An atheist challenges Frank at Southern Illinois University on God, truth, and right and wrong. After a few minutes of discussion, you may be surprised how the atheist responds. #FrankTurek #Christianity #Morality
As an atheist, I love this video. It shows how this kid is learning, exploring and thinking about both sides of the argument. He will probably go back and realize how silly tureks points were. Turek, of course being another religious fanatic that fails to ever see both sides.
Kaustav Chowdhury tell me one thing you learned from Turek and I bet I can make a fool out of you. It's no surprise that Turek has never spoke on any real forum with an educated opposition. He wouldn't last 5 minutes.
Pimpjit85 just take a point from his argument and attempt to debunk it or prove it wrong (you won't be able to) if you're gonna call him out and say his points were silly, the burden of proof is on you to show us where you think he is wrong. Also, he's debated people like Christopher Hitchens
I have to say I actually liked Kyle. He wasn’t vicious or offensive or anything. He’s seeking truth and understanding. God bless you Kyle that you seek God in all his glory and trust in Jesus forever and ever Amen!
@@Malhaloc rephrase your question. "christianity is true?" it is true there is a religion known as christianity presumed question of intent: "if the existence of god were true, would you be a christian?" Only if I could verify the existence of god OR if the existence of god was fundamental to all other rational thought and decision making. Example: The existence of the sun is true. But can I honestly verify that it exists(as a big fiery ball in the center of our solar system)? or is it just some big light up in the sky 200 miles high? Sure, I could verify its existence if I was smart enough and had access to technology. But the other part of my statement, "Is the existence of the sun fundamental to all other rational thought?" Yes it is. Why? Because if it did not exist, there would be a huge contradiction in many elements of what we have discovered and rationalized. Its explanation coexists with everything we have built up. So there are 2 cases for me being a christian: verifiable evidence of god OR the existence of god is cohesive with all other rational induction of our observable reality Technically, they are the same condition.
Tom Bombadil Why not look at the placement of the sun as well. If it were closer we would burn up, farther away we would freeze! Another example of random chance? Or intelligence of our creator. I choose the the latter
I'm not religious in any way. But I also don't deny the existence of a God. Simply because I don't know. To me, frank makes some excellent points. In fact, he really has got me thinking.
+jazza0007spy And the tooth fairy, and santa claus, and the celestial teapot orbiting around Saturn? Non of those things can be proven false. Do you also not deny their existence? You simply don't know.
+Ryan Shaffer never had a reason to. I believe in science. Couple hundred years ago, if you asked me, sure. I would have told you the red comet was a bad omen from God for telling death. Now? I know it's a comet that means absolutely nothing
james pogrebetsky Well you must believe in the supernatural, as there is no plausible scientific explanation (within natural laws) for the start of life on this planet or the creation of the universe without a supernatural explanation...
+Ryan Shaffer 100 years ago here was no explanation for a lot of things. 100 years before that, even more things .1000 years before that, almost nothing could be explained . What was lighting? Thors wrath. Just because something hasn't been explained yet, doesn't mean it has to be supernatural. And until you understand even 1% of scientific knowledge that the world currently holds, you shouldn't make such claims. It is a weak mind that jumps to supernatural towards things that haven't been explained yet. And half he time, they HAVE been explained, but no one bothers to look them up. You'd laugh at a man today that would claim some of the things claimed as super natural just a few hundred years ago, and you'd have been killed for doing that laughing, a few hundred years ago, as a blasphemer. Let that sink in. Ignorance is no reason to create super natural causes.
The dude holding the mic was very distracting and also enjoyable. Had to watch it a couple times to get used to it to pay more attention to the words and when I did it made the video even more appealing. If you don't know the Lord, go back and watch it again. I hope you're blessed by it regardless! Happy New Year
My problem with Turek's argument is that he assumes God is the moral standard. Which is also subjective. My standard is the well being for everyone, so my moral choices align those. But to follow them is a subjective view. You can replace "well being standards" with "God's standards". The choice to follow them is subjective
Great quote by Frank: _"You (the atheist) are Importing a moral law into a frame that has no moral law."_ That says it all...if there is no God, then anyone's idea of morality is just as good as the next guy's.
Funny how Frank ran from the question. Is OWNING people as PROPERTY moral? Is punishing an Innocent man for the crimes or sins of someone else ever moral?
@@allthingsvending6195 he just said that when you read things there's context, obviously this kid never read the entire book where that is written but just take things out of context and think "ah ha! There's something wrong with the Bible" and goes along using it as an example to tell others why he doesn't believe in it. He probably just read that online somewhere. His whole belief system is based off that one part out of a book he's never read, and that is not smart at all. He's very idealistic and has a good heart but his rationality isn't there. He needs to read the Bible and choose whether or not to believe it after studying it good. You can't debunk the Bible from one passage.
@tim murphy Jesus Christ is the foundation of Christianity, and he said that the whole laws lies upon these two principles: 1. To love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. 2. To love your neighbor as yourself. In doing so, you won't cheat your neighbor, hurt them, defraud them, kill them or do any harm to them...but to love them. And He went further, and said to love your enemies, to bless them and do good to them, not rendering evil for evil upon them. In demonstration of this principle, He laid down his life, allowing his persecutors to execute Him on a Roman cross for crucifixion...and while hanging there to die, He said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." There is no higher moral standard than this! -
@@cadenorris4009 I did not refer to the conclusions he held when this video has been recorded. I referred to the "hope" phrased above that he should get changed to become "a great asset to the kingdom". Which usually _does_ include indoctrination. The number of people who really voluntarily, based on their own, free, unguided research chose a religious doctrin to "believe" in is ridiculous small. Religious beliefs are a social phenomena, not a spiritual one, caused by culture, education and most of all social pressure in >99% of all cases. That is a conclusion all independent examinations of the topic come to ...
@@nupsi6 I would fundamentally disagree that people changing viewpoints usually includes indoctrination. Sure, I'll agree that kids are usually brought up in their religion from childhood, but that is just another aspect of culture, and if people are able to withstand the "indoctrination" until after becoming an adult, then it's going to be very hard for them to be indoctrinated in the future. And if you are only religious for the sake of social status, then obviously you won't view it as a spiritual journey. I know people who have been indoctrinated by religion, and are blissfully ignorant of science, and I will agree with you, there are a lot of them. But a lot of people are also not indoctrinated, and can justify their beliefs and not be ignorant of the science. A lot of people who go to my church are that way. But a lot of people at my old church were definitely indoctrinated, to where it felt like a cult. But that's why I left in search of a better church and a more personal relationship with my God.
Dr. Turek lays out the foundation and poses some terrific questions that really make everyone think including Christians even and people who do believe in God. It's very educational even for those of us who are Christians. I applaud the atheists who are posing the questions to Dr. Turek in a respectful and thoughtful way and responding also as such. These are the types of talks we like to see, not fighting and back stabbing.
Like "we can't know what's better, unless we know what best is?" I thought that was particularly ridiculous. We can't know that a fresh, delicious, healthy meal from a 5 star restaurant is better than a 5 hour old value meal from McDonald's, unless we know what the "best" meal is?
Steven Burdick... the bible has never condoned slavery, never. the word of God never changes. most Christians and different dominations pick and choose which moral laws are relevant and convenient , which is still just is wrong.
As far as a large adult hitting a child thinking it is discipline is ludicrous. It just shows the child that hitting people is okay. Children learn by example. There are better ways and most parents need to take a good parenting class to find out. The bible has a lot of ignorant things. Some people are bothered by the passages of scripture that they do not understand, but the ones that bother me are the ones that I do understand.
anonymous johnson there are many times when hitting someone is very ok. If i see a dude messing with my wife you better believe ill sleep fine after giving him a beating.
Loved this! Loved the response from Frank (as usual!) and it was great to watch Kyle too - an obviously thinking person and didn't approach the subject aggressively as I so often come across.
@King Amen-Tut-Ankh Technically yes, but actually no. We believe that morality comes from God because without God there is no standard of what good is [Actually no]. We believe that the Father, the Son(Jesus), and the Holy Ghost are the 3 persons of God and that Jesus is the one who created everything at the father's command [technically yes].
God provides no basis for morality as morality is whatever someone wrote in a book or a religious leader states a god wants. Morality based upon authority undermines people's development of making moral judgements based upon benefit or harm to others. What judgement was used to decide to let a book or others dictate rules they believe came from a mysterious source and what judgement is used to know when and how to apply the rules?
@@ChrisDied just because you're unable to understand the answers, doesn't mean they were bad. In fact, even Kyle himself was satisfied with them. The moral argument is one of the weaker ones, but it is still formidable. Atheists are trying to answer it since they came down from the trees, and had no tangible success so far. The best stupidity they came up with is utilitarianism, which implies that actions that promote the most happiness (or prevents the most suffering) to the most people are the best actions.... congratulations, you just justified stalinist-style purges to create utopian societies.
@@matheusadornidardenne8684 if morals come from an unchanging god like yours, why does the morals change over time? Bible says slavery is permitted with a couple of silly rules.... yet we all know today that slavery is absolutely not moral in anyway shape or form...... in 100 or 200 years people might look back at us and think how immoral we were for eating animals.... Point is, your bible is made up by people that didnt have a clue how anything in the universe actually worked, they believed the earth is flat ffs, why would you take anything they say seriously??
@@ChrisDied morals do not change, our understanding of them change. Just like gravity didn't change when Einstein changed our understanding of it with general relativity. To say "slavery is not permitted in anyway shape or form" you clearly don't know what the word meant back then. I wish I could work for only 7 years and have all my debts paid. It was a moral and just system, in place to help the poor. Read the Bible before you try to criticize it. I take what they say seriously because, through reason, I can recognize that the same Spirit that persuaded me into abandoning atheism and embracing christianity, was also present in what they wrote. Didn't they know the shape of the Earth? So what? If you think people read the Bible for astronomy lessons, you're too dumb to be having this conversation. They lived in a time of unparallel suffering in our written history. We cannot begin to compare our troubles to their struggles. As such, they knew a thing or two about trusting God, of rationalizing pain into instrumental good. Do you know the shape of the Earth? Good for you, mate. But do you know how to live an actual good life? Don't fool yourself and don't waste my time.
Such a lesson in respectful, thoughtful , knowledge able and faithful approach to difficult questioning from audience. Love Dr Turek’s calm approach and so blessed to see and hear his explanations👏👏🙏🙏
I knew there were going to be jokes about the living microphone stand. Thank you Dr Turek for caring enough about us to help us understand. GBY (God Bless You) & Aloha
I cannot for the life of me think of which verse he is talking about where Jesus says it is great that slaves are tortured. Can anyone point me to chapter & verse?
Bruce Wayne I agree. Clearly Jesus is letting us know that those who had never known about Jesus will be given a lesser judgment which is merciful, just like Jesus is. Those who deliberately reject him will have to pay for their own sins and try to save themselves by keeping the laws perfectly. Which is impossible.
As a former atheist the moral argument is what really sealed the deal for me, and was the primary reason I started looking into theology and ultimately lead me into Christianity. Once I realized that I had no foundation for any type of moral value judgement on an atheistic/naturalistic worldview I started asking deeper questions.
@Sai The Christian God has the right to take and give life as he sees fight. God doesn't owe anyone a second more of life. It's absurd to compare a human-being taking a life and God taking one. We're not God; so the rules are different.
@Sai God and religion are two different things. You can believe in God & not have a specific religious discipline. Also, there's a delineation between polytheism and monotheism. Either you're misinformed or just have a personal problem with religion. At that point your argument becomes more emotional than intellectual.
@Sai Okay...firstly, prior to your last comment you haven't asked any questions. All you've been doing is making incoherent statements, which again, seems like it's rooted more in emotion. Secondly, monotheic religions assert that there's ONE God who is the highest source of morality, and that gives us a concise, clear understanding about the foundation of morality. God is an infinite being. There can't be two infinites because infinity means you aren't lacking anything. So, if there's 2 infinite Gods that would be an implicit contradiction because one would have to be lacking something the other hasn't. This is why monotheism makes more sense.
Can an atheist act in moral and ethical ways? Certainly, he can. All humans still retain the image of God upon them, even after the fall of Adam and Eve into sin. The image of God was effaced at the fall, but it was not erased, and so man still understands right and wrong no matter how many try to say otherwise. Even atheists react to this inherent knowledge of right and wrong, some even to the extent of living exemplary lives. C.S. Lewis described this well. He noted that if a man sees another in danger, the first instinct is to rush to help (altruism). But a second internal voice intervenes and says, “No, don’t endanger yourself,” which is in keeping with self-preservation. But then a third internal voice says, “No, you ought to help.” Where does that third voice come from, asks Lewis? This is what is referred to as the “ought-ness” of life. Morality is what people do, but ethics describe what people ought to do. And yes, people know what they ought to do, but that doesn’t mean that they always act according to that knowledge. The difference between the atheist and the Christian in this sense is that the atheist may act ethically for certain reasons (e.g., not wanting to go to jail, it disrupts social order, it makes them look good to others, etc.), but he has no ultimate reason for acting ethically because there is no ultimate moral authority that exists over each sphere of his life. Without this ultimate authority, each atheist defines morality on his own terms, although his morality is influenced by the remnants of morality from the image of God within, along with the strictures and constraints of the culture and society in which the atheist exists. The Christian, on the other hand, acts morally out of the knowledge of the moral law given by God in His Word and a love for the Law-giver Himself. In addition, that knowledge is continually increased and personalized by the indwelling Spirit of God, whose task it is to bring the Christian “into all truth” (John 16:13). From within believers, He directs, guides, comforts, and influences us, as well as producing in us the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). To the atheist who is without the Spirit, God’s truth is “foolishness,” because it is “spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14), and the only fruit of righteousness is self-righteousness, not the righteousness of Christ. When confronted with a situation that demands both the Christian and the atheist to make moral choices, a situation in which societal constraints are removed, the reaction of each will be vastly different. If a society deems it morally acceptable to kill unborn babies, for instance, the atheist sees no reason to oppose the practice. His own “moral law” even tells him it’s the compassionate thing to do in cases where the child is the result of rape or incest. The Christian, however, knows abortion is wrong because his moral choices are built upon the moral Law-giver who has declared all human life to be sacred because it is created in the image of God. The Law-giver has proclaimed, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) and, for the Christian, there’s the end of it. So can an atheist act ethically? Certainly, but he has no ultimate reason to do so and no ultimate authority to look to in order to ensure his line is indeed straight and unbendable.
I worked in a Forensic Mental Hospital for 3 1/2 years. 400+ patients there to be deemed competent to stand trial for Murder, Rape, Child Molestation, and many other horrific crimes. "horrific" by Society's Standard, which were set to a great extent by Christian Values. If the patients were allowed to set the standards, based on their individual opinions, Murder, Rape, Child Molestation and many other horrific things would be "Normal" and totally "Acceptable". The "Standard" MUST come from a place that is ABOVE Human Nature. Human Nature, left to itself, is the reason we have Forensic Mental Hospitals.
No. Even if something doesn't exist, some people will believe in it and some will not. Vaccines don't cause autism yet there are anti-vaccers and, I guess, vaccers. There are people that believe something imaginary and also people that don't believe the same imaginary thing
@@alexismandelias and yet here you are, it's more a disbelief than non existence.. you are trying to debate in that which you do not even believe exists in the first place... more power to ya... I'm not trying to change anyone... it's just a quote from 100 years ago that still baffles the atheist... if, to you God is true, would you believe in Him? (I can answer that for you, it's no, you still would not believe)... nice try though, I've heard it all over the past 30 years and its the same response, just worded differently... perhaps you didn't know that man has been trying to "debunk" scripture for 2000 years & yet have nothing new to bring to the table... besides, its imaginary to you, yet, here you are...rather proving the quote, scripture & historical facts... I dont see atheist get upset with a Buddhism or Hinduism, even Islam.... it's always disbelief in God that sets off the atheist, so thank you for proving the point... & btw, you can believe whatever you want, I'm not trying to change you or anyone... if you want to believe everything came from nothing, then the burden of proof is on you, because you have to completely ignore historical facts, thus the choice to not believe in God. Did everything change or "morph" at the exact moment in time, why are there no records of a man witnessing a tadpole change into a human? Your reply is "because it takes millions of years" , & still I say, then everything changed at one time or there would be documentation of a man that saw something change into a completely different species with completely different DNA , cells , atoms, molecules, blood... why does man not have both gills & lungs, seeing the earth is 2/3 water, if evolution is true, it's based in survival of the fittest.. yet man isn't fit if he can't both swim & breathe under water & on land as well...not to mention your moral compass, why is rape or murder a bad thing?? Who said it was bad... you claim the bible was written by man thus is fallible yet you believe in the "theory" of evolution, which is just an "educated guess" which is written by man also... one has to be right & seeing how nothing can produce something, I'm with God & intelligent design... which it doesn't take a genius to just look at earth from space or the universe, or down to the plants, grass & animals to know that something made such organized beings & vegetation.. I can keep going but will fall on deaf ears, besides, as I said, I just made a comment, & not trying to change anyone...
@@alexismandelias in the late 1800' / early 1900's , a scientist named Herbert Spencer came up with the categories of the 5 knowables, time , force , action , space & matter & the scientific community praised him with this... I guess he didn't read the first verse in scripture, written 4000 yrs before he was even born ; Genesis 1:1 "in the BEGINNING (time) , GOD (force) , CREATED (action) , the HEAVENS (space) and the EARTH (matter) ... the atheist has to steal from God to attempt to "prove" there is no God... rather hypocritical if ya ask me... but I'm just a christian simpleton so what do I know... i do know that after 30 plus years in being a child of God nothing has come close to disproving or debunking my belief in God...in fact it has strengthened me more... Blessings!
The standard of rightness is human empathy. That exists with or without religion. We don't do things that will hurt someone because we know what it feels like to be hurt. We know that killing is wrong because we don't want to be killed ourselves and wouldn't want our loved ones to be killed. We don't steal because we know how it feels to be stolen from. Morality doesn't come from religion, it comes from basic human nature as a social species.
I am a Student of Christ and a follower of the Truth. It is bothersome to see that followers of Christ have to use this argument every time we discuss anything with an atheist. Whether we want to admit it or not, human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without believing in God. I am sorry to say that, but we are. Think of the early man... If I am starved today and I feel the pain and discomfort of hunger or starvation... and then tomorrow I am able to gather some food and I feel a little more satisfied than I was yesterday, I can then strive to have a "BETTER" meal tomorrow. That would be a "GOOD" thing and the hunger I felt yesterday would be a "BAD" thing. My goal can then be to be "BETTER" tomorrow. Knowing this, I can see and care for my loved ones and make sure they eat and be better. If I hunt and find a wild animal that will feed my family and I have left over, I can then look out for my neighbor, too. I help him survive. That's Good isn't it? I can do all of these things whether I follow Christ or not. In the same way, we have many followers of Christ who are still greedy, hateful, violent, abusive... who lie, steal, rape, murder (some in the name of God)... So to think that believing in God some how makes you morally superior to those who do not believe in God is insane. What's wrong with murder if there is no God? What are the consequences of murdering someone? One consequence is being murdered by the village of the victims family... or being exiled, or in today's world be arrested What's wrong with Murder if there is no God? ... he answered... because it doesn't help society... his rebuttal... "Why do I care about society?" ... answer... Because YOU ARE society. If society were to exile you, you would not be under the protection of the village or tribe. So it is in your own best interest not to murder. It's also important to note that Society is not a thing all on its own... society is ME... I am society. I contribute to it. Saying "There is no GOD" does not mean that there is no Standard of Rightness, that is a wild presupposition. There is nothing to support that. Some people murder others and do not care... some people do not murder others because they care... and they care because they see themselves in others. If I do not want to be murdered, I refrain from murdering others. If I see for example that the consequence of stealing another tribe's food can potentially be my own death, then I know stealing from others is not good and so I don't do it.. I can also teach this to my children. Maybe I can approach the other tribe and ask for help and they are kind enough to offer me food, I can see this as good... and I can also teach this to my children. Remembering the kindness they gave me, I can now see how it is good to help others when they are hungry like I once was. Having said all of that, I know the importance of having a God who is perfect in all ways who serves as an example of higher moral values that I should strive to be more like. That's important. As a student of Christ I love that He condensed the law into two commandments.. Love God with all your heart, mind and soul... and love your neighbor as yourself. It is better than "DON'T... DON'T... DON'T... DON'T..." If you love God you will know your relationship with Him. If you know your relationship with him, you will know your neighbor's relationship with Him and you will learn to love others as yourself. If you love others as yourself, you will not murder, you will not steal, you will not lust over your neighbors wife or husband. The greatest moral law is Love God... Love others. Christ said that if you love Him you will obey his commands... those who obey his command show they love Him... those who do not love Him will NOT obey His command.. and His command is this... Love one another as He has loved you. It's in you!
