@2:28 Parents who pray over a sick and/or dying child, rather than get medical attention, love their "salvation" more than they love their child. I've seen too many christians say they love their god more than they love their children, because their children can't "save" them.
Two big problems that I encounter in my experience talking to believers. 1. Not one person has yet to provide a clear coherent definition of what this thing is they call God? 2. Most believers didn't arrive at their belief by using logic and reason, so no amount of logic and reason will change their minds. (and some of them will openly admit that) I think most of them believe for emotional reasons and no amount of logic and reason will suffice
Besides that Genesis has been discredited as fact, the flood never happened, the gospels contain contradictions and revisions (listen to Bart Ehrman), and there is no evidence for god whatsoever: what is the problem with Christianity anyway?
1.The flood was a part of the book of Genesis and was an allegory. You didn't look at the deeper meaning. 2.Please list one of these contradictions. 3.Here is the evidence: there is a cause for everything, especially life. There is plenty of evidence to prove a Creator is real. Life itself did not come to existence by a random compilation of protein molecules. Even if there were raw materials needed to assemble protein molecules, the probability of an average-to-primitive type of protein molecule arising are 10 to the 65th power. Moreover, the odds of a simple cell, far more complex than a protein structure, assembling together are 10 to the 40,000th power. It has been scientifically proven that any event in the universe with of 10 to 50th power or greater occurring is impossible. By reason and logic, there has to be a supernatural Creator causing these occurrences. In addition, there are legitimate cases of supernatural occurrences and miracles, including the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, Portugal and the famous Shroud of Turin.
Gabriel Yesus 1. Some people take Genesis literally, some don't. 2. Here's a huge list for you: skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html 3. There is ample evidence that humans evolved from other forms of life and the process of evolution does not require a creator. There are some things that we still don't know, but that is not a reason to commit an argument from ignorance fallacy. 4. The shroud of Turin is a proven fake. I don't know much about the other miracles so I'm not going to comment on that.
snarky77005 As I said previously said, one is not meant to take every single fact and historical related verse. Most, if not all these "contradictions" are merely a glaring, and shallow, conclusions that are about irrelevant subjects drawn to criticize Christians.
Christianity offers the "good news" that The Man in the Sky died to prove his love for you, despite all the ways you have injured him. All you have to do is beg his forgiveness, worship him and send more money. "Born bad, commanded to be good." Christopher Hitchens on God.
@@Jibrilfm well.. when you have a billion years and billions and billions of moelcules... Abiogenesis doesn't seem to impossible.. And even if it was completely impossible then the answer comes - we don't know.. You don't solve a mystery by appealing to another mystery.. it's just a coping mechanism.. When your whole premise revolves around the cause effect thing..you don't get to make a special pleading for the thing you are trying to prove.. that's dishonesty.. If you can claim that god doesn't need a beginning then.. your cause effect thing falls flat .. Just be a bit open minded and cope with the fact that we don't know..
Hopefully not while you and they are at work. You walk up and talk to me about this while I'm at work.. you won't have a job afterwards. And if you do keep your job.. I will sue the company for condoning religious discrimination at the workplace. Have a great day. :)
I have to agree. Keep your religious discussions at work at a minimum. And only if the other agrees or you can tell its not causing either to get extremely irritated. The same goes for politics. Just make sure you're not making a hostile work environment. Its best to do it outside of work to people you're not forced economically to be with every week. There's a time and a place for everything. I personally don't like to bother discussing religious topics that much even with other atheists. The topics I like are more about science, maybe some politics, what they plan on doing for the day or weekend, vacations, trips, economics, and other topics. Religion and all that nonsense lately I just don't bother. Its a dubious topic that has no meaning to me other than to demonstrate we as a species are as intelligent as we think we are. We're idiots thinking magical ferry winkles will give us some magical life afterwards etc. etc. No thanks. And if you want to believe it. Keep it to yourself otherwise I'll begin to question your sanity.
I love this video...."If you believe in a god you're worshiping your own ignorance." This is my new rebuttal. I'm going to use this nonstop. There's your bumper sticker.
Notice the similarity between infection and faith? Both are most likely to strike you when you're most unfit in physical or mental state. Conversely infection and faith are least likely to affect you when you're physically fit and mentally happy/healthy.
No one said our ability to reason and understand stinks. What Eberhard said in this video was that our senses can fool us and that our intuition can often be wrong. This is precisely why we need to use the scientific method and our ability to reason in order to uncover the true causes of the things we perceive.
There is a difference between servants and slaves. Servants choose their masters while slaves cannot. This passage is basically explaining that bosses should be fair and just to their workers because they too have a higher boss they answer to.
I've always found the concept a bit creepy. I always found the scene in the "Avengers" movie where Loki forces a crowd to kneel before him to be very reminiscent of this idea when Loki say, " Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel."
Because "secular morality" is against all of those deaths too, the same way you are. We just came to that conclusion because of our own morality, not because someone else told us what our morality should be.
You are still missing my point. Regardless of the reasons people believe, since science doesn't say 'supernatural events don't occur' there is no contradiction in believing both.
You misunderstand my point. I am not saying that the Bible was gathered through the scientific method. I am saying that knowing the laws of physics is not incompatible with thinking that they can be broken by the being that created them. Science and god are not mutually exclusive, the speaker implied they were. That was my only point. But since you asked, sociology, history, math, everything that you heard another person say that you believed without checking the scientific literature...
