Christian SMASHES 10 Atheist Commandments?!? (feat  

well done mate

Hello Cartoon Me 🙋🏻‍♂️

Woo 🎉 Eric!!

You made the big time and even better cartoon hair! Great break down Eric!

Cartoons are cool.

15…I mean 10 commandments!

I think of this every time the commandments are mentioned. Maybe somewhere on that last tablet not owning other people was mentioned. We'll never know.

Actually, god initially wanted to give Moses only three commandments, but Moses expressed his disappointment because he was hoping to get at least 15. So as a good Jew he started haggling and eventually he got home with ten. 😅 I don’t remember where I heard that joke, unfortunately I am very bad at telling them. Feel free to borrow the idea if you know how to improve on it.😊

And what about our ancestors???😊

Dog bless Mel Brooks.

I guess that is the same as they do with the bible … take a few random snippets, likely misunderstood and out of context and confabulate on that basis.

In that case, I think it should be given the benefit of the doubt.

party on, dudes

It's so you cannot see how unbelievably boring it is inside. There really isn't anything going on there. Older buildings that were repurposed as KH did have windows. My childhood KH had windows down the entire length of the building. The result? You were distracted by street noise, birds, or just staring out at the sky. We were broken into once and had our AV stolen via the windows. New building construction never incorporates windows, but I really think it's just for privacy, security and limiting distraction by the head-nodding attendees.

yes, they were in Sean's video. I agree they were annoying.

@@Paulogia Yeah i thought it was them.

In what sense is "good" objectively measurable absent a goal?

@@Paulogia per the English definition: "having the qualities required for a particular role," or "of high quality." Which, in a word, means being functional. So, a good car runs. That's objective. A bad car does not. Good and bad refer to the functional level of the object. On a moral level, you'd be looking at whole societies or planets, and how systems interact. A self destructive society is a bad one. Doesn't matter if you want society to crumble or not. If X can't be sustained, it can't even exist, and thus is not a good X because it isn't X anymore. These are just objective phenomena that are not dependent upon opinion, and can be described with every day usage of the English word good or bad.

@@Paulogia ...and I'll add that within the framework of "objectively good ways to achieve subjectively chosen goals," there is already a concession to the definition of good that I'm arguing for: functionality. Good ways to achieve goals just means functional ways of achieving them. If your method of achieving a goal is not working, it doesn't function, and thus is bad at achieving the goal. With this same definition, we can characterize goals themselves as good or bad.

@@SnakeWasRight You do notice that you're defining these words in terms of goals, right? A running car is your goal. "particular role" means a subjectively chosen goal. And you've defined morality in terms of a goal of non-destruction. I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out that all of these things you think are objective only become objective after the goal is identified.

@@Paulogia I disagree. A role is not necessarily a goal. For example, hemoglobin carries oxygen. It has that role. That's what it's good at, that's what it's good for, that's what it functions to do. I don't need to care or have any goals about life at all to notice that objective phenomenon. Plus, the other definition, "of high quality" is the same thing in different words. It has successful functions. The role could be anything, it doesn't matter. The fact of having qualities that fulfill a function, any function, is a goodness property. Morality isn't necessarily non-destruction. Destroying destructive things could increase overall good of a system. The reason destruction is typically immoral is because when a thing ceases to be, it is no longer good for/at anything, it has no qualities, no roles, no functions. Thus, the total amount of good has been decreased. Morality isn't about non destruction per se, it's about whether conscious agents can underatand how to increase or maintain the amount of qualities the universe or given system has. It merely CORRELATES to non-destruction because a destroyed thing has no qualities.