Mad props to this atheist for admitting the point that Frank was trying to make , well spoken and no ad hominem attacks this made my day keep up the good work Frank and God bless
This is great but I'm distracted and tickled by the man holding the mic to the young man's mouth. Lol. He looks like he's about to make him eat it. Lol. Yikes! 😆
This is my 2nd comment. This may be the best video so far that I've really watched. Such a peaceful exchange of ideas and he don't dismiss Theism but asks politely that maybe there is no God but as he hears and realizes the points he even said "you have a good point". This really touched me.
wandering_about 100 my friend. I have encountered Him in my dreams. And He was prophesied several times nearly hundreds of years before He came. He changed world history and it is 2020...2020 after His life, death, and resurrection.
The guy holding the mic at the end when Frank asked the guy if he would read a book, needs them morality lesson-- wow he almost made the guy swallow the micro phone lol
This was 5 years ago. I would not be surprised if today he is spreading the gospel. You can tell a seed was planted in his heart when he said "That's a good point". I hope he finds Jesus.
Give credit to the self proclaimed Atheist for realizing he was only scratching the surface and that what was being said to him was true. I hope he continues to search with open eyes and heart.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say this: There is no moral absolute. As everything we know, we were taught. We have been taught how to perceive things such as color, beauty, and morality. Take into consideration this advice: If a girl/boy is mean to you then that means she/he likes you. This is true and false, but cannot be proven to be absolutely true or false. I'm sure, not certain, that there have been cases where this ideology prevailed and others were a girl/boy was just mean. Before you ask "where does his mean manners come from?" let me continue. It is itself as much a contradiction as it's philosophy. The notion that people doing bad things to you because they like you seems absurd. However, we teach our kids this idea, among other things, that they will believe for an amount of time, brief or long lasting. And since we are older, wiser, and can take away their toys, they listen to us. Through fear or love, our children will believe what we tell them, but usually not forever. So why do they keep our passed down sense of morality unhinged? Well, they don't. An average person's sense of morality is, what I understand to be most accurate, passed onto them most likely from the moral conception of their guardian in which way they received theirs. As a person from the south, I can personally testify that racism and prejudice exist and no one is that shy about it (I'm not stating it only exists here in the south). When I was younger, I perceived people of a different race to be dangerous as I was taught. These ideas no longer resonate with me because I have independently developed my morality, and those ideas have been cast away. Now, independently doing this I had to acknowledge other viewpoints and I chose for myself, and I am still choosing, what best assists me, the people around, humanity as a whole, and nature. My morality is evolving. And I think morality has evolved. I speculate that from early on, civilizations, through trial and error, was constantly developing a system in which life flourished. The actions that were harmful, or had the least success in increasing life and eventually the well-being of others, were cast away- deemed immoral (i.e. killing each other, raping babies, etc). As we evolved so did our morality and almost vice versa. We became intelligent and could then take a more in depth look into our morality. That is why there has been a lot of moral contradiction throughout the span of our existence as well as religions. The more advanced an abstract concept became, the more room for debate. Even now morality is evolving. We have moral debates over a number of things. It is presumably safe to say, however, that without secular involvement, morality in religion would have stayed the same as the lesser morality of those that conceived it. It is no lie that in any religion, a moral adversary arises and we try to justify what could have been meant. In Islam, killing your daughter if she is raped is completely justifiable under the moral landscape of that religion. Christianity allows the stoning of adulterers. Yet, modern religious people (not extremists) do none of these things. Not because God has told them not to, because it is clear within the books that it is okay then, but because humans increased their intelligence through secular movements therefore evolving their sense of morality to cast aside the harmful virtues we see from then. If a god has a set standard and it was okay to do what we deem as terrible now back then, how come we deem it terrible now? If anything, we achieve a higher standard of morality, a concept that is evolving to us, without a god than with one.
+Heath Jackson The true bible if written by Jesus Himself wouldn't say to literally "stone adulterers". Everything in the bible is an attempt to portray how Jesus lived and what he MIGHT have said. Therefore the bible MUST be read in context otherwise it looses meaning and verses can be cherry picked to portray a negative outlook.The bible is a biography of Jesus NOT an autobiography and we as believers of Jesus attempt to portray his life and what he said through words but many times fail to do so. So if Christianity seems contradictory that is human fault and in no way represents Jesus/God.
