วีดีโอ

zappy friday! Steven Pinker's book, "The Blank Slate, The Modern Denial of Human Nature" applies here. Humans have maternal and paternal instinct to love their children. It is sadly all too common for women to suffer from postpartum depression that can override the maternal instinct. Instinct is not the only factor but it is a significant one. The irony here is that from any outsiders perspective, religion is primarily purposed to augment the maternal and paternal instincts and keep families together. Monogamy and all kinds of unnatural things are enforced by religious society to artificially force families to value their children. Yet here you have Turek claiming that god existing is all that is required for people to value children. We have a parenting crisis in this country. Parents are doing a terrible job raising children, just ask any school teacher how children are just left to their own devices. Either the social force supplied by religion is needed to manage families or Turek is wrong. Doctors who treat postpartum depression are much more valuable than Turek mealy-mouth tweeting.

COMMONALITY. When atheists acknowledge the miracle of mind, we can communicate by reason. If mind over matter is not miracle, who should respect the utterings from just a piece of meat that weighs, 3 pounds, on top of just a carbon based lifeform? That is the atheist standard, an accident of carbon based lifeforms we are. The freaking experts don't know the origin, but talk wise sounding theories. ISN'T IT JUST DELICIOUS, atheists take advantage of the miracle of mind to trash miracles?

I don’t think you represented Turek’s view completely accurately here. Turek doesn’t say you need to ‘believe in god’ in order to value your child. He says there has to ‘exist a god’. That’s not the same thing. He’s still wrong, but if we’re going to disagree with him we should get his position right.

We already know why a mother cares for her child more than cockroaches ( or thousands of starving other children): it contains her genes, she put resources into it. It is biology.

This is another attempt of Frank of using all his intellectual power into proving himself right, instead of even thinking for a minute were he could be wrong; which he would find out pretty easily and effortlessly. On the other hand, about your comment on knowing that something is true without knowing why or how to show it as true. You are confusing wishful thinking with emotions and feelings. You don't know why you feel in certain way, you may not even want to feel in a particular way. We fall in love with our children; period. Now, saying that you know the greatest entity in the universe is somewhere out there and you don't know how you know it, well that's most likely your imagination doing what it does.

I consider humans more valuable than cockroaches because I share human emotions, and the same evolutionary history has produced similar emotions in all of us. But the idea that morals are objective isn’t even coherent. This is/ought distinction is impassable.

Even if moral relativism were true, so what? Your wishful thinking doesn't change how reality works. And it seems to me this god stuff is just as relative: no one can agree on anything because there is no evidence. AI is going to take over regardless. AI agents will be competing just as humans do and no one cares. Babies will continue starving to death because frank turek doesn't care either: he's interested in his fairy reward infinite bliss with jesus nonsense. It is all just reward and punishment: you guys just make up fairy tale rewards

While I'm not a theist, I sure appreciate the theists who are actually respectful to my (in their view) wrong beliefs.

Yes his mom is in hell, atheists are correct and millions of xtians are wrong. I am tired of xtian philosophers, theologians, preachers, priests, bible scholars and miriads of youtubers that try to eliminate, diminish or sweet the doctrine of the existance of hell and ethernal punishment. This doctrine is the heart, the cornerstone, the essense, the beginning and the end of the whole creation. Without it there is no xtinanity at all. scholaars

Frank shows he has not read a history book/ Christianity starts in 30 CE or so. At that point China, India and Persia had been going for a while. Were they able to value children? But of course Frank's audience is the poorly educated deep south in which only America has existed and foreigners are funny strange people

You're having to be exceptionally charitable with Frank. lol. I don't think it was a typo. The Christians with whom I've argued online have no idea what the difference between objective and subjective value means. They have no idea that objective value is an oxymoron.

