Scrivener vs Dillahunty: Is humanism stealing from Christianity?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- Matt Dillahunty and Glen Scrivener debate whether secular humanism is a pale imitation of Christian morality or a superior form of ethics. Watch their Big Conversation in full • Glen Scrivener & Matt ...
For more debates, updates and a bonus clip of Matt and Glen discussing the Trans controversy that divided The Atheist Experience sign up at www.thebigconve...
Listen to more sparkling conversations every week via the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchri...
The Big Conversation Season 2:
1. Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein: Pt 1 • Alister McGrath & Bret... Pt 2 • Alister McGrath & Bret...
2. Roger Penrose & William Lane Craig • Sir Roger Penrose & Wi...
3. Bart Ehrman & Peter J Williams • Peter J Williams vs Ba...
4. Dave Rubin & John Lennox Pt 1 • Dave Rubin & John Lenn... Pt 2 • PART 2 Dave Rubin & Jo...
5. Tom Holland & AC Grayling • Tom Holland vs AC Gray...
6. Matt Dillahunty & Glen Scrivener • Glen Scrivener & Matt ...
The Big Conversation Season 1:
Jordan Peterson & Susan Blackmore • Jordan Peterson vs Sus...
Steven Pinker & Nick Spencer • Steven Pinker vs Nick ...
Derren Brown & Rev Richard Coles • Derren Brown & Rev Ric...
John Lennox & Michael Ruse • Michael Ruse vs John L...
Daniel Dennett & Keith Ward • Daniel Dennett vs Keit...
Peter Singer & Andy Bannister - • Andy Bannister vs Pete...
The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
Videos, updates, exclusive content www.thebigconv...
For weekly debates between Christians and sceptics subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchri...
Confucius was one of the first people we know of to speak about the golden rule; treat others the way you want to be treated. And the Buddha spoke about all of these same humanistic concepts, including universal human dignity, which would do away with India's caste system. Zoroastrianism, possibly the first monotheistic religion, was all about good deeds, good words, and good thoughts in regards to your fellow man. All of this was long before Jesus ever arrived. What is Scrivener talking about? These concepts aren't uniquely Christian or Judeo Christian at all.
Have you read Confucius? Confucianism is all about achieving dignity through merit. It gives no praise to the poor, and uneducated or people with less ability. It is the opposite, it praises excellence. It is different type of morality but nonetheless, it is morality. The Golden Rule is just another term for peace-making. Even Afghanistan has that and that isn't saying much. Western civlization is from Christianity, not Buddhism. No one said that only Christianity has morality. The question, what type of morality. Good deeds versus bad deeds - Buddhism says your good deeds must exceed your bad deeds. According to this logic, which is similar to Islam, I can commit very bad deeds as long as I do more good deeds. Christianity teaches conscience by instilling guilt. Guilt is a feeling that you know you did wrong and feel bad about it. Shame is when you feel bad of what others think of you.
Regrettably, your brain is infected by the Christ Ideal.
Julius Caesar shows us the way, not these religious zealots you hold up.
Btw, Morales`comment regarding Confucious is interesting.
Makes me like him even more.
@@samuelmorales2344 Buddhism says that you must grow spiritually, and as a consequence, there will be fewer and fewer "bad deeds" since such is born out of ignorance.
Christianity, unfortunately, creates more neuroticism with its approach.
@@a.brekkan4965 Christ said our love should break borders, he noted that even bad people loved their loved ones but ours should go beyond and love our enemies.
@@a.brekkan4965 totally meaningless.
If God is real, and Jesus was his son and they both chose Paul to reveal "the truth" to, they failed miserably. If they couldn't even convince Paul that slavery was inherently wrong then their whole mission was a waste of time. Saying, in one breath, "we are all equal in Christ" and "slaves, obey your masters" in the next, is either rank hypocrisy, or, a very badly conveyed message. Paul did preach that Jesus was returning soon. So much so, that when Christians in early churches died, the survivors wrote to Paul wanting to know why their brothers and sisters had perished before the second coming. As for hell. You have to demonstrate that such a place exists first, before you go telling us that its "gates are locked from the inside". To suggest that we send ourselves there is pernicious. I have never killed anyone, raped anyone or stolen from anyone. Why should I deserve eternal punishment? Because I chose not to worship a God who was so weak and bad at communicating that he couldn't do any better than get a few bronze aged scribes to write contradictory and confusing accounts of what he wanted. If he really wants to save us all from Hell, he has a world wide communications network to utilize today. But he still prefers to use crack pot apologists and creationist freaks
colinmatts
"Saying, in one breath, "we are all equal in Christ" and "slaves, obey your masters" in the next, is either rank hypocrisy, or, a very badly conveyed message."
No, it isn't, you are cherry picking verses and coming up with an erroneous interpretation. I would like to help and show you what it really says.
First, mankind did not create itself, we are the creative WORK, of the Creator.
We are the Creator's, meaning we belong to him. We are His processions.
If anyone has a problem with this, then they are not realizing that the Creator is the Source of Existence, He is Life. To reject being a servant of Life or a Slave of Life is self-refuting! To believe we are the products of mindless matter, is also self-refuting. Mindlessness has no causal powers!
Do you think being a slave/servant to the Source of Life/Existence and a willing unity/Love shown to this Source is inherently wrong?
That said The verses you think are hypocritical are below:
From the Text the Believers are one body, because they all share unity through the Spirit with the Messiah the Head of the Body. They are servants/slaves of the Messiah who is the servant of Yahweh, the Father/Creator over ALL! Yahweh has given mankind over to the Messiah, who is the savior of the world especially the believers because He willingly gave his life for all of us. He is the tested foundation upon which the new mankind is being built.
Were you a slave when you were called? Do not let it concern you, but if you can gain your freedom, take the opportunity.For he who is called in the Master while a slave is the Master’s freed man. Likewise he who is called while free is a slave of Messiah. You were bought with a price, do not become slaves of men. Brothers, let each one remain with Elohim in that calling in which he was called.
1 Corinthians 7
The believer is a servant/slave of the Messiah because He has redeemed the believers from the slavery to sin and death and is their Master. The way, the truth and the Life that leads to the Ultimate Source of Existence and the Ultimate Truth the Father, Yahweh!
Children, obey your parents in the master, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of Yahweh.
Slaves/Bond servants obey your earthly masters, who cause fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Messiah, not only when they are watching in order to please them, but as slaves bond servants of Messiah, doing the will of Theos from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the master and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the master whether he is a bond servant or is free. Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him. - Ephesians 6
Yahushua called them ( His disciples ) to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles Hold mastery/control over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” - Mark 10
For in Messiah Yahushua you are all sons of Theos, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Messiah have put on Messiah. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Messiah Yahushua. - Galatians 3
Believers in Messiah have turned away from slavery to sin which results in death and turned toward the faith of and faith in the Messiah which is following Him in the service/ slavery to Life, Who is Yahweh the Creator, The Source of existence and the ultimate reality. Ultimately to become His inheritors, Sons and Daughters.
Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its Creator. Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Messiah is all, and in all. - Colossians 3
I want you to understand that the head of every man is Messiah, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Messiah is Theos ( The Great/Mighty One ).
...Nevertheless, in the master woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from Theos ( The Mighty One ). - 1 Corinthians 11
For us there is one Theos, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Master, Yahushua Messiah, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
1 Corinthians 8
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from Theos,( The Great/Mighty One ) and those that exist have been instituted by Theos. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what Theos has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. ... for he is Theos’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of Theos, an avenger who carries out Theos’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid Theo's’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. - Romans 13
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Messiah. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and all were made to drink of one Spirit... Now you are the body of Messiah and individually members of it. - 1 Corinthians 12
But now Messiah has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep... For as in Adam all die, so also in Messiah all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Messiah the first fruits, after that those who are Messiah’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to Theos
( The Great/Mighty One ) and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that Theos
( [Yahweh] the Mighty One ) may be all in all. - 1 Corinthians 15
The Bible is clear that certain things will happen IF, we do certain things.
A Judgement did come in 70 AD., clearly according to prophecy a greater one will come upon the whole world. The Messiah said that first the Jews as a people must except him and call on Him as the Blessed one who comes in the name of Yahweh. That did not happened, nor has many other things.
Yahweh is not slow to fulfill His promise, but is patient, not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance.
Finally the Bible does not teach an eternal, ever enduring punishment, it teaches that the wages of sin is Death, and that Death is the finally enemy to be destroyed. Please check the Hebrew and Greek words Olam and Aion.
"If he really wants to save us all from Hell, he has a world wide communications network to utilize today. But he still prefers to use crack pot apologists and creationist freaks"
How do you know who He is using? The Bible is clear that it is the Messiah that He Sent. The Name of the messiah literally means Yahweh is Salvation!
You have to respond to the Messiah and trust in the Faith He has in Yahweh and his ways or reject it. He is the Way the truth and the Life that leads to Yahweh the ultimate truth not any other being. The Word/Bible is all over the world wide communications network.
