Atheists Have More Faith Than Christians November 9, 2008
Posted by Jacob Morales in General.Tags: absolute moral truth, atheism, atheist, evolution, Moral Truth
trackback
So I decided to make a video on Atheism…I hope you all like it 
Absolute Moral Truth
Bringing Light to a Dark World
Tags: absolute moral truth, atheism, atheist, evolution, Moral Truth
trackback
-
Subscribe to my Blog -
Oy…this old argument, again?
Not believing in leprechauns doesn’t take any faith.
Not believing in dragons doesn’t take any faith.
Not believing in your god doesn’t take any faith.
When did I say anything about not believing in God not taking faith? I never said that, I said creative design. To deny that takes A LOT of faith. Period.
Not really. It takes knowledge of science.
If you think knowledge of science takes faith, then I suggest you open a science journal or a text book. Nothing in science is on faith.
Two people are watching a football game. One sees the player from his favorite team catch a touchdown pass just inside the end zone. The other see CLEARLY he was out of bounds.
There is an entire scientific community that is THRIVING that believes in creative design that aren’t necessarily Christians, but that probably wouldn’t be evidence to you would it?
Because the one player has his ‘clear’ belief. And the other player has video evidence.
I side with the evidence. Which is what you don’t have.
And as we know the video “evidence” has to be interpreted and can be interpreted WRONG. Let’s put it this way. If you are right then I have nothing to lose, but if I’m right you have everything to lose. It’s your life, I guess I’m just not willing to gamble mine.
“If you are right then I have nothing to lose, but if I’m right you have everything to lose”
Thank you Mr. Pascal.
And if the Muslims are right, I’ll save a spot for you in the burning lake.
Luckily, neither group has any evidence to back their claims up, so I’m not worried.
Your opinion of a “lack of evidence” is completely based in an emotional disdain for Christians which is evident in your responses. You have a predisposition for our evidence and discount it simply because someone says it’s invalid.
It’s much like a trial where multiple experts have polar opposite “expert opinions” on the SAME issue. These brilliants minds testify based on what side they stand on, weird how they come to varying conclusions isn’t it?
“Your opinion of a “lack of evidence” is completely based in an emotional disdain for Christians which is evident in your responses.”
Not at all. I have disdain for anyone who uses Pascal’s wager. But most Christians I know don’t even know the wager, and understand how it fails with only a little thinking.
I don’t, in general, have disdain for Christians. Unless their Christianity is leading them to hurting people.
Evidence is evidence. You don’t have it. I’m sorry you don’t, and if you do one day I’ll be pleased to see it. But you don’t. You have faith, I have evidence.
Quite frankly, evidence gets me through the day much better than faith ever could.
Hundreds of years ago people believed that the world was flat and the “evidence” AT THE TIME supported their belief. Anyone saying the world was round would have been deemed INSANE. Hmmm sounds reminiscent of a conversation I’m having right now…
Indeed.
So when you have evidence to back it up, let me know.
Until then, so sorry.
This is a fine example of a pointless debate. Even if I brandished a smoking gun in terms of evidence there would remain the other myriad of issues “non believers” have.
“Ok so what, God exists, then why doesn’t he do something about plagues, and the hungry, etc”
Proving God exists isn’t the point. It’s the cover that every one of you hide under because of your other countless issues with the notion of “God”.
If you accuse atheists of having more faith than theists then you acknowledge that there is something wrong with faith. Congratulations on figuring out that faith sucks. Now examine your own faith.
Oh, geez, the flagellum, again? You dishonest retard.
I never acknowledged anything was wrong with Faith. I simply stated that they had more than I do. It’s always been the main attack point that “faith is blind” and yet ALL OF YOU have far more than any of us.
By the way don’t you just LOVE the emperor’s clothes?
I love the story of the Emperor’s Clothes.
All these religions, arguing over what kind of clothing the Emperor is wearing.
When the atheists can see clearly that the old king is naked.
I’m looking forward to making my next video for you Morse…it should provide some logical “evidence” as to why “no creator” is just plain insanity…but I guess you’ll probably have an answer ready for me then too.
Haha we’ll see.
Can you supply evidence for the existence of your god?
Evidence. Not argumentation. Not philosophical ruminations.
Evidence.
If you can not, I have no interest in watching your video.
I guess you are going to have to wait and see. I’m not doing it for you, I’m doing it for countless others who need to see through all the holes you are doing your best to hide.
I have a question for you, what it today I proved God’s existence. What then? You are telling me that you wouldn’t have issues with the other issues with God (e.g. world suffering, famine, disease, etc)?
I find that HIGHLY UNLIKELY.
It depends on what we’re talking about.
I am fully capable of accepting the existence of a god that I also loathed. My liking or dislike for a potential god doesn’t change whether or not there is evidence for it.
There are many gods that I think I could easily love and worship. And there are many I would abhor and find evil.
There is no evidence for either kind.
Weird…an atheist that finds something “evil”
Evil “1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.”
I’m really confused…
More and more this sounds like what it is. An emotional response to perceived evidence…Did you know the world is flat? Yep it’s true, everyone believed it and all “evidence” pointed towards it…SO SURELY ITS TRUE.
It’s called being intellectually honest. Perhaps you should try it?
When we look at things, ALL we can say is “Given all the evidence we currently have, so-and-so seems to be the truth.” If it turns out not to be the truth, hey, awesome. But we can’t base our conclusions on evidence we don’t yet have.
Like I keep saying…when you have evidence, show it. Until you do, all I can do is not believe your claims.
I can find things evil. And good. And moral. And immoral. Because I have a morality, that was formed by society, family, critical thinking and my historic and evolutionary past.
So do you.
Again, your earlier comment didn’t seem to be to precise.
Do you want me to believe your god exists, worship your god, or both? Because if it’s both, then you first need to give me evidence for your god’s existence, and second give me evidence that your god is worthy of my worship.
Do that, and I’ll gladly do what you want.
For someone who puts soooo much emphasis on evidence there is so little effort put on your clearly subjective version of morality in comparison to other world views. There are entire cultures of millions of people (Middle East Muslims) who would call you “evil” for your life as a consumer living here in the U.S.
Are they then right because they believe it? That is what their society, family, history, critical thinking and LOL “evolutionary” past says to them.
If you believe that, then well sir I seriously doubt there is any point in debating any further.
Morality is certainly based on evidence.
I look at harm and benefit to determine the morality of just about anything.
If I’m harming someone in an act, then my act is immoral. If I’m benefiting others, it’s moral. If there is both harm and benefit, then I have to look at which there is more of and make a difficult choice.
I have to work hard for my morality. I don’t blindly latch on to the morality created by desert-dwellers thousands of years ago.
So then based on your argument you are saying that hundreds of millions of Muslims who believe that “harming” someone in an act is morally acceptable for the “greater good”, that all of them are then immoral?
So benefiting someone makes something moral? How is that not completely based on your perception of what it means TO BENEFIT SOMEONE.
So your form of morality is that much more sophisticated than than of hundreds of millions of others simply based on your perception of what is and is not moral? Wow…you are starting to sound a lot like…
CHRISTIANS.
“that all of them are then immoral?”
Generally speaking, yup.
“How is that not completely based on your perception of what it means TO BENEFIT SOMEONE.”
Because it’s not. It’s based on the scientific and medical objective perceptions of what is harm and what is benefit. You trust those things when you go to the hospital.
“So your form of morality is that much more sophisticated”
Sophisticated? No. Superior. Yes.
“based on your perception of what is and is not moral?”
Nope. Based on the evidence.
“Wow…you are starting to sound a lot like…
CHRISTIANS.”
No. I’m sounding human. Everyone thinks their own opinion is the right one. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t hold those opinions.
The difference is that evidence backs up the opinion I hold.
“Because it’s not”
Quote of the Year. I’ve literally standing right now applauding you as we speak. Well done sir.
How very much like a Christian to cherry pick part of the statement and ignore the rest.
No wonder there are thousands of different denominations.
Does anyone else find it frustrating that he is hinging his entire argument on a perceived flaw in a subject he most likely isn’t an expert in?
Here are some somwhat related issues I that bother me about videos like this.
1. Science it isn’t perfect and it becomes better over time. While you see a smoking gun, the majority of us see a temporary lack of understanding. Just like you said in your argument, the world was at some point considered flat. After time, observation, and experimentation new evidence was found.
2. What you are trying to do is go on the offensive and yell as loudly as you can about some ID talking point, hoping to stir up some doubt. This is ALL that you have brought to the table. This is nothing impressive.
3. At the beginning of your video, you showed a mock debate. The strange this is that when I speak with Creationists, it usually ends up just the opposite. I am some hopeless heathon who needs to open his heart to the lord, or something like that.
4. Evolution is not random chance. Evolution is powered by it, but it is not soley defined by it. Evolution depends on the environment to weed out bad mutations and benefit good mutations. This putting a bunch of gears in a box, shaking it around, and demanding to know why a watch didn’t pop out of it really frustrates me. It demonstrates that most people who argue against evolution don’t actually understand their opponents argument and therefore need to read a text book.
5. The creationist perspective of ID has a incredibly massive flaw that NOBODY likes to point out. IT IS RELIGIOUS, sepecifically fueled by Christianity. The reason this is such a massive flaw? It depends upon a strictly biblical view of creation to define design. What do I mean by that? Who says that a creator didn’t design evolution? The entire universe is the way it is because of the laws that rule it. What is so unbelievable about another law that rules life? Nothing, except it doesn’t fit with Genesis.
Just like an atheist to assume that you are the sole proprietor of “true understanding” and insult the rest of us who believe in faith, objective moral truth, and God.
Regardless of what I believe if I am wrong than in the afterlife we’ll float around and it won’t matter. However if you are…
I mean this whether you want to believe or accept it or not. I hope someday you find Him. I mean it. And you can save your retort shoving it back in my face only to prove your firm position.
Let me clarify #5, as it was written hastilly. ID/Creation Science is not a science. It is a collection of Christians, some of whom have a scientific background, finding to poke holes in a perceived threat to their religion: Evolution. The fact that they refuse to consider such a simple answer as “God planned evolution” shows that they are more interested in defending their holy book than advancing science.
The worst I can say is that you’re wrong. The worst you can say is that I deserve to be tortured for eternity.
Yeah, I think I still have the high-ground.
“The worst I can say is that you’re wrong. The worst you can say is that I deserve to be tortured for eternity.
Yeah, I think I still have the high-ground.”
Wow. That does a great job of summing up what a lot of Atheists have against religion and Christianity in particular (at least in the U.S.).
“The worst I can say is that you’re wrong. The worst you can say is that I deserve to be tortured for eternity.”
That’s not at all my point. On the contrary. Here is what I believe in a short summary.
You are in a vast ocean of water and what you don’t know if that you will eventually drown if you don’t get out. I almost did myself. I don’t look down on you at all. I find it completely insane that so many people say “there is no water” and “I dont need a life raft”. I don’t expect you to believe me or what I believe to be my proof. That is God’s job because faith is something that only He can birth. If faith were based on complete unshakeable scientific evidence it wouldn’t be faith at all.
Here is what I believe in short summary:
We are all living in a big city. Some of us are running around, screaming at the top of their lungs that we’re all in an ocean and drowning. But looking around, we aren’t floating, we aren’t wet, and there’s no water. But some of the screamers are harming others, thinking that they’re ‘rescuing them from drowning’, when all they’re doing is striking people with oars or strangling them while trying to ’swim them in’.
And the evidence of the world seems to show that we aren’t in an ocean, and we aren’t drowning.
As with so many things in this world Morse…perception of reality or “evidence” does not create reality, only the illusion of ones view of perceived reality.
Sorry there Jakey, but evidence is evidence. We can determine it objectively using the scientific method.
Just because what you consider ‘evidence’ is based on your individual perceptions and illusions doesn’t make that true for everyone.
Ok now it’s time to fight. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE calls me Jakey except my kids or my wife.
lol
How about we just disagree and you wait patiently for my next video? Trust me you’ll have PLENTY to say about it…im sure of that.
In the mean time on to the next subject… Barack Obama is basically the AntiChrist…CHEW ON THAT!
I don’t believe in a christ or an anti-christ, so there’s not much to chew.
That being said, are you referring to the email that went around saying that the bible said the antichrist would be a charismatic, middle-aged muslim?
If so, I have bad news for you. There were no muslims when the bible was written.
Not to mention the fact that Barack Obama isn’t a muslim, or a messiah, or an antichrist.
He’s a politician. And now he’s our President. For which I’m glad.
I think that is by far the most irritating part of atheists. NO SENSE OF HUMOR.
Of course I am not that stupid. I know my Bible very well. I know Islam wasn’t around until nearly 500+ years later. I’m speaking rather of what Jesus talks about how he will come, the way in which it will happen. Of course discussing theological ideologies with an atheist is much like discussing french cuisine in Japanese to a deaf Mexican. It just doesn’t make any sense.
The extremes that Christians can believe in are such that one can never assume that they are joking.
Jesus does talk about how he will come…during the lifetime of the people he’s talking to.
And in such lovingly vague terms as to make any tv psychic proud.
You get more and more bold by the minute. Jesus didn’t give you enough “evidence”. He never said anything about the AntiChrist coming in their lifetime…where did you pull that from?
If you’ve read the teachings of Christ you would know that almost everything He said was deeply prophetic and many of his teachings were parables that seemed to the masses not to make sense. Using your frame of reference that there “is no God” to judge or understand Christians makes you look just silly.
It’s like trying to critisize calculus when you don’t even know how to add. But maybe if you continue to come up with whitty banter I’ll give up and become and atheist too…lol
And maybe with enough time I can evolve into a flying spaghetti monster. Right?
“Jesus talks about how he will come”
That statement has an uncertain pronoun. I assumed “he” was “Jesus”. And Jesus says he’ll come back during the lives of the people he was talking to. And he’s 2000 years late, it seems.
“He said was deeply prophetic and many of his teachings were parables that seemed to the masses not to make sense.”
Again, you’re right, his statements were vague. He’d make John Edward and Sylvia Browne proud.
“It’s like trying to critisize calculus when you don’t even know how to add”
Not quite.
It’s actually like criticizing calculus when no one can show evidence for calculus. However, there are thousands of explanations of what calculus is, but they’re all mutually exclusive.
“And maybe with enough time I can evolve into a flying spaghetti monster. Right?”
I recommend you get a text book and read up on what evolution actually is. You might learn something.
When did He say He was coming back in the life time of the apostles? Yah feel free to keep attacking Jesus, I bet you do that with Islam and Buddhism too right? I bet this isn’t because you hate Christianity and Christians…I bet…
I’ve learned Evolution in college and it’s complete bologna. Just because I don’t believe it doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with me, it just means I chose not to accept the THEORY as anything more than that, a HORRIBLY FLAWED PATHETIC THEORY.
“When did He say He was coming back in the life time of the apostles?”
Matthew 23: 36. He says specifically that the end of the world will come during this (when he’s talking) generation.
I don’t attack Jesus…I can’t attack someone who either didn’t exist or is dead.
But I’d be happy to badmouth both Islam and Buddhism. Muhammed was an ignorant warlord pedophile, and Buddha was prince who spoke nonsense.
I think the fact that you don’t understand the difference between a scientific theory and the word ‘theory’ used colloquially does show that there’s something wrong with you.
γενεὰν (generation) is used 4 times in the New Testament and is said to mean the spiritual condition of the nation of people who go against God’s law. It did not represent time of life span as it is understood in the English language now but rather a condition or group of people as a nation and their position toward God.
Nice try.
So moving on this conversation is completely pointless. But thanks for the fuel. You helped birth a new segment I am gonna call. Atheism 101. I will make you proud.
….lol
Question:
When you say “If faith were based on complete unshakeable scientific evidence it wouldn’t be faith at all,” then why do you look for similar evidence that evolution is flawed and conclude that God exists and that He must have created us outright with no Evolution involved? In fact, why even have Creation “Science” when science proving the existence of a “creator” would negate the need for faith completely?
Just because I look for evidence to support my faith doesn’t mean I require the evidence to support my faith. I have never dismissed macro evolution as used by God, I do not however believe in micro evolution whatsoever.
Far be it from me to correct you, Jakey, but I think you’re confusing micro and macro evolution.
Not that it matters, since those terms were invented by creationists and are meaningless; there’s only evolution, not micro or macro.
My point is that you look for something that shouldn’t exist.
On the topic of “micro” vs. “macro” evolution, I have to ask the questions:
What is your background in Biology? Do you work in the field? Do you have a degree in a related field? Have you seriously studied evolutionary biology at all in a professional setting?
I ask because I see a lot of people (in this type of situation especially) use terms and reference findings that they understand only the surface of (the equivalent of reading a few articles or watching a few informational videos) in an attempt to challenge someone they believe will not be familiar enough with them to refute them. This often works to their advantage even IF the other person is familar with the subject in a debate setting because refutation of scientific research observed by people who aren’t experts is little more than a contest of charisma. Both of us could cite numerous nutjobs and the observers wouldn’t know the difference.
My background is completely irrelevant. I never presented a rigorous argument for the many, many areas where I feel micro evolution falls short. I will say that I am much more experienced than it seems, but I would rather show the absurdity of the matter because I it seems to be the only way people pay attention anymore. Like it or not it’s true.
“I never presented a rigorous argument for the many, many areas where I feel micro evolution falls short.”
Because you don’t have one.
You are right I don’t have ONE. I have dozens.
And you aren’t posting them…why?
Because you don’t have any. What you do have will almost certainly be ridiculous and easily refuted.
So, by all means, present them. I like target practice.
And you aren’t posting them…why?
Because you don’t have any. What you do have will almost certainly be ridiculous and easily refuted.
So, by all means, present them. I like target practice.
I have yet to hear of any reasonable explanation for your MASSIVE evolutionary gaps SCREAMING AT YOU from the fossil record.
/mindless nonsensical rant GO
Simple.
Not every species fossilized.
And when we find a new species, shockingly, there are two new gaps.
Wait a second…please show me the VAST numbers of other “gap” species…oh wait… THERE ARE NONE.
I love how no matter how much “evidence” you have it just hurts soooooo bad when we deal with the actual proof in the “gaps”. I love how we have MILLIONS of fossils showing all the species and only a few vague examples of monkey men…that’s not proof that is called…
wait for it….
hope you aren’t allergic to dairy….
LEGENDARY FAITH
“Wait a second…please show me the VAST numbers of other “gap” species…oh wait… THERE ARE NONE.”
Archaeopteryx lithographica
Pikaia gracilens
Arandaspis prionotolepis
Tiktaalik roseae (my favorite)
Hynerpeton bassetti
Eryops megacephalus
Procynosuchus delaharpeae
Yanoconodon allini
Pakicetus inachus
Ambulocetus natans
Kutchicetus minimus
Dorudon serratus
Basilosaurus cetoides
Hyracotherium leporinum
Merychippus insignis
Shall I go on?
Oh yeah, some of your ‘monkey men’.
Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
)
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus bahrelghazali
Australopithecus garhi
Paranthropus aethiopicus
Paranthropus boisei
Paranthropus robustus
Homo rudolfensis
Homo habilis
Homo cepranensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens sapiens (Wait, this one is us.
Tip of the iceburg, Jakey.
WOW!! I think a couple of authors put it most eloquently for me, who was once a doubter and now a full-fledge believer. There is too much to put it here in a blog. But, if you can read “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis (once an athiest) and The Language of God by Francis Collins (also once an athiest), I think you will see some of your “evidence” you are looking for. Everything is faith really, besides a few small things-death and gravity, for example. You take a leap of faith when you trust in a green light, or a new job, or that you will wake up in the morning. What evidence is there for that. One more thing, I would like for you to show me “evidence” for love.
“My background is completely irrelevant. I never presented a rigorous argument for the many, many areas where I feel micro evolution falls short.”
My point is that I don’t think you have an understanding of evolution any more detailed than you have been trained to understand by those with an agenda to strengthen Christianity (Creation “Scientists”, ministers, etc). Did you read somewhere in a real, peer-reviewed journal that a scientist came to a conclusion similar to that of Creation “Science”, or did you just read the articles released by think tanks like the Discovery Institute?
As morsec0de said, most who say “I believe in macro but not micro evolution” are merely spouting Creation “Science” talking points. When someone says something like this, it is a clue to people familiar with the theory of evolution that the speaker is not well informed on the subject and has been getting their information from biased sources with a clear agenda of spreading doubt. Your blackberry experiment is the equivalent of my “box of gears” analogy. Listen to your very words, in an early comment:
“Your opinion of a “lack of evidence” is completely based in an emotional disdain for Christians which is evident in your responses.”
Can you tell me honestly that YOUR opinion, that evolution (apparently it only applies to “micro” evolution though) is a “HORRIBLE FLAWED THEORY,” is based completely on objective thinking? As you said, do you think it is possible that YOU “have a predisposition for our evidence and discount it simply because…” YOUR RELIGION “…says it’s invalid.” Every argument you can make against atheist evolution believers can be turned right back around at you for your creationist beliefs. There is one difference, however…
We have an ever increasing mountain of visible as well as genetic examples of evolution in the progression of life on Earth, while you have the observation of expected and admitted impections (which are being worked on constantly by many people who have PhDs in the subject) in our evidence and one out of countless other equally imperfect (if not significantly more so) “holy” texts.
