00:00 Intro 02:45 Charles-(CA) | Quote Proves That The Bible Supports Evolution 15:58 Luc-(CA) | Atheists Can't Have A Godless Objective Moral System 39:00 Antonio-AL | The Adam & Eve Story Literally Happened As Written 1:02:13 Alcibiates-FL | Gender Identity Is A Religion And Also Vaccines Don't Work 1:07:40 Henri-(EE) | Theists Are Happier, Therefore It's Better To Be Religious 1:29:45 Tyler-IN | "Everybody Knows There Was A Historical Jesus" 1:38:40 Outro
02:45 Charles missed that bird flight came after land animals in the evolutionary path, whereas Genesis is clear flying birds came before land animals so the argument fell at the first hurdle.
Forrest's question to Luc should have been: "If God told you to take your son offer him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which He shall tell you, would you do so?" "And if anyone you know planned on murdering their child because they thought God told them to do so, would you accept that as a moral act since that person claimed that God told them to do so?"
there was a movie I watched some years back about a single father and his two sons, both around 10 years old. The father claimed to hear Gods voice and it was telling him to kill certain people he met. He didnt know why but it was God so he never questioned...simply obeyed. His older son, when he figured it out was torn between loyalty to his father and what he knew was wrong. His younger son after a while of observing claimed he heard Gods voice too. The whole flick focuses a lot on the human connection and how relationships can affect what we do or not do. In the end the older son kills his father or goes to the police...in short he stops the serial killing of his father. The movie ends with the notion that all the people who were NOT killed due to the sons interference went and do horrible things so in hindsight it was all Gods plan to fix something through his servants. I considered the whole movie christian propaganda at the end but I was still fascinated when I watched it...even tho due to different reasons.
@@fritzhaselnuss7852 In another show Matt asked the same question to a divine command theorist Christian. That guy first tap-danced by saying things like God would never ask him to do it, and then conceded that if one believes God asks him to do it, it would be moral like Abraham. At last he threw out the question: "But who is the one that decides what is right and wrong?" It's quite scary to think morality is a "thing" shaped by someone who has the authority to make it however he likes.
@@fritzhaselnuss7852 Are you talking about "Frailty"? If so you might want to go watch the movie again, because you seem to have misinterpreted it quite a bit.
@@fritzhaselnuss7852 then why wouldn't such a caring God either cause the horrible people not to be born at all, or at least tell the older son what his father was doing, and in a way that left no room for doubt. "Working in mysterious ways" is the biggest cop out going - it can be used to excuse anything.
@@waxberry4 and that if it weren't for their belief in a god these people would be happily murdering everyone they met. And, are there no christians in prison? It gets worse - so long as they repent before they die god will forgive them anything, so there is no moral imperative coming via a belief in god, only a "get out of jail free" card.
Even if Antonio had been correct about the facts (which, of course, he wasn't), he didn't seem to realize that he was failing to communicate effectively. He just spewed a bunch of claims, failed to adequately support any of them, and failed to address what the hosts said in response to his claims.
Kind of a waste of a good mind to be stomping on pudding brained callers, but it’s entertaining for sure. He’ll probably burn out on it eventually as most of the hosts have except the perpetual Matt Dillahunty.
Its how you dodge the question if you just keep saying that god wouldnt ask people to do evil and therefor they dont need to think about the fact they would do whatever they believe god is saying without any forethought
If luc confirmed he is a xtian, they could have brought up Abraham almost killing Isaac or the guy who sacrificed his daughter because she is the first thing to come out of his house after he returned from battle
Why did know one bring up God asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? Sorry if I am demonstrating my lack of knowledge. I know mostly from Sunday school. But I always thought that was a very sadistic story to put a father through.
@@jimstewart3283 Christian’s will normally defend the Abraham thing. By saying that god never intended him to kill son. But the point is god asked, and Abraham agreed. But God also commands Saul to attack the Amalek, and God specifically mentions killing “every infant and nursing child”. The bible says that if you have a disobedient child you should stone them to death. There’s passages about dashing babies against rocks. God commanded people to invade their enemies and to run swords through the bellies pregnant women. It’s pretty horrendous stuff.
As a representative of the Abraham and Me story, that sh was scary. I knew what was going on but I thought it was a joke. My dad was going to kill me! I pretended to be the voice of an angel. He was buying anything god at that time, now he just collects rocks out in the pasture setting bushes on fire for conversations like his buddies did.
I contest the two very first words of that sentence lol. Is it a fact? I'd need to do some looking into but I'm fairly certain that at least the polls I know about are self-reported, and that brings its reliability way down.
It was such a bad call. He tried to make a causal relationship out of a correlation. And the correlation isn't a strong one to begin with. And all religions and religious beliefs aren't the same, they don't have the same general impacts on society, they don't have the same impacts on individual people, etc. And then he kept claiming that religious belief must have an evolutionary advantage because it's so widespread. He didn't seem to understand what the physical phenomenon of evolution is, nor the fact that traits can be common despite not being generally adaptive (a common trait can even be generally maladaptive).
Charles is confused about evolution. Scientists aren't "putting feathers on early dinosaurs because they think they spawned from birds." No scientist is claiming that dinosaurs came from birds, it's the opposite; Birds evolved from dinosaurs. Life didn't go from the seas to the skies, skipping over the land. Every flying creature came from a terrestrial ancestor.
That really annoyed. Charles repeatedly told the hosts that dinosaurs evolved from birds, and that evolution went from fish to birds to dinosaurs to mammals. And they never called him out on it. It would have immediately debunked his claim.
They really do just answer the same question, which is weird because it does seem like a lot of callers have watched the show, yet present their questions like they are original. 😂
If there was a god who wanted to tell us about evolution, he could have made a book that was clear on the subject that would not require strained retrofitting.
Yup. Chapter two of his book could be how to cure the disease he also invented 👍. Chapter 3 could be actual meaningful laws, society structure, Chapter 4... 😂
Maybe this will help, Henri. A bus is hurtling towards the edge of a cliff. A passenger turns to the woman next to him and is amazed to see that she is smiling. He asks her, 'How can you be so calm?' She says, 'Another passenger just told me not to worry, because the bus can fly.' The man is incredulous. 'Nonsense!' He says, aghast. To which the woman turns angrily on him and replies, 'What's wrong with you? Why wouldn't you want the bus to fly?!'
Exactly. And more importantly, I don’t give a fuck if more people are happier as much as healthy, educated, treated equally, etc. Happiness will come naturally in bursts when the society is a positive environment. Happiness is a fleeting and varying experience that is interspersed all the time with struggle, frustration, loss, gain, learning, work, empathy, denial, etc. I want society to do what is BEST for the society and its members, not what necessarily makes them the happiest the most. Optimizing a society both strengthens it and makes opportunities for happiness as a side benefit when and if they happen.
@@coleworld1794your not kidding Right? Why do you think they have A/A N/A? drinking leads to P.A.W.S and years to recover from Depression. Drinking over Moderation wears out the Adrenal Gland GLANDS THAT IS 2 Glands toping the Kidneys and desturbs Cortisol Levels and strains the Liver . Cortisol and brain receptors fluctuate to high feeling good and drop after passing out or Sleep as this constent fluctuation the brain will act as if its normal eventually . when the Person stops for a few day's the brain notice this and needs to now fluctuate and learned an Addiction asking for more . Of Course if this is about Drinking 🍻 🍻.🙃😉👍
Forrest’s response to the second call about morality was put brilliantly! Our understanding of morality can be just as objective as our understanding of health. As long as you’ve defined our well-being as the goal then you can make objectively “right” or “wrong” decisions with respect to reaching that goal.
I don’t care about “objective morality” or that anyone else does. There are cases where killing is not murder, confiscation is not theft, adultery is simply a movement from one relationship to another, perhaps for the better, on and on and on. There are even cases where groups of humans determine that rape, genocide, eugenics, torture, etc. are moral in their societies even if I, you or others find them totally immoral. Objectivity is not and never has been the goal of morality, humans simply aren’t that “divine” or “omniscient” or “holy” or whatever super power you wish to assign. Humans always have and always will set societal rules on mob rule and/or the desires of powerful elites. It cannot work any other way.
@@DoctorShocktor Exceptions are not proof that objective morality doesn't exist. Because moral rule isn't "don't kill", it's "don't murder". Also, just because people disagree on moral rules, that isn't proof that objective morality doesn't exist. People disagree on everything. Does that mean nothing is objectively true?
Yes, if you define our well-being as goal, then some things are objectively right and wrong (within your goal). What happens if you define different thing as a goal, for example well-being of just you or well-being of just your race?
Forrest asked Luc if God commanded him to murder a baby would he consider it moral and do it. Lux then said he couldn't evaluate that because God has never done, and would never ever do that. Forrest or Jmike should have pointed out that according to the OT God DID DO THAT God command his people to kill babies, so Luc's claim that God has never done that, or would never do that is wrong (according to the bible). God repeatedly told the Israelites (on several occasions) to kill babies in the OT. So this isn't something Luc has to imagine, God DID command his people kill babies in the OT.
I took it as HE didn't have any experince with God talking to him, but my head canon is that he was too scared to sound like a monster cause he WOULD kill a baby if "God commanded". 😂
These two are such a breath of fresh air for this show. You get such a better show when the hosts take time to explain things and engage respectfully as opposed to rage quitting and whining about people in chat. More of this, please.
Neither have any answers. This channel should be shut down. GOD DID IT. There's a driving force that's involved. That's what atheism conveniently ignores. And that force has to have the required INTELLIGENCE, POWER, PURPOSE, RESOURCES and MEANS to produce LIFE, INTELLIGENCE, LOVE, CONSCIOUSNESS & MORALITY. Only God fits the bill. Certainly no atheist cause can do it (e.g. Star dust, mud puddles, moist rocks, nothing, & non-existent aliens w/ no divine power to create/design anything). Atheism = delusion. The fact remains that atheism is INFAMOUS the world over for having ZERO ANSWERS. That's because no atheist can present a RATIONAL/POSSIBLE, step-by-step atheist explanation for reality. That's because there isn't one.
I think they mean well too. I, as an atheist, am always saying things like "Jesus CHRIST that hurt" when I hit my head (!) so it's only words - the thing is, here in the UK there's hardly anyone who would get offended by that. In the US there's a lot!
No, you lean toward what you believe is true. You, nor anyone else, has access to truth. But that does beat leaning toward what you ALREADY believe, at least.
@@Leith_Crowther I lean towards what has been proven to be true. I don't have to believe in jack shit. In this context, one's belief is based on that which has not been proven, but you want to accept it without sound reason.
@@Leith_Crowther Baloney. What you believe is your truth. And belief SHOULD be based on evidence, that’s the core of an accurate and truthful life. The problem comes when the religious conflate BELIEF and FAITH. Faith is a useless, weak modification of belief that has no evidence and it should be disregarded entirely. So truth unfortunately VARIES between individuals and is not some universal constant unfortunately. People can and DO act upon various versions of “truth”.
Antonio in Alabama was heartbreaking. His called showed the ghosts of slavery and Jim Crow. It's vicious circle racists perpetuate, and then cite as a reason to perpetuate. If a particular community receives almost no funding for education, that community will not be educated. Then outsiders can point to the uneducated people in the community as a justification for no funding. Then the religious vultures provide a free "education" that teach that critical thinking is not only not useful, but actually endangers one's eternal soul.
Americans in general are poorly educated about science and critical thought. And low income Americans in general (including "white" people) have typically been even more poorly educated. But yes, African American in particular have generally been yet even more poorly educated (or at least poor science and reasoning education have been even more common among African Americans).
I was thinking this too. Antonio reminds me of family members and people I grew up with... if we were allowed to educate all of us to sufficient levels, he could have taken his need to be right and actually do the work to discover what is real in actual sciences. Yet he's talking to a biologist and Antonio thinks he has nothing to gain from this conversation, that he was woefully out of his depth for. It's a damn shame.
@Bryan Newton Tank you for your reply. I was a worried my comment might come across as racist but that is not my intent. Any "out" group that is deliberately and systematically oppressed by the "in" group is going to suffer. My favorite example is the way the English did the exact same thing to the other countries in the United Kingdom. Racially, the Scots, the Welsh, and the Irish are nearly identical, but they suffered under the English "In" group. However, I realize it is impossible to compare it to the chattel slavery in the Americas.
It’s very clear Antonio was reading off of some bad notes from an even worse apologetics website at first and got angry when questions were asked that didn’t fit his script. Kudos to you both for being so patient with him.
They had to be patient, because listening to poorly thought out arguments for a time, regardless of where it’s going is how they fill their airtime. I often have one sentence rebuttals to callers that would end calls in 10 seconds, but the hosts of these shows are tasked with investigating and presenting deeper and wider thoughts regardless of whether the caller understands them or not. I find it to be a lack of focus on the host’s part sometimes, but it’s entertaining.s
They discuss things like this all time on these shows, but that opens up huge hours long discussions where theists just deny and poorly try to justify horrible bible behaviors. It’s a bit old hat for these shows by now, but they do dip in for new viewers once in awhile.
Do you NOT know that God is the Devil????? He is Adonai!!!! God split the light from the darkness ... the light = the Christ... God the Father is Adonai aka Set aka Zeus aka Odin aka Indra ... in Revelation God remarries the Light and becomes Yahweh aka Allah Jesus was the first firstborn blood sacrifice I CURE ATHEISM IN 15 MINUTES OR LESS!!!!!! SEVERAL THOUSAND CURED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am an atheist. I don’t want you to hit me. I noticed that it’s a bad thing for me. I have empathy. I don’t want to hit you either. I don’t want to live in a society that people hit each other for no reason. Is this too complicated for theists to understand?
That’s actually a bit simplistic and not entirely accurate as an example. There are people in modern society who enjoy watching or being in boxing, or wrestling, or UFC, or contact sports, or who love physical, even painful pranks or stunts. So even you show that “morality” is FAR, FAR from ever having been objective, so even empathy only works in those societies that desire it. Many warring nations are perfectly fine with rape, murder, theft, genocide, etc. in the name of nationalism or just entertainment for the powerful or the masses of fighting soldiers. Morality is unfortunately a very, very flexible concept depending on which humans are defining it at the time.
Do you NOT know that God is the Devil????? He is Adonai!!!! God split the light from the darkness ... the light = the Christ... God the Father is Adonai aka Set aka Zeus aka Odin aka Indra ... in Revelation God remarries the Light and becomes Yahweh aka Allah Jesus was the first firstborn blood sacrifice I CURE ATHEISM IN 15 MINUTES OR LESS!!!!!! SEVERAL THOUSAND CURED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People like Luc literally scare me, like, I do not ever want to be alone with someone like that, dark alley or not. People like that are super dangerous
Wow you guys are so courteous and respectful toward some of these people's time wasting shuffles, I'm blown away 😳 how do you do it ?. Well done, fantastic viewing, thankyou .
