dragonrage122 That's the right question. The Christian usually attempts to skirt this by acting as if obedience to authority is an ingrained aspect of humanity and doesn't require knowledge of right and wrong or the ability to appreciate the consequences of actions. This is nonsense, of course, but that's Christianity for you.
"I distrust those people who know so well what god wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." --- Susan B. Anthony
The caller, Mike, queried whether torturing babies was morally right if the people who wanted to do it "felt okay" about it. What was not mentioned in reply is that "feeling okay" is not one of the essential objective criteria in determining right and wrong. Whereas right and wrong may not be objective in their absolute sense, our assessment of them can incorporate factors which are independently objective, such as the universal notion that life is preferable to death, health to unhealth, productivity to destruction, social cohesion to fragmentation, truth to falsehood, etc. None of these ingredients of assessment state that whether one "feels okay" about an action carries any weight in forming a social attitude to right and wrong.
I'm am so glad this show is out there. I hope it brings more people to our side. Religion is very dangerous. The sooner we can make people realize this the better.
My dog will very gently take a sausage from my hand, being careful not to bite me. He knows that eating a sausage is ok, but eating my fingers is not ok. I never taught him this rule. He worked it out himself.
I'm so bothered by the first caller's baby torture example. Torturing someone is absolutely wrong. Torturing someone innocent and defenseless is absolutely wrong. What does the tool even mean by objective morality? If he means timeless, universal morality principle, he should just ask himself if he wants the same thing done to himself.
I just mean that everyone calls in and says, "so good to talk to you (Tracie/Matt/Russel/Jeff)". No one ever calls and says that Don is awesome. Which he is.
Those are my thoughts on the matter, but you are welcome to your beliefs and I respect that. Just wanted to share my own as it popped into my head as I read yours. All the best to you.
When I was a believer, this was explained to me. Our pastor said that God knew where Adam was, but was giving Adam the choice to either come forward or remain hidden. Presumably, if he remained hidden, he would have suffered an even worse punishment. Another possible, more blasphemous, explanation I recently read is that Yahweh was imagