine command is correct and the only objective morality is the demands of a god who seems quite fickle indeed, then even the person claiming objective morality is holding to a subjective interpretation of that god's priorities at a given time. It strikes me as something of a distillation of the essense of dispensationalism.
Hi London, 1st time I've seen your channel. I've paused it @ 24 seconds in. I have no clue what you're going to say about this yet ( I WILL watch the rest after I post this ), but the answer my boy is unbelievably simple. Believers have been lying to themselves, been deluded, suckered, controlled, taught to hate others that believe in "different" gods. Hell, they've been going to war BECAUSE of it for thousands of years. Need I go on ?
I was an obsessive follower of Patheos nonreligious back in the days before it was banned on Patheos, essentially because 90% of the site traffic was to nonreligious rather than the religious content they wanted. I don’t remember Leah Libresco, and I suspect she was regarded as pretty well a marginal atheist. I’ve been able to read her last article as she converted to Catholicism and her tone does not reflect the kind of writing that was typical of Patheos nonreligious. I’ve actually never yet encountered a theist who has been able to convince me they ever were a hardcore atheist, the typical being someone who hadn’t really thought much about god or religion and thought that gave them credibility in claiming to having been an atheist.
I did a bachelor of psychology, majoring in child and adolescent development, and the research was more on the side that children are naturally born scientists. They want to experiment and observe, not just go straight for a bunch of god of the gaps explanations. My children are just astounded by physics, they never jump to "some kind of magical space wizard did this" its usually "physics is involved somehow" and then they will ask a lot of questions to get to the specifics. and that is because children are influenced by what adults around them tell them, clearly i reference physics and science far more that anything religious.
Horrible example because schooling has been showing to be failing all across the board in America. So I'm having a very hard time believing kids even actually understand what you're teaching them. This just comes off as cope. Even then once you die do you believe you'll last in people's minds and hearts? That you'll leave a mark on this world? That some sort of lingering essence will persist even past your own existence? Then you believe in a soul. You're not even a true Atheist. You're literally a teacher. To be an Atheist Teacher is profoundly complex and redundant. To believe your teachings will extend past generations and generations is fueled on hopes and dreams. That your "will" was remembered and felt. That's fundamentally what a soul is. When Shakespeare wrote his poetry he not only gave us his writings but his very essence. His spiritual essence is felt in his writings. To empathically feel and relate to someone who objectively no longer exists is honoring their soul. I feel Atheist like you are just full of shit. Sorry. I'm an Atheist too but listening to you idiots? Why would I want to be associated? So many things drive home on concepts that aren't necessarily married to religion. You don't need a God for a religion. You don't need an Afterlife for an Religion either. This is why hammering points against "God can't exist" is the equivalent to a child covering their ears and shouting the same thing over and over while the adults are trying to convey it's far more nuanced than that. To me I worry about those children the most. I have many pieces of objective evidence to where I shouldn't trust any teachers in this era of new social movement. If anything you're more akin to a Nazi, yes I mean it, than an Atheist.
I'm glad you got them to believe God doesn't exist... But good luck saying Jesus never existed. If you can prove Jesus never existed then bam you defeated most religious people in this era. It's really that simple of a challenge. Just disprove Jesus ever existed and that all historical records of him were made up.