Luc, if something is objectively good in a moral sense, then it's objectively good regardless of whether there's any kind of god in existence. The instant morality depends on anything or anyone, it becomes subjective. That's just how the words "objective" and "subjective" work.
Then you get into the whole is God from nothing, or does God predate absolutely everything. In which case every thing comes from God and nothing is subjective, lol. Oops. Luc tried to jam God into his “gray area” morality issues while providing zero examples.
The worst part is that this gray area is completely subjective, so if there is something not gray Luc finds morally wrong, and someone says he think is gray and he used luc's method and found it morally right. Then luc's moral method becomes completely useless.
I was born an Atheist, most of my family were super religious, and most of them are dead from car wrecks, cancer, and lots of other diseases and I'm still kicking, and pretty happy about the fact also. So Atheists live longer happier lives in my family.
Luke is shamelessly dancing around a simple hypothetical question, clearly afraid to admit that he would have to say "No" to his god. What a coward. Antonio made no sense whatsoever. And he clearly didn't understand a word JMike was saying. At the end of the conversation he made it clear that he's entirely ignorant of most well-known modern scientific discoveries. The poor guy sounds absolutely clueless. Alcibiates was just out-to-lunch. Henri propagates the myth that the religious are healthier in every way than those who are not. This is typical projection on their part- it must be good because so many of us proscribe to it, he seems to be saying. Like Antonio he doesn't understand the hosts, at all, so again the disconnect was noticeable.
In a way, I'm glad he had to weasel around the question because clearly he was uncomfortable with the fact that his "objective morality" from god is only superior as long as it matches his own subjective morality. On the other hand it is sad that instead of recognizing the point, he just bends over backwards to avoid upsetting his imaginary friend.
Also with Henri, he kept calling the military resources from colonial Europe (that he misidentified as being because of their religion) as being an "evolutionary" advantage... which sounds an awful lot like he's trying to sneak in white supremacist bullshit in.
I would ask charles if he thinks any christian that lived before darwin would conclude that species "evolved" by that same bible text outlined in this discussion.
I don't think he had anything, except what he claimed was the pattern or order in which life emerged. Starting from water, then in the air, than land animals. And land animals evolved before flight did, so even his vague pattern doesn't fit, and it's contradicted by the other version in chapter two.
@@stevewebber707 No, starting from GOD, which is the only RATIONAL/POSSIBLE option. GOD DID IT. There's a driving force that's involved. That's what atheism conveniently ignores. And that force has to have the required INTELLIGENCE, POWER, PURPOSE, RESOURCES and MEANS to produce LIFE, INTELLIGENCE, LOVE, CONSCIOUSNESS & MORALITY. Only God fits the bill. Certainly no atheist cause can do it (e.g. Star dust, mud puddles, moist rocks, nothing, & non-existent aliens w/ no divine power to create/design anything). Atheism = delusion. The fact remains that atheism is INFAMOUS the world over for having ZERO ANSWERS. That's because no atheist can present a RATIONAL/POSSIBLE, step-by-step atheist explanation for reality. That's because there isn't one.
That's not really a gotcha question for Christians. Christians typically just dismiss such points on the basis that people in the past misinterpreted the Bible. The same Christian can claim that other people misinterpreted the Bible when they took a biblical description about the natural world literally (because it conflicts with science and/or what this particular Christian believes) and also claim that other people misinterpreted the Bible when they didn't take a biblical description about the natural world literally (because it matches science and/or what this particular Christian believes). In their mind, they know the "Truth," and they don't have a problem dismissing what the overwhelming majority of Christians believe now or believed in past eras.
@@loki2240 yeah, weird how God didn’t / doesn’t just come out with updated editions, rather than just leaving all his believers to squabble over an ancient text. Seems either super lazy, super nasty, or maybe huge proof that it’s all just man made up crap.
Household dust is in a large part dead skin cells, so it would make sense that Antonio thinks it's made out of the same chemical compounds as people/pets. But you can't get dead skin cells without the skin being there. Outdoor dust... well that's gonna be mostly rock, as Forrest said.
No, Antonio is frantically trying to reconfigure his thought process to out maneuver the part of his brain that knows the bible is nonsense. This kind of muddled, combative thinking is why religion is harmful and a waste of fantastically capable human minds.
OMG. I lost brain cells listening to Antonio. "Hey, I'm going to misunderstand science and then say that scientists agree with me because I've heard some of the same words." "Oh, and I believe that people can survive DAYS inside a fish with few to no side effects."
Scientific theory != Hypothesis I think hosts forgot to push back on this. Antonio clearly understands the word 'theory' only as hypothesis. Which outside of field of science it does function like this and it might confuse.
RE: Luc's call. I feel you missed the fact we already have the answer...Abraham. God asked him to kill his own son (clearly evil) and he did not even question it. (Genesis 22:2) "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of." We know from the Milgram-experiments, people are willing to bend their own morals for authority figures... multiply that by 1,000 for religion and gods. Disgusting.
Often they will point out that God stopped him from going through with it and claim that God never intended for him to actually do it, only to show the willingness (which is still completely fucked), but there are plenty of other examples of God condoning atrocities AND letting them play out fully.