You totally dodged my question. Why was it wrong for God to have those children put to death? What moral foundation do you have to say that was a bad act.
What is good is only good because the object of your piety deemed it good, and has consequences. What is bad is only bad because the object of your piety has deemed it bad, and that too has consequences. Your piety is based on the assumption that it has a purpose for certain results. If there were no consequences, then all is permissible. If the object of your piety didn't care, then all is permissible. My question : Why not isolate the goal and reach it with reason and discussion?
His discussion of miracles was in response to the claim that the Bible is totally consistent with science. If it contains events that are supposedly unnatural events, then it's not consistent with science, and that argument of theirs should be thrown out.
Think this way people: if you believe in God and it turns out He doesn't exist, you have nothing to loose, but if you don't believe in God and He actually does exist, you loose everything. It's sad to see how more and more people become toys in the devil's hands.
I meant it as some kind of substantial number. I've read the biggest support for creationism outside America is in Australia, but even there it's not very strong. The idea have very little followers in Europe, so I don't know if I'd call it 'well established' - but I never meant it as 'it doesn't exist here', I know it does. It's just not comparable to the movement in the US on any level, groups lobbying for creationism to be taught in schools a.s.o...
You can't fight language. Americans (as in citizens of the United States of America) use the term "America" to refer to the United States. End of discussion. I don't like the fact that people overuse the word "myself" in grammatically incorrect ways, but I'm wise enough to know that languages have a life of their own.
When people say such a thing they mean that the two systems of thinking are not mutually exclusive (unless of course you take the Bible literally, but I don't think many literalists say that the Bible and science are consistent).
You take the piety stance : Morality is what is decided upon by god. We look at god. 1. Which god? 2. Which denomination or preacher? Why are there denominations? : Because they did not agree. Religion is "subjective." 3. What about people who don't believe in god or preacher? Are all their decisions therefor moral in nature? 4. Can people change morality by deciding to change religion to one rape is ok? So morality is subjective and authority is subjective in the pious morality position.
First, If this were a proper correlation I would have had to say: People exists=> People believe in dogs=> therefore dogs exist. A more accurate correlation of what I actually said would be: People believe in God=> ???=> Profit! Second, it's an example of how we build on evidence we've previously gathered(of the existence of dogs in this example). Third, it is still flawed in that my friend could very well be lying to me; requiring further evidence might be necessary.
Jane20121985 Your morals do not come from an ancient book and you are not born with them. Morals and morality is a construct of the societal system that you live in. This is why morals are always changing and different in other societies to degrees. Modern morality is much different than the Christianity of the Crusades.
Dennis Pennington 1) you are not talking about "morality"...what you are describing is called "opinions". 2) The "crusades"? Doesn't playing the "crusade" card get a little old as a passive aggressive approach? Besides true Christianity doesn't force the conscious. Unlike say, uhm, evolutionary eugenics in order to set up a perfect race in Germany, or the setting up of "godless" states by military brute force during the 20th century. Or even today in America using the powers of government to punish Christians for not participating in gay events. A government big enough to violate your religious conscious is big enough to make you do anything....
Reason is the capacity human beings have to make sense of things, to establish and verify facts, and to change or justify practices, institutions, and beliefs. Are you reasonable?
does the fact that everybody in the audience used to believe in a god and now don't because something convinced them make them gullible because they have the tendency to devote their lives to having faith (that a god doesnt exist) to something (atheism) they heard about one day?
Definitely watch it a few more times it will help cement the key points very well, and check out his debate when he partnered up with Matt Dillahunty (it's here on youtube) where they do some great tag-team stuff and really knock it out of the park.
Hey Dj, I'm always a little troubled by this moral question because it seems to imply that the only thing keeping theists from murdering and raping is a fear of God. I don't think this is true. I think atheists care about morality for largely the same reasons theists actually care about morality 1) we are a part of society and it benefits us and society to care about morality and 2) we are biologically wired for empathy, which is one of the main driving forces for morality.
Moreover, the fact that "their eyes were opened" after eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil implies that Adam and Eve didn't already have that knowledge, so Yahweh basically punishes two people who have no concept of right and wrong for disobeying him. And the fact that he's supposedly perfect essentially means that a perfect being created imperfect beings and then threw a hissy fit because they're imperfect.
I would say he has an obligation to treat that person with respect, rather than coddling them suggesting that maybe they just can't handle reality. And if the space cadets in question are sitting in the pews, they are spreading their credulous acceptance of absurd propositions; and they will necessarily get caught in the crossfire when examining what leads some religious people to dangerous extremes.
1. What does this have to do with anything? 2. No he's not (not that it matters). Watch the end of Dear Christian 2 at Skepticon 5. He proposes to his girlfriend.
My definition of good and bad? No, I never made up one. "Why not have a civil rational discussion about what intentions, decisions, and actions are good (beneficial), bad(harmful), and to whom?" You did not answer my question however I will answer your question with this : if you define morality as "actions leading up to one's own demise through being the recipient of self defense or acts of vengeance"... not sure that's sane on your part.
This is a sad world and its hard to see God sometimes. i do understand why you dont believe and my heart breaks for people like yourself. i dont mean to preach or condescend. You will be in my prayers till the day i die =) thats all i can really do.