You there!👉 London! I, being my usual observant self, just noticed the new logo thingamabob. Why no quavers? They're my favourite. Will you be going after the crochets and minims, next? Will the semibreves ever be safe around you? On the payroll of Big Tablature, are we? Hmm? Hmmmm? I think we should be told. 😏
morality is objective yes, we can use logic for that. an universe without an observer is not valued and thus has no value. what this means is that living beings (maybe even if AI become sentient in future) values existence and give meaning for the universe. life changed a lot but we can notice some patterns, evolution and this desire to spread are two of them. evolution not only an adaptation but also a form to go beyond that.. beyond whats needed. some species are getting to the stone age (as far a si can remember from the tip of my tongue is one of a chimp and also crows)... they dont need to make tools for survival and to have enough resources.. though they do evolve further because tools make jobs require less work and thus saving us energy. and abt reprodution? it makes harder for a specie/life to vanish because there are more of them around. saying that moral is subjective is like saying reality is subjective due to religions or people that have mental problems that makes them perceive thungs differently. as living beings we basically have duties set by life itself.. life isnt at all a conscious being but patterns show that its a very complex process and is the thing that gives existence for us and we value it. this i said is just the base for how to find an objective morality... we could consider ethics as the closest thing to objective morality even since ethics requires lots of thinking. if you want to talk deeper abt that we can chat or something... just giving me credit (just saying who had the idea was me) is enough XD unless ofc there is a writer or something before me that thought about this
8:04 "Leading atheistic thinker" is just cringe in purest form. Atheism is the answer to a single question. Also, and more inportantly, apologists should investigate the Pirahã people. They dont have any indigenous concept of gods or god. The whole argument the apologist folows up with is already falsified, but he indulges in it anyway, performing only fallacious thinking. The inception of gods in the minds of we men and women in the world, is almost definitely down to a hyperactive ability (or "instinct") to assume agency behind anything and everything we aren't immediately able to identify. 12:40 Exactly! Thank you, London. Edit: additionally, the idea that humans are born with innate beliefs about creationism and gods and any supernatural guff is simply laughable. If that were the case, I expect it to be way, way more likely for there to be a single religion, or a single notion of god(s). Why is it that the overwhelming majority of all religious people are of the same religion as their parents? It's because they were born atheist, you see what is going on there, apologists? The apologists whole argument is question begging, appeal to consequence, and special pleading. 18:25 being atheist is actually the "natural" (bad word to use, but apologists are slippery with their word choice on purpose) position. I was born atheist, I was turned into a Christian by my school, and I realised eventually what actually happened. This guy's video is rage bait. His arguments are garbage and his sources are suspect.
i think i recognize his voice.. i believe this is the guy behind 'long story short' from 'discovery science' (not actually science obviously, but creationism)
If god was all loving and all powerful, I'd expect the universe to be nothing like it is. Suffering exists, and it didn’t have to. That’s the problem, the only evidence we have contradicts the premise. If god didn’t really care how things turned out, then that could be consistent, although that’s hardly sufficient evidence.
Depends which God you believe in. If you're a Gnostic then you believe he's a mad god who's trapped in his dreams of nothingness who then squeezes out your spiritual energy through your suffering because he fears the Human imagination and it's capabilities.
Why are atheist becoming theist?Not saying that does not happen however but I don't think it necessarily happens as much as what some people who consider themselves to be theist are claiming or want people to believe.
It always bothers me about these Christians when they refer to a God existing it just so happens to be their god. And they will move goalposts if say an Atheist picks the gods of Shinto or the gods of Hinduism or a different Abrahamic god. And they will also the video is literally all vibes based, a lot of people rn care more bout vibes then actually have evidence to support it and a big part of Christianity being able to spread same with Islam and Buddhism is a lot of Empires and territories sharing a common religion makes trade easier to happen see the Dutch and Spanish in Japan before Sengoku era. But simply belief or vibes doesn’t prove a God is any more real than SpongeBob SquarePants. Then again I always said that if we are going off of vibes to pick a religion to follow why wouldn’t more people be Satanists cause hey they call rock and metal music and basically all music that isn’t shit for your alcoholic wine aunt for the devil and if that has merit then most people would mess with Satan then. Because it’s obvious that picking shit based off of vibes and feels is again literally childish. Theocratic fascism and combatting Christian bullshit has been lacking in the past few years and now that they are getting bold again with their bullshit it’s time to let the culture war fighting bullshit die and for Atheism to get back to combatting irrational bullshit. Good start to that here.
Even if you think there is objective morality, there are a ton of more interesting and more useful models than "god did it." Anybody who thinks that's the only explanation for objective morality didn't look very hard or didn't look at all.
They aren't. At least not in massive numbers. I'm sure you hear about it every time it happens, but that's just selection bias. It's a "dog bites man" story.
I asked the last "i used to be an athiest" why he went back to theism? Because that seems to be the vast majority. They want to try out the "i can sin all i want" theistic view of atheism without actually disbelieving.