Southern religious people are the bread and butter of the show, without presenting massive ignorance, denial and lazy thinking, the show has no content.
@@DoctorShocktor I actually prefer when the more intelligent people call in. They at least can occasionally be reasoned with., can sometimes be made to understand the flaws in their own arguments. I'd rather we change minds. Laughing at simpletons is fun for a while, but not terribly productive.
That Antonio in Alabama (none given) was obliged to appeal to military commands to defend what's supposed to be Divine Revelation is mildly nauseating. His argument also appears to cast aside all the Christians who've ever cited religious grounds as justification to refuse to serve in the military.
Sometimes I wonder how the hell people could believe in qanon, and how people buy trump's bullshit. Then I watch the atheist experience, and listen to the callers. That's when I realize that the movie Idiocracy was a documentary. .
When people abandon the evidence standard, there's truly no bottom to the stupid they'll believe. Especially when they've built a culture that rewards stupid with status-see that Taylor Greene woman. I haven't seen Idiocracy, but from what I've read of it the idiots aren't also evil, but in today's world the evil stupid seems to be millions of times the not-evil stupid.
Religious socialization can actually prime people to embrace unrelated irrational positions. Religious people have generally been socialized to accept and value appeals to authority (at least authority that they think supports what they already believe or what they want to believe). There's often acceptance of conspiracy theories. There are often persecution complexes and sometimes messiah complexes. And so on.
The first call is pretty silly. "Don't you find this significant that they made this prediction before science?" Like no. You aren't claiming this book is written by humans. You are saying this book is written or at least incredibly strongly influenced by a "perfect" being. What's that saying about horseshoes and hand grenades?
It bothered me that he claimed life went straight from the ocean to the sky because dinosaurs had feathers. As if there was no land based evolution in between
@@brennongoodson9860 yeah! It reminds me of when I was religious and everything gets sorted through that lens even if it doesn't make sense from a pretty basic logical point of view.
How many times can they tell the guy “no, I don’t find your thought significant.” But I understand they enjoy dissecting the various “arguments” as they come along.
@@brennongoodson9860 exactly, the Bible story doesn’t “fit the pattern” of what actually happened, even in his incredibly simplified version (water, air, land animals appearing in that order).
Having learned who the historical Alcibiades was (primarily from assassins creed : odyssey) it was extremely ironic that, that was the name the caller went with. Might even have been a poe trying to get some philosophical point across.
He's put no one's life in danger. The vaccinated are "protected" (or so they think) by the vaccination and the unvaccinated don't worry as much. Both can pass on the virus, it really doesn't matter.
Charles, flying creatures did not come before land animals. Genesis is wrong right there. Besides, Genesis talks about "kinds" and does not say anything about how they would change (evolve), and we have plenty of fossils demonstrating change over time. You also seem to think that birds are dinosaurs (because of some recent findings that SOME dinosaurs had feathers), when it is the other way around.
" flying creatures did not come before land animals." Especially once you start to think about if there were no land animals, what did the flying creatures feed on?
Birds are technically still dinosaurs but they are an offshoot called class aves while all extinct dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs. Birds coexisted with dinosaurs, perhaps not in their current forms but still. Based on a deformed chicken embryo, birds have the dna to make teeth but it is typically suppressed. Birds also have dna to make sharp finger claws on their wings and a few species still retain these claws. See hoatzin.
I can think we can safely state that atrocities were performed by atheists ánd theists so we can take the deity out of the equasion and have the same outcome. Calculus indicates that the influence of that god to the sum is equal to zero..
@@ottonormalverbrauch3794 there was a great quote from the atheist experience years ago. Something like "which is more powerful: a god that can create everything, or a god that can create everything while simultaneously not existing"
Antonio keeps saying to hosts to "look it up" when he keeps making outrageous claims about the Bible. I don't think he's ever cracked open a book on any discipline of science.
Charles, having two contradictory versions of creation in a book that people claim to be perfect is impossible. One must be wrong which makes the claim of perfection wrong.
@@forpspeakingclass4444 it's pretty funny how apologists will mainly reject anything said about contradictions or terrible things that happened in the bible if there isn't an accompanying verse. Like if they had read the bible ever they would know the descriptions of the stories without accompanying verses.
@@anonymousjohnson976 It's plagiarized from Gilgamesh. At least the flood story is, from my memory of reading both. I don't remember the Sumerian version of creation...although I seem to remember man being fashioned out of clay by the gods.
The second caller is just to afraid to say yes he would do everything if god comands it. He probably watched the show and knows that we and the hosts think its disgusting to follow a god who wants us to do evil things.
I asked an LDS missionary if he would shoot !e if his god commanded it. Without hesitation he looked in my eye, and said "yes, absolutely". After that I politely revoked his standing invitation to come to apartment.