Sorry for multi posts. As for punishment your other half asked about, its again depending of how bad the society thinks the act was but in a basic sense the main punishment is that society will reject you therefore losing the benefits. (think I pointed this out before)
As an atheist, I do not see any good proselytizing to the faithful. Most will - as Richard Dawkins said - simply not listen. Logic, commonsense, free thought and intellect are on our side, but pointing this out, in my experience, simply produces antagonism, is futile and counter productive. Education is the key. Teach the children to be free thinkers who question. Sadly, most adult theists are too far gone to help but, if they want it, enlightenment awaits. Just don't preach to them.
This is all good stuff here and most importantly it absolutely does matter that we talk to people who believe in things without evidence. At issue are the claims and any actions based on the claims, such as people dying from faith healing claims. If god, faith, and prayer cannot heal amputees then it won't heal anything else either. Studies have shown that prayer is ineffective on patients. Not only that, but it actually caused additional stress on the patients. It would be silly and unpopular to continue making the claim of faith healing when we have evidence to the contrary.
haven't you watched the video? you can't "choose" to not believe in God or to reject a free gift from jesus as you say. I can't believe something for which I don't have good reason and evidence.
But, I was wrong. There is one other way of knowing that doesn't rely directly on some form of the scientific method: Differing to the experts. However, the only way to know if your knowledge is true, is to subject it to scientific study. In doing so you want to set up a scenario in which you could be wrong. A hypothesis that can not be disproved is a bad hypothesis.
I'd like JT, or someone, to do a good video of the very most standard questions the deluded ask of the secular, and the good powerful answers/responses. 1.Where do you get your morals? 2.Where do you go after death? 3.'Who' made the universe? 4.Why are you an Atheist? 5.Why not believe? (Pascal's Wager) 6.What are you going to do if you appear before 'god' after death? 7.Why isn't that tree proof of god? 8.If I came from ape, why are there still apes?
***** and *why* would a god who supposedly isn't a respector of persons have such niche groups of chosen people, and leave the rest in their "deluded" state?
Religion comforts and cripples. That's the truth. Real men seek that actual truth, not shitty bronze-age fairy tales. I wouldn't give a damn what you believe, but people tend to act on their beliefs as evidenced by the crappy state of the USA currently. Religion comforts...and cripples.
How effective do you think you are at getting the good word out when you can't even justify your own belief? or you can but you're just too insecure about it to try? And you might want to be informed that you're not likely to find anyone who isn't already aware of this "good word" and you might actually learn something from the ones who reject it, because many of us know more than you do about it.
We don't choose our beliefs...so logically he did not choose his argument. Therefore his argument was not the result of logical inquiry. Therefore we have no reason to believe what he tells us. He had no option but to believe what he does. It has no necessary relation to reality or logic. He's great at stating things as fact without sufficient argument. It's as if he isn't aware of Plantinga and William Lane Craig. Perhaps if he actually read the Christian input in scholarly philosophy he would be able to make a decent argument. Kalam Cosmological Argument? Leibnizian Argument from Contingency? Moral Argument? Ontological Argument (Plantinga's version)? Argument from Reason, Beauty, Mathematics? Seriously? How can someone so ignorant be given a platform?
Nathan Fosdahl The arguments presented require the acceptance of an assertion which hobbles the arguments. Evidence FOR a deity must be presented before arguments/claims about any supposed actions and/or causes associated with the claim of a deity can be considered valid.
Are you taking issue with the arguments I brought up or with the speaker? I presented arguments that are brought forward for a deity and widely considered the best arguments for God. The speaker instead attacks straw men.
MyContext have you looked at the arguments? For instance, the Teleological argument (though not included in my list) uses a deity as only one of three options, by eliminating the other two options it stands as the most reasonable. The Kalam does not outright point to a deity but it leaves us with a spaceless, timeless, powerful, personal creator. The Ontological Argument is a full argument in modal logic that leads to the existence of a necessary God. The arguments from beauty, reason, and mathematics all are appeals to the best explanation. The cumulative case for God is extremely strong and without strong counterarguments the case leans to the affirmation of a creator.
Nathan Fosdahl [ but it leaves us with a spaceless, timeless, powerful, personal creator. ] *What shows this claim to be existent in the context of reality?* This is the central issue, since, you can't rationally claim something that hasn't been shown to exist as an answer/explanation to anything about reality. This is why evidence is needed for the idea of a deity being existent as opposed to the assertion of a deity as William Lane Craig does regularly.
Would you be surprised if I told you that our bodies are comprised of billions of cells? That all of our organs are actually colonies of cellular life, working together to support the entirety of our body as a physical organism? When you look at it that way, it's not so unbelievable, is it? Also, about Africa: The point is that infants are not given the choice to "choose another religion," as you suggested earlier. Infants are put under the knife due to religious reasons without their consent.
...and that's not by FORCE. If He allowed the evidence for every man, woman, and child to unabashedly proclaim that He was the God of all... what would that gain? To create automatons that simply served your will without a choice... would YOU yourself find satisfaction in that design? Look man, we're debating about a book over a couple millennium old. That fact alone is pretty remarkable. You know the book, you know the concept, you know the ramifications. It's your destiny... your choice.
I see you don't understand I'm talking about informal science. Most of us aren't going to place our hands in fire a second time to see if it burn every time. But these basic observations are still science. (And yes, I am.)
"Yes insults are not rational, but when I'm confronted with someone saying something as irrational as the moon is made of cheese" Nobody was making outrageous claims like that. They were expressing their opinion on an unknown entity, this means that nobody can know either way, so your analogy is a terrible comparison. You insulted purely because they disagreed with you, which is irrational and disproves your theory that you are rational because you believe. This was all said in my 1st post.