If morals are objective there cant be any disagreement on if something is morally right or wrong. I am pretty sure in reality people do disagree on this even if given the same data which means its is subjective. Hell according to the Bible morality is subjective to God whims. Even if you believe it is onjective theres still no need for a God.
It is not necessary for there to be agreement, but without an objective method to move towards that ultimate objectively, the objective morality is practically useless (And functionally non- existent).
1:53 Morality can only be Objective, otherwise it loses its qualities as morality. And literally everyone I remember promoting Moral Relativism is not a Moral Relativist. Observe: Would you have had a moral compulsion to stopping Germany in WW2? Yes? You're not a Moral Relativist, qed. You just don't like the idea of people who you don't share moral agreement with imposing it upon people who are not part of your group with whom you think you share a moral foundation with. 5:22 No, morality being subjective implies that when a subject has moral beliefs, then those are valid, because the subject is the source of that morality. So you can have moral opinions about your own actions, but you cannot act upon moral objections against the actions of others. You having that capacity implies the moral range of one subject, in this case you is larger and has priority over the morality of another subject, in this case, the person you try to stop, unless you establish first that the other subject acts imorally from one's own standpoint. In other words, it would mean that some subjects matter more than others, which... according to what standard? That would either be an objective one or might makes right, which again destroys morality because you can bypass it by being stronger. If you disagree, why would things not work this way? 6:29 - 6:41 "and my opinion is no less valid". According to this worldview, that would mean that their opinion is no less valid also. So 1) Assertion about the state of morality makes it so 2) You say morality is subjective 3) The other person says it's objective 4) Therefore morality is objective 5) Therefore you are wrong 6) The other person doesn't hold to position 1) 7) Therefore only you are wrong. 7:22 And there it is. Therefore you shouldn't talk about religion at all. You don't even have a hypothesis, so you can't even assess the subject in question. You should go to church until you understand religion enough to form a conclusion about how a world with and without God would look like. P.S. Here's a shortcut: God is the source of all being, anything exists, therefore God exists. You are welcome to come this Sunday for Communion.
@hammalammadingdong6244 I didn't say moral value judgements. I said morality. And if you do insist on defending it being subjective, I will defend everyone saying "who cares" when you make a moral objection to anything.
@Will-xf3qe notice how, with the exception of the isolated last paragraph, I didn't say "therefore God". There are Atheists who agree with Objective Morality and see the same flaws I highlighted. They just don't get so popular on UA-cam because of the overlap it would have with believers. If one group believed in objective morality and the other in subjective, then the offshoot can ignore the standards of the former. No more pesky need for answers to "who's the moral law giver".
When I was little, I saw white plumes of smoke coming out of a factory's towers and became convinced that it was a factory that made clouds.
@gamergirl24 That is adorable!! 🥰☁☁☁ 😂
That's one of the cutest things I've ever heard. Thank you, you really made me smile, there.☺
Same, actually.
"Children have imaginary friends, therefore adults should too!"
Massive self own lol
Sorry, but I have no respect for the views of people who think that the Universe was created with us in mind, that the Earth is 6000 years old, and that the first human was made of clay/soil. There are many other plainly absurd religious views such as moon splitting, but those will do for now.
I can't respect people who have such ridiculous thoughts, either. It's not even 'intuitive', for the love of hell.
i respect and feel pity for them... they got brainwashed during whole life to believe something.
@@jktech2117"how many fingers am I holding up?"...
Yeah, I find myself easily annoyed by pushy religious folks but I ain't gonna do them no good without reciprocating respect. Actually, many cults (like the jehovah's) bank on non-believers lack of patience to strengthen faith by putting their converts in its way.
No where in the Bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old. This comes from a 17th century bishop who used math to attempt to calculate the age of the earth. Has been used by atheists for years to show Christians as crazy.
Second clay/soil is more parable than anything. Meaning Satan was created of something not of the material world where Adam was created in the material.
Third moon splitting only exists in Islam and I have not enough space to talk about it.
They obviously forgot to mention the head injury she sustained right before realizing god exists.
More likely she forgot to mention she was raised a theist and had a theistic idea of atheism.
“Our worldview is shared by little children using their imagination” might not be the flex that guy thinks it is?
Cognitive dissonance really is an amazing thing. With it, we can take things that directly contradict our beliefs and twist them into supporting evidence of our beliefs.
But are they? More theists lose their faith than supposed atheists finding religion. Always gonna be some, though. People aren't, on average, that bright.
I remember Leah Libresco. She decided Catholicism was for her but had no rational argument for that choice, and just got a flash-in-the-pan sort of attention for it, and then everyone forgot about her. Until you brought her up again.
Well, having read her stuff now, it doesn't seem like she was much of a loss. She's trying to brand herself as a Christian feminist or whatever, and that includes forcing women to have unwanted babies. Fantastic stuff!
@@danger.snakes "Your body, our choice," but wokely. Hell yeah. lol
Hi PZ, I didn't realize she left 12 years ago. Hope your spiders are doing well.
There are lots of true things are a very unintuitive. Like the earth isn't flat just because it looks like it at first.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a perfect example where facts, reason and critical thinking could not cure emotional turmoil and social need.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was always an obvious charlatan to me and I don't know how so many people missed it for so long.
@@danger.snakes Dawkins' regular church attendances, and fawning love and praise for his precious Church of England, always put Dawkins in the 'possible death bed conversion' category, to me.
I could be wrong, but that's never happened before, and at 56, I'm not going suddenly to start being wrong now, am I?
😏.
It's interesting how we hear the words rational and level-headed and stuff when referring to changing minds. But then it's all emotional. Even a lot of the biggest apologists fall back to emotional responses.
Say atheistic evolution one more time. I dare you.
Unguided evolution seems far more probable than any intelligent designer (iRna makes that obvious to me).
Also, unguided evolution best explains the Bible.
The other problem with the Romans 19 quote is this. If theists are right, that's exactly what The Bible would say. If I'm right, and God doesn't exist and The Bible was written by human beings who wish to endear themselves to an in group and turning them on a outgroup... that's exactly what The Bible would say.
Objective morality is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Are there things that are ok sometimes, and not other times, depending on the situation? Yes. Obvioisly yes. Therefore...not objective.
Not to mention that theistic morality fails at every level. They don't have consensus or objectivity or a standard that is moral.
This kind of score keeping is really meaningless. It's used to make perceptions that aren't really accurate, and don't matter. I couldn't care less if some prominent atheist OR theist converts one way or another. On this topic, I'm far more focused on religious intrusion in society, and it's pretty clear it's been waning for some time. Which is part of the reason for all the desperate push back we're seeing from the theistic community. The last gasp of a dying concept. At least, so far.
I really want this to be accurate. I’m not sure if it is though.
Considering that (he who shall not be named) would _never_ have been elected (either the first time or _particularly_ the second) without the effects of religion, I don’t find the whole “waning effects on society” thing very convincing.
It has to be pointed out that children grow up in a majority theistic societies so they would adopt some forms of theistic thinking. "Nature vs nurture" is a very difficult thing to distinguish.
Agreed especially since religion has had it's chokehold on societies for centuries. Their influences are quite imbedded. However most only want to point out the "good" it's brought them and ignore everything that was horrible. It's cherry picking at it's finest.
I wrote in my journal once that theists already know the truth of the non existence of God, but they suppress the truth, and are with our excuse for their denial of reality. That is also a book.
Checkmate theists....
Really? Your go to is that the bible says that people that say they don't believe actually do believe they just don't want to admit it? That's very disingenuous and arrogant.
And they have forgotten that Jesus was quick to dismiss false believers. They should be terrified that they don't see God in evolution which is part of the world that God has revealed to them.
@@goldenalt3166 no no no. If god wants me to believe, he knows what it would take. It is a demonstrable fact that different people require different levels of evidence to believe a claim. A universal "god revealed it so you should believe" is inefficient. If god wanted me to believe, he would be willing and able to meet that standard of evidence. If he is unwilling, and the penalty is hell, then he is just an asshole.
Theists won't be happy until everyone believes in their gods. No dissent is proof of truth.
5:02 How is “God magic” more of an explanation than natural processes that we can test repeatedly? 😂
And congrats for nearly at 15k subs! We’re coming for you baby 😎😎
oh god oh f
16:00 The first part of the Copan quote, the stuff about children's intuition, the whole teleogical argument, fall apart in the face of a simple observation. Humans evolved brains with insatiable curiosity and brains that make us manipulators of our environment at a grand scale. We _make_ things. So when we look at the universe, subjective creatures that we are, we assume it came into being just as the things we make come into being. We assume it was _made,_ and by inference, there is a maker. But all of that is just our subjective interpretation of what we see based on the evolution of our particular brains.
There is, indeed, an evolutionary basis for why we are susceptible to supernatural concepts. But that does NOT mean those concepts are correct.
It's called projecting. Notice how god (a devine being) is as flawed, tempered and emotional as humans are. Almost as if he reflects their own predisposition because they put anthropomorphic qualities upon it.
I've always felt the "why do all cultures create religion if there's no god?" So stupid. If there's a god, then why do all cultures except one get absolutely every point wrong?
Yep if God is real there should only be one religion. Well unless gods are created by belief in which case all gods exists inculding the joke ones.
@mattm8870 exactly. At the absolute worst, we should see similar concepts throughout all religions, and even that's a stretch.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I considered theism for a few minutes once. But I looked at the universe as it is... and realized that if any sort of God existed it would not be a loving, moral God. It would be Q from Star Trek TNG. And that kind of God wouldn't be worth my time and the Klingons had the right idea.
I think that's an insult to Q.
@@danger.snakes Well, Q is at least honest about what he's doing. I'll give him that.
When I was a kid, I went around telling people that I was a wizard from the planet Mercury and survived a massive death-war between Mercury and Mars.
Then my own father took the "Wizard" part and tested out the foundations of a cult he wanted to build up. Kids believe in nonsense, and you can manipulate kids into thinking that nonsense is true without really lifting up a finger. The susceptibility of a child as an argument only serves to expose your point of view as manipulative.
One thing we really don't know at all is when religion, the concept of the supernatural, emerged in humanity. Some people point to cave paintings made 30-40 thousand years ago as a possible clue. But I think it's far from a consensus among anthropologists that these images were necessarily related to supernatural ideas, such as incantations to improve hunting and so forth.
Religion could be much younger than that. We simply don't know and anybody claiming otherwise needs to be seriously questioned.
Well since we see ritual-like behavour in chimps it seems likely that belief in the ssupernatural is older than humanity.
I am an Objectivist. That's an atheist with an Objective morality
I'm not saying it's impossible to be an atheist and think objective morality is a thing, I'm just saying it's highly irregular. Besides that, I don't think religion makes a better case for it than irreligion, at least in the modern form of religion.
@danger.snakes oh sorry. I wasn't meaning to suggest a disagreement with you. I figured like most people you would not fully grasp the difference between moral relativism, objectivism, and subjectivism. For example when you said God's commandments are a kind or type of objective because we get the knowledge from a higher power, but that's literally subjective command. A commandment is the opposite of morality in the first place. A rule that changes based on the bosses orders, that's subjectivism.
I was commenting to the advert and the "atheist" that converted (also never heard of her) but that her issue was that her belief in objective morality so she converted to Christianity. I was saying objectivism is an atheistic philosophy that holds an objective morality. Sam Harris is the opposite philosophy of objectivism and is also an atheist that holds an objective morality. So I was agreeing with your thumbnail, it's inventing a problem
The whole divine command idea is really interesting because it suggests that since god created everything, what he demands or commands is objectively correct.
The Bible doesn't really have much moral consistency to it, which would seem to be a key component of something being objective (i.e. unchanging).
Divine command is the Christian apologist way of getting around this problem. But it's kind of a bad one.
In the end, if divine command is correct and the only objective morality is the demands of a god who seems quite fickle indeed, then even the person claiming objective morality is holding to a subjective interpretation of that god's priorities at a given time.
It strikes me as something of a distillation of the essense of dispensationalism.
Hi London, 1st time I've seen your channel. I've paused it @ 24 seconds in. I have no clue what you're going to say about this yet ( I WILL watch the rest after I post this ), but the answer my boy is unbelievably simple. Believers have been lying to themselves, been deluded, suckered, controlled, taught to hate others that believe in "different" gods. Hell, they've been going to war BECAUSE of it for thousands of years. Need I go on ?