Pray for the kids that are being raped by their priests. If prayers really worked, that wouldn't happen to them, and we wouldn't need hospitals, because prayers would heal everyone. Prayer only makes you feel like you did something helpful, when you really did nothing at all !
So god needs you're help to do right. The bible has stories that makes Stalin look better than you're god. Stop holding human to a higher standard than god. Stalin never claim ability/power to do anything
@@maul5578 Prayers is human wasting time. If god knows everything and has set plans, it does not need your interventions. Come on, does he need you to tell or ask him what to do? Maybe he needs a course in ethics
I like the conversation because there was no cynicism involved. When peple, specially atheists, get cynical about each and every argument you give, it just becomes impossible to have a healthy conversation.
@wandering_about I can smell the question. Yup most of the atheist I met ..don't just get calm for some answers regarding Creator. But he was till last holding on.
I ordered the book he gives out and it's suppose to come today!! I'm so excited! All these people receiving this book for free, and he makes it sound like they're doing him the favor when it's the other way around! Is that not gracious? 😊
I have to give props to the mic man as well, he does that job so brilliantly, even when Kyle moved his head around, plus he remains relatively unnoticed throughout the whole thing..
Now that was a honest question from man who wants to just understand & find the truth. .... I appreciate that he was honest & when he got a good well thought out answer to his question that he was satisfied with the answer from a logical perspective he said " ok & yes if love to read ur book " instead of arguing. So refreshing to see
The Question was taken out of context. Many people take God out of context because they never read the Bible and understood it themselves. They just repeat what they have heard or seen.
I can respect this atheist's ability to admit good counter perspectives and admit that Trek had good points. A response to rungavagairun: The opinion of the creator is indeed more important than one of a man because the morality of its creation is of correspondence based off of the creator. Natural moral laws are firmly established in most societies, of which a large majority of those who differentiate from those have been raised against those moral laws. Yahweh killed more people than Hitler? While this may or not be true, I find the fact that this fact was only due to the ungodly, the ones who deliberately violated his moral laws and would cause more harm to each other than God did. However, I am going to try to decrease my ignorance and agree that it is an interesting topic and I do see where your argument lies on a theological standard.
epicmredd hmmm I don’t think the concern lies solely in the death count between hitler and god, lets be honest with ourselves. Genocide, instructed by both god and hitler, doesn’t choose ungodly people. Babies, children and animals were slaughtered and drowned in the flood. To what grounds are they being rendered ungodly? Most arguments from here appeal to the utilitarian format with the doctrine of double effect that wiping out the amalekite race completely will envelope a better future. Are Christians that desperate to defend their beliefs that they would posit a moral justification in genocide because god instructed it? But if it was hitler, it’s wrong... why???? The second appeal raises a meta ethical standard that god gives and takes away. Humans don’t have a right to life to criticise or measure the morality of genocide. Again it’s double standards to say it’s okay if god does it but bad if hitler does it. There’s no difference between a Jew baby, and an amalekite baby. And for these reasons I reject the notion of god and his morality, being far inferior to that of ours.
When i was atheist and did bad things, i would laugh when people said i should do good because God, i would laugh even more if an atheist said i should do good, because they never gave me a reason for it and i would usually answer that "it is the survival of the fittest, you are weak and you hope the bad people become good, but if you win being bad, why would i? You win by being powerful, if the power comes from the good, be good, if it comes from the bad, be bad, if i have power being bad, you are the loser, and would be a waste of time to help losers, i win way more stepping on people's head. Your morality is for the weak, my morality is that nature permits my power to be abused."
@wandering_about not exactly, but atheism was for sure something that made me not think about it being wrong or something that would bring me remorse, as the atheistic rhetoric i had in mind, this was just the laws of nature, and that only dumb people would not see the advantages of doing bad to reach power (that i don't believe anymore) as i thoght the law of nature permitted me to do bad and that we have no afterlife and so helping people is a waste of time you could be using to make your only life better, otherwise, more people aren't helped, more chnaces you have that the power is only yours, and don't think i'm the only one that think that way, you gonna see that the most corrupt people you see everywhere is because bad gives more than good and that good don't compensates de bad. But i learned with religion philosophies to think differently, because if you don't add God to the equation, what is wrong about all i thought? So i thoght good atheists were just weak atheits, they are good because they know they don't have body and mind power to have power over people, they know if they do something bad people will beat them up, so they have to preach to people be good without a reason (as materialistic philosophies are their only resource) for them to be good because they don't want to lose in the power game permitted by nature, that the strong smashes the weak, things that atheists normally talk, like Dawkins, that even his close mate said he was wrong and proved it with ants (also called him not a scientist). And if i die doing, whatever, there is no God and i was already suicidal, so what matters? Life matters only to happy people or those that have something to lose, for those that don't have, the bad speaks louder.
Theistic morality isn't a stronger position than this guy's. If everything is reduced to the opinion of a god, it's not different than if it's one person's opinion. He's just a powerful individual. Hitler had power and he killed millions of people. Yahweh is said to have killed just as many or maybe more people. Why is it ok for Yahweh and not Hitler?