@Ken North I am atheist, but if a god at minimum is very powerful and commands me to do something, I have no idea if I would do it. I might stand there in fear and piss myself while shaking uncontrollably. Or I might do it, hoping for this being to move its attention onto someone else, or even possibly with an expectation of a reward. I might also not do it from disbelief, or misunderstanding its "mysterious ways", or because I found what it commanded to be so morally reprehensible that I would rather be destroyed than do it for the amusement of the god. But again, I am atheist. I have a hard time even comprehending how any being could be all-powerful or all-knowledgeable and still have a need to interact with individual humans and command them to do specific actions to amuse itself. And I especially can not comprehend why that being would command a human to kill its own child other than dementia... but can a god be omniscient and demented at the same time?
Here's where I would have gone with Luc on the "imagine god telling you to murder someone." He would respond, "I can't imagine it." I would reply, "Let's open to 1 Samuel 15. Do you see there that your god commands a genocide up to and including naming infants on the list to be killed? Do you believe that command came from god? Since it is in your bible, can you now imagine him giving that command? If so, had you been there that day when Samuel spoke that command of your god, would you have pulled out your sword and started slaughtering infants?" In debate with another former member of the fundy cult I was once involved in, I asked him that question ... would he pull out his sword and start killing babies? He said, "Yes, he would." So deeply disturbing ...
To Henri: There are multiple reasons why religious people are "happier": 1. Unhappy people stop being religious, i.e. they leave, leaving more happy people behind, creating an illusion of everyone being happy. 2. Religion actively indoctrinates people into pretending to be happy when they are not, to such an extent, that people eventually grow to believe in their own acting. Yet, inside they continue to be unhappy and depressed. 3. Religion keeps people shielded from the outside world, lying to them that whatever condition they may be in, the outside world is in a much much worse shape, creating an illusion of them being better off inside their bubble. 4. Religion shames people into hiding/closeting their "sins", which could be various mental health issues, (tons of) abuse, gender dysphoria, homosexuality, etc, which, again, creates an illusion of everything being in order. 5. And the last one - even if the people are reasonably happy and satisfied, living a life based on fiction will eventually backfire for many of them. There are many ways it can happen: people dying because they believed that God would heal them (instead of getting medical treatment); people getting married to a wrong person because they believed that's what God wanted; people not dealing with mental health issues, because their religion tells them that mental health issues are spiritual problems, etc, etc, etc. And that's just a small sample of many problems that religious people pretend don't exist. The only positive things coming from religion I can think of are the social interactions (if they are healthy enough), and the support provided by the community (IF it is provided, there is no guarantee whatsoever).
Excellent points. I have one that I feel is overarching. PEOPLE DON’T NEED TO FEEL HAPPY ALL THE TIME. Society and morality need to be doing what is BEST for its members, not just what makes them HAPPY. Happiest /= Best, its a very small subset.
There are tons of example in the bible where God ask his followers to do bad things, does Luc goes into mental blackout whenever he's reading these parts?
Wait, I’m sorry. The caller talking about Adam and Eve and saying the rib grows back… how the fuck does that equate to a rib growing a whole ass person?! Why is that not being looked at?
32:40 - You could ask what you would do if God asked you to murder your child. And there IS a precedent for this, that's actually in the Bible! So, the caller could not say, "God would never do this" or "hasn't done this before, so I don't know". That would be a good thought experiment for this caller.
The Creator is the Most High and Sovereign God of the Christ. The Christ is the TEACHER of his TRUTHS and righteousness about the Kingdom of God and Resurrection of the Dead to TRUTHFUL, kind, and loving persons. Satan the Devil is the enemy of the Creator. He is a liar, arrogant, cruel, and a hateful heavenly being who made himself the God of the anti-Christs. The anti-Christs are the TEACHERS of their LIES and foolishness about Trinity, Armageddon, reincarnation, hellfire, rapture, etc. to LIARS, arrogant, cruel, and hateful atheists, agnostics, and fanatics of all Christian and non-Christian religions in the whole world. Tell me - Who is the God being worshipped by the Born Agains, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, JWs, Hindus, SDAs, etc? - The Creator, the God of the Christ? OR Satan the Devil, the God of the anti-Christs? Do you happen to know?
I think this is a difficult question to answer, as you are asking Christains who 100% believe in their claimed God. Let's say the atheist was given 100% evidence a God exists who knows all and is good As impossible to know that is a conundrum within itself. Anyway the former atheist now theist would have to think that by going against this claimed God then they are questioning the all good definition, which they already believe to be true! Thankfully these type of hypotheticals are not a reality. Nor has anyone supplied evidence to meet the claim of a God. So best to begin with that first before all the hypotheticals are presented. This is why I don't believe in Christain Hell or Jesus sins either. We really need the evidence to meet the claim of a God existing FIRST ;)
Morality doesn’t exist within a single arbiter. Morality is a social contract between two or more arbiters. It is also both subjective and objective. It is objective within the contractual system created by a society and outside that society it is subjective.
For the first caller, you should’ve mentioned to him that flying birds came a lot after other land animals and their predecessors. Like, incredibly recently on the grander scale. And they absolutely did not evolve from the sea.