Have apologists reached the level of "Kids make stuff up that correlates with the bible, therefore God" now?
Apologists quoting arguments from atheist thinkers, who remain atheists and think this is a gotcha are something else
LOL "new atheists should have all the answers to discard all religions", not!
Commenting to boost engagement. I don't believe in your book so quoting it doesn't really do much good.
I was an obsessive follower of Patheos nonreligious back in the days before it was banned on Patheos, essentially because 90% of the site traffic was to nonreligious rather than the religious content they wanted. I don’t remember Leah Libresco, and I suspect she was regarded as pretty well a marginal atheist. I’ve been able to read her last article as she converted to Catholicism and her tone does not reflect the kind of writing that was typical of Patheos nonreligious. I’ve actually never yet encountered a theist who has been able to convince me they ever were a hardcore atheist, the typical being someone who hadn’t really thought much about god or religion and thought that gave them credibility in claiming to having been an atheist.
Do gods exists and where are they? Make up your mind.
I did a bachelor of psychology, majoring in child and adolescent development, and the research was more on the side that children are naturally born scientists. They want to experiment and observe, not just go straight for a bunch of god of the gaps explanations. My children are just astounded by physics, they never jump to "some kind of magical space wizard did this" its usually "physics is involved somehow" and then they will ask a lot of questions to get to the specifics. and that is because children are influenced by what adults around them tell them, clearly i reference physics and science far more that anything religious.
Horrible example because schooling has been showing to be failing all across the board in America. So I'm having a very hard time believing kids even actually understand what you're teaching them. This just comes off as cope.
Even then once you die do you believe you'll last in people's minds and hearts? That you'll leave a mark on this world? That some sort of lingering essence will persist even past your own existence? Then you believe in a soul. You're not even a true Atheist. You're literally a teacher. To be an Atheist Teacher is profoundly complex and redundant. To believe your teachings will extend past generations and generations is fueled on hopes and dreams. That your "will" was remembered and felt. That's fundamentally what a soul is. When Shakespeare wrote his poetry he not only gave us his writings but his very essence. His spiritual essence is felt in his writings. To empathically feel and relate to someone who objectively no longer exists is honoring their soul. I feel Atheist like you are just full of shit. Sorry. I'm an Atheist too but listening to you idiots? Why would I want to be associated? So many things drive home on concepts that aren't necessarily married to religion. You don't need a God for a religion. You don't need an Afterlife for an Religion either. This is why hammering points against "God can't exist" is the equivalent to a child covering their ears and shouting the same thing over and over while the adults are trying to convey it's far more nuanced than that. To me I worry about those children the most. I have many pieces of objective evidence to where I shouldn't trust any teachers in this era of new social movement. If anything you're more akin to a Nazi, yes I mean it, than an Atheist.
I'm glad you got them to believe God doesn't exist... But good luck saying Jesus never existed. If you can prove Jesus never existed then bam you defeated most religious people in this era. It's really that simple of a challenge. Just disprove Jesus ever existed and that all historical records of him were made up.
Who needs a new religion?!
Kami-chan loves you! ^.^ ❤️
So theists are dumb widdle babies?
Is that seriously their argument FOR theism?
Belief isn’t a choice.
You there!👉 London!
I, being my usual observant self, just noticed the new logo thingamabob.
Why no quavers? They're my favourite.
Will you be going after the crochets and minims, next?
Will the semibreves ever be safe around you?
On the payroll of Big Tablature, are we?
Hmm? Hmmmm?
I think we should be told.