Alex S I'm pretty sure I understand. I disagree with the premise that having a god as the foundation of morality is a solution to the problem of moral relativism. All it does is put the subjective authority in the hand of the being who happens to be the most powerful. For the same reason that we have for being skeptical of kings (or presidents, etc) having better insight into morality, we can be skeptical of Yahweh's moral compass... especially when we read the Bible and see that his prophets endorse slavery, the death penalty for picking up sticks, and sassy children. I'm not a moral relativist. I do not share the views of the young atheist. My point was only that his position, though bad, is no worse than the position espoused by Turek.
rungavagairun The problem you have is you are classifying God as a subjective authority when He is an objective authority. This is the point of the entire argument. God is not influenced by (subject to) anything outside of Himself, nor is morality simply His opinion which implies it can be changed. The very nature of God is goodness and all objective moral standards derive from this unchanging nature.
***** There are places that disagree with you to an extent. Some places in colder climes it is illegal to shut off power during the winter even when the power bill hasn't been paid for a while. You can sue them, but you can't just arbitrarily cut the power. A similar ethical consideration would arise if we ever create artificial life. Just because _we_ made it, does that give their creators the right to destroy it if they wish? There seems to be a point at which we say 'no'. Shooting a dog just 'cause ya feel like it is, in many place, illegal, even if it's _your_ dog. Destroying a genuine artificial life form with the same ability to reason and experience would likely be the same. Just because you make something doesn't give you the right to destroy it based purely on your creation or ownership of the thing created.
***** Why does creating something give you the right to kill it? Imagine that I created a conscious robot. It can think and feel and reason. It has a desire to live and make other robots that are similar to itself. Do you think I have the right to just destroy this robot? I would argue that I have a responsibility to protect it, and if it is doing things that are bad, I have a responsibility to help it to make better decisions and/or reprogram it. At the very least, I owe it the dignity to communicate directly with it and, if I determine that it is beyond hope for rehabilitation, I can terminate it in a way that does not cause it to suffer. Yahweh apparently hates the majority of the people he created and he's supposedly going to torture us for all of eternity. That's not a moral plan. It's something a monster would do.
The only thing I can find that he might be alluding to is Mark chapter 12 and Luke chapter 12 /chapter 20..... But these are parables... I would like to have heard a little bit of what he thought he heard/read lol
@@IZCSRI A thanks for that that is a really bad twisting of what Jesus is saying, I then would reply where did he say it a good thing, if he thought or said (which he didn't) it was a good thing that they had to be punished why did he weep or die for the sin of the world. What he said doesnt make any sense at all.
Mr. Turek never did answer the question though. It's not that he is right, he isn't, that is the guy who asked, but it is that that just to avoid any thoughts of, "oh, did Frank not answer because it was a good question? did he just avoid my question?"-suspicions.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
Exactly; I used to just believe in doing no harm to others, because I would not like it if someone did harm to me, but then, after referring to the bible, I've learned that it's OK to purchase slaves and the children of slaves from foreigners who live among us and treat them like property (Leviticus 25:44-460), if your son is misbehaving, get all the guys together and stone him to death, after all, it's only fair (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), people with disabilities are less than human and are basically screwed ( Leviticus 21:17-23 ) I'm glad I'm fit, but I think many Americans may want to avoid fast food restaurants because of Ephesians 5:4:Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place. Oh, here's one to keep those annoying feminists at bay: permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent." Timothy 2:11 There are many more things I thought as an atheist that were not OK, that I've now learned are not only OK, but even encouraged. I feel so enlightened now.
Lyle, it's pretty obvious you can read... and even copy and paste. However, your comprehension needs a little work. Learn HOW to read the Bible then read it in context. Read it in the vernacular of the time, according to the social norms of the time, etc etc.. You'll learn how silly your post is.
Nick Cifonie The bible does condone slavery for example; whether it was written in the vernacular of the time or not is irrelevant if one is using the bible as a moral compass.
You're totally missing the point. It MUST be read in the context of the times. In 1930 there were doctors that determined that smoking was good for your health... it's the same issue. Now we know better... and God did not put people into slavery, people did. Slavery was commonplace. Many slaves were prisoners of war that would either be killed or sold as slaves. Slavery was the better of the options. Had they been bought and set free they would be homeless and preyed upon and likely killed as well. According to Hebrew law slaves could not be killed and were also considered members of the family. Most were protected and lived well. A Hebrew-owned slave could bind himself to his master for life, the agreement being consummated by the piercing of his ear... and many did. Soon after the death of Christ, Christianity was growing and slavery was the life-blood of the Roman empire. To condemn it at the time when Christians (prior to the early 300s) were already being slaughtered would stifle the growth. No one, who considers all the evidence, and puts the matter into a proper historical perspective, can legitimately fault the biblical record with reference to the issue of human bondage. Of course you can and should use the Bible as a moral compass. Try reading the other 98% of it instead of using a few silly examples totally out of context to make a point.