The Crusades were about control of the "Holy Land." Pope Urban the Second wanted to reclaim the Holy Land from the control of Muslims. It was a holy war, by definition, issued by Papal Bull circa 1099. There were a number of crusade wars, fought intermittently, over a few centuries, a couple were shoehorned alongside the trade routes to China, India, and so on. So the caller is correct to the extent that the holy war was used by those in power to garner support for and prosecute the battle for control of a few trade routes, but in the minds of those who fought the war, they were all holy wars.
Watching Forrest's face while Charles rambles on, I can almost see Forrest getting ready to set Charles to rights over his confusion between bible copy and evidence for evolution.
My understanding of evolution is that life moved from the sea to the land and THEN evolved the ability to fly: Sea then Land then Sky. Also that dinosaurs evolved into birds not that birds evolved into dinosaurs.
oh gawd, Henri, evolution is not about killing stuff. And yes, wars are fought for territory and resources, but religion is often used to motivate soldiers and the war machine in general.
"can a human survive inside a fish?"and he said "yes"??? WTF?!?!?! how deluded this person is??? forrest should've made the contra-argument for this,rather than go on stars. i mean, if the guy cant understand how living inside a fish is impossible,he obviously doesnt know about telescopes,spectronomy and cosmic shit lol.
The first caller is a typical theist. The see something in the text that isnt there. Muslims are using the same tactic. The give a passage from their holy book and pretend that the content is something that humans didnt knew at the time it was written. There are a few major problems with that 1) It is almost every time very vague and not specific. 2) Even if it is true we dont know why it is true. Was it luck? Time traveler? We dont know that 3) Are the other things in this text true. The Koran and Bible have so many mistakes that I can exclude even if there is special knowledge
Yup. It's no different than any of the other callers with "undeniable proof of God's existence" and then finding out its the exact same regurgitated apologetics that goes back hundreds or maybe even couple thousand years.
Wrong. NOBODY knew 4,000 yrs ago that God created time/space/matter/energy, but God knew it and wrote it 4,000 yrs ago via Moses: "In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter/energy)." - Genesis 1:1 GOD DID IT. There's a driving force that's involved. That's what atheism conveniently ignores. And that force has to have the required INTELLIGENCE, POWER, PURPOSE, RESOURCES and MEANS to produce LIFE, INTELLIGENCE, LOVE, CONSCIOUSNESS & MORALITY. Only God fits the bill. Certainly no atheist cause can do it (e.g. Star dust, mud puddles, moist rocks, nothing, & non-existent aliens w/ no divine power to create/design anything). Atheism = delusion. The fact remains that atheism is INFAMOUS the world over for having ZERO ANSWERS. That's because no atheist can present a RATIONAL/POSSIBLE, step-by-step atheist explanation for reality. That's because there isn't one. This channel should be shut down for insinuating the facts above are false.
I chatted with a guy who said that the Quran accurately describes embryology. He brought up an embryologist who apparently has dozens of awards and also believes the Quran is authentically from god. Religious rabbit holes go surprisingly deep.
In the Hebrew original language Eve wasn't made from a rib. She was made from a side. It describes Adam literally being cut in half and she was made from one side while Adam was sewn back up. Thus they unite and make one flesh. Even with the mistakes, he doesn't make the point well.
The moral argument for god is ridiculous. It's so clear that we naturally developed morals and ethics as instincts as we evolved as a species. No gods needed or shown to be involved whatsoever.
For Henri, WWII Germans had uniform saying God on our side, WWI was religious. Christian nations fought each other as a holy war/spiritual conflict. Also it ended the Ottoman (muslim) empire
Well, this is anectodal but in reference to Henri's call. My anxiety and depression have gotten sooo much better and even quit using meds after I deconverted! Sometimes the truth helps with mental health tbh.