Even if God does exist in the way that Frank Turek believes, the value of human beings would still be subjective, it would just be subject to the opinion of god. Certainly Frank would agree that if God chose to decide the human beings were no longer valuable, that they would no longer be valuable. So then the question simply pushes up a step, how is it that God can decide that human beings are valuable more than say cockroaches? He might say it's because we are his children who he made in his own likeness. And to that I would say, exactly. This is precisely the same reason that human children are more valuable to their parents than cockroaches

This is just the last desperate gasp of a little man who is no longer even able to convince believers that he is not a fool and a clown. Frankie has taken to debating teenagers - and losing - because he has become such a joke, even in the excusegist community. Frankie values himself and money more than anything else, and this disgusting claim proves it once again. Even if your morality comes from your god, and your god actually exists, that morality is still subjective. Morality requires a subject and cannot, by definition, be objective. Frankie knows this - he just desperately wants someone to pay attention to him again, so he spews hate-filled nonsense.

Imagine defense attorneys for Ted Bundy reasoning the way you do about the "fair and balanced" way to interpret your deity's character.

If you can imagine that any animal (other than roaches) love their babies more than they love roaches, then what’s so hard to imagine people loving their babies more than loving roaches? Frank is just making a stupid assumption to mislead fools. Not only that, the passive aggressive nature of that assumption is unlikely to build bridges between atheism and theism.

The parable at the end sounds nice and all, but if you stop and think about it for a second it's rather dumb. The servant is in debt to the king The king who is literally the richest man in the entire country forgives one man's debt The king is still the richest man in the country The servant asks for someone else to pay their debt to him The servant is so poor he literally can't pay his own debt, what makes you assume he can live without the money he's owed? How about you turn this parable with god being the king, with infinite wealth who forgives one single man for his sin, with no repercussion towards his own wealth, while he could also easily forgive everyone else and even repay their debts. And yet he doesn't. And you can even extend it further and apply it in reverse to the original sin, where he punishes literally everyone else for one couple's "sin". Sounds like god could do with listening to some of Jesus' parables

The difference between "knowing" and "showing" is desire/want. If you want to believe you will not need to have to show it. You only demand showing when you don't have the desire for that conclusion.

Of course babies and children are more valuable. It would be disgusting to eat a cockroach. ;)

This is just Turek being his usual ignorant self. ALL human values are subjective, because the valuation is being done by a human. In one circumstance I might value a gold ring over a cheese sandwich. In a different situation the cheese sandwich would have more value. Like beauty, value is in the eye of the beholder, so naturally I would usually value MY kids over someone else's, and their kids over a dog, and a dog over a cockroach. But I still recognize the cockroach has value in nature as part of an ecosystem.

Saying that 'not all of the 40,000+ denominations of Christianity on the planet operate on the kind of repugnant theology these memes critique' misses two crucial points. First, every fundamentalist branch of each of the most prominent denominations operates from this kind of theology and uses the same source text to justify it. The second, and attendant to the first, is regarding the core tenet at the heart of these denominations: A maximally great being with perfect knowledge of our limitations and the power and benevolent incentive to communicate convincingly and unambiguously with each of its creations has instead chosen to convey the most important message any of them will ever hear through a source text so prone to error, internal contradiction, and ambiguity that there is still no unified consensus on exactly what that message is or how to interpret it accurately.

Turek also thinks God can kill children and cockroaches any time He pleases.

I think I am more valuable than a cockroach because its in my genes. Its how I have evolved as a homo sapien. I can't help thinking I am more valuable than a cockroach. I also can't help thinking that Frank Turek is ether stupid or he just tries to play to the converted to sell his books to them. [I go by the latter one myself]

Isn’t value subjective by definition? If no one exists to value something, then in what sense can it have value? If someone does exist to value it, then its value is determined by the subjects who value it, and its value is therefore subjective. Right? You might as well as how objective pain can exist under atheism. It’s incoherent.