“I have yet to hear of any reasonable explanation for your MASSIVE evolutionary gaps SCREAMING AT YOU from the fossil record.”
I could say the same about religion. Why does the bible have ANY inconsistencies? Why is it okay to consider some passages more or less irrelevant (stoning children, banishing people for countless acts we take for granted in these modern times) as we become more modern, while others must be adhered to strictly (like the ONE reference [which sits among many of the above referenced silly offenses] to homosexuality)? Why are there so many denominations of every religion? Why are older religions (now referred to as “pagan”) considered foolish?
You think atheists have to have more faith than evangelical Christians? I think it takes very little faith to believe in an admittedly imperfect yet constantly improving (using universally agreed upon methods and rules) perspective of the history of life on earth (one that an overwhelming consensus of scientists agree on, save for minor details that pale in comparison to the differences between religions or even denominations within a religion). It takes a whole lot of faith to believe in a specific deity and set of believes given the multitude of equally baseless (scientifically) deities and belief systems that open up the moment you consider the possibility that a supernatural creator could exist.
Well said Jules. That just sums it all up. Hey “The Paradox” im gonna have to write an entire blog responding to that…give me a few…
Morsecode what I love the most is how your evidence is so often an excuse for your apathy. I’ve never seen an atheist soup kitchen, atheists sending medical aid to Africa, atheists feeding the homeless in their spare time, I’ve NEVER seen you people do anything other than SPEW your disdain for US.
Enough is enough.
You don’t like what we believe because we chose Faith and God? FINE.
In the meantime I’m going to continue to help the homeless, visit people in prison, pray for the sick and help them where I can, build homes for the homeless, go to third world countries and build food shelters, and make a difference in my community and the world. You can continue to sit there and stay angry about something you don’t understand.
No one is going to remember you for how smart you are, how much you know, all the “evidence” you have, they will remember for the life you live.
Atheism is an excuse. Period.
You just lost a lot of respect in my book, Mr. Morales. I think you bring just as much disdain, just as many predispositions, and now I will add just as many if not MORE offensive preconceptions to this discussion.
I believe you just gave morsec0de the response he has been looking for. Judgemental, self-righteous, and accusatorial.
Atheism does not imply immorality and apathy. To say that atheists are interested only in themselves and hate America (WTF? Where did this come from?)…is rude, offensive, and incorrect.
Do me a favor and ask yourself how many christian charities WELCOME or EMPLOY non-christans? How many christian missionaries would be in out there in the world if they weren’t allowed to serve a side of Christ along with the help they offer? How many christian charities also collect money from non-christians, and then donate it in the name of their church or organization? How many christian charities receive money from the government (aka tax dollars) to help them do their work? I don’t deny that there are many christians out there who genuinely want to help people. But don’t you dare assume that there are no atheists who feel the same way, somehow using atheism as their excuse for apathy (how does that even work?).
The difference, Jakey, is that atheists don’t promote it when they help people. Because we don’t care if you agree with us, we just want to help out fellow human beings.
So when we give someone a bowl of soup, we don’t insist they read a book of old fairy-tales first.
I was looking around and saw this. I think you might want to check it out:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9360.htm#DONEGOOD
Who says I promote it, I do it to help people period. I never look to indoctrinate people. But I’m interested, what do you do?
AND PLEASE Paradox, I’d LOOOOOVVVVVEEEE to see all of these philanthropist atheists you speak of…
LOL WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE!?!??! LOL!!!
I could care less if you respect me, respect is irrelevant. Truth is what matters.
Mr. Morales, you might want to check out positiveatheism. Just google it, since I am unable to post a link here.
“LOL WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE!?!??! LOL!!!”
*cough*BillGates*cough*
Only the biggest single philanthropist in the world…but hey, who is counting?
LOL nice try Morse.
“Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don’t know if there’s a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid.”
That is not an atheist that is an agnostic.
Try again.
ROUND TWO….FIGHT
“Who says I promote it?”
I saw you are an “evangelist” as per your “about the author” page. Just to make sure I’m not crazy, I looked it up:
Main Entry:
evan•ge•list Pronunciation: \i-ˈvan-jə-list\
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
1. (often capitalized) : a writer of any of the four Gospels [I'm assuming not you]
2: a person who evangelizes ; specifically : a Protestant minister or layman who preaches at special services
[evangelize - 1 : to preach the gospel to, 2 : to convert to Christianity]
3: an enthusiastic advocate
Going with the more likely 2 or 3, I’d say you are a self proclaimed promoter of Christianity.
You are asking what do I do? For a living or for the good of people?
I work for a school district, fixing and maintaining computers and networks. I am also going to school part time. I don’t have a lot of money nor do I have a lot of uncommitted time.
For the good of people I am a very kind, generous, patient, and helpful person. Staff members tell me this often, though frankly I don’t think I’m capable of not being who I am. I am extremely empathetic in general, which causes me to be this way. I do computer work for people I know and family. If I know they aren’t wealthy, I will charge them very little if anything at all. In the Spring, I worked on a custodian’s ancient computer, gave him some of my own parts to get it working, and made several trips back and forth (he lives 30 minutes away from me) to his house. What did I charge him? He DJs for his family and is trying to start up a DJing business to make extra money for his daughter to go to college. I asked for a discount if I ever need his services. I figured this way he pays nothing and gets some confidence about his business. Will I ever need his services? I highly, highly doubt it. Other times, I’ve helped him find better deals on equipment, since he doesn’t have a credit card and isn’t comfortable buying things online…
This is just some guy who works in one of the buildings I work at, who asked me for advice some day. He’s a devoted and god-fearing christian – I don’t discriminate.
If you want examples that sound like church charity events…I’ve given to a few charities when I can, sometimes I’ll do something like buy a paper shoe at the supermarket or something (gives one dollar to some charity). A few years ago I was hoping to help with a Homefront program (specifically tutoring kids of homeless families while their parents work at night) but I have such a busy schedule that they didn’t want me, since they wanted to give the kids a consistent tutor every week. I’ve worked with groups advocating for Gay Rights (I’m not gay), advocating for the environment, groups trying to bring institutional racism to light…
Oh, I gave a guy at a train station a $20 while we were waiting for a train. I won’t get into his story.
“AND PLEASE Paradox, I’d LOOOOOVVVVVEEEE to see all of these philanthropist atheists you speak of…
LOL WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE!?!??! LOL!!!”
I don’t speak of a wealth of philanthropist atheists. I speak of the average atheist, who I am stating is no more or less a good person than the average Christian.
“I could care less if you respect me, respect is irrelevant.”
Apparently. I like to give people the benefit of doubt and respect them from the start. I still respect you, even though your actions have not earned it. I just respect you less and less and you keep being hostile.
“That is not an atheist that is an agnostic.
Try again.”
Don’t get technical. Doesn’t actively believe in a god, and he’s not religious. He’s not a anti-god-advocate. Is that our definition of atheism?
You should start a blog if you don’t already have one paradox..some of your responses are entire blogs
I don’t mean that scarcastically believe it or not.
And come on you’ve been asking me to get technical this entire time and now you are telling me not to? He is NOT an atheist, he IS an agnostic, that’s not a +1 for your team. It’s a +0 for both of us.