Here is the main problem with this "context" argument Maybe you dont believe god's moral law is absolute, but most christians do. If any "context" exists, then it is by definition not absolute. Context indicates there are situations or standards in which something is true. Absolute is either always or never without exception Aside from that, in the bible, god says many times his word is eternal and unchanging. Jesus reiterated that it wont change Would he have authority to change it anyway?
When I said that God was outside the scientific and logical realm, I meant that we ultimately won't find any certainty about God by using scientific or logical methods (not that they shouldn't try of course). How do I justify belief, or why should you be convinced? These are personal questions and my answer won't be yours. For me it is (a.o.) the mystery of why there is something so complex instead of nothing at all, the beauty of science, the amazing story of Jesus, the moral principle, etc.
To be fair, believing in miracles means believing in exceptions to physical rules. So saying "Chemically a human cannot turn into a pillar of salt" is really saying "chemically a human cannot turn into a pillar of salt without a miracle". If God exists and is changing the world with magic, then saying miracles are naturally impossible is meaningless. A miracle is not a natural event, and you cannot learn about them from nature or the sciences.
Invoking magic doesn't make your case any more plausible. Fist you have to show evidence that magic exists. If there is no evidence for it, it does not justify belief. Maybe most of what I know was not gathered through formal science. But it is gathered in a scientific way. The universe is consistent. My experiences with fire suggest that placing my hand in it is probably not a good idea. Care to give me a few examples that aren't gathered this way.
I'm surprised you didn't call me on that one. As stated, if every belief formed by observation is science, then all ideas are equally valid. This, of course, isn't true. What I mean is that our beliefs are formed in a lazy scientific way. We still make observations and test those observations if we have reason to doubt them, but it's much less accurate than a more refined scientific process. Left on our own our observations are susceptible to a larger amount of errors than in science.
What I've learnt in the past weeks what Jesus says on the Cross is drawn from the Old Testament (Midrash). Christians know this but say it is amazing prophecy , however if you go and read those passages in the OT they are just random passages i.e. not presented as prophecies. When you think about it the Roman soldiers would have likely prevented anyone getting close enough to listen in any case.
(cont.) Seriously, saying science has nothing to say about (x), because (x) is supernatural, can be used to justify any crazy belief. That's kind of the statement behind many parody religions. But if claim (x) has any interaction with the material world, science does, in fact, have something to say about it.
Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven." New Testament not only condones and gives instruction of slavery, but also says all are slaves unto god. Is there anything more disgusting than the slave who loves his chains?
What realm is your god in? If you are claiming that a deist type god exists, I would probably agree. Such a god is, by definition, beyond examination. But if you are claiming a god that answers prayers, performs miracles, directly communicates with humans, then that god is within the realm that can be examined. There would be evidence for such a god. For example, if someone claims that a god answers their prayers, they are claiming they are a 'god detector'. That is a testable claim.
Psalms 137:9 "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Exodus 21:20-21 "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Deut 22:28 "If a man happens to meet a virgin and rapes her and they are discovered, he must marry the young woman. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
I wish I could upvote this many, many times. So good! I've seen several of his talks, and this is his best in my opinion.
Hard to believe this was 10 years ago! Great video
@2:28 Parents who pray over a sick and/or dying child, rather than get medical attention, love their "salvation" more than they love their child. I've seen too many christians say they love their god more than they love their children, because their children can't "save" them.
My mother was that way also, and she wondered why I didn't love her or her god.
Two big problems that I encounter in my experience talking to believers.
1. Not one person has yet to provide a clear coherent definition of what this thing is they call God?
2. Most believers didn't arrive at their belief by using logic and reason, so no amount of logic and reason will change their minds. (and some of them will openly admit that)
I think most of them believe for emotional reasons and no amount of logic and reason will suffice
Exactly. Most people call it a feeling (The Holy Spirit). I call it energy. It's you.
Crazy prayingmantis
Yes that's often the case, because they simply call everything or anything god they do not understand in the first place.
Exactly. They weasel around the question, what they actually believe in, as if their faith depended on it... Guess they know it does.
THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST VIDEOS OF THIS KIND.
"You can not judge God by human standards"
Yet God can judge me by his standards?
Yup, I believe that's how this one-way street goes, because god.
***** Can you prove that assertion?
*****
My Parents made me and they don't judge me by their standards. Nor did they judge me when I was a child by their standards.
***** So what? That doesn't preclude us from judging him by our standards.
+Doeyhead Dogs can't judge humans by dog standards, but humans can judge dogs by human standards. Nobody seems to have a problem with that though.
It's an ok presentation, not sure if I agree with his stance on morality not being absolute. But that's a philosophical discussion to be had, really.
Besides that Genesis has been discredited as fact, the flood never happened, the gospels contain contradictions and revisions (listen to Bart Ehrman), and there is no evidence for god whatsoever: what is the problem with Christianity anyway?
1.The flood was a part of the book of Genesis and was an allegory. You didn't look at the deeper meaning.
2.Please list one of these contradictions.
3.Here is the evidence: there is a cause for everything, especially life. There is plenty of evidence to prove a Creator is real. Life itself did not come to existence by a random compilation of protein molecules. Even if there were raw materials needed to assemble protein molecules, the probability of an average-to-primitive type of protein molecule arising are 10 to the 65th power. Moreover, the odds of a simple cell, far more complex than a protein structure, assembling together are 10 to the 40,000th power. It has been scientifically proven that any event in the universe with of 10 to 50th power or greater occurring is impossible. By reason and logic, there has to be a supernatural Creator causing these occurrences. In addition, there are legitimate cases of supernatural occurrences and miracles, including the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, Portugal and the famous Shroud of Turin.