😏
20:06 Did they seriously say that? Because quantum physics is a hell of a lot more unintuitive. But no theists are rejecting it as atheistic science.
morality is objective yes, we can use logic for that. an universe without an observer is not valued and thus has no value.
what this means is that living beings (maybe even if AI become sentient in future) values existence and give meaning for the universe.
life changed a lot but we can notice some patterns, evolution and this desire to spread are two of them. evolution not only an adaptation but also a form to go beyond that.. beyond whats needed.
some species are getting to the stone age (as far a si can remember from the tip of my tongue is one of a chimp and also crows)... they dont need to make tools for survival and to have enough resources.. though they do evolve further because tools make jobs require less work and thus saving us energy.
and abt reprodution? it makes harder for a specie/life to vanish because there are more of them around.
saying that moral is subjective is like saying reality is subjective due to religions or people that have mental problems that makes them perceive thungs differently.
as living beings we basically have duties set by life itself..
life isnt at all a conscious being but patterns show that its a very complex process and is the thing that gives existence for us and we value it.
this i said is just the base for how to find an objective morality... we could consider ethics as the closest thing to objective morality even since ethics requires lots of thinking.
if you want to talk deeper abt that we can chat or something... just giving me credit (just saying who had the idea was me) is enough XD
unless ofc there is a writer or something before me that thought about this
Wasn't expecting it so fast but okay still PEAK
You ever think god was made so we could use it to justify the death penalty
You ever think god was made so we could use it to justify the death penalty
8:04 "Leading atheistic thinker" is just cringe in purest form. Atheism is the answer to a single question.
Also, and more inportantly, apologists should investigate the Pirahã people. They dont have any indigenous concept of gods or god.
The whole argument the apologist folows up with is already falsified, but he indulges in it anyway, performing only fallacious thinking.
The inception of gods in the minds of we men and women in the world, is almost definitely down to a hyperactive ability (or "instinct") to assume agency behind anything and everything we aren't immediately able to identify.
12:40 Exactly! Thank you, London.
Edit: additionally, the idea that humans are born with innate beliefs about creationism and gods and any supernatural guff is simply laughable. If that were the case, I expect it to be way, way more likely for there to be a single religion, or a single notion of god(s).
Why is it that the overwhelming majority of all religious people are of the same religion as their parents?
It's because they were born atheist, you see what is going on there, apologists?
The apologists whole argument is question begging, appeal to consequence, and special pleading.
18:25 being atheist is actually the "natural" (bad word to use, but apologists are slippery with their word choice on purpose) position. I was born atheist, I was turned into a Christian by my school, and I realised eventually what actually happened.
This guy's video is rage bait. His arguments are garbage and his sources are suspect.
NEVER expose the camera to direct light when you are in between them.
I'm working with limited space. Sacrifices must be made.
@@danger.snakes Try a curtain!!!!
The smart ones are not.
They’re waking up.
i think i recognize his voice.. i believe this is the guy behind 'long story short' from 'discovery science' (not actually science obviously, but creationism)
Humans are the most powerful beings because we invented God.
An unfalsifiable hypothesis has no explanatory value.
crap woke up late
Heathens always be sleeping in.
Just because a lot of Homo sapiens believe strongly in something does not mean its true.
Nothing makes money like switching sides. Especially when you switch to the more popular side. It's a marketing grift. Not real difficult to see.
Lord of the Flies
If god was all loving and all powerful, I'd expect the universe to be nothing like it is. Suffering exists, and it didn’t have to. That’s the problem, the only evidence we have contradicts the premise.
If god didn’t really care how things turned out, then that could be consistent, although that’s hardly sufficient evidence.
Depends which God you believe in. If you're a Gnostic then you believe he's a mad god who's trapped in his dreams of nothingness who then squeezes out your spiritual energy through your suffering because he fears the Human imagination and it's capabilities.
@@tylercafe1260Which is not "loving" by my definition of that word.
Why are atheist becoming theist?Not saying that does not happen however but I don't think it necessarily happens as much as what some people who consider themselves to be theist are claiming or want people to believe.
17:58 Loving parents don't do that.
It always bothers me about these Christians when they refer to a God existing it just so happens to be their god. And they will move goalposts if say an Atheist picks the gods of Shinto or the gods of Hinduism or a different Abrahamic god. And they will also the video is literally all vibes based, a lot of people rn care more bout vibes then actually have evidence to support it and a big part of Christianity being able to spread same with Islam and Buddhism is a lot of Empires and territories sharing a common religion makes trade easier to happen see the Dutch and Spanish in Japan before Sengoku era. But simply belief or vibes doesn’t prove a God is any more real than SpongeBob SquarePants. Then again I always said that if we are going off of vibes to pick a religion to follow why wouldn’t more people be Satanists cause hey they call rock and metal music and basically all music that isn’t shit for your alcoholic wine aunt for the devil and if that has merit then most people would mess with Satan then. Because it’s obvious that picking shit based off of vibes and feels is again literally childish.