Okay, I’ll get Technical. I’ve questioned the existence of a god and, technically, remain undecided. I do not actively believe but as I have no definitive evidence against it, the posibility remains open. I certainly don’t believe in the Christian god. I believe most of the more universal religious principals are valid – being nice, not being mean. I guess he’s on my team after all!
morsec0de, how about you?
I normally don’t have this much time, but there was a teacher’s convention last week (no kids, no teachers) and we are way ahead of schedule at work and waiting on a big project that’s coming up. I’ve considered a blog, but then things get busy.
by “I certainly don’t believe in the Christian god” I mean I’m by no means a Christian. My mistake – I’m multitasking and was planning on rephrasing that.
You are extremely intelligent Paradox. You’ve posted enough materials in terms of comments alone that would quantify many well written blog posts. Think about it. I’ve gone a week+ without entries and considering I just started this a month ago I’ve had plenty of traffic. Especially considering my demographic…
Christian + Apologist + Hispanic + Anti Atheist + Extremely Opinionated
Yah…pretty much like 2 people should want to read anything I write or do on Youtube.
With that said…My next Video is entitled “Atheism 101: Does Objective Moral Truth Exist?” Look for it in about a week
I appreciate the flattery (though while I may have quantity in the comments of this blog, quality is another thing) and will consider it. My main desire is to have discusion and debate. I find it much easier to, when time permits, have extended discussions with existing bloggers.
Back to the topic at hand, I do consider myself an atheist, albeit an open-minded one. I have friends with similar interest in helping people and being a good person but who would fall into your definition with a rigid disbelief in the existence of a god. The important aspect of my argument against your claim is quite the opposite of what I suspect your video will be about. People can (and many do) behave morally and justly without having to reference a holy book or acknowledging a particular (or any) deity. Bill Gates falls into this category. While he may acknowledge uncertainty about a god and validate many religious values (according to the quote) he does not state that he uses religion or a god to make the decisions about his charity-related activities. He is therefore no more or less capable of being charitable than an atheist.
So let me get this straight. You believe there can be “objective values” that are not based on perception? If so do you not see how that implies there are objective laws governing morality?
If you grant any of those can’t you see how that implies the question…”Where did objective morality come from?”
And if fact there is no objective morality then who are you or I to say Hitler, the Hutus, The Roman’s slaughtering innocents, were wrong?
I want a serious response that is truly objective.
Perhaps I am incorrectly guessing the topic of your next video. I had assumed that it would sound a lot like a discussion I had with a minister about whether or not right and wrong can exist without “God.”
I am not well versed enough in obscenely ancient history to be able to tell you when mankind first figured out it was better to not be a prick. I know many theorize that evolution (empathy, psychology) and culture (passing on values) played a major part in determining what our modern values are. Religion, as part of culture, has certainly been a vessel for many of these values (along with some other values I am not too fond of).
I’m not sure what you mean when you use the word “objective.” I don’t believe in absolute morals, if that is what you are getting at. I’ve had a nice long debate about it though. Hopefully you are better at discussing it then the last guy – I think some things I said went over his head and he just kept insulting me and accusing me of being an America-hating, terrorist-loving danger to mankind…or something.
“And if fact there is no objective morality then who are you or I to say Hitler, the Hutus, The Roman’s slaughtering innocents, were wrong?”
I think I better understand what you mean now. I must have read your response too quickly – again, sorry I was multitasking.
My answer to THIS question is we are human and would find it objectionable were such acts committed upon us. I’m sure Hitler as well as many Hutus and innocent-slaughtering Romans felt that they were justified. It is their right to feel justified. Just like it is the right of neo-nazis and KKK and Aryan Nation members to believe what they want. However, the greater consensus among humanity does not agree with them, and so they are in the wrong.
Woah Woah Paradox. Let’s analyze your statement. “However, the greater consensus among humanity does not agree with them, and so they are in the wrong.”
So what if the “greater consensus” changes and the majority believe that it is right to let’s say perform human sacrifice.
The Mayans believed this, they not only believed it but they truly convinced this was a holy act. Now regardless of when they lived the greater consensus was they were right…your logic would then indicate they were right in believing this.
Furthermore, what is modern society (and it’s not improbable to say it could, i.e. muslim extremists) begins to believe that acts of violence are acceptable when they are mandated by “god”. What if the majority of the entire world believes this? Does that make them then right?
Your logic would certainly imply this.
Also let’s deal with the issue of the “right to believe whatever you want”. Hitler had a “right” to believe that Jews ought to be slaughtered? Well as we know his “belief” lead to action that lead to largest genocide in human existance.
He really had a “right” to believe whatever he wanted? Sure he had the ability, but the “right”.
Moreover isn’t condemning his actions implying a “moral absolute” that you say you don’t believe in?
Let me add this last bit to the end of my last comment before I go to class. Hitler and co. were in the wrong. They are in the wrong because they followed through and acted on their beliefs, committing acts that the vast majority of modern people (myself included) find unacceptable. The more modern groups mentioned are not in the wrong, so long as they do not act upon beliefs that “cross the line” as determined by the majority. It’s a very complex balancing act involving consensus, social contract, and maybe some other things I can’t think of at the moment.
Well you just put the nail in the coffin in your argument.
“As determined by the majority” implies it is relative to the perception of the masses based on an implied judgment that people are by nature “good”. We know by history alone, that is just not true.
That my friend is just scary….
“He really had a “right” to believe whatever he wanted? Sure he had the ability, but the “right”.”
Yes. What we do in our head is our right. If believing something is outlawed then we would enter the realm of thought crime. The majority has determined thoughts, which do not always turn into action, cannot be considered crimes. Do I think it serves humanity for these groups to hold pow-wows and reinforce their beliefs? No, I don’t. But, to use a simple, selfish example, if someone decides not believing in a god might be dangerous and that such people should be allowed to think that way, thought crime would impact me negatively. So they can think what they want until humanity finds a better solution, so long as they don’t cross any lines.
“As determined by the majority” implies it is relative to the perception of the masses based on an implied judgment that people are by nature “good”. We know by history alone, that is just not true.
People are by nature capable of sympathy, empathy, and critical thinking. Some of us may have “a screw loose” (antisocial personality disorder, formerly called sociopaths, simplified as no empathy) as the saying goes (the downside of random mutation) or some of us may have been raised in an environment where the local culture teaches us that some things are acceptable, even though the majority disagrees.
What I’m trying to say it that while everyone can have different beliefs, we all can (almost) all understand that some actions have to be taboo. Even jerks and people who do not have a healthy dose of natural sympathy and empathy can understand that another person or group might use that action to affect us negatively. Do not do others harm, do not steal, etc. This is an unspoken social contact.
Consensus is built around this contract; it is codified and made into law. It could be state law or (most of) the 10 commandments. Society builds incentives and punishments, and here we are today.
“…do not steal, etc.”
If someone has to steal to feed his family is that wrong? Isn’t your statement, “Do not do others harm, do not steal, etc.” a moral absolute?
Note that this is a bit jumbled. If I am unclear or my works don’t make sense please ask me to clarify.