@@jjphank Nevertheless, the historical reconstruction that El was the chief god of the Israelites is not indebted only to the testimony of the (rather late) biblical witness of P. *Numerous biblical texts attest to the fact that the titles, functions, and the imagery associated with the Canaanite god El, as revealed by the Ugaritic texts and the Canaanite myth of Elkunirša, were assimilated into the profile of the deity YHWH.* According to the Ugaritic texts, El was known for his *wisdom* (e.g., KTU2 1.4.V.65[6]) and *great age* (’ab šnm, *“Father of Years,”* and drd, *“Ageless One,”* in KTU2 1.4.IV.24 and 1.10.III.6, respectively),[7] his *compassionate nature* (lţpn il dp’id, *“Kind El, the Compassionate One,”* e.g., KTU2 1.16.IV.9), his role as *father of the gods and humanity* (’ab ’adm, *“father of humanity,”* KTU2 1.14..III.47, and bny bnwt, *“creator of creatures,”* KTU2 1.17.I.24) and *creator of the cosmos.* [8] El was the *divine King* (e.g., KTU2 1.2.III.5-6) and the *head of the pantheon or divine council* (referred to variously as the dr ’il, *“circle of El/Family of El,”* KTU2 1.15.III.19; mpħrt bn ’il, *“the assembly of the sons of El,”* KTU2 1.65.3; bn ’il, *“the sons of El,”* KTU2 1.40.33, 41; pħr kbbm, *“assembly of the stars,”* KTU2 1.10.I.3-4; ‘dt ’ilm, *“assembly of the gods,”* KTU2 1.15.II.7; cf. KTU2 1.2.I; 1.3V; 1.4 IV-V) which met at the sacred mountain. *His consort was the goddess Athirat who bore him seventy sons* (šb‘m bn ’atrt, *“the seventy sons of Athirat,”* KTU2 1.4.VI.46). El was also known for his *divine patronage and blessing of progeny to humans* (as in the Epic of Kirta; see, for example, KTU2 1.14.III.46-51), for his *appearances to humans in dreams* (e.g., KTU2 1.14.I.35-37), as *being a healer* (KTU2 1.16.V-VI), and for his *dwelling at the sacred mountain* (e.g., KTU2 1.2.III.5-6) at the *sources of the mythical rivers* (KTU2 1.2.III.4; 1.3.V.6; 1.4.IV.20-22; 1.17.V.47-48) in a *tent* (KTU2 1.2.III.5; 1.3.V.8; 1.4.IV.24; 1.17.V.49; c.f. the Canaanite myth Elkunirša which *describes El’s abode as a tent[9]).[10]* *To underscore the fact that terminology and imagery originally used for the god El was adopted by the Israelites in their descriptions of YHWH,* the following brief summary might be placed in comparison to the discussion of El above: YHWH is an *aged, patriarchal deity* (Ps. 102:28; Job 36:26; Is. 40:28; Dan. 7.9-14, 22), *a father* (Deut. 32:6; Is. 63:16; 64:7; Jer. 3:4, 19; 31:9, etc.), *merciful and gracious* (Ex. 34:6; Jon. 4:2; Joel 2:13; Ps. 8615; 103:8; 145:8, etc.), *a divine patron who bestows the blessing of progeny upon Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,* often manifesting himself in *dreams or visions, a healer* (Gen. 20:17; Num. 12:13; 2 Kgs. 20:5, 8; Ps. 107:20, etc.), who *dwells in a tent* (Ps. 15:1; 27:6; 91:10; 132:3) *amidst the heavenly waters* (Ps. 47:5; 87; Is. 33: 20-22; Ez. 47:1-12, etc.), the *creator of the cosmos,* who is enthroned as *heavenly King* in the *divine council* (1 Kgs. 22:19; Is. 6:1-8; cf. Ps. 29:1-2; 82; 89: 5-8, etc.) on the *sacred mount of assembly* (e.g., Is. 14:13). Additionally, in much Israelite religious practice throughout the monarchic period, *YHWH had a divine consort, the goddess Asherah, the Hebrew equivalent of Ugaritic Athirat.[11]* (Originally the wife of El) Google *"When Jehovah Was Not the God of the Old Testament. Part II - theyellowdart"*
@@jjphank In both the stories you mention, water predates everything else. This doesn't mirror Genesis. Once you read about Marduk and Tiamat, the whole myth becomes very different, and if there is any mirroring happening, the Bible would have been mirroring the Enuma Elish. Also, there are many creation stories that don't even remotely match the bible, but also describe creation in a way that more closely matches what we have learned through science.
@@jjphank you mean why did early Christianity assimilate aspects of other religions? 1) every fairytale is inspired by something else, and 2) so that followers of those religions would be more easily incorporated into Christianity. Same with things like the supposed birth of Jesus being rescheduled to the current date - this was so that it coincided with the pagan festival of Saturnalia. It's also somewhat telling that you associate anything critical of your religion with Hitler (who was actually a Christian, by the way).
1:08:30 on the subject of the topic that was brought up at this time in the video I would like to point out that when I was a spiritual person I believed in God I was constantly walking on eggshells in a metaphorical sense to do my best to abide by the religious beliefs set forth to me by my church after losing my faith through a myriad of the pressing personal reasons that I'm not going to get into I no longer believed in the god and my life is actually been more happy and filled with more joy since losing my faith due to the fact that when I had faith I would take measures to ensure that I wouldn't go to hell and because I grew up in a terrible neighborhood or crime was rampant the EMS personnel had to wear level 3A body armor which is rated to stop most rifle rounds for those who don't know that I had to lie cheat and steal as a child no older than 10 just to be able to eat some food but now since I've lost my faith yes I do still feel wrong for having to lie cheat and steal in the past but I am not stressing that I am going to go to hell when I die I am not constantly stressed out that I am going to be eternally punished for doing what I had to do to survive I actually take comfort in the thought that there is no God therefore there is no hell since I have committed many sins throughout my life in the name of survival and I refuse to apologize for them I do regret my actions but I am not going to apologize for doing what I had to do
People who have pets are happier because if they weren’t they would get rid of the pets. Therefore everyone should get pets and make the people that don’t like pets more miserable.
Charles from Canada is stretching the "accuracy " of a vague verse in an ancient book to adapt it to his preconceived beliefs. Intellectual dishonesty at its worst.
Random, but I thought Forrest said, "Are we talking about if someone's just in a normal social circumstance, or are we talking about if they're *Burt* and they need medical help?" I was like ah yes, the two genders: Burt and Non-Burt.