انا اختك ابوس ايدك والله تمر ايامنا وليالينا واحنا لانملك شي اين القلوب الراحمه ضااااق حالنا ووضاااااق بنا الحال والله ما كتبت هذا الكلام الا من الضيق وقسوت الضروف يِآ نآس يِآآمٌـٍة مٌحًمٌد صِآرتٍ قلّوبگٍمٌ بلّآ رحًمٌهً ولّآشفُقهً ولّآ آنسآنيِهً گٍمٌ شگٍيِتٍ وگٍمٌ بگٍيِتٍ گٍمٌ نآديِتٍ وگٍمٌ نآشدتٍ ولّگٍن لّآ حًيِآٍة لّمٌن تٍنآديِ هًلّ يِرضيِگٍمٌ آن آخوآنيِ يِبگٍون ويِمٌوتٍون مٌن آلّجُوع وآنتٍمٌ مٌوجُودون يِعلّمٌ آلّلّهً آلّعلّيِ آلّعظَيِمٌ آننآ لّآ نمٌلّگٍ حًتٍى قيِمٌـٍة گٍيِلّو دقيِق آبيِ مٌتٍوفُيِ ﻭﺃﺧﻮﺍﻧﻲ ﺻﻐﺎﺭ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺃﻗﺴﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺍ ﺃﻣﺲ ﺟﻮﻋﺎﻧﻴﻦ ﻭﻫﻢ ﻳﺒﻜﻮﻥ من الالم والولايات ﻳﺎﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺨﻴﺮ ﻫﻞ ﻳﺮﺿﻴﻜﻢ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻣﺲ ﻟﺤﺪ ﺍﻵﻥ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻛﻞ ﻳﺎﺃﺧﻮﺓ الأسلام يافاعلين الخير انا اقسم بالله على كتاب الله اني لااكذب عليك ولا انصب ولا احتال اني بنت يمنيه نازحين انا واسرتي بيتنا ايجار الشهرب 20 الف يمني والان علينا 60 الف حق3 شهور وصاحب البيت من الناس الي ماترحم والله يا اخي انه يجي كل يوم يبهدلنا ويتكلم علينا ويريد يطردنا من البيت للشارع لانناماقدرناندفعله الأجار وما يروح الئ بعدما نبكي ورجعوتكلمو الجيران ومهلنالاخره الأسبوع واذا دفعنا له حلف يمين بالله بيخرجنا إلى الشارع بدون رحمه واحنا.مشردين من بلادنا بسبب هذا الحرب ولانجد قوت يومنا وعايشين اناوامي واخوتي سغار والدنا متوفي الله يرحمه ومامعنا أحد في هذا الدنيا يقف جاانبنا في هذه الظروف القاسيه ومامعي اخوان كباره يقفوامعنا في هذا الظروف اخوتي سغار ولكن انا بنت لااستطيع ان اشتغل اقسم بلله ان اخواني خرجوا على للشارع وشافو وشافو الجيران ياكلو راوقفو وقفوا عند بابهم لجل يعطوهم ولوخبزه يسد بها جوعهم والله الذي له ملك السموات والارض انهم غلقو الباب وطردوهم ورجعویبکوایموتومن الجوع والله ما نجد لقمت عیش والان لوما احدنا ساعدنا في كيلوا دقيق اقسم بالله انموت من الجوع فيا اخي انا دخيله على الله ثم عليك واريد منك المساعده لوجه الله انشدك بالله تحب الخير واتساعدني ولو وتطلب اسم بطاقتي وترسلي ولاتتاخر وايعوضك الله بكل خير فيا اخي انت رجال إذاشفت اسرتك جاوعين المستحيل من اجل تامن لهم الأكب ولكن انابنت عيني بصيره ويدي قصيره ليس لي أب مثلك واخواني سغار شوف كيف حالتهم وساعدنا وأنقذنا قبل أن يطردونا في الشارع تتبهدل أو نموت من الجوع أنا اقسم بالله الذي رفع سبع سموات بلاعمدوبسط الارض ومهداني لااكذب عليك بحرف من هذا الرساله واني ماطلبتك إلى من ضيق ومن قسوت الضروف والحال الذي احنافيه وانا واسرتي نسالك بالله لولك مقدره ﻳﺎﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺨﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻲ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪﺗﻨﺎ لايتاخر علينا لحظه هاذا رقمي واتساب 00967772168484 الذي يقدر يساعدنا يراسلني على الواتساب نرسله ألاسم الكامل يحولنا بقدر استطاعته جزاكم الله خيرتــــ الجزاء~؛؛؛،،،\\,,....`😭||_...,.،،.:،؛٪٪٪،،::::،،،،،]\\]>>]☪☪>⇶]♡].......>..>.<.<.<.<.<.<.>.>..>.>..>.>.>.>..