In my personal opinion, stealing to feed one’s family can be acceptable or unacceptable, depending on the circumstances. Has that person exhausted every other legal option? If they have then, in my opinion, theft is acceptable – but I would also make a judgement based on who they are stealing from and who else it is possible to steal from. I have a bit of Irish in me which may lead to that kind of opinion. (I’ve sang along with songs like “The Fields of Athenry” way too many times. The first verse is the first thing I thought of when I read your response. And no, I do not support the terrorist group known as the IRA.)
It is human nature (for most people) to think of one’s family and self as the highest priority (which has had major benefits throughout the history of human development). This is what makes the initial social contract possible! However, American society decided quite a while ago that everyone has a fair enough chance to get what they need, rendering theft unacceptable and leading us to establish laws based on that.
These values are not absolute as laws CAN be changed should society (if even on a local level, like a town law) feel the need. Just consider the laws of America, or smaller parts of America. Is any single law truly absolute? Is there no way to modify it, should the need arise? Even the constitution can be amended. The great moral decision exercises do more to prove that morality is NOT absolute than anything in my opinion. Stealing to feed your children, the man with the sick wife and a pharmacist who refuses to sell him medicine, etc. All decisions that make you ask so many questions and are difficult for most people to make a simple, quick judgement.
Heck, even now it’s okay to kill someone, given the right circumstances. We consider things like self defense…or if it is spontaneous it is not as bad as if it was planned…and the motives can be important. In some states, even the government can kill people – they call it execution. Get my point?
Wow! I missed an entire thought-filled post of yours! Sorry – I didn’t mean to ignore it. There are just so many posts here…though I am the one to blame for that.
“So what if the “greater consensus” changes and the majority believe that it is right to let’s say perform human sacrifice.”
Then who exists, with any kind of power, to tell them that they are wrong? Yes, in the opinion of society at that time, it is right. The society we live in disagrees and in fact finds the idea quite awful, myself included. America once thrived on slavery (something parts of the bible include)! While we regret that part of our past society frequently updates its values – often driven by philosophy, science, and technology – bit by bit, usually for better but sometimes for worse.
*Please note that these sacrifices were driven by and made possible because of superstition and religion. If they did not have the fear of retribution from some higher power I doubt they would have been sacrificing people for the fun of it. This is one of the dangers I find in religion. Even if something seems completely insane in the logic of the physical world, you can always claim that some vengeful, impossible to prove supreme being demands it be done. Even if philosophy, science, and technology move on this force can still slow down and even halt progress. Fear is very, very powerful.
“Furthermore, what is modern society (and it’s not improbable to say it could, i.e. muslim extremists) begins to believe that acts of violence are acceptable when they are mandated by “god”. What if the majority of the entire world believes this? Does that make them then right?”
My above argument applies here as well.
““As determined by the majority” implies it is relative to the perception of the masses based on an implied judgment that people are by nature “good”. We know by history alone, that is just not true.
That my friend is just scary….”
Yes, it is very, very scary and very fragile. This is why I am arguing in favor of Evolution and against the pervasive “Intelligent Design” theory. Philosophy, science, and technology need to progress in order for society to progress. The better we understand the world, the more fair and balanced our values will be. Attacks on this effort, attempts to bring back 2000+ year old ideas and call them the truth, will slow or halt our progress and our evolution as a society. While I agree that some of the 2000+ year old ideas are valid, many of them are invalid and some of them are dangerous. The valid ones have persevered and the others have been modified or discarded (or soon will be, such as values regarding homosexuality) as humanity’s values evolved.
“Yes, in the opinion of society at that time, it is right.”
But when the opinion of a society deems murder, genocide right, you really believe that is right? That’s complete insanity my friend. So you are saying that if a majority of the world believes that the genocide of a particular “heinous” group that is deemed unworthy of living (who have done NOTHING wrong objectively) that the majority is right simply because they represent a majority?
I agree with you that stealing to feed ones family when all resources have been exhausted makes it acceptable (not necessarily right) for that person. There is a certain amount of subjectivity in this idea because to let ones children die from starvation because you “must” follow a law is well as it has been said “an unjust law is no law at all”.
Now the majority says that illegal immigration is wrong. Yesterday a friend of my family was eating breakfast with his three children. He has worked here for 18 years voluntarily paying taxes. Has hired an attorney to help him become a citizen 3 years ago. He has done ALL due diligence to be here legally. He was eating his breakfast spending time with his kids and ICE broke down his door, stormed his house, and handcuffed him and took him to jail.
He’s not a criminal, he’s done nothing wrong accept break the rule of a majority. He’s been married to a U.S. Citizen for 5+ years and is a wonderful father and person.
He is sitting in a jail cell RIGHT NOW for where he was born. His family REQUIRES his income to survive. They are in deep sh*(@ because the majority says so.
Is this right?
“But when the opinion of a society deems murder, genocide right, you really believe that is right?”
You are making the mistake that the person I debated with earlier made. I am not a member of this hypothetical society and I do not believe that genocide is acceptable. I am not under the influence of whatever environment, history, words, or conceptions that has convinced the vast majority of your hypothetical society that such action is neccessary and deserved. Were you to be under the influence of that society, born and raised in it, chances are you too would agree with them…and if you didn’t, you’d have the burden of finding others like you and trying to build up a movement to change the values society for the better. Kind of like I assume you are doing now, but with different issues.
What you are doing is assuming that you are capable of judging something as absolutely, objectively “evil.” You make this assumption because you believe in a power similar to my asterix note.
Don’t supply me with hypotheticals where people believe something, that we in our society consider appaling, is acceptable in the hypothetical society. You need to show me how that is impossible because there is already a divine presence that clearly defines right and wrong and that people who move against these definitions of right and wrong are colored with various shades of “evil.”
I am saying that we are forever evolving a sense of right and wrong based on consensus and using the knowledge and ideas we acquire through philosophy, science, and technology.
Woah woah woah. Who said anything about a hypothecial society. This is happening in Darfur, Rwanda, the Congo, parts of Swaziland in the past 10 years. I spent time in South Africa and there are MILLIONS of people who believe in this genocide. They represent the majority, and I’m asking you IS IT RIGHT?!
You’ve made countless arguments now that imply an absolute right and wrong and when you are asked about it you dodge it and try to convolute it with “well it’s actually quite grey” when you KNOW it’s not.
Genocide is wrong, yesterday, today and forever regardless of public opinion. Period.
Right?
If you don’t completely emphatically agree then well…wow…
“He is sitting in a jail cell RIGHT NOW for where he was born. His family REQUIRES his income to survive. They are in deep sh*(@ because the majority says so.
Is this right?”
Do *I* think it is right? No. Right now, does either of us thinking it is right instantly release him from jail? No, obviously it doesn’t.
You are giving me examples of what you consider to be wrong or unfair situations. Why? What does this have to do with a supposedly “divine” right and wrong vs. a perceived right and wrong? It shows that people aren’t all the same, that their “gut” tells them different things based on how they were raised, what they know, and what experiences they’ve had in life. All of these examples argue that the world we live in is guided by perception and not some objective, omniscient divine law. The law you are talking about in unprovable, because it only rewards and punishes after death. Right now, we can’t even prove that souls exist, let alone where they go after our heart and brain cease to function.