it's kind of garbage considering that for it to be analogous then we are talking about rape. The only way a woman wakes up pregnant with no idea how she got pregnant is through rape. The argument of the violinist is comparable only to rape. While I get what you mean with the rest of the argument, the premise of the violinist argument isn't dealing with a question of bodily autonomy because no consent was given for the violinist to be hooked up to the person in the first place. The book the thought experiment comes from states it thusly; You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. The thought experiment predicates that you have been kidnapped [an action taken against your will]. The violinist's circulatory system has been plugged into yours [an action taken without consent] and you are to be held captive [without consent] for the next nine months. Not only that, your kidneys and organs and body are being forced to take on a double load with no consideration to your long term health or wellbeing, simply to keep this person to whom you did not consent in any fashion alive long enough that their body can take over and somehow recover from his ailments. Your body is being forced, against your will, to extract whatever poisons are in his blood. The fact that this could endanger both your lives isn't even addressed. It's a rape analogy for the ends justifying the means. This is in no way analogous to someone getting pregnant and choosing to abort. Also lets look at the teleological outcome. The violinist uses your body for nine months and at the end, they magically recover and what do you receive for keeping him alive? Absolutely nothing, not even a thank you. You will be discarded back into the world to resume your life with all the trauma that came from being abducted and raped and held for nine months to suffer sickness and possibly even death simply because some people decided it was necessary. In that regard, it is slightly analogous in that others want to decide whether people who can give birth should risk illness and death because they think it is right it happens. That people who can give birth face life long consequences with absolutely no support, simply for the ends to justify the views of the people who abducted you in the first place.

@@nightshade7240 That's a good point, I never considered it that way.

Cause you're not part of the inner circle...

@@c.guydubois8270 I AM el comandante of the atheist network and nobody told me, too.

Because someone rang the gong early for the baby bbq buffet and everyone went out to gorge before the announcement could be made.

You didn’t get the email?

@@philw6056 self proclaimed I'm sure...

"If YHWH says to do it, ..."

They always mark those trips as for business, not for pleasure.

Not to mention that even that doesn't apply to all humans. From recent events in Ukraine and Israel/Gaza there exists reports of finds of remains of children who seemed have been tortured and killed in ways which can only be attributed to some kind of deprived fun. Yes all these reports could be fake as a propaganda, but given the number I do feel that there would be some truth to that. Also I don't think people who would do such a thing would do it knowing it's wrong. If you know you are doing wrong and do it anyway is because you'll gain something. I don't think they would gain something by torturing children (in "fun" way) against just executing them. I don't think it would work as psychological warfare, actually the opposite if you know someone did something like that you will gain new willpower to defend yourself and your loved ones not to give up - if you know that surrender will put you in that situation, you will fight to your last breath.

Yes they sing songs like," lay my Isaac down". About when Abraham went to sacrifice his own son because God told him to. What % of Christians would kill their kid if they thought God ordered them to?

Blind obedience and feelings the religion of no personal responsibility

Exodus 34:20 is "interesting" from a moral standpoint.

Considering this is the same Sean who presented as 'atheist' to an apologism class full of students, is not that surprising.

The same dude who has pretended to be an atheist and delivered lectures, as such, to Christian kids. That’s a liar. He even told of an atheist kid who talked to him after the lecture. Still, it did not seem to occur to him how much of a betrayal this is.

There’s someone, who keeps stating”facts not feelings”, while wearing a kippah. So yeah. It’s nothing new.

​@@GeoPePeTtoWhich is why I refer to him as DisinBenuous Shapiro.

As I've also commented on his video, it's fascinating watching someone pay lip service to the value of research and science in understanding the natural world and following evidence where it leads... while limited in the evidence & conclusions he is allowed to accept by Biola's statement of faith, and also uncritically hosting & propping up known creationist liars.

If they truly feared an everlasting torture pit dishonesty wouldn’t be so prevalent amongst their group.

Indoctrination trains your brain to not work well. It's conditioning.

Deep down they know that it’s all bs. 😅

This should be the example given when the definition of what a strawman argument is.

Theyre 100% lying obvioiusly, this is just one of their many silly attempts to paint atheism as a cult/religion itself, thinking its some kind of gotcha.

Like father like son, kent and Eric hovind also spring to mind

I'm shocked SHOCKED I tell you!

Considering Sean cosplays as an atheist “professor” to Christian kids…it tracks.

To be fair, if it wasn't for the 'for fun' qualifier, there would be situations where one could argue that it is moral to torture a child - things like 'Is it moral to torture a child if it means that a hundred other children are spared torture?'

It is even more bizarre when they also describe morality as 'absolute'. But refuse to drop those weird caviats.

​@@tobinfolly901 I would argue thay both things are immoral, one less than the other but immoral nonetheless.

It’s because they have to account for corporal punishment for children, which parents and even schools still practice. “Spare the rod… etc.”

​@@tobinfolly901But that is a silly scenario and should be dismissed.

That right there, ladies and gents, is what we call a burn.