Is god personal? If the subject, who is god, values humans, then that still means the value is subjective. Such a bizarre apologetic.

I am really fascinated with your point. As a someone who is always in doubts regardless the view i subscribe to , I would like to be able to show that i don't have to solve all the issues and objections. What kind of theology is this view called?

Christians can, in no possible way, value any humans (including babies) more than their god (or their personal conception of god because I'm an atheist). The greatest law is love god with ALL you heart etc. The second (less prioritized) is love others. If you have any love left for humans, you have not loved god with ALL your heart. If what you believe is loving god is ever in conflict with loving others, people lose. If they don't, then you have not loved Jesus and kept his commandment. This dilemma seems a little more diabolical than just saying I value people over roaches because evolutionary influences such as similarity and empathy.

Well, that would depend on who you ask, wouldn’t it? Most people in power only value the young because they can become part of the machine.

Thanks Randall! I so wish I had heard someone like you 60 years ago. To imagine that a Christian can actually question and rationally discuss "established" Christian doctrine is a wonderful thing! Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

It's unequivocal. Jesus Christ our Lord, King, and Saviour rose from the dead and later ascended into heaven. He is the I Am, one part of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity. 11 of the 12 disciples died horrible deaths, some decades after the cruflcifixion for proclaiming this fact. Only John did not because of his loyalty. No one dies for a lie, let alone how the apostles were tortured and executed. And then there are the hundreds of people Jesus cured. Silly questions denying Christ and the Holy Trinity doesn't change the fact that denial of these is literally being an antichrist, or of the Antichrist. God bless

A humane , informed and nuanced critique. As we have come to expect. The need to maintain a belief system (whether that is religious, political or based on nationality) is not to be ever underestimated as it leads to good people making outrageous moral justifications (as well demonstrated here). FWIW my view is that this indicates a very deep but largely unconscious fear. Scholarly debate is necessary and fascinating but we should remember that the roots are emotional and primal (cf William Lane Craig's "low bar" argument.)

I absolutely love your objectivity. As an atheist I appreciate your mentioning that viewing the Hebrew God monstrous is skewed. God is also loving in other passages. The bible is multi-vocal and univocal.

Most reasonable people see through the religious bull....

What is a "new atheist" or a "village atheist"? How do they differ from an atheist?

The characterization of “immigrants in Canada” from “Pakistan” as participating in honour killings is to conflate the generic (immigrants from Pakistan) with the exceptional case (those handful of horrific incidents). At a time when anti-Indian and a generic anti-brown racism (because let’s be honest, if you’re white and racist the distinction is one without a difference) is at a high in Canada, it’s important to be careful with your words.

Consider the parable of the wheat and the tares. Church buildings are full of tares. James 1:22-27. The law of God is for our benefit.

So, this is a strawman meme? Let me steel-man it for you then: John 3:18. Romans 1:20. Revelation… well, all of it I guess. Maybe it’s you who doesn’t understand the gospel. As a matter of fact, if I were a Christian, I would say that you are teaching heresy. And by the way, could you do a little steel-manning for purgatory? That doesn’t seem to be in the so-called good book.

We are judging biblical violence by modern standards...no good.

I also noticed Wes was weak in the second half of the 'debate' because he was outside his expertise and grasping at arguments he'd heard from others. He was much better with Rogan so props to him for learning. He seems an honest and useful worker.

How is the notion that you can go to Hell for not assenting to the nutty beliefs of Christianity not mainstream? Hardly an absurd strawman, tush. The only way to the Father, and all that jazz...

Oh, please... do you believe that the majority of human beings who have ever lived are going to be JUSTLY tortured for eternity, like the Bible implies? If so, you have an imaginary fiend.

Copan’s defence effectively equates the Hebrew texts with the lying propaganda of the Ancient Near Eastern monarchs. I don’t think his supporters have really thought through the implications of this for their hermeneutic.