I’m telling you that right and wrong is a perception, not divine judgement. By giving you or acknowledging other real or imaginary people’s perceptions, I don’t approve of them. In fact, I usually share my own personal disagreement. Is that understood?
I have never used the word “divine” I have said absolute…there is an enormous difference. I believe it can be proven. Do you believe in Karma?
I have heard countless stories of people who have medically died and come back minutes later to tell stories of horrific places and heavenly places they visited. There are literally hundreds of these stories from people around the world from all cultures and places…it’s hard to discount that evidence as just “chance” or chemical responses.
“IS IT RIGHT?!”
The answer depends on your definition of “right” and “wrong.” It is perceived. In my perception, all the more recent examples you have mentioned, I agree with you.
However, it won’t stop or change anything until enough people agree.
“it’s hard to discount that evidence as just “chance” or chemical responses”
While there is a correlation in things mentioned by many people who have near death experiences, this is a very difficult to explore topic. What some people remember from a time where blood flow to the brain has slowed significantly or stopped CAN be explained by the existence of a soul, heaven, hell, etc. However, we are all also human. It CAN be explained vaguely as what human biology and the chemicals present during early death can cause us to remember. These experiences also could have occured before the concept of heaven and hell was conceived and contributed to that idea within Christianity.
I read something a while ago and tried to find something similar and go this. Check it out:
http://psychicdeli.googlepages.com/inducingnear-deathexperienceswithchemica
Also, another danger that religion, especially one that advocates a present, justice dealing “God,” is the just-world fallacy. I don’t know how you feel about wikipedia, but this entry is short and simple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon
Can you give an example of absolute morals that can’t be explain by things like the social contract and the self-interest (and biological) aspect of altruism?
Finally, what is your justification for absolute morals, if not divine mandate?
I’ll answer your questions with a question…
Is rape ever right? YES or NO. No long winded explanations of your answer…it’s a yes or no question.
That’s not the right question, Jake. The proper question is:
Is sex ever wrong?
Yes.
When it’s rape.
Rape is wrong for who? For everyone, regardless of the majority’s consensus and perception, for all cultures of all times, period?
I’m sure based on your previous response you’d say yes.
That my friend is a moral absolute. You can dissect it all you want, you can reason you way out and call it something else.
Rape is wrong for everyone, for all times, no matter what the perception of the majority.
You all believe in objective moral absolutes and refuse to call them that because of the clear implications they carry.
But sex isn’t.
Rape is a subset of sex. What is it about rape that makes it immoral? The force and the lack of consent.
We can determine, scientifically, that force and acting without consent can be harmful to the person whose consent you are violating.
You, my friend, are advocating situational morality. Which is wonderful.
Sex is the act. In certain situations it is moral (in a loving, consensual relationship like a marriage), and in certain situations it is immoral (when it is forced, and called rape).
Glad we can agree that all this ‘absolute’ morality is nonsense.
You are avoiding the question repeatedly. I didn’t ask for a situation where I couldn’t come up with an excuse for horrible behavior – in fact very few (if any) of the situations you came up with so far have any excuse given the society we live in now and the mindset we have. I have repeatedly agreed with you that these things are wrong, in my opinion. Do they prove that there are morals that go beyond evolved and cultural behaviors? I have seen no proof so far.
There are times in our recent and ancient past where rape has been condoned and considered acceptable. I’m sure “cave” men raped “cave” women before man developed communication skills. There is a commonly used phrase that describes what soldiers did in ancient times, and even RIGHT now in Africa: rape and pillage. Some slaves were raped regularly. Sex trafficking is major concern in our modern world.
Portions of the world, some large and some small, throughout history and still today consider rape to be acceptable practice.
So, I ask again, can you give some sort of absolute moral that we all share and understand and hasn’t resulted from mankind’s evolution and social experiences over time?
Morse I grow weary of debating your increasingly poor attempts at getting off the issue.
It’s because there are people like you who seek to create confusion out of an absolute moral truth like rape that we have such division in this country. You think we are progressing, I am confident that in the coming future you will see just where your “progressive” perspective on your perceived reality is taking you. What sad is that so many of the people who side with you don’t and won’t see it until it’s far too late.
Taking your shots on my ideologies is meaningless to me. Even if you feel like you have the upper hand and I am truly a mindless barbarian who clings to archaic concepts; it changes nothing and won’t ever sway me or those like me in any way. On the contrary it deepens the disdain that only seems to exist on the side of atheists and non christians.
If it was required of me today I would take a bullet for you, not to save you, not to indoctrinate you, not to get a special gift in heaven, but because there was a point in my life that I needed to be saved from what and who I was, a man died and rose again for me and that man loves us all. If I could do the same for another I would gladly lay my life down. “No greater love than a man who lays his life down for his brothers”. Whether you want to be or not you are my brother and even if we disagree vehemently I would do that for you. And believe me I realize you wouldn’t want that, you would reject that, and I really don’t care…because I wouldn’t be doing it to prove some cosmic faith I have to make you feel bad and see my Truth. I would do it because I love God and do as He asks me, and if He did, I would.
That’s the difference between us, I put my love and faith into action. I make a difference in people’s lives. Like so many atheists I know, such a large portion of your lives is spent on yourself with such an enormous emphasis on attacking Christians whenever you have the chance.
Regardless of the opinions you form based on your “evidence” I know when I go to sleep that I am a good father, an amazing husband, and the people of my community are better off for the things I do for God for them in service. Until you put your beliefs into something constructive, I could really care about your opinions.
I answered your question Paradox. You said rape is wrong. That is an absolute moral truth. You don’t like it, move on to the next blog. I’m not interested in your interpretation of my answer because to call that anything but an absolute moral truth is just plain insanity.
Jacob,
Thank you for ignoring my point and thus conceding the argument.
I knew I could expect this kind of response from you. It avoids you have to answer for your actions…
Not that you need to answer to me, but continue on with your assault, eventually you’ll win a few minds over. What a legacy…hate, dissention, anger, “evidence” lol.
You feel sorry for me for my “blind” faith? Haha…
Define WHAT an absolute moral truth is, please. I’m not talking examples, just a definition that you could use to categorize things as absolute moral truths.
Maybe that is where communication is breaking down.
You telling me that you think rape is wrong and me agreeing with you does not somehow make this an absolute truth. If it is absolutely immoral, why are mercenaries and military men raping the women of villages they pillage in Africa? Why did Americans in our not too distant history rape their slaves?
I am doing some research myself and seeing that “Moral Absolutism” and “Moral Objectivism” are actually two different views – ones we have both been mentioning.
Please clarify which one you believe in and then state your definition of what it means so that I can properly understand your perspective.
Also, please also mention the source of the morals you speak of. I have been assuming that these morals are those handed down by your Christian “God,” but you objected to my using the word “divine” when describing my interpretation of your view.
I could not possibly be more clear. Rape is wrong whether or not people adhere to the law governing it to be wrong. I believe morality is objective whether or not people chose to acknowledge it. What’s not clear about this?
“hate, dissention, anger, “evidence” lol.”
What hate I have been showing? What anger?
Mild amusement. A bit of dislike for someone sneering at evidence. But that’s it.
“It avoids you have to answer for your actions…”
Yes I do.