Shalom/Peace
@@michaeldeo5068 The reason people have a problem with that is....
1- None of what you've said has been proven and there are people exerting these assertions into laws which affect people's lives in negative ways such as lack of education.
2- It's still an abusive situation to put your creation into in fact I'd say this is even worse, if threats of eternal torture and blind obedience to an authoritative higher being is the only way to experience love, life and all good things not only do I reject this so called "salvation" and "justified punishment" it is also downright manipulative and cultish, this is some truly sickening stuff. If the omnieverything god wasn't willing to think of a better way to go about this then I wouldn't worship a being who'm you'd reasonably expect better from.
And yet you call us all fools, oh the cosmic irony.
@@karlazeen
"None of what you've said has been proven and there are people exerting these assertions into laws which affect people's lives in negative ways such as lack of education."
Of course it has been proven. People just like to deny reality and think they can create their own. The absurdity of the contrary proves there is a Supreme Being, Supreme Creator and Authority! The Creation declares the Creator!
To have blind faith in a Source that is believed to be mindless is irrational, because it goes against everything we know and experience. As to laws which affect peoples lives negatively, there is some truth to that. To be clear, the Bible has been misused, and twisted by many throughout history. The Bible warns against wolves pretended to be believers.
Apart from that, people make laws all the time that go against what the Bible teaches. These laws that are created, favor feelings over facts, fantasy over reality, and the will of those in power, that serve their own agenda. Divide and conquer through deception is a very real strategy.
" It's still an abusive situation to put your creation into in fact I'd say this is even worse, if threats of eternal torture and blind obedience to an authoritative higher being is the only way to experience love, life and all good things not only do I reject this so called "salvation" and "justified punishment" it is also downright manipulative and cultish, this is some truly sickening stuff. "
Your own self righteous declaration proves there is a Source from which a standard of righteousness comes.
That absolute, ultimate reality is the Supreme Being, the Source of truth and Love etc.
For that Source to act contrary to His own Being/Nature would be irrational and impossible.
Therefore the Supreme Being doesn't conform to our feelings and wisdom about reality, we conform to the Truth that IS the Ultimate Reality!
Part of this means letting go of the lies and misinformation we have been taught about the Bible.
The Bible doesn't teach Endless punishment. Please Study the Biblical languages. Study the words Olam and Aion, and Ages for an accurate understanding.
Punishment for wicked actions is justified.
Who would think a Judge a good one who allows evil to go unanswered and justice trampled on?
Remember, the Goal of the Supreme Being is to make mankind in the Image of the Supreme Reality, the Supreme Being and that Death the last, final enemy or obstacle preventing this, which will be destroyed.
"If the omnieverything god wasn't willing to think of a better way to go about this then I wouldn't worship a being who'm you'd reasonably expect better from.
And yet you call us all fools, oh the cosmic irony."
Your assuming there is a better way, which means your judging from your own limited perspective that the Ultimate Judge is wrong. Worse your doing so with a lot of erroneous understanding about what the Bible actually teaches.
Rebelling against the Ultimate Truth is very serious. It is the rejection of the very Source of truth, life and love. We cannot live that way, we were not created to exist that way.
You say you wouldn't worship a "being"
that you would expect better from, good but we sometimes fail to realize that by not getting to know the True Supreme Being and his teachings, we are
rejecting the Truth because of ignorance or lies and deceptions.
Make no mistake, we either serve the Truth of the Lie, the Creator or the adversary, Life or death.
The Bible says the fool says there is no Elohim/Theos, Supreme Being, authority!
The Creator judges such people to be fools, for thinking that a mindless source, is the Ultimate reality. That this claimed mindless ultimate reality though devoid of self-awareness somehow has inherent causal ability and accidentally causes Life from lifelessness, Self awareness and rationality from that which is devoid of such aspects.
Where is the proof that justifies such a foolish belief?
Shalom/Peace
@@michaeldeo5068 Thank you for repeating yourself and proving exactly my points for me.
Ok in all seriousness I have a few things to say, have you ever considered that the evidence that theists have presented for the existence of a god is being rejected because of denial or the evidence itself being lacking?
Also what are you on about self righteousness I just find the concept to be abhorrent according to my own secular moral standard, punishment is fine if it is for the purpose of reform through lessons however eternal punishment accomplishes nothing just needless suffering.
That assumption I'm making logically follows from what god is, he's supposed to be all powerful, all knowing, all present, all just and all good, how is it not logical to assume better from a being if you'd like I could come up with a better system right now.
A world where suffering does exist but is never unecessary and it is strictly always for the purpose of reformation, people are given endless chances to better themselves and eventually after all the struggle finally in the end they will be rewarded to choose what kind of ending they want for themselves based on who they are (this is an actual choice and not the coercive ultimatum presented by christianity) Morality in this hypothetical system would be dependant solely on causality and the effects one's actions and words will have and whether it results in good or bad, there would be no sin and humans would not be inherently good or evil but instead a blank slate and make themselves.
A system like the one I've described already somewhat exists within the doctrines of another religion Hinduism, even though reincarnation hasn't been proven to exist it is a better moral system than heaven and hell. If there are flaws in my hypothetical system then correct me please we could talk about this since it's an interesting conversation to have.
You're assuming and at the same time strawmanning what I actually believe about the origin of the universe, I don't know for sure if there is a god or not I don't know exactly how all of this began but I don't really think it's any of the creation myths proposed by the majority of the worlds religions since they seem to simple and man made to be the actual truth. However as for the origin of life it is plausible that we came from none living material, hell look at our chemistry we have water, carbon, methane, calcium, electricity and a bunch of other things which make up the cells, tissue and organs that make our bodies. I don't exactly know about abiogenesis but I do know more about evolution and that is absolutely a scientific fact I recommend you watch Viced Rhino and Aron Ra's playlists as well as getting into biological courses if you're interested in knowing what it truly is.
Maybe I should refrase what I meant about what I meant, I would not worship a being who created me for the sole purpose of worshipping it since I find that to be narcissistic, not being an omnieverything god isn't enough for me to completely shun him. I wouldn't even want to worship anyone I'd just like to get to know them and be equal with them as friends or family, I'd have way more sympathy for the biblical god if he simply just lost control, didn't actually create any sort of hell or Satan himself directly or indirectly and doesn't actually have a plan predetermined or otherwise for us, he genuinely just wants us away from harm's way and be with him like we once used to. Even if he hasn't be proven I'd still find that to be more compelling.
I also see no reason as to why there has to necessarily be two choices be it life or death for an omnieverything god it's logical to assume there would be more options than just that god seems limited here if that's all he can offer, or if he's purposefully omitting information from us then guess what he isn't giving us freedom. You have more freedom when you have more knowledge of your circumstances and control of them, my point still stands that it is a manipulative gamble.
Also doesn't the fact that christianity has been weaponized to passify groups of people sort of imply to some degree that some core teachings sort of enable that to some extent even if their extrapolated, I'm not saying the Bible is fully immoral or moral it seems to me that it can be used to justify anything all up to interpretation. That's the main problem I have with it if it's divinely inspired it's ambiguous I've read it like one or two times and taken notes with the most charitable and uncharitable interpretations I could think of and coming to my own conclusions. The Bible is a mixed bag but fun to read admittedly especially the book of revelations that's some insane shit lmao.
I'd also like to mention that you really shouldn't go around preaching to people that their fools no one likes being called that even if it's true you're not gonna convince anybody you'll just drive them away, I see athiests do this too with theists and it's annoying and not productive at all, I'd like to be shown why I'm wrong not told I'm a dumbass.
Also if hell is just separation from god not life just death then I would just not exist then correct, just pure oblivion? If that's the case then I'm fine with that, no eternal torture then.
Could you kindly please make your responses more short though I'd like to save some time since arguing in the internet is only a pass time for me when I'm not busy.
@@karlazeen
You didn't prove any points and I certainly did not prove anything you falsely asserted against what is written in the Bible. As long as people continue to misinterpret the Bible there will be the need for repetitive correction.
I have tried to look at all the arguments. The problem for the Atheist is that they do not have any proof that the reality we experience could come about by a mindless source. They simple say we do not know! All they have is an irrational blind faith.
The Theist has a logical answer which is undeniable. Everything is the evidence because everything is the creation, which declares it was caused by the Creator. Atheists cannot account for the source of causality, existence, life, self - awareness, or reason and much more from a mindless source devoid of them, a mindless ultimate reality.
"Also what are you on about self righteousness I just find the concept to be abhorrent according to my own secular moral standard, punishment is fine if it is for the purpose of reform through lessons however eternal punishment accomplishes nothing just needless suffering."
Here is where I am force to repeat myself. The Bible doesn't teach "Eternal" punishing. Please study the Hebrew word Olam and the Greek word Aion, which have to do with durations of time.
As for self righteousness, that means being right in your own mind only and coming up with your own standard for what is right and wrong.