Nicholas Walter You got to it before me lol. Was gonna pretty much say the same thing you did. This person expects to get the full story by reading a few sentences. Do people read the first and last sentence of a book and then do a research paper on it expecting to know what they are talking about? This person here has brought nothing new to the table, just the same old attempt of guessing context.
if he is all glory and all that shit then why does he needs humans to speak for him, if that was richard dawkins asnwering that guys questions instead of a university student, man... i can ensure you that the guy asking the questions would be looking for extra brain cells to be able to understand what richard is saying lmfao
I hate that some people think it's okay to treat another person this way. The Christian here is not being rational. He's intentionally trying to "win" rather than understand. To me, that's a sin.He set up an argument based on a false premise and that took the audience member by surprise. I could have flattened this argument. But I wouldn't have. I would have been kind and demonstrated how he was wrong.
"You wouldn't even know what better was unless you knew what best was." This is nonsense. A Boeing 787 is an objectively better airplane than the Wright brothers' first plane that flew at Kitty Hawk in most meaningful respects, and I can prove that by citing statistics on the two aircraft. However, no one is going to claim for a moment that a Boeing 787 is the best possible airplane, or that we have any clue what the best possible airplane would look like. When it comes to law, it's not as simple as raw statistics, but I think it can clearly be proven, beyond any reasonable argument, that Hammurabi's first codified law benefitted the prosperity of more people than a lack of codified law, and that modern law benefits the prosperity of more people than Hammurabi's law. I'm ok with moral standards evolving over time. If moral standards were unchanging and directed by the Judeo-Christian God, we either have to conclude that men like Samuel and Moses were not directed by God, or we have to conclude that genocide is not inherently wrong, or is at least sometimes justifiable, as God directed it on multiple occasions (i.e. 1 Samuel 15, Numbers 31).
Saul and Moses were directed by God. If they weren't it would be wrong and evil for man to decide to wipe out a nation. God is the ultimate judge, holy and just, and He decided those nations deserved to be punished for the evil done to His chosen people, Israel. He could have made them all drop dead on the spot, but chose to send the armies of Saul and Moses to carry out the death sentence. Harsh? Yes, but it illustrates the wrath of God and His intolerance of sin. The wages of sin is death. Any sin, from murder to the little white lie, it's all the same..death. This is why we need Jesus and His payment for our sin. That proves God's amazing love toward us. Everyone is quick to talk about God's love and He's all-loving. But that's not His only characteristic. He is holy, just, mighty, gracious, merciful and righteous (including anger and jealousy). His wrath is justified by His holiness which cannot allow sin to go unpunished. He poured out His love, grace and mercy on us by sending His Son to pay the penalty for all our sins.
A horrible job, instead of answering the atheist's question, he rephrases the question because Turek won't answer in a logical statement, and probably because Turek has not logical response.
God Soldier for me personally, I have to disagree that he's doing a good job. The moral argument for God has always been the weakest for me, and every apologist argument for objective morals are exactly what Turek said: what's to stop me from killing you and taking your stuff? It's honestly far more worrisome that Turek can't think of one good reason to not murder and steal if there wasn't an objective morality. It's enough for me, and most people in the world to simply not mirder and steal from each other because it's not conducive to having a well ordered and structure society. Morality is entirely subjective, and in the subjective opinions of a vast majority of people murder and theft is wrong.
There are tribes in the amazon with no words for murder, it never happened to them. Religion have no copyright on right or wrong. In the Bible is says you have to kill your children if they disrespect them. Also it says if you think you wife is carrying another mans child, the priest can kill the baby with poison, sadly the women have to die to. That was written into the Bible so men could get rid of their old model and get a younger model. I think it is fair to say that if you did any of the stuff God commands you to do in the Bible. You will find yourself in prison for life or waiting in a little cell for execution. If i would go the crack cocaine fever fantasy theory. The Bible was clearly written by the Devil, his best trick ever was then to convince humanity that God was the author
Why is it that people who are the least informed seem to have the most opinions. Name one place in the New Testament that Jesus commands the death of an infant? By the way the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament. Unless specifically reiterated in the New Testament it does not apply to Christians. Morality is not subjective but sociology is. Almost all well functioning societies knowing or unknowingly adhere to Judeo-Christian standards of morality. Here is an example of one that doesn't, Saudi Arabia. They adhere to Sharia Law, hence is socially acceptable and lawful to commit all forms of atrocities. By the way for me it is logical to proof-read my comments for typos prior to publishing them so that I might intelligently communicate a point.
Something I didn’t hear come up is the justification for our morality involves the hormones we have due to evolution. In order for tribes to thrive they needed to cooperate. The hormones we have prevent us from putting ourselves in unnecessary danger. This is the most basic explanation, but sometimes complicated issues have simple answers. If your body is being flooded with oxytocin, you are not going to commit a violent act. Dopamine, possibly, adrenaline and cortisol most definitely. The thing is, people are naturally programmed to cooperate from childbirth. After all, it is in the best interest of the species. It is the same reason why we don’t see healthy groups of chimpanzees just killing each other. But when those hormones become unbalanced that is where we have problems. When cortisol is constantly flooding our system we feel unsafe, we feel out of control. And what happens when the level rises so high that we feel like a cornered animal? We lash out at perceived threats or try to gain control of a situation, violently if necessary, until our cortisol level goes down or we get a hit of adrenaline and dopamine. But since hormones were so long a mystery, we came up with the abstract idea of morals and claimed they were passed to us from some magical being.