To myself. To my family. To my friends. To society. And to any who I harm.
If you answer for your actions…what do you do to help the world? I’m interested…you want to attack me for my beliefs…well how about yours, what good comes from your position on God and the world?
Who’s attacking you?
I want to disagree with your beliefs. I want to show you why I disagree, and perhaps get you to see why your beliefs are wrong. I want to keep you from harming yourself or others if it looks like your beliefs are leading you down that road. But I don’t want to, nor have I, attacked you.
What do I do to help the world? I donate to charities. I help out with the arts. I give canned goods to food drives. And I promote science and education whenever I can.
Nothing good or bad comes from my position on a god.
My position on the world is that we’re all in this together, and helping others makes them more likely to help me. Not to mention keeps the world a positive and healthy place for any children I may have, who I will love and want to have good lives for themselves.
The assumption so often from you and your allies is that we are harming anyone. Why in the world is it that we are the ones on trial; guilty until proven innocent. We have nothing to prove to you because when you compare apples to apples I and my family do far more to help the community than you have in your entire life.
I hate that I’ve even had to make that distinction, but it’s important because it shows you that even if in the afterlife we find out that I’m wrong, I did a heck of a lot more to help my fellow brother than any atheist I’ve ever known or met. Does it matter? Well, it matters to the people I help. And I don’t do that for attention, for praise or some badge of merit on my shoulder, or for my own selfish religious purposes, or to prove some universal religious mandate. I do it because it matters to the people I help. Period.
You want more people to think like you because you assume based on your “evidence” that I’m wrong. Here is the irony of this whole thing. I NEVER try and indoctrinate anyone, you do. I live my life, I share my story and that has nothing to do with joining a church, a religion, donating money or anything like that. I never make the mistake of forcing people to see the world MY way. I offer the information without cramming it down someone’s throat or insulting them for not believing my “evidence”. My sole goal in life is to help those who need it most.
So assuming you are right, you spend too much time talking and not enough time doing anything that really matters to the countless millions of people who are in need. Either way you look at it, your knowledge and “evidence” is a crutch for you to do just enough to feel good about yourself and continue to live your life the way you see fit.
I could care less about how much you know, your actions speak far louder than any of your words.
“The assumption so often from you and your allies is that we are harming anyone.”
You missed the ‘if’ in my statement. IF you harm someone, then I will be against you.
“We have nothing to prove to you because when you compare apples to apples I and my family do far more to help the community than you have in your entire life.”
Why are you trying to make it a contest? It isn’t a game. It’s just life.
Besides, doesn’t your religion say that it doesn’t matter what you do, as long as you believe and trust in your god? So why should you care?
“because you assume based on your “evidence” that I’m wrong.”
No. I assume nothing. I look at the evidence. Period.
“My sole goal in life is to help those who need it most.”
Then why are you engaging in debate and making youtube videos about atheists?
“So assuming you are right, you spend too much time talking and not enough time doing anything that really matters to the countless millions of people who are in need.”
Not really. I don’t set goals and rules arbitrarily. I help as much as I can. And I’m fine with that.
“Either way you look at it, your knowledge and “evidence” is a crutch for you to do just enough to feel good about yourself and continue to live your life the way you see fit.”
First of all, how I live my life has not changed in any significant way from when I believed to now.
Nor does the fact that there isn’t a supreme being make me particularly happy. It would be awesome if there were some really powerful Superman-like figure who was helping us out. But wishing doesn’t make it so.
“I could care less about how much you know, your actions speak far louder than any of your words.”
What actions? You don’t know me personally, and only assume the things I do.
Think before you speak, sparky.
Exactly Morse…What Actions? Couldn’t have said it better myself.
This isn’t a contest this is about the fact that someone like you tries to make me feel guilty for doing what’s right, and it’s amusing because all you do is flap your jaws pointing fingers.
Once again though trying to explain active social responsibility for the less fortunate to an atheist like you is similar to trying to win the Powerball 50 times in row. There’s just no point.
Where in the world does my Bible say anything about the fact that it doesn’t matter what I do. I’ve read the Old and New Testament in many languages more times than I can count and have NEVER seen that. What in the world are you talking about?
Your snide little insults on your way out only further prove my point.
It’s kinda like…
I walk by a drowning man and jump in, pull him out, get him dressed and feed him. I give him some money and send him on his way proud to have just been there to help.
You walk by throw some money and a can of food at him and continue walking.
How much value do you think I put in your opinions on anything?
…
LOL
“How much value do you think I put in your opinions on anything?”
If you don’t, then why respond? Why get so angry? Why make videos about evil atheists in the first place?
“Once again though trying to explain active social responsibility for the less fortunate to an atheist like you is similar to trying to win the Powerball 50 times in row. There’s just no point.”
This has never been the issue under discussion. You have continually thrown it in as if it somehow means something.
I don’t care, frankly, if your religion turns you into the nicest person in the world. That doesn’t make your religion factually correct.
And I don’t care how many people you help. If it makes you happy, cheers. If it makes the people you help happy, double cheers.
I will help as many people as I can, as often as I can, and I don’t need any god or religion to give me a reason to do so. So I really don’t see any point you have.
I could not possibly be more clear. Rape is wrong whether or not people adhere to the law governing it to be wrong. I believe morality is objective whether or not people chose to acknowledge it. What’s not clear about this?
So what you are saying is that if the entire world (every single man, woman, and child in it) believed that rape was fine, everyone who committed rape would still be doing something morally wrong. Is that correct?
What makes it wrong? Who is left to declare something immoral? What is the source of this moral? The ONLY answer to this question is a surpreme being, such as the Christian “God.” Therefore, your concept of objective morallity is based soley on the existence of an unprovable being or presense. This is why I disagree. This is why I have asked several times for the SOURCE, as a concept cannot exist without something to conceive it. This is why you do not give me an answer. You cannot prove the existence of your source, which leaves you with an opinion instead of the truth you claim to have.
I have to say that the posts put forward here by The Paradox form the clearest and most impressive argument against objective morality that I’ve read.
I would also add that the author of this blog would seem a little presumptuous and judgemental in regard to his beliefs on atheists, (specifically this quote: “I’ve never seen an atheist soup kitchen, atheists sending medical aid to Africa, atheists feeding the homeless in their spare time, I’ve NEVER seen you people do anything other than SPEW your disdain for US.”)
I’m sorry you feel this way Jacob but I am an atheist who has worked voluntarily in a soup kitchen for the last 9 months and in general I try to treat all those I meet with consideration and respect. I have other atheist friends (and religious friends too) who act in the same way.
I would therefore ask for the same consideration in your posts here
Have a lovely day
Is it just me, or have you deleted my most recent posts concerning your offensiveness towards atheists?
Weird. It’s back now that the pages refreshed after I posted that question. Must be a bug in the software. Happened when I posted a link to the positive atheist web site as well. I apologize for assuming you had removed it.
Also, thank you Lucy. Perhaps he’s only really conversed in depth with atheists online…where people, both Christian and atheist, can get much nastier than they normally would in the “real” world.
I like the message, the delivery less. Sorry I bumped you off Alpha Inventions but no matter you’ll be back. Meanwhile read davidwills.wordpress.com the story and work of some old geniuus graphic dude.