Gabriel Yesus
1. Some people take Genesis literally, some don't.
2. Here's a huge list for you:
skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
3. There is ample evidence that humans evolved from other forms of life and the process of evolution does not require a creator. There are some things that we still don't know, but that is not a reason to commit an argument from ignorance fallacy.
4. The shroud of Turin is a proven fake. I don't know much about the other miracles so I'm not going to comment on that.
snarky77005 As I said previously said, one is not meant to take every single fact and historical related verse. Most, if not all these "contradictions" are merely a glaring, and shallow, conclusions that are about irrelevant subjects drawn to criticize Christians.
Christianity offers the "good news" that The Man in the Sky died to prove his love for you, despite all the ways you have injured him. All you have to do is beg his forgiveness, worship him and send more money.
"Born bad, commanded to be good." Christopher Hitchens on God.
@@Jibrilfm well.. when you have a billion years and billions and billions of moelcules... Abiogenesis doesn't seem to impossible..
And even if it was completely impossible then the answer comes - we don't know..
You don't solve a mystery by appealing to another mystery.. it's just a coping mechanism..
When your whole premise revolves around the cause effect thing..you don't get to make a special pleading for the thing you are trying to prove.. that's dishonesty..
If you can claim that god doesn't need a beginning then.. your cause effect thing falls flat ..
Just be a bit open minded and cope with the fact that we don't know..
I was there for this conference. It was fantastic and I have taken JT's words to heart. Hold their feet to the fire!!
Hopefully not while you and they are at work. You walk up and talk to me about this while I'm at work.. you won't have a job afterwards. And if you do keep your job.. I will sue the company for condoning religious discrimination at the workplace. Have a great day. :)
Mike F. Shut.the fuck up and quit whining
Mario Pendic Truth hurts doesn't it? :) Not a damn thing you an do about it other than troll on the internet. hahahaha
I have to agree. Keep your religious discussions at work at a minimum. And only if the other agrees or you can tell its not causing either to get extremely irritated.
The same goes for politics. Just make sure you're not making a hostile work environment.
Its best to do it outside of work to people you're not forced economically to be with every week.
There's a time and a place for everything.
I personally don't like to bother discussing religious topics that much even with other atheists. The topics I like are more about science, maybe some politics, what they plan on doing for the day or weekend, vacations, trips, economics, and other topics. Religion and all that nonsense lately I just don't bother. Its a dubious topic that has no meaning to me other than to demonstrate we as a species are as intelligent as we think we are. We're idiots thinking magical ferry winkles will give us some magical life afterwards etc. etc. No thanks. And if you want to believe it. Keep it to yourself otherwise I'll begin to question your sanity.
Mike F. Lol funny how u bitch non-stop
That was BRILLIANT speaking skills and the best use of visual aids i've seen all year. I salute you.
I love this video...."If you believe in a god you're worshiping your own ignorance." This is my new rebuttal. I'm going to use this nonstop. There's your bumper sticker.
Notice the similarity between infection and faith? Both are most likely to strike you when you're most unfit in physical or mental state. Conversely infection and faith are least likely to affect you when you're physically fit and mentally happy/healthy.
Great presentation, but I keep getting distracted by the fact that J.T. Eberhard looks exactly like Pauly Shore.
Ian Cooper Notice that you never see J.T. Eberhard and Pauly Shore in the same room at the same time. Just sayin'.
No one said our ability to reason and understand stinks. What Eberhard said in this video was that our senses can fool us and that our intuition can often be wrong. This is precisely why we need to use the scientific method and our ability to reason in order to uncover the true causes of the things we perceive.
JT Eberhard's credibility has already been secured. Now imagine how far you'll get when you're honest with who you are.
This is the best video I have ever seen, bar none!
There is a difference between servants and slaves. Servants choose their masters while slaves cannot.
This passage is basically explaining that bosses should be fair and just to their workers because they too have a higher boss they answer to.
"More rational yes"
So how is insulting someone just because they disagree with you rational>?
I've always found the concept a bit creepy. I always found the scene in the "Avengers" movie where Loki forces a crowd to kneel before him to be very reminiscent of this idea when Loki say, " Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel."
This is simply brilliant. I love this guy!
I am a Christian who would like to talk with the kind of people that are in this room. Where can I find these people?
Pretty good presentation of why argue, what's the main argument, what the distractions will be and other attacks.
Where can I see more of JT? Has he done any debates besides the one with Matt Dillahunty?
Great talk. Thanks.
You're right about one thing "dogmatic bigotry that causes atheist movements". You hit the nail right on the head.
how did he do that magic trick? is there an explanation to how or why it appeared to go through her arm? im so confused
So, since you unabashedly proclaim that He is the God of all, does that make you an automaton who serves His will without a choice?
great speaker
1) Why would I lie if I even made it clear that the fact Im a scientist is irrelevant? 2) Why would you believe me?
Were you on before or after PZ? I noticed it in his video too... :)
Because "secular morality" is against all of those deaths too, the same way you are. We just came to that conclusion because of our own morality, not because someone else told us what our morality should be.