Should we expect God to know what the Ten Commandments are? Which was Jesus's sixth commandment? (Notice that Jesus lists only the secular commandments that make no mention of God): 1. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (Matthew 19:17-19) 2. Honor thy father and mother: Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor thy father and mother. (Mark 10:19) 3. There was no sixth. Jesus listed only five commandments: Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother. (Luke 18:20)

@@twitherspoon8954 According to Christians, we should expect only that God had a good excuse for why the Bible doesn't match their beliefs. Anything else is putting God to the test.

@@goldenalt3166 Yahweh created Mormons so that Christians would know how Jews feel.

Did anyone notice that the screen shot of Shaun's video shows that he has 244k subs and that the video is three months old and has only had 12k of views and 180 comments. Paul on the other hand has 127k of subs and this video has ( at time of writing)24k of views in 21 hours.

​@@JD-wu5pfThen I dare apologists to drop 'for fun' from their oft repeated argument.

​@@JD-wu5pfIt does the exact opposite that you claim, and we both know why theists use the qualifier.

@@JD-wu5pf That's like, your opinion man, and not really based in truth. You are imagining a need to protect against a easily dismissed scenario while ignoring the elephant in the room. But thanks for playing.

@@JD-wu5pf Specifying "For Fun" implies that there's other reasons besides "for fun" as to why someone would torture a child that are somehow less egregious. If you're at the point of physically torturing children, there is no reason to speak of that is the least bit acceptable. The qualifier is meaningless and only serves to raise questions as to why you included the qualifier.

@@JD-wu5pf "Which there are. I can come up with plenty of contrived hypotheticals in which "torturing children" is the best moral choice. Adding "for fun" removes the need to have conversations about those hypotheticals" No one who deserves entertaining would need that clarification. "The problem is that C- tier atheists are now getting bogged down on the phrase 'for fun' instead of addressing the actual problems with theistic morality." Ahhh, the problem is everyone else misunderstanding you. Gotcha.

What’s the reference?

​@@drachireidnoc6659 Austin Powers. @Paulogia has some of the clips at the beginning of the video.

Maybe I watch too many paleontology videos. First thing I thought was Scotty, the biggest T-rex specimen found so far. 😅

@@DrKippDavisoh I must have missed that. When I think of Scottie I think “beam me up Scottie”

@@pansepot1490 "Maybe I watch too many paleontology videos." I am going to go ahead and conclude, "Yes."

Well said. Exactly my experience as well.

Me too! I was no longer wasting my time chasing the ever elusive deity so I had more time to focus on reality and much better priorities!

Not to mention the prayers of a billion Hindus don't usually lead to their discovery of the true God, or the Muslims, or the etc.

Oh they define it plenty, they just make up the definitions to fit their lies

​@MatecaCorp correction Atheist world view is sin and hates God so they turn their back....pleasure before virtue. ... REEEEEEEEEE! that seems to be how they define it.

You can’t prove there isn’t an atheist worldview so it must be true. 😂

@@RiiDii lol

I'd like them to define the theist world view. Just the fact that there are, and have been in the past, so many different religions with different and contradicting beliefs would seem to make it impossible to have any consistent world view.

"Ten Mild Advocations"

In fact I would argue “you do you” has the implication that you should do what you want while accepting whatever consequences arise from it. The person who says “you do you” isn’t shrugging off all responsibility, just any responsibility for your actions

Not according to atheism. Atheism actually encourages lying since the only morality atheism has to offer is get ahead by “any means possible.” When there is no foundation of principle, and atheists default to animalistic instinct, community, morality and purpose go right out the window. “But God proved his love for us in this; While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 1:4-1:18) ✝️

​@@LordOfThePancakes thanks for proving his point. Theists can't help but lie about those who reject their beliefs.

​​​​@@LordOfThePancakes Nope, that is christian morality, where the first thing that matter is 'you shall have no other gods before me' by any means necesary, including lying. 'So god loved the world that he sacrificed himself to himself for a mistake he himself commit to begin with' Nice try though.

​​another way to say it is, God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself.

​@@LordOfThePancakes According to atheism? The stance most atheist have is agnostic. Christians say morality comes from God, prove that. Sensible athiest don't say where it comes from but go with evidence of where it comes from. When you make a claim, you adopt the burden of proof. You should not make claims to things you can not prove.