Theocratic fascism and combatting Christian bullshit has been lacking in the past few years and now that they are getting bold again with their bullshit it’s time to let the culture war fighting bullshit die and for Atheism to get back to combatting irrational bullshit. Good start to that here.
Even if you think there is objective morality, there are a ton of more interesting and more useful models than "god did it." Anybody who thinks that's the only explanation for objective morality didn't look very hard or didn't look at all.
Especially, if they continue to try to claim that God is moral and biblical.
I will pray for you
Don't forget to sacrifice a goat
They aren't. At least not in massive numbers. I'm sure you hear about it every time it happens, but that's just selection bias. It's a "dog bites man" story.
I asked the last "i used to be an athiest" why he went back to theism? Because that seems to be the vast majority. They want to try out the "i can sin all i want" theistic view of atheism without actually disbelieving.
Yeah sure. In narnia. 🤣😅😁😄😂😁
that was fun
If morals are objective there cant be any disagreement on if something is morally right or wrong. I am pretty sure in reality people do disagree on this even if given the same data which means its is subjective. Hell according to the Bible morality is subjective to God whims.
Even if you believe it is onjective theres still no need for a God.
It is not necessary for there to be agreement, but without an objective method to move towards that ultimate objectively, the objective morality is practically useless (And functionally non- existent).
think of KingXerces that used to be on youtube
1:53 Morality can only be Objective, otherwise it loses its qualities as morality.
And literally everyone I remember promoting Moral Relativism is not a Moral Relativist.
Observe: Would you have had a moral compulsion to stopping Germany in WW2? Yes? You're not a Moral Relativist, qed. You just don't like the idea of people who you don't share moral agreement with imposing it upon people who are not part of your group with whom you think you share a moral foundation with.
5:22 No, morality being subjective implies that when a subject has moral beliefs, then those are valid, because the subject is the source of that morality. So you can have moral opinions about your own actions, but you cannot act upon moral objections against the actions of others. You having that capacity implies the moral range of one subject, in this case you is larger and has priority over the morality of another subject, in this case, the person you try to stop, unless you establish first that the other subject acts imorally from one's own standpoint. In other words, it would mean that some subjects matter more than others, which... according to what standard? That would either be an objective one or might makes right, which again destroys morality because you can bypass it by being stronger.
If you disagree, why would things not work this way?
6:29 - 6:41 "and my opinion is no less valid". According to this worldview, that would mean that their opinion is no less valid also.
So 1) Assertion about the state of morality makes it so
2) You say morality is subjective
3) The other person says it's objective
4) Therefore morality is objective
5) Therefore you are wrong
6) The other person doesn't hold to position 1)
7) Therefore only you are wrong.
7:22 And there it is. Therefore you shouldn't talk about religion at all.
You don't even have a hypothesis, so you can't even assess the subject in question.
You should go to church until you understand religion enough to form a conclusion about how a world with and without God would look like.
P.S. Here's a shortcut: God is the source of all being, anything exists, therefore God exists. You are welcome to come this Sunday for Communion.
Morals are value judgements about behaviors.
Judgements are by definition subjective.
Therefore morals are subjective.
Change my mind.
@hammalammadingdong6244 I didn't say moral value judgements. I said morality.
And if you do insist on defending it being subjective, I will defend everyone saying "who cares" when you make a moral objection to anything.
@@masscreationbroadcasts
Morals are judgements about the "rightness or wrongness" of a behavior.
True or False?
Bro maybe Christians would be impressed but no atheist would think any of these arguments are valid at all.
@Will-xf3qe notice how, with the exception of the isolated last paragraph, I didn't say "therefore God". There are Atheists who agree with Objective Morality and see the same flaws I highlighted. They just don't get so popular on UA-cam because of the overlap it would have with believers. If one group believed in objective morality and the other in subjective, then the offshoot can ignore the standards of the former. No more pesky need for answers to "who's the moral law giver".