You are still missing my point. Regardless of the reasons people believe, since science doesn't say 'supernatural events don't occur' there is no contradiction in believing both.
You misunderstand my point. I am not saying that the Bible was gathered through the scientific method. I am saying that knowing the laws of physics is not incompatible with thinking that they can be broken by the being that created them. Science and god are not mutually exclusive, the speaker implied they were. That was my only point.
But since you asked, sociology, history, math, everything that you heard another person say that you believed without checking the scientific literature...
Problem 1: the title. Arguments for God may fail or don't. Argukments cannot be automatically discarted.
LOL That was an awesome presentation! I've just become a fan of this guy!
You totally dodged my question. Why was it wrong for God to have those children put to death? What moral foundation do you have to say that was a bad act.
What is good is only good because the object of your piety deemed it good, and has consequences. What is bad is only bad because the object of your piety has deemed it bad, and that too has consequences. Your piety is based on the assumption that it has a purpose for certain results. If there were no consequences, then all is permissible. If the object of your piety didn't care, then all is permissible.
My question : Why not isolate the goal and reach it with reason and discussion?
Great job Mr. Eberhard!! Big shout out to you!!!
His discussion of miracles was in response to the claim that the Bible is totally consistent with science. If it contains events that are supposedly unnatural events, then it's not consistent with science, and that argument of theirs should be thrown out.
You can convince yourself that gravity is suspended but at that point you've been overcome by delusion.
Think this way people: if you believe in God and it turns out He doesn't exist, you have nothing to loose, but if you don't believe in God and He actually does exist, you loose everything. It's sad to see how more and more people become toys in the devil's hands.
Not because they want him to lose but rather because they want the truth
I meant it as some kind of substantial number. I've read the biggest support for creationism outside America is in Australia, but even there it's not very strong. The idea have very little followers in Europe, so I don't know if I'd call it 'well established' - but I never meant it as 'it doesn't exist here', I know it does. It's just not comparable to the movement in the US on any level, groups lobbying for creationism to be taught in schools a.s.o...
You can't fight language. Americans (as in citizens of the United States of America) use the term "America" to refer to the United States. End of discussion. I don't like the fact that people overuse the word "myself" in grammatically incorrect ways, but I'm wise enough to know that languages have a life of their own.
This bloke is fantastic, great lecturer.
great presentation
Great video
I continually encounter Christians who "ad hominem" me rather than discuss the apparent conflicts with their belief system.
When people say such a thing they mean that the two systems of thinking are not mutually exclusive (unless of course you take the Bible literally, but I don't think many literalists say that the Bible and science are consistent).
You take the piety stance : Morality is what is decided upon by god.
We look at god.
1. Which god?
2. Which denomination or preacher?
Why are there denominations? : Because they did not agree.
Religion is "subjective."
3. What about people who don't believe in god or preacher? Are all their decisions therefor moral in nature?
4. Can people change morality by deciding to change religion to one rape is ok?
So morality is subjective and authority is subjective in the pious morality position.
First, If this were a proper correlation I would have had to say: People exists=> People believe in dogs=> therefore dogs exist. A more accurate correlation of what I actually said would be: People believe in God=> ???=> Profit! Second, it's an example of how we build on evidence we've previously gathered(of the existence of dogs in this example). Third, it is still flawed in that my friend could very well be lying to me; requiring further evidence might be necessary.
He gets to define "moral obligations"?...by what authority?
you get to criticize him? by what authority?
Jane, so you are saying might makes right?
anyone can say they have any credentials they want to say they have. I believe what you stated as much as I believe in deities. I don't.
Jane20121985 Your morals do not come from an ancient book and you are not born with them. Morals and morality is a construct of the societal system that you live in. This is why morals are always changing and different in other societies to degrees. Modern morality is much different than the Christianity of the Crusades.
Dennis Pennington 1) you are not talking about "morality"...what you are describing is called "opinions".
2) The "crusades"? Doesn't playing the "crusade" card get a little old as a passive aggressive approach? Besides true Christianity doesn't force the conscious. Unlike say, uhm, evolutionary eugenics in order to set up a perfect race in Germany, or the setting up of "godless" states by military brute force during the 20th century. Or even today in America using the powers of government to punish Christians for not participating in gay events. A government big enough to violate your religious conscious is big enough to make you do anything....
they dont because they just believe most preachers preach about god not why he actually he exist
Reason is the capacity human beings have to make sense of things, to establish and verify facts, and to change or justify practices, institutions, and beliefs. Are you reasonable?
does the fact that everybody in the audience used to believe in a god and now don't because something convinced them make them gullible because they have the tendency to devote their lives to having faith (that a god doesnt exist) to something (atheism) they heard about one day?
Definitely watch it a few more times it will help cement the key points very well, and check out his debate when he partnered up with Matt Dillahunty (it's here on youtube) where they do some great tag-team stuff and really knock it out of the park.
Hey Dj,
I'm always a little troubled by this moral question because it seems to imply that the only thing keeping theists from murdering and raping is a fear of God. I don't think this is true. I think atheists care about morality for largely the same reasons theists actually care about morality 1) we are a part of society and it benefits us and society to care about morality and 2) we are biologically wired for empathy, which is one of the main driving forces for morality.
And to add another of my previous questions that you avoid, how and what morals has god given us according to you?
i really dont get whats the point on arguing???