We are in agreement that Eternal punishing would be abhorrent and needless. We both know this because the Source of love could not do such a thing. We both agree that corrective punishment is how a human Parents disciplines a child. The Creator is not limited by death to correct, because he can restore us to life, therefore he can use death as well us suffering to show us the real world consequences of our actions.
"... I could come up with a better system right now.
A world where suffering does exist but is never unecessary and it is strictly always for the purpose of reformation..."
From your perspective, how can you judge what is unnecessary suffering?
If suffering produces perfection, how could it not be informative or necessary?
"...people are given endless chances to better themselves and eventually after all the struggle finally in the end they will be rewarded to choose what kind of ending they want for themselves based on who they are..."
Ok, your missing the whole point. The source from which we exist is not ourselves. We are the created. We are not the source. We cannot better ourselves by rejecting the source of our existence. It sounds like you have a distorted view of who the Creator is. He is not a god, small g, He is the God over all so called gods. Yahweh is the One who is Existence, the Source, the great I AM because I AM. You will say that is just an assertion but its literally what the name in Hebrew means and the name the Source choose, so that we have understanding about this.
Yahweh is the ultimate reality, the greatest truth. Any truth we think we know must align with this Source truth or it is false. The Ultimate reality, ultimate truth is the Supreme Being, It is from this source Love comes, because love is wholeness, unity. There is no division in the nature of the Source. The Source cannot be contrary to his own nature. Yahweh is love, Yahweh is ONE. Yahweh is Self-aware and has self determination, Will, therefore consciousness, life, reason and causality all come from this Source.
You cannot get any of these attributes from a mindless source. You can make a baseless claim that you can but there is no reason to attribute them to a source devoid of these things!!!
The Word of Yahweh tells us that He does not deal with us according to our sins or no one would stand.
Salvation is not dependent on our own good works. We are saved by grace through faith!
Good works is something people want to do after accepting salvation because they are united in a right relationship with the Creator in building his kingdom of life, truth and love.
Your system is contradictory. How can you have good and bad without there being sin? Sin just means knowing what is good and failing to doing it. Sin is the missing of a mark aimed at. Sin is a transgression against the teachings of the truth!
When people were created Yahweh did not say his creation was evil, he said everything was very good.
People choose what is not good by rejecting the source of Goodness. Do you think the Creator didn't account for this when He created separate, individual, conscious, beings with the ability to choose to do what was right or wrong?
Also your not accounting for the fallen, those who rebelled and their leader the adversary. There is a controversy being played out. Who is worthy to rule, the Creator or the creation. What we are experiencing is the real world implications of who we choose to serve under. Whose kingdom are we serving, the Kingdom of light or the kingdom of darknes.
In the end after all has been said, all deceptions destroyed and all "Lessons" learned, Yahweh the Creator, the Source, the Ultimate reality and truth will be vindicated.
There is nothing that Yahweh cannot undo that people do. Yahweh will restore all things. Don't worry, he has this! He will wipe away all tears. All will bow the knee and willingly swear that it is only in Yahweh that there is rightness and strength. He is the source from which we learn what is right and are able to do it and have life, strength.
Your system is flawed because it has no ultimate authority, Supreme Being as its source and no ultimate justice. We could talk about that for awhile I'm sure. Hinduism lacks these and contradicts itself in that it states, all we experience is an illusion and that we cannot discern truth. I understand that you think reincarnation ( sometimes as an animal ) is a better way for people to learn but it would just add even more suffering not less. Also what about the chaste system, and the amount of gods in Hinduism? Also it contradicts the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction.
Your assuming this life is the only teaching people will be given. That is not true because obviously some receive more of the truth than others in this life, how could they be held to the same degree of correction? While we will be responsible for what we have been given, Yahweh is just and the ages to come will show this.
Your assuming people go to heaven or hell when they die and that is not taught in the Bible either. People die and have no consciousness till the resurrections. Yes they are more than one.
Yahweh is not looking to perfect us in this present age, he is just seeking those who will answer the call.
Yahweh is looking for those who give all to follow him, they will serve in leadership positions in his Kingdom to come on Earth. Finally leaders who have not gotten they positions unjustly.
He is calling those who will help in the restoration of all things. They will teach the rest under the Messiah in the ages to come. The rest of mankind will be brought back to life after the 1000 year kingdom age has completed its work. I'd say Yahweh's plan looks better than anything else I've heard of.
"You're assuming and at the same time strawmanning what I actually believe about the origin of the universe..."
Am I though?
," I don't know for sure if there is a god ..." I don't really think it's any of the creation myths proposed by the majority of the worlds religions..."
"However as for the origin of life it is plausible that we came from none living material, hell look at our chemistry we have water, carbon, methane, calcium, electricity and a bunch of other things which make up the cells, tissue and organs that make our bodies. I don't exactly know about abiogenesis but I do know more about evolution and that is absolutely a scientific fact ..."
To simplify you deny what you experience, the world/universe ( including your own consciousness/self-awareness ) is the created work of the Creator.
You believe the Word of Yahweh, the Bible to be a myth and finally you believe it is plausible that life can come from non-life, which is what Abiogenesis means. This hypothesis has never been proven.
The evidence is clearly on display!
Continue
Who created the talking snake, and what the hell did the creator expect would happen? Was the creator surprised that Eve ate the apple? If so, god doesn't know everything. If not, then the snake and Eve eating the apple was all god's doing. Hmmmm.......
Things can happen that God doesnt want to happen, as a part of our free will, they chose to follow the serpent, maybe try have a look at free will and the problem of evil!
@@gyldandillget4813 Or, there is no god. Man created god in his own image, with all the ignorance that existed at the time. We know that man created all the other gods, why do you think that yours is the actual god? Absolutely no proof whatsoever, just tons of gullibility.
Gyldan Dillget there is something called: “Manipulation.” There is also something called: “Deception.” Now next to this we have something called: “Influence.”
See manipulation, deception, and influence are literally why we do not put our kids in bad schools, or let our children play at certain people’s houses, or with certain people’s children. Its why we don’t allow our kids to watch certain shows, why we don’t hire certain advisors, or why we don’t like certain leaders, or philosophers.
This matters. Humans are susceptible to manipulation. Experience is what separates a distinguished skilled mind from a young unexperienced gullible and naive one. And clearly you don’t realise that Adam and Eve were made this way. Isolated. Unexperienced. Naive. And Gullible. God did not prepare them for the snake (which shouldn’t have even existed there). That. is. God’s. fault.
Caratacus Atheists argue with every theological position my dude. Top comments are almost always filled with theologically modern discussions.
Caratacus well 2 things you ought to recognise here. First off, this *is* Matt Dillahunty, talking with Glenn. The Southern states of America and Australia are both the creationist battlegrounds of theology and thus their audiences (who are usually steeped in these sorts of discussions due to circumstance and surroundings) follow them into the comment section. This’ll include people you think are fundies. (Which trust me, you haven’t seen nothing yet if you think these are fundies.) if you want a different discussion, you’ll probably have to find a video based on a higher level level subject. Maybe Penrose and Craig, or Tom Holland and AC Grayling. Or even, create a youtube channel and get the discussion going. Hell Capturing christianity has done it. You can too.
And secondly, if you feel as though the real modern subjects arent being addressed. Hop in and toss your coin into the discussion. Nothing will get done
Christianity's arrogance is only topped by Islam's arrogance. A sign of deeply insecure religions. "we invented everything, and we are good".
Ignoring the direct textual horror's, stoning, genocide, FGM MGM, the wars, the burning of innocent people (witches and critics), female dehumanization, hate for science, hate against gay people. You name the horror, religions liked it, backed it up and stood in front to tread on the weak in order to stay strong and on top. Look at the blasphemy laws around the world slowly being erased finally.
It’s okay to cherry pick the Bible as long as you call yourself a secular humanist and not a christian.
Cherry picking from the Bible if you're Christian is dishonest. Duh.
Secular humanists aren't the ones pointing to the bible as a source or a base of absolute authority, Christians are, so yeah. It is ok.
All Christians do it so..
No, Christianity is bizarro humanism
lol secular humanism is based on Christianity. Look up Kants categorical imperative. Kant himself admits his philosophy is based on Christianity. Humanism or Atheist alone have no morals, it is taught by the Bible. Christianity is unique.
@@user-wu7nv2bj6f Lol. Philosophy came from the ancient Greeks, especially from Aristotle. SH isn't based on Christianity, thank goodness no western country is based on "christian" values
@@kakarot9309 Who is talking about Philosophy? Secular Humanism is a movement, based on Christian values, and these are unique. You find it easy on Wikipedia "Many Humanists adopt principles of the Golden Rule. Some believe that universal moral standards are required for the proper functioning of society. "And Kant was one of the people, who updated the "Golden Rule", by his categorical imperative. Even inside Wiki you find the claim that secular humanism can't explain Moral, without using ideas from other philosophers or theologians. This is not even the problem per se, even Thomas Aquinas used Aristotle to prove with reason there is a God. And yet there are distinctions between Aristotle and Aquinas. So what has secular humanism to offer? Any new thoughts, value or truth? In my knowledge they live some Utopian dream, there is no universal morality, unless humans are learning it on the same basis. Probably from Christianity.
@Zatchooze Naut Where do you think did secular humanism get their moral values and ideas from? Of course of other theologians and also Christian philosophers. There is this quote "there is nothing new under the sun." and secular humanism can't stand on it own, without cherry-picking and daydreaming about a universal utopian moral system. You are right, both are completely opposite. Christianity has thousands of years of tradition, it is based on historical and archeological facts and it has a foundation called Jesus.
Dillahunty was cornered a number of times in this discussion
Yes. Very clear to see.
I missed that...
@@amac9044 You’re not alone in that.
Cultural. Evolution. &. Memetics.
New cultures emerge out of preexisting cultures unless they are injected through things like proceletizing, migration, and conquest. Secular humanism is emergent from Christianity which was established through migration, proceletizing and conquest. Christianity was emergent from a mix of hellenization and Jewish culture and Judaism was loosely emergent (1000+ years of development I'm not going to trace here) from preexisting Canaanite culture.
To make the argument that secular humanism is stealing from Christianity is to allow for the same argument as Christianity stole from Canaanite culture. It's a false perspective that isn't supported by anthropological theories on sociocultural fluidity.
It should also be noted that most secular humanists do not denounce that our cultural values stemmed from judeo-christian influencers, but many of them will claim that judeo-christian values are fundementally limited in a way that secular humanism is not. I am with the latter.
Secular Humanism is heavily polluted by Christianity, especially Protestant Christianity.
Martin Luther was an early Biblical Humanist.
Not at all. Your standard comes from a god which is completely arbitrary. Ours comes from the positive and negative consequences of actions on well being. So if a god says or is okay with slavery- then slavery becomes okay. If that’s good, screw what is good. I don’t want to be good. However, under humanism, slavery obviously decreases human flourishing as a whole so we label it as bad.
If god is only applying rules that benefit well being- you don’t need god. Just the standard of well being.
How would one derive objective morals, too? Can you prove any?
You are running in circles. How do you define what is positive or negative? As you should know yourself, Jesus didn't own any slaves. For Christians Jesus is the role model. Without God, you would even have an issue to describe what evil is. And I think it would be dishonest to ignore the Christian heritage and influence on the western culture.
Why should I accept "well being" as the foundation of morals? Why not compassion? Or selfishness? Or loyalty? Or honor? Indeed, why bother having the concept of morality at all if what you are doing is just trying to get me to assume that your notion of "well being" is better than whatever notion I value instead?
0 1 Positive leads to human flourishing. Negative leads to unnecessary suffering. Are there things that are somewhat equal when it comes to this? Of course. It’s not perfect. But it’s the best we got. That’s why there’s still debate on what’s right or wrong.
But, there are many things that clearly lead to unnecessary suffering like stabbing someone in the face.
Jesus didn’t own slaves, but he never said not to own them either. In fact the New Testament tells slaves to obey their masters, even the cruel ones.
Of course Christianity had some effect on western culture. But it’s the more we veered away biblical rule is where we actually became better. Otherwise we would be still living like they do in the Middle East which as we all know- isn’t too friendly.
How do you determine an action as right or wrong?
Eric B I’m going to answer your question in the form of a question. And then answer that question. Why should I accept god as a foundation of morals?
Also, Compassion is part of well being, likewise some of the other things you mentioned. But that’s trivial right now.
Once you answer the question as to why god should be the foundation or why I should care about what god says, you’ll see why well being is mine.
And that’s because we have a preference for flourishing over suffering. Something we can’t control. You may be good in order to get to heaven and not bad to avoid hell. Well, I’m good to make my time on earth as heavenly as possible and not bad to avoid a hell on Earth.
If heaven was a place of suffering and hell a place for pleasure, I’m sure you’d rather go to hell. Same thing here. If we can all agree that well being is the goal, which we pretty much all would, then we can work to find objectively better ways to achieve that goal. Which is not only more practical than a god being the standard since there is no way to derive this, but is also way less arbitrary. Because like I said before, if it turns out that god is okay with slavery, genocide and killing babies in his name, that becomes by definition- good. And if that’s good, I don’t want to be good.
Likewise yes, if punching a baby in the face somehow increased it’s well being- then it would be good to punch a baby in the face. However, in this reality is clearly doesnt. The consequences of actions are much more important than what a god has to say.
@@Stuffingsalad I'm sorry, I misrepresented myself. I don't think god should be the foundation of morals, nor was I trying to imply that, but I can see how you would make that assumption. I was merely playing the devil's advocate.
It seems "well-being" is an arbitrary choice for the foundation of morals. You seem to imply that "well-being" is a path toward "flourishing" for which "we have a natural preference".
I can't say that I disagree with any of that, but it is wholly speculation. It may seem obvious, but in truth we don't really know that prioritizing "well-being" will lead to "flourishing", nor is does it seem prudent to rely on an invocation of our "natural preference".
Perhaps we don't need a new foundation for morality. Perhaps we need a ground-up re-write. Perhaps getting rid of Christianity will get rid of morality, but only because the whole concept of morality becomes vacuous. I don't know.
I wonder where the christian idea of treating people equal during slavery, the crusades and colonialism was lol, don't waste my time
Christians have never had any problem declaring they love you while tightening your thumbscrews.
Christianity being Humanist is both funny and stupid, only religion that's actually Humanist is Buddhism
IMO.....Sikhism is the greatest religion for Humanity.
Human Equality(Racial, Gender, Caste, etc), Tolerance of others, Universal brotherhood, Human Rights for all human beings, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Conscience, Justice for ALL, Equality b4 law, selfless service of Humanity, Honesty, Integrity, Truth, Contentment, Forgiveness, Righteousness, Peace, Love, Humility, etc, are sum of the core values of Sikhism....a religion which btw started in the medieval times.
"Is humanism stealing from Christianity?"
Are humanists claiming a dead person was resurrected?
Jesus' body was stolen by humanists, obviously.
@@Iverath That assumes Jesus actually existed & is not just a character from fable.
@@cnault3244 Jesus did exist. In fact, his crucifixion is proven through historians and archeology. It is just you Atheists and Muslims who can't deal with the truth and are misinformed. If you believe Jesus is God is up to you, bur his existence is not a fable.
@@user-wu7nv2bj6f "Jesus did exist. In fact, his crucifixion is proven through historians and archeology. "
Actually no, it has not been proven by archaeology and historians.
And ( even if we accept that there was a historical Jesus)no one has presented any evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.
"his existence is not a fable."
And your evidence for the resurrection is?????
@Caratacus "Secular Humanism are claiming values are universal and that there is such a thing as moral truth."
Maybe they are. So what? I never made those claims, I never claimed to be a secular humanist.
I asked "Are humanists claiming a dead person was resurrected?". If not, then the question asked in the video''s title ( "Is humanism stealing from Christianity?") is moot.
"So are you going to need something more than quips to justify why your opinion-dependent ethics can be said to be universal and true.
"
I have not said a word about my ethics. Which means, through deductive reasoning ( see if you can figure it out), I have not claimed my ethics are universal and true.
You are erecting strawmen and attacking them.
Hammurabi 16-19: "If any one receive into his house a runaway male or female slave of the court, or of a freedman, and does not bring it out at the public proclamation of the major domus, the master of the house shall be put to death. If any one find runaway male or female slaves in the open country and bring them to their masters, the master of the slaves shall pay him two shekels of silver. If the slave will not give the name of the master, the finder shall bring him to the palace; a further investigation must follow, and the slave shall be returned to his master. If he hold the slaves in his house, and they are caught there, he shall be put to death."
Deuteronomy 23 15-16: "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them."
I dare you to compare the Bible to the Hammurabi's code one more time.
That’s sharp.
I don't think you listened to what Matt was saying. He wasn't necessarily saying the Bible and Hammurabi's Code prescribed the same things.
Exodus 21 v 20 -21 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Oh yes the Bible is so morally superior!
Hinduism also says to love your enemies
Oh yeah, I'm sure Hinduism was what influenced our society and not Christianity
Secular Humanism is “Christianity Lite”?? By definition, that’s patently incorrect. Wishful and gullible.
The problem Dillahunty didn’t get pressed on was what will ground the assumption of universal human rights and these other corresponding universal truths? He was hacking at his own tree when he said that everyone in the stream of the abrahamic religion just came up with it themselves. And then he says flat out he’s just picking the best ideas… but by what standard? He really is the Nietzhcian Superman just arbitrarily selecting his morality based on preference. Yes, using great amounts of reason but what is the primal girder of that morality? It isn’t anything objective, otherwise he’d happily reference it! And for that, we may as well change the term we use for morality to personality. It has no extension of meaning beyond the individual. We’re all left to agree on a set of assumptions about the world to build our morality.
And if he as Nietzche did confesses that all ethics for the atheist are artbitrarily preferred - this is why the moral argument is one of those convincing pieces in the cumulative case for theism being reasonable
Curtis Yarvin, an atheist, already debunked this nonsense of new-atheism
Matt Dillahunty brilliant as always!
Pretend all you want that humanists are stealing from you. Just don't get in the way of social progress.
Christians: God has written his moral law on every human being's heart to teach us right from wrong.
Also Christians: The moral code of Christians is unique and not found in any other culture.
People do what they know to be wrong all the time. Just because another culture propogates another moral system, doesn't prove we don't have the ability to know the moral law.
@buymebluepills Christian "morality" is not morality at all. It is authoritarianism.
@buymebluepills Right. Pointing out the fact that an old book which says "do what your daddy tells you or he'll torture you forever" is not morality, is the complaint of an irresponsible child. If so, I'm a child who has a much more mature grasp of reality and morality than the followers of that book.
buymebluepills It is not my pride that made me realize that any being, if it exists, that doles out infinite punishment for finite crimes is immoral...and any being powerful enough to create the universe should understand this. So, either that being is an immoral thug or it doesn’t exist. Either way there’s nothing I can do about it, and I certainly wouldn’t worship that being even if I did believe it exists...and neither should anyone else.
buymebluepills Divine commands are not morality. Especially since no one has demonstrated that there is anything divine or even that there could be anything divine. Atheism is only a position on a single claim. It is not being convinced that a god exists. It can’t provide a basis for morality because it isn’t trying to. But until you or someone else can demonstrate that a god exists, you too have no foundation for morality...except for the same foundation everyone else seems to be using, which is well-being. Once we agree that the goal is well-being, it serves as an objective foundation for morality. But again, even if it didn’t, until you demonstrate that a god exists you are engaged in wishful-thinking.
Christianity doesn't own the concept of people being decent to each other.
All journeys are different, for repetition is the same, then the whole purpose would be in vain.
Really inexcusable that Scrivener does not know what "survival of the fittest" means. For shame.
Yes, I was so annoyed I wrote a diatribe in the comments. In a different setting Dillahunty would have held his feet to the fire on that. It was a repeated theme, that Scrivener used, throughout the talk. Dubious and disingenuous at the very least.
"Which is a big IF".... huh? Its not at all.
Scrivener, like most Christians, makes me sick to listen to.
Had this Schrivener even met a Christian
Dillahunty was surprisingly weak in this debate. I usually think he takes it, but not this time. Im referring to the full debate, not these clips.
I disagree. I do believe it was a little weird the way the Christian was arguing. Matt kept pointing out the flaws in his arguments, and he would just state the same thing again. We also cannot forget about the fact that until someone demonstrates that a god exists, all religious arguments are simply mental masturbation. They might make you feel good for a little while, but eventually you realize you haven't actually added anything substantive to the conversation.
I strongly disagree. What makes you think that?
I noticed him more relaxed than usual and he allowed his opponent to interrupt him on several occasions without any response from him. But his interventions were clear and concise, showing the contradictions, fallacies and absurdities of his opponent.
A.T. Then you didnt watch the full debate.
@@masongalioth4110 of course I did I just don't share your.opinion.
I think Dillahunty was being particularly polite. I could see he wanted to pick Scrivener up on several dubious points. Especially when Scrivener, several times during the debate, used the phrase "survival of the fittest. He obviously didn't know what the real meaning of the phrase is, or was being disingenuous in it's use. He could have really nailed Scrivener but for some reason chose not to . Maybe he was relying on those who watched, to see what was really happening.
You can’t get rid of a non existent god well yeah you can
If by existence we mean the influence we create on people and society in this world then you are far more non existent than he is..
If it's widening the circle of compassion to the voiceless and the marginalized, any number of religions have Christianity potentially bested. Christians often don't consider the non-human to be deserving of compassion or moral consideration, for instance, as compared to other religions like Buddhism or animistic religions like Shinto.
Proverbs 12:10
Proverbs 27:23
Exodus 23:5
Exodus 23:12-13
Deuteronomy 25:4
Incorrect
Nor do Secular Humanism: the Universal Rights are only for Humans - there are no Universal Mammal Rights.
You begin by saying other religions have Christianity bested. Then, for the reasoning, you describe the negative behavior of select Christians as if this applies to the position of Christianity itself. This is known as a stereotyping fallacy (category of ad hominem)
You will always be able to be point to the negative behavior of followers of ANY belief (or lack of belief, for that matter). You cannot attack the validity of any philosophical position by pointing at the negative behavior of some of those who claim to believe that position. It's just fallacious.
Well thank you Matt for giving the game away right at the beginning. Is Christianity and human secularism are both derivative, then it points to a single unifying belief in the beginning which is much more in line with the theistic approach
It is a Biblical and Historical Fact that Jesus was a Jew. Christians said Jesus is a God. So God is a Jew ??? What a racial God !!!
If the bible says he was a Jew, it must be true /s.
Matt was left puzzled each time Glen opened his mouth and Trying to look around for words to fill in the gaps didn’t help much.
What exactly was Matt puzzled on?
Do you think Glen brought up an argument that Matt has not encountered dozens of times on the Atheist Experience? If so, name it.
@@Iverath and what new arguments did Matt came up with?
@@gebarowskibrikanovic9210 Oh, so now you're changing the subject? Are you conceding that Matt was not puzzled by any of Glen's arguments?
@@Iverath I'm not changing the subject, I'm answering your question, which begged the assumption that Matt had something new in his arguments. Yes, Matt was puzzled by (m)any of Glen's arguments which, by the way, don't have to be new to get his and your attention, if you had paid any. What Glen was saying in this piece of the debate was that much of what "Humanism" is claiming, is derived from Judaeo-Christianity code of ethics.
Christianity is not about the law or any code or morals but about faith in he who is good and made us acceptable to God .Jesus said love God and love your neighbour.
And faith, as we know, is a useless means of determining truth. Which leaves Christianity intellectually bankrupt.
"And Judaism." Matt won right there, and he didn't really have to go on after that.
are you serious 😭
@@prodsaint-yz8ib Yes. He seriously won right there.
The Christian was so arrogant that he literally thinks Christians invented being nice to people. Well.....nope.
How did he? The main point of the argument is that humanism has no objective basis without human having inate value.
@@cygnusustus In a sense, it was, and I don't even like Christianity
@@jonahwaring
Well that's an ignorant view of humanism, and of value. Value is never innate. Value is always relative.
5:10. Scrivener goes on, " (if) You get rid of the god of Christianity and you must get rid of the ethics of Christianity." Says who? Nietzsche? So what?
Without god, "we" can do whatever we want to do. Obviously, that realization is dangerous and terrifying, but if we find value in the ethics of Christianity, as many do, including atheists, than we we can continue to look to them for guidance at our convenience.
Our father's house has been a place of comfort and security, and for that we are eternally grateful. But all children grow up and leave the house, and when they do, they take what they have learned and create their own destiny. Our father raised us well, and we can behave and make him proud even without his attention.
Just because they don't have the moral character to behave well without God doesn't mean everyone else has the same deficiency.
Yes, Historically speaking, you necessarily have to get rid of those morals - rewind the clock to 0 or 323AD and **do better**.
@@offcenterconcepthaus Are you saying that because Christianity had an origin, if we now choose to abandon just the concept of god, we don't get to keep other parts of Christianity that we find valuable. If so, why not? Who made that rule? Isn't this just the very definition of "not throwing the baby out with the bath water"? That's all I'm saying.
@@ericb9804 Hmm.... I think we've shown that you can - at least for a while. America basically decided that it could live without God roughly ~1850. The problem is that the religion informs the subtext/presuppositions/eschatological assumptions - **but** - there is a very real [S]pirit animating it. This is the trouble with trying to abstract religion/philosophy/theology. **IF** the abstract principles we all love to kick around are **emergent** qualities (byproducts) of an animating spirit, and not the other way round, we're in trouble.
It's a pretty serious "oh sh!t" moment when you see it.
@@offcenterconcepthaus "*IF* the abstract principles we all love to kick around are *emergent* qualities (byproducts) of an animating spirit, and not the other way round, we're in trouble." - That sounds like a fancy re-write of Pascal's wager.
"the religion informs the subtext/presuppositions/eschatological assumptions - *but* - there is a very real [S]pirit animating it." - There is no evidence of an "animating spirit" and there is no reason for "eschatological assumptions"
"America basically decided that it could live without God roughly ~1850." - Really? do tell.
Also, are you Jordan Peterson?
Yes, it is stealing.
Taking good ideas from wherever and incorporating them into your way life is not literally not stealing, by definition. Nothing has been “taken” from you or any one else. Ideas do not belong to any one person, culture, ideology, etc. We as a species take what is useful or best suits us, regardless of the source.
By your reasoning, the Christmas holiday was “stolen” from pagans. numerous elements of the Christmas holiday have pagan roots.
It’s dishonest to propose that someone else is “stealing” something such as good behavior towards your fellow man.
@@Jared__Bowden Yes, we could use semantics to make an argument.
@@brando3342 That’s not semantics. The biggest “Christian” holidays are co-opted pagan rituals.
Then almost all of Christianity was stolen from other religions.
Believe in me or burn in hell for eternity. Now thats compassion at its highest
In this topic I feel like Tom Holland is much more eloquent
Yet still wrong.
holdontoyourwig In what way 😅
@@holdontoyourwig of you are so certain he is wrong, please enlighten us mortals in how exactly he is wrong.
@@JeffreyLuk what does idol worship (#1 on the list of the ten commandments) have to do with secular humanism and how does it cause harm in the real world, the only world secular humanism cares about.
GoodDay2YouSir Well in secular terms, we certainly worship money or fame or the American Dream.
Let's end on the Christians last word where it appears as if he won this debate, shall we?
Let's not focus on the context in which his every baseless claim was met with a reality-based and reasonable objection.
That is not a reasonable objection. You're only trying to rationalise the loss of dillahunty on this topic
@@gingerale7729 I'd rather live in a place that's not a theocracy, and I'm pretty sure you would as well.
We know the bible can't be trusted to deliver morality to us, or we would have to live by things that you do not agree with.
@@gingerale7729 Oh the dripping irony.
Humanism is an excuse to not be atheist. Atheists are correct and all religions are wrong. It’s been shown empirically that all religions are Incorrect, deal with it
”It’s a thouroughly christian idea”
No it isn’t. Love isn’t, marriage isn’t, morality isn’t. Religious people are incredibly dishonest.
CS lewis, an apologist for Christianity, used the word Tao to refer to what he called natural law. The law that almost everyone follows. Even Christianity put up with slavery for nearly 2,000 years.
The degree of clever snake oil salesman skills, is directly proportionate to the pay packet from the church.
The church could never afford a genuine smile?
3:59
1:30. Whaaaat? You didn't find his blatant mis-characterization of non-christian ethics sincere?
@Eric B
lol. I hear you. Word salad fuckery. Christianity is the most uniquely vicious, violent and abusively abhorrent brand in the world.
2:40
‘No matter how weak they are’ Catholic ministers will rape them.
That is a thoroughly Christian idea.
It's just as valuable to remember the past, as it is to stabilize the future. I don't think Matt understands this and why you can't just take "the nice bits" of the Bible and run. What if we just took "the nice bits" of recent history and left out Hitler and the Western slave trade, would that be a benefit to us?
Brando are you saying we should take the poison in the bible and use it to stabilise the future? What on earth are you on about...
@@TheStanDudley
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. ... Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them."
The poison in the bible is thousands of years of memory of men behaving badly. Take it out and you are doomed to repeat it.
@Mark Why is God a "genocidal maniac"? Says who and why?
@Mark
Does evil deserve punishment?
On the latest Glenn/Matt clip
JB, If you haven't banned me, I'll need to know why two of my comments were deleted after I saw them posted on the thread.....more specifically the second since it was 100% clean and on topic?
Secular Humanism is a better worldview than any religion i know of.
No. Only on a species level but that will become better too.
@buymebluepills why do you think its selfish? I dont get why anyone want to follow a god real or not when it has done horrible things and tells people to do horrible things.
@buymebluepills you mean the psychotic war god that killed the entire world is good? The guy that ordered genocide then told the murderers to keep all the little girls for themselves is loving?
You may want to rethink your definition of loving.
@buymebluepills I "created" my kid, is it ok if I sell her into sexual slavery?
When you kill your characters are they living breathing human beings?
It's theft from Christianity and Secularism is a selfish culture.
Do we believe that humanity provides meaning and purpose to the universe or that humanity finds meaning and purpose from within the universe.
neither
There is no such thing as inherent meaning. In order for something to have meaning, it must have meaning _to someone._ Intelligent beings are the only possible source of meaning.
@Mark73
Then, do you believe that we possess something not of the universe. Something supernatural.
Are we influenced by a force beyond reality.
When men discover mathematical formulas that explain things previously not understood, is this man creating meaning from nothing, or is there an underlying nature unfolding with the discovery.
@@rogerengland2821 No I don't believe in anything supernatural.
There is an underlying structure and behavior in the universe, but there is no meaning until we start exploring it.
Meaning is nothing but our understanding, right or wrong. Shared understanding when we communicate it to others.
@Mark73
This takes us back to the ages-old question.
"If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to witness it, did the tree fall at all then?"
Is there no inherent structure to the universe that surpasses our observations of it?
Are the interactions of matter & energy within our concept of space & time the stuff we are made of.
Do we manifest this nature by simply existing within it and discovering the structure of things through developing systems of understanding that provide meaning to us within our limited yet expanding capacity to comprehend it.
Are we greater than the stuff we are made of, or do we strive to understand something greater than ourselves.
Does the practical exist within or without the philosophical.
According to the grace of Theos ( Elohim/Mighty/Great One ) given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Yahushua Messiah. - 1 Corinthians 3:10-11
This is what the Yahweh Elohim says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; the one who believes will not be shaken. - Isaiah 28:16
Both Humanism and Christianity steal from the Word of Yahweh and the Word made flesh, the Messiah.
Shalom/Peace
@isaiah j. Delluvia
That is like asking someone to go to battle without the proper equipment. That is like trying to present an argument without using logic.
There is though outside evidences to support the Bible and the claims about Yahweh in it!
The existence of the Jewish people!
Transcendental aspects of reality!
The creation!
The Laws of thought, Logic!
The Transcendentals!
Meaning, purpose!
Intelligent design!
The conscience and consciousness!
Good and Evil
Archaeology and the meaning of the name Yahweh in the Hebrew Language is defined as the one who is Existence, the source and cause of it, the ultimate reality!
To name a few.
Your turn.
Prove mindless material in motion could be the source and cause of reality/existence.
Prove a mindless can cause the universe, can cause life from non-life and Darwinian evolution outside of unsupportable assumptions that have been written in the books you believe to be authoritative .
Prove a mindless source can have inherent causality.
The Biblical worldview shows why Yahweh is the Source and cause of existence through reason and through what HE has made and through the internal coherent Word HE revealed. All other worldviews prove to be internally contradictory or arbitrary. The Atheistic worldview especially.
Shalom/Peace
You see if one looks to Truth for the Truth it all leads to the same place Truth. Now truth being Truth is Singular else all be false. So any one know the riddle of the Sphinx?
The priest and the atheist were going at it hammer and tongs. The priest said, "You are like a blindman, in a darkened room, looking for a black cat that isn't there". The atheist replied, "And you Father, are like a blindman, in a darkened room, looking for a black cat that isn't there. The only difference is that you found it".
Thank you all very much
Ecclesiastes 1:4
"One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever."
Solomon is dramatically describing life here on earth, and the folly of that existence when God is left out. No matter how exciting life may seem to be “under the sun,” ultimately, it has no value without God. we exist for a very short period of time but the earth remains forever in contrast to our short life spans.
Nothing ever changes. So, any search for real meaning and lasting profit cannot come from under the sun. We will die and eventually stand before God and be judged. Those who have trusted Jesus Christ to forgive their sins and have given Him their lives will spend eternity with God. Those who have not done so will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. Let us place our faith in God alone so that we would be strong in the Lord and ready to battle against the doubts planted by the enemy. Lord, increase our Faith!
John 10:10
I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
We live in a society of Christian values and whether or not you are Christian, you are informed by those values and I imagine that is what Glen is saying....but to say that ethics of humanity derives from Christianity is nonsense. There were ethical systems before Judaism and Christianity....one might as well call Judaism 'Zoroastarism light or Christianity, 'Stoic light'...Matt is on the money when he says all religions are derivative of other things.....
These simplistic arguments are really taken out of the historical context and boldly stated to have the same value because aethism and humanism really has no core value on its own other than the argument of the greater “good”. We see that term changing as history changes with the foundation of the most powerful among us to control it so good has no meaning other than whatever someone says is “good” whenever they decide to mention it.
Im fine with the greater good, beats the inhumanity of the bible with a big stick…
@@mudslinger888 Christianity is the religion of the weak. Without it, you would be a slave to a master.
Dillahuntie right on the head I’ve underestimated him on this important topic
Humanism will always win
Humanism assumes the universal negative that God doesn't exist, so it's fallacious
@@lightbeforethetunnel This is clearly over your head, so you should probably stop commenting on things you don't understand...
@@alicantino1151 Wow, what a shock. An arbitrary ad hominem attack which you would never be able to justify. Never would have expected that in a comment section like this... lol
Anyhow, the reason why you wouldn't be able to justify it is because what I said is correct. Humanism certainly does assume the universal negative claim that God doesnt exist. It actually assumes the universal negative claim that the supernatural, altogether, doesn't exist too.
Given that atheistic worldviews can't justify any universal claims, this makes Humanism contradictory.
Humanism also assumes the self-refuting philosophy of Scientism too - the idea that truth can only be known if it's scientifically verified (which is a claim that can't be scientifically verified ITSELF, which is why it's self-refuting).
@@alicantino1151 But what really makes Secular Humanism utterly ridiculous is that it claims to be anti-religious *while qualifying as a religion ITSELF*
The Supreme Court has rules Secular Humanism is a religion every time it has come up.
You can't debate nothing. Humanism is nothing. Just live and die and do what you want. Who made that something instead of nothing? Philosophers?Higher thoughts? That's OK with me.
You really should read what it actually is before you publicly embarrass yourself like that.
Embarrassing? Not in this day and age of total depravity.
Waste of time
Confucious was the first recorded as stating The Golden Rule, based on the Shang and Zhou dynasties. To claim that Christianity is responsible for Human Rights is Historically inaccurate, and this illustrates how close-minded the religious are to other humans.
The Indus Valley Civilization was agricultural, without kings, military or priests. There was a great bath in the center of the cities. As far as we can tell, they were more egalitarian than any other civilization, as their cities were trading posts for the surrounding farmers.
Christianity hasn't cornered the market on Humanism in the Western world, especially with the conquering Normans in the U.K., and radicals in the U.S.. It's the pushback against oppressive Religion that formed the United States, not hippie Christians. How equal did the Christians consider the indigenous tribes that they conquered in the U.K. and U.S.?
And the Golden Rule of Confucius didn't seem to work, and he was a hypocrite. For example, as I read "Confucius talked about many "virtues," but he excluded the slaves and other enslaved working people from "virtue." As he saw it, the slaves could only take orders and be enslaved, and could never be allowed to know any truth." Chinese Politics: Ninth Party Congress (1969) to the death of Mao (1976).
@@user-wu7nv2bj6f, sure. Abolishment of Slavery is a mixed bag, as some nations got rid of it then added it back, later. It began mostly as slave trading, then certain groups were allowed to be freed under certain conditions.
There have been many tribes that never even had Slavery, and gave women equal status to men.
@@user-wu7nv2bj6f, if you want to understand the source morality of Jesus and Slavery, Luke 7:2-10 explains how Jesus healed a δοῦλος/doulos (slave in Koine Greek), and didn't free him. Luke 19:12-27 is a parable about disobedience that Jesus taught, and it mentions killing a slave, not freeing them.
@@rustlingbushes7678 Why do you run suddenly from the topic? You made that claim that Confucius developed human rights too. Where and how, if Confucius himself was not living up to his own standard? Explain it to me who you think you got your human rights from, from the tribes? lol
@@user-wu7nv2bj6f, human rights have developed over millenia, and are constantly changing. Just in the U.S., women have had the right to vote for a century, and it wasn't every woman, as minorities were given the right later.
Confucious had a different set of human rights. Even today, Slavery exists largely in India and Mauritania. In the West, sex slaves are still trafficked.
Everyone has human rights, until someone else limits them. It's a human concept, and everyone is subject to consequences. They differ depending on the society.
Dillahunty just needs to step up and admit that he has faith in a supernatural universal immaterial realm made up of at least morality, laws of physics and logic, with purpose and meaning - and that this immaterial realm has dominion over material reality.
And at that point you can quit calling yourself “atheist” my friend. Sorry but true.
I'm not Dillahunty, obviously, but I do share many of his ideas and I don't think you are being accurate.
Morality is just rules we live by. We can make them up as we see fit. It seems in our best interest to make them up according to some principle, such as well-being, but there is not reason to presume they are from some "immaterial realm".
The "laws of physics" just are what they are. Nothing else needs to be posited.
The "laws of logic" just work, and its a good thing too. That's all I know. But again, nothing else can be, or needs to be posited.
In the end, there are some things we don't understand, indeed may never understand, but our lack of understanding about those things does not constitute evidence of anything else, certainly not evidence of an "immaterial realm" with "dominion over material reality".
Greg
That is a truth claim. Do you believe in truth? Is it a material thing?
What is a fact? How do you know if something is a fact or if something is true?
Eric B
If morality is “just rules we live by” and not a universal immaterial truth, then it’s arbitrary and meaningless. Correct?
You can claim the laws of physics “just work”, but then I would ask why are you here commenting? Do you believe you can communicate an objectively true claim? What is argument, debate, and reason between people? What is the point?
If you engage in debate, you presumably agree to the logical principles that govern debate. For instance, objective truth exists.
So then, is objective truth material or immaterial? Universal or local?
Eric B
By the way, how do you know if something “just works”?
@@deanodebo
"then it’s arbitrary and meaningless" - Its not up to me, or anyone else, to provide you with "meaning". What meaning you find in morality is up to you. I am pointing out that, if there is no god, then clearly we have to define our own rules of behavior. We have to make our own morality. I'm not saying that is an easy task, indeed, it may be the death of us, but nevertheless, it is our responsibility.
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by the "laws of physics", but presumably you mean things like Maxwell's laws of thermodynamics. Such "laws of physics" are just descriptions of nature. Nothing more. If things didn't work the way do, they would work some other way. It is nonsensical to conflate simple descriptions of nature with "an objectively true claim". Sure, I can determine that the weight of an object doesn't effect the rate it falls by performing an experiment, but pointing out the "objective truth" of such claims seems tautological. As far as physics is concerned, the laws just are what they are. Big deal?
I think you are referring to is more like what are often called the "rules of logic" or "rules of thought", things like the law of the excluded middle and the law of identity. You seem to be pointing out the fact that our ability to reason about the world is remarkable. To which I can only say "yep, it sure is". All I know about the "laws of logic" are that they work - i.e. that they continue to produce desired results, as the existence of any piece of technology demonstrates. I don't know why they work, perhaps I never will. I just know that they do, at least so far.
If you are asking if physical laws of nature are "Universal" or "Local", then the answer is I don't know. They appear universal, but they might not be, either way, this is an empirical matter.
But that is not what you asked. You asked if "objective truth" is "material or immaterial". A claim about the world is "objectively true" to the extent it can be tested and demonstrated. Asking if "objective truth" itself is "material" or "immaterial" is like asking if green is perfect. The words seem to fit in the sentence, but they don't make any actual sense.
I don't know, but the name is sure stolen, as humanism was a Christian concept
Matt Dillabloviator
And he still trashed every one of yours that he debated.
@@gdemolished6986 Definition of Bloviatior -
1. A public figure who makes outlandish, strident statements on issues, thinking that the average man will care about their opinions.
2. Someone who pontificates about issues of which they are uninformed, yet pretend to be expert.
3. Pompous blowhard, using their celebrity to speak about topics on which they are totally unqualified.
So I agree. Matt trashed every "one of mine" that he has ever debated, if the goal is demonstrating which of the two is a bloviator... without a doubt.
If the goal is demonstrating which worldview, of the two, is more rational then he loses every time. If you want to see him be absolutely destroyed in that sense, just watch his debate with Jay Dyer. It was embarrassingly bad for Matt.
No such thing as we. Survival and barbaric pagans is what we are without Christ.
As if first century AD was the first time humans ever heard someone say consider the poor. I'm also sure the Canaanites didn't feel like equal humans when they were being killed by the Hebrews per god's command. And all of this acts like Asia never existed with it's long, non-western history of ethics, morals, religion, and government. It also ignores the influence Zoroastrianism had on the Hebrew religion and Christianity (where they got the concept of hell from).
eximusic Are you saying the Canaanites did nothing wrong and what happen to them wasn’t justified?
Jeremy Vinup you’re a comedian, right?
eximusic did you know the canaanites were burning their children alive. In your world view when is it justified for evil to receive judgement?
@@jeremyvinup3868 Hilarious, you read this from Canaanite documents? What did Nazis says about Jews? What did white slave owners say about blacks? What did Europeans in this country say about Native Americans? Eating children was probably one of the things. Have you read the horrible stories in the OT? Judge and the Levite who cut his concubine's body into 12 pieces and sent to the 12 tribes. The OT is bullshit, a story book written while the Hebrews were in captivity, intended to bolster their pride in demoralizing circumstances. Archaeology shows that the Hebrews didn't actually kill anyone when they entered the promised land. they cohabitated with the original inhabitants.
What you see is your typical atheist who doesn’t understsnd the bible and your “cultural christian” whom means well but doesn’t press any questions on the topic. What I mean by “press” is not barrage hims with scripture or try to make him fill small but help with the understanding why the christian God is the one true God and the “biblical christian religion” is the one religion that actually gives God’s truth. Judaism and Christianity are the only 2 religions that believe in the same God. In a short talk such as this, is difficult to explain much of anything in a way that people can really understand.
At 1:20 they both could allready have agreed, that C-G=H is equivalent to C=H+G.
This is a huge error in judgment. In the historical Christian writings, the imperative is always rooted in the indicative. If you simply take the Christian standard of right and wrong without establishing them in the God of Christianity then what authority do you have to enforce them? On what rational basis do they any longer make sense?
Christianity isn’t simply a moral system but a historical narrative, a transcendent worldview, and its ethics only makes sense when grounded in the Triune God of the Christian faith.
@@raohnniejackson8568 "If you simply take the Christian standard of right and wrong without establishing them in the God of Christianity then what authority do you have to enforce them? "
The exact same: A group of people A, who wants other people B to live their lifes according to the rules of group A.
"On what rational basis do they any longer make sense?"
Again, on exacltly the same: None! There is no rationality whatsoever in religious belief and there is no rationality whatsoever in the need of A to decide for B and call it humanism. Its all pure greed for power over others.
@@petermeyer6873 Thanks for your reply. I’m not sure I understand your point. I’ll state mine a bit more clearly.
Christian ethics have no rational basis or moral fortitude as foundational principles apart from their grounding in the character of the christian God as ultimately revealed in Christ.
Therefore, Christianity and secular humanism are essentially different and cannot be compared in any meaningful sense. Similarities are often an illusion when comparing world religions and worldviews. The devil is in the distinctions.
@@raohnniejackson8568 Thanks, r.jackson. Ill try again to explain my side here:
"Christian ethics have no rational basis or moral fortitude as foundational principles apart from their grounding in the character of the christian God as ultimately revealed in Christ."
For any non-believer, that scentence isnt of any argumentative value. It only puts the word "god" on the christian morality as a label to sum it up. Just like "secular humanism" is a label for what that specific branch of humanism, represented by Dillahunty in this discussion, declares as morally valuable. The difference you think to have found is only based on your belief that your god really exists. Without that, both, the outcome AND the origin of these two moral standpoints are not only comparable, they are allmost identical. Of course, the two of us differ in what exactly we think the illusion is, here.
@@petermeyer6873 Ok. That’s a lot to reflect on and respond to. I’ll take a moment and get back with you on this.
Christianity does not do that, Christianity leaves out do many others, religion is rather slimy
It strikes me that Scrivener has, while not lying, has been slight disingenuous throughout this conversation. I think in a cutthroat situation Dillahunty could have easily pulled him up. Dillahunty was very polite but I could see the slight hesitations when he wanted to correct Scrivener. One point that has cropped up several times: Scrivener has referenced survival of the fittest without understanding what it actually means. He then talks about this means we would sacrifice the weak. Survival of the fittest: a layman's definition, that which is best suited to a niche in evolutionary terms. A weak person, even a sickly person, can be regarded as the fittest in ways. He/she may be more intelligent, more skilled at toolmaking. may be a more creative thinker. It's not about who is stronger or meaner. Admitted they can be useful for filling an evolutionary niche as well. Being weak but smarter may increase your team building skills, there would be a benefit from cooperative social interaction. Several weak individuals, banding together, can stand up to a physically strong individual. We did overcome predators, in our distant past, by cooperating as social units.
Every time Scrivener came up with survival of the fittest I could see Dillahunty slightly balk, only because I know he wanted to correct the misrepresentation of what the term meant. This is what I meant by Scrivener being slightly, I should say subtly, disingenuous.
It's always disappointing when you see an atheist who is more honest than a theist. This , I'm afraid is a regular occurrence. I think they, theists, get a special dispensation from god.
No such thing. Information travels. We call it memes. Humanism, however, lacks the foundation that Christianity (and most other religions) have so it can “steal” as much as it likes it will not do much for humanity (in my opinion)
buymebluepills religion of peace’s
Christianity has Stolen many of its Narrative and ideas from other Religions and ideologies at one time Christianity was the Narrative of a Few Desert Dwellers a minor Blip on the Religion Scale with little Foundation
Lee Bennett so?
@@TheOlzee Basically someone had some ideas and attached the Word Christian to them and that makes them Christian ideas,I will neither Automatically Dismiss or Affirm any idea that has Christian attached to it,These are Human ideas that can exist independent of Christianity
Lee Bennett yeah dude I get that. But none have a foothold over society unless you want to say leftist ideology, atheism, feminism does (and i’d agree it does but it’s turning the west into a pile of shit).
Without God, humans are NOT going to come up with different ways to structure our society? That is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard . Communism and capitalism for an easy example. Helloooo, anyone home there, Matt?
Except that no one has demonstrated that a god exists, so we must operate on the assumption that all of the ideas about different ways to structure societies have come from humans. Especially since we already know that humans can have different ideas about how to structure societies. You might as well be saying "without universe creating unicorns, humans are Not going to come with different ways to structure our society". Until you DEMONSTRATE that god (or universe creating unicorns) exist, you cannot make either claim....and if you do, you should be ridiculed.
@Google User evidence of a creator for me would be numerous god's, religions and religious texts created by various civilizations over the course of humanity, of which these various concentrated groupings of people devote their lives to pleasing and fearing said god (or gods), while inventing unrealistic stories about their gods that are meant to demonstrate their god's power. Seeing this process repeated again and again across the timeline of human existence should leave no doubts whatsoever that there is a creator. Right?
We have, since the dawn of civilization. It's an ongoing process. Cultures change. How many deities are now "dead" as a result of humans? Hundreds, at least.
Google User Hmm. I guess the first thing you would need to do is describe, in detail, what an “all-powerful author of existence” is, then show that it’s even possible for something “all-powerful” to exist, and then show that it is necessary. Essentially the same standards of evidence we require for justifiably believing any other extraordinary claim.
@@VoluntaryistSkeptic, I'm an Atheist, however I too am trying to explain how there could be universal consciousness, gravity, antimatter, etc. I still can't attribute those to the proposed deities, as they require such lacks of investigation.
God as defined in the scriptures is attributed to be the prime mover of testable, physical reality. We have explanations for many scriptural events, and I personally look forward to the day when we explain all deities into Oblivion.
I don't look forward to any of the deities of the scriptures being real, in any fashion.
Every atheist will eventually turn to God and find Jesus there!Maybe today or maybe like Dismas on the cross next to Jesus.I was a Hopeless atheist criminal addict and Jesus Himself stepped in and I have been clean and sober and on the Path with Jesus for 26 years.Matt is one crisis away from turning to Christ.And Jesus will welcome you with open arms!!God Bless you Matt!!Thank you Glen
I am pleased for you. If you are happy where you are, then good luck. I will happily go out of this life with no god and no afterlife. I'm from a poor working class background. I've struggled with money all my life. I brought up 2 kids who have done well for themselves. All without ever turning to a god for help. I suffered with bipolar disorder for the first 30 years of my life. Not once did I ask for help from someone other than a medical professional. But, good luck to you.
Never, Matt will never submit to anyone. He is God in his head, his pride is off the charts
That’s cute, but the actual figure is closer to 32% of all people will be Christian before they die.
This is a uniquely Christian value, except for Judaism that too.
Oh, and Isalm. But other than that, just Christian. Ok, maybe Buddhism and Hindu as well. But that's it. Probably.
@buymebluepills uh huh. And we all know how well christian "turn the other cheek". Crusades, Inquisitions, Witch Trials - ring a bell?
I didn't say Islam was perfect or that Muslims were awesome. I just meant that Islam makes ethical claims that are in many ways similar to Christian ethical claims. Check out the Moral Commandments in chapter 17 of the Koran. They should look pretty familiar.
I mean, c'mon, are you really trying to say that only Christians are ethical? Even by theist standards, that's just silly.
@buymebluepills Literally what the Bible commands too, the only difference is that Christianity has been tamed by outside sources, and Islam hasn't been. One only needs to look at Uganda to see a state where Christians rule with just as much of an iron fist as Saudi Arabia.
@buymebluepills Wow God bless you for being an Ex-Muslim and found Jesus. Thank you for your testimony and your knowledge you are able to use against Muslims and Atheists.
Matt was put on this earth to dig ditches, let be honest and someone needs to get him to drop the smarmy tone. You’re in over your head buddy- I saw the Dyer debate, you were smashed
Guys, let this person above my comment be an example of how to debate an issue and not dig ditches.
Sutra Stevens
You want to debate something?
That’s what I thought
Win some, lose some. That's the way the world rocks.
Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug!
Who killed a Christians human god ???
Tarik Ramadaan you did as did everyone else
buymebluepills @ what Stage Of life Did Jesus look like God, Childhood, Teenage or Maturity ????
Villainous SSB @ when Jesus Christ was 5 years old did he look like God Almighty ???
Tarik Ramadaan well he didn’t have two right hands so it wasn’t al-lah
buymebluepills @ for people do worship a being that eats food 🥘 and defacates as God ..... it is mindblowing . Such people have certainly gone far far astray and are hopeless
We evolved to know that Christian moral values are true, as demonstrated by societies predicated on it.
It’s true because society is predicated on it?
@@petesake1181 Pragmatically true, Yes!
@@petesake1181 Why quote the exact same thing but leaving two important words off? "As demonstrated".
Matthew Morgan Because that’s what’s under question: if it is indeed demonstrated by said predicate. If something is demonstrated to be true because society is predicated on it, one can say, in whichever epoch their from, that their moral values are the right ones.
You should also note that the person I was asking the question didn’t have an issue with it.
@@petesake1181 _in whichever epoch their from, that their moral values are the right ones._
They were true or right during those epochs, but did those moral truths (let's say) survive? I apply a darwinian framework to ultimate truth claims. How long did Nazism survive???