I like progressive Christians; they understand that the bible is harmful and hurtful, and they want to reimagine it as something kinder... something that isn't anti-human. It's like a stepping stone to abandoning their delusion.

Funny how the one true all powerful all knowing g0d doesn't have the knowledge or the power to make his message to humans unequivocal and unambiguous. It's almost as if the bible was just a collection of contradictory mythological stories and fables stapled together in the same book.

I think there is decent evidence of the historicity of the deutronomic canon also I believe inspiring philosophy’s series on the imperfect mosaic law is a good answer to the problem of biblical violence.

I can see where the idea of literalist hermeneutic could be seen as core to "Jesus died and rose again for sinful human beings" given that many throughout history have tried to reinterpret the gospel message as related by Jude and Paul and argue that Jesus didn't literally rise. Obviously not all progressives hold that view. I agree that a literalist hermeneutic is incorrect, but don't agree with everything in that list. I also agree that arguments like the one made in that tweet are unhelpful to the broader conversation as they don't really take seriously the claims of others.

Apart from the complete inadequacy of the 1-month waiting period (before the kidnapper can marry the captive) from the viewpoint of consent or healing psychological trauma, there is also a more cynical reading. Namely, that the purpose of the 1-month waiting period might well have been to ensure that the woman was not already pregnant, to guarantee that the kidnapper was the father of any future offspring.

There is no such thing as "woke" theology. "Binary" is not a thing. It's an excuse. HYP is right. Salvation is being born again. It's the same for everyone. You die to self (binary or otherwise) and you are raised to new life IN CHRIST. You now have the mind of Christ through the written Word and the Holy Spirit. You have a new heart that wants to obey God and not your desires. It's the SAME for ALL Christians.

Good point, it gets tiresome when OT atrocities are hand waved away by invoking Copan’s book that in my opinion moves the ball backwards instead of forwards. It also shows that many evangelicals have possibly not wrestled enough with these issues and just reduce the response to recommend a book. Every apologist is going to be confronted about OT atrocities and they should be able to discuss it beyond citing a book. But this topic is largely ignored in my evangelical experience.

The 1 Corinthians passage, which many claim was one of the first creeds quoted in the early church, and it found its way into Paul's writings. It states that Jesus died for our sins. That is the basis for penal substitution. That is the Gospel. How is that not understanding the gospel? I do not see how this person defines dying for our sins, according the the scripture, as (only as he implies) meaning He came for "sinful human beings". Dying for our sins had the wonderful result of being the solution to the problem we have as "sinful human beings". By Jesus, the justice of God was satisfied. Justice is completely satisfied by, and ONLY by, an infinite sacrifice. It follows that the "harmful theology" of what is called progressive Christianity, is the loss of focus on Jesus, and His death on the cross. Jesus Himself was apparently, by this persons definition, a fundamentalist. In John 3, when He said the reason people do not believe is because their deeds were evil. The specific "immoral" character referenced in the start of this dialogue. Also, when he loved the rich young ruler, but did not excuse his inability to give up his sinful attachment to materialism, was He not stating that his problem is that he wanted to sin? When he told many of the Jewish leaders their refusal to truly follow God from the heart, and instead seek approval of man, was He not stating that their problem was that they were unwilling to give up their sin? When the apostles He established to start the church stated that those that practice sexual immorality, murder, lying, cheating, stealing, sorcery, lovers of self instead of lovers of God, those that do not love their brother like He loved them, they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, was He not fundamentalist? He loved the rich young ruler by calling out his sin, not by silence. As he did for the woman caught in adultery, the Pharisees, those that lust after a woman, those that do not feed the poor, etc. The sermon on the Mount is a good reference. Throwing in references to pro life (as if killing innocent people are not the very actions of "sinful human beings"), or issues like gay marriage, Christian nationalism is an attempt to build on a narrative driven by culture that "fundamentalists" are somehow "a problem". At issue are "progressives" that believe in a Universal Christ. Whose actions do not believe Jesus when He said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the father except through Me". People that actually do not understand the Gospel. People that think the proper interpretation of the Bible is based on the reader, not the author's intent. Warned about in the letters to the churches, by the apostles, and again in the book of Revelation.