Moreover, the fact that "their eyes were opened" after eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil implies that Adam and Eve didn't already have that knowledge, so Yahweh basically punishes two people who have no concept of right and wrong for disobeying him. And the fact that he's supposedly perfect essentially means that a perfect being created imperfect beings and then threw a hissy fit because they're imperfect.
Because we tend to be a happier society as ethical, moral people. Your question is rather redundant.
I would say he has an obligation to treat that person with respect, rather than coddling them suggesting that maybe they just can't handle reality. And if the space cadets in question are sitting in the pews, they are spreading their credulous acceptance of absurd propositions; and they will necessarily get caught in the crossfire when examining what leads some religious people to dangerous extremes.
1. What does this have to do with anything?
2. No he's not (not that it matters). Watch the end of Dear Christian 2 at Skepticon 5. He proposes to his girlfriend.
My definition of good and bad? No, I never made up one. "Why not have a civil rational discussion about what intentions, decisions, and actions are good (beneficial), bad(harmful), and to whom?" You did not answer my question however I will answer your question with this : if you define morality as "actions leading up to one's own demise through being the recipient of self defense or acts of vengeance"... not sure that's sane on your part.
This is a sad world and its hard to see God sometimes. i do understand why you dont believe and my heart breaks for people like yourself. i dont mean to preach or condescend. You will be in my prayers till the day i die =) thats all i can really do.
Sorry for multi posts. As for punishment your other half asked about, its again depending of how bad the society thinks the act was but in a basic sense the main punishment is that society will reject you therefore losing the benefits. (think I pointed this out before)
As an atheist, I do not see any good proselytizing to the faithful. Most will - as Richard Dawkins said - simply not listen. Logic, commonsense, free thought and intellect are on our side, but pointing this out, in my experience, simply produces antagonism, is futile and counter productive. Education is the key. Teach the children to be free thinkers who question. Sadly, most adult theists are too far gone to help but, if they want it, enlightenment awaits. Just don't preach to them.
This is all good stuff here and most importantly it absolutely does matter that we talk to people who believe in things without evidence. At issue are the claims and any actions based on the claims, such as people dying from faith healing claims. If god, faith, and prayer cannot heal amputees then it won't heal anything else either. Studies have shown that prayer is ineffective on patients. Not only that, but it actually caused additional stress on the patients. It would be silly and unpopular to continue making the claim of faith healing when we have evidence to the contrary.
haven't you watched the video? you can't "choose" to not believe in God or to reject a free gift from jesus as you say. I can't believe something for which I don't have good reason and evidence.
Excellent and very entertaining ;)
But, I was wrong. There is one other way of knowing that doesn't rely directly on some form of the scientific method: Differing to the experts. However, the only way to know if your knowledge is true, is to subject it to scientific study. In doing so you want to set up a scenario in which you could be wrong. A hypothesis that can not be disproved is a bad hypothesis.
I'd like JT, or someone, to do a good video of the very most standard questions the deluded ask of the secular, and the good powerful answers/responses.
1.Where do you get your morals?
2.Where do you go after death?
3.'Who' made the universe?
4.Why are you an Atheist?
5.Why not believe? (Pascal's Wager)
6.What are you going to do if you appear before 'god' after death?
7.Why isn't that tree proof of god?
8.If I came from ape, why are there still apes?
is 80% of the worlds population deluded ?
***** and *why* would a god who supposedly isn't a respector of persons have such niche groups of chosen people, and leave the rest in their "deluded" state?
Rob Bates it's a choice to either believe in God or not.
Religion comforts and cripples.
That's the truth.
Real men seek that actual truth, not shitty bronze-age fairy tales.
I wouldn't give a damn what you believe, but people tend to act on their beliefs as evidenced by the crappy state of the USA currently. Religion comforts...and cripples.
faith in God does not equal religion,
How effective do you think you are at getting the good word out when you can't even justify your own belief? or you can but you're just too insecure about it to try?
And you might want to be informed that you're not likely to find anyone who isn't already aware of this "good word" and you might actually learn something from the ones who reject it, because many of us know more than you do about it.
We don't choose our beliefs...so logically he did not choose his argument. Therefore his argument was not the result of logical inquiry. Therefore we have no reason to believe what he tells us. He had no option but to believe what he does. It has no necessary relation to reality or logic.
He's great at stating things as fact without sufficient argument.
It's as if he isn't aware of Plantinga and William Lane Craig. Perhaps if he actually read the Christian input in scholarly philosophy he would be able to make a decent argument.
Kalam Cosmological Argument?
Leibnizian Argument from Contingency?
Moral Argument?
Ontological Argument (Plantinga's version)?
Argument from Reason, Beauty, Mathematics?
Seriously?
How can someone so ignorant be given a platform?
Nathan Fosdahl The arguments presented require the acceptance of an assertion which hobbles the arguments. Evidence FOR a deity must be presented before arguments/claims about any supposed actions and/or causes associated with the claim of a deity can be considered valid.
Are you taking issue with the arguments I brought up or with the speaker?
I presented arguments that are brought forward for a deity and widely considered the best arguments for God. The speaker instead attacks straw men.
Nathan Fosdahl Your arguments. Since, the issue is what sustains the claim of a deity being used in those arguments.
MyContext have you looked at the arguments? For instance, the Teleological argument (though not included in my list) uses a deity as only one of three options, by eliminating the other two options it stands as the most reasonable.
The Kalam does not outright point to a deity but it leaves us with a spaceless, timeless, powerful, personal creator.
The Ontological Argument is a full argument in modal logic that leads to the existence of a necessary God.
The arguments from beauty, reason, and mathematics all are appeals to the best explanation.
The cumulative case for God is extremely strong and without strong counterarguments the case leans to the affirmation of a creator.
Nathan Fosdahl [ but it leaves us with a spaceless, timeless, powerful, personal creator. ]
*What shows this claim to be existent in the context of reality?*
This is the central issue, since, you can't rationally claim something that hasn't been shown to exist as an answer/explanation to anything about reality. This is why evidence is needed for the idea of a deity being existent as opposed to the assertion of a deity as William Lane Craig does regularly.
How did he act unbiassed?
Would you be surprised if I told you that our bodies are comprised of billions of cells? That all of our organs are actually colonies of cellular life, working together to support the entirety of our body as a physical organism? When you look at it that way, it's not so unbelievable, is it?
Also, about Africa: The point is that infants are not given the choice to "choose another religion," as you suggested earlier. Infants are put under the knife due to religious reasons without their consent.
...and that's not by FORCE. If He allowed the evidence for every man, woman, and child to unabashedly proclaim that He was the God of all... what would that gain? To create automatons that simply served your will without a choice... would YOU yourself find satisfaction in that design?
Look man, we're debating about a book over a couple millennium old. That fact alone is pretty remarkable.
You know the book, you know the concept, you know the ramifications.
It's your destiny... your choice.
I see you don't understand I'm talking about informal science. Most of us aren't going to place our hands in fire a second time to see if it burn every time. But these basic observations are still science. (And yes, I am.)
you have a volume setting
"Yes insults are not rational, but when I'm confronted with someone saying something as irrational as the moon is made of cheese"
Nobody was making outrageous claims like that. They were expressing their opinion on an unknown entity, this means that nobody can know either way, so your analogy is a terrible comparison. You insulted purely because they disagreed with you, which is irrational and disproves your theory that you are rational because you believe. This was all said in my 1st post.
This needs to be louder!
We are going to face tragedies,to be sick,be in great sorrows,lost good friends,and die.
What to do with our Sins?
Come to Christ,the saviour!
Here is the main problem with this "context" argument
Maybe you dont believe god's moral law is absolute, but most christians do. If any "context" exists, then it is by definition not absolute. Context indicates there are situations or standards in which something is true. Absolute is either always or never without exception
Aside from that, in the bible, god says many times his word is eternal and unchanging. Jesus reiterated that it wont change
Would he have authority to change it anyway?
that was just awesome!!
And after we removed prayer, we added school shootings. Good job, Hi Five, keep up the good work.
When I said that God was outside the scientific and logical realm, I meant that we ultimately won't find any certainty about God by using scientific or logical methods (not that they shouldn't try of course).
How do I justify belief, or why should you be convinced? These are personal questions and my answer won't be yours. For me it is (a.o.) the mystery of why there is something so complex instead of nothing at all, the beauty of science, the amazing story of Jesus, the moral principle, etc.
To be fair, believing in miracles means believing in exceptions to physical rules. So saying "Chemically a human cannot turn into a pillar of salt" is really saying "chemically a human cannot turn into a pillar of salt without a miracle". If God exists and is changing the world with magic, then saying miracles are naturally impossible is meaningless. A miracle is not a natural event, and you cannot learn about them from nature or the sciences.
Invoking magic doesn't make your case any more plausible. Fist you have to show evidence that magic exists. If there is no evidence for it, it does not justify belief. Maybe most of what I know was not gathered through formal science. But it is gathered in a scientific way. The universe is consistent. My experiences with fire suggest that placing my hand in it is probably not a good idea. Care to give me a few examples that aren't gathered this way.
do you believe and follow the 10 commandments that God gave you? serious question
I'm surprised you didn't call me on that one. As stated, if every belief formed by observation is science, then all ideas are equally valid. This, of course, isn't true. What I mean is that our beliefs are formed in a lazy scientific way. We still make observations and test those observations if we have reason to doubt them, but it's much less accurate than a more refined scientific process. Left on our own our observations are susceptible to a larger amount of errors than in science.
What I've learnt in the past weeks what Jesus says on the Cross is drawn from the Old Testament (Midrash). Christians know this but say it is amazing prophecy , however if you go and read those passages in the OT they are just random passages i.e. not presented as prophecies. When you think about it the Roman soldiers would have likely prevented anyone getting close enough to listen in any case.
(cont.) Seriously, saying science has nothing to say about (x), because (x) is supernatural, can be used to justify any crazy belief. That's kind of the statement behind many parody religions. But if claim (x) has any interaction with the material world, science does, in fact, have something to say about it.
Keep up the fire thanks
Ugh, bad audio.
Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."
New Testament not only condones and gives instruction of slavery, but also says all are slaves unto god. Is there anything more disgusting than the slave who loves his chains?
What realm is your god in?
If you are claiming that a deist type god exists, I would probably agree. Such a god is, by definition, beyond examination.
But if you are claiming a god that answers prayers, performs miracles, directly communicates with humans, then that god is within the realm that can be examined. There would be evidence for such a god.
For example, if someone claims that a god answers their prayers, they are claiming they are a 'god detector'. That is a testable claim.
we believe you think they do -----the arguments for God ----- God doesn't just believe in you He created you
Psalms 137:9 "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Exodus 21:20-21 "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Deut 22:28 "If a man happens to meet a virgin and rapes her and they are discovered, he must marry the young woman. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
JT is just awesome.
And what's the suicide rate at?