And he didn’t bother steelmanning the atheist position. Or, if he did, it shows how little he understands the atheist perspective.

@@Rhewin All he did was strawman it. Dude even wore glasses, that he does not normally wear, because it was cosplay. He did not just lie about being an atheist but a professor at a university.

@@Nocturnalux normally he presents it as the “Atheist Experience” for churches, and they know what he’s doing. For some reason his professor buddy thought the deception would be a good idea. Genetically Modified Skeptic at least was grateful that Sean’s message was about listening to atheists instead of talking over them, but also found it disappointing they weren’t willing to talk to a real atheist.

@@Rhewin I was an atheist in Catholic school, if he had pulled this stunt on me, I would have been angry beyond belief. Even done once, it is very telling that he could just stand there for over an hour, lying to kids. I mean, forget how unfair this is to atheists. It is disrespectful to the audience. There was even an atheist girl who came talk to him after the lecture and he still did not see how gross this was to her.

@@JD-wu5pf yeah I’m not sure that’s the most helpful outlook for individuals like me…

Easier than getting an actual job.

Too bad he has even less charisma and stage presence than his dad. Maybe he should just be a youth pastor or a drummer for the worship team.

"The ends justify the means" is the ultimate Christian commandment.

Kept waiting for that reference

Oh, come on, you have to agree that boiling a goat in its mother's milk is evil and that a commandment against it is funny!

@@reformCopyright I really don't get that Commandment. Did Moses have a friend who thought their kid* cooked in its mother's milk was an awesome recipe? 🤷🏻‍♂ *Not their child, just to clarify, but the mother goats bsby.

@@johnburn8031 It would taste better with paprika, but that wasn't available before trade with the New World. If only the ancestors of the Mormons had thought to send their wooden submarines back to the Levant we wouldn't have had to wait for so long.

@@RichWoods23 I thought paprika was from India. 🤷🏻‍♂

@@johnburn8031 Capsicums are native to the Americas. It's ironic that Columbus was aiming to reach the Indies to take advantage of the spice trade when he discovered the Americas, yet while he and the subsequent European explorers brought solanaceae plants back to Europe arguably their most significant adoption (other than for potatoes) was in the Indies.

Mr Diety is doing a series on Low Bar Bill and his arguments for why it was good that god ordered the murder of babies. It is absolutely horrific the lengths William L. Craig will go to to justify the objective morality bullcrap.

It's a sickening way to justify the countless cases of child suffering throughout history. At this point it'd be easier to just embrace the problem of evil and say God is selectively loving because of some excuses. Maybe the Fall. They love blaming the fall.

I think it was just “torture babies” at first, but then someone pointed out that God does this in the Bible through events like the flood.

No, it’s not because of ancient history. It’s because corporal punishment for children is still popular among sections of Christians. I heard that it’s still in use in some schools.

​@JD-wu5pf Why? Because adding the qualifier 'for fun' it implies that doing it but not 'for fun' is moral for a theist. Claiming that you do not understand this is a indication that you are a disingenuous person.

And one of those use a legal term anyway, so the law existed before the bible tried to hijack the idea.

And even then there are exceptions. "Thou shall not kill - unless the government is instructed by its paymasters who want to go somewhere sandy with oil and change the ruling regime."

2800 people is a modestly sized Discord server. Hardly a far reaching study.

Why my "Don't be part of the problem; be the entire problem" commandment was not chosen, I can only ascribe to blatant favoritism on the part of the judges.

You didn't? I'll contact headquarters and make sure they send it to you. How else will we destroy the world if we all don't have the manual to follow? /S

They add for fun so they can avoid the obvious contradiction between them saying "It is wrong to torture children" and God ordering children being tortured to death or torturing children in Hell. They can ssy, but those aren't for fun.

@@johnburn8031 Except God has no needs so everything he does is because he wants to. And he has no limitations so everything he does is because he wants that thing. So basically everything God does is "for fun".

@@goldenalt3166 that is a valid point, but most apologists seem to have a very Puritanical view of God. God doesn't do things for "fun" -but to stroke his ego- I mean for his "Glory."

@@johnburn8031 Yes, "it's wrong to torture babies unless it's for personal glory", sounds reasonable to me. 😊

@@goldenalt3166 very reasonable! 🤦🏻‍♂😉

This entirely depends on what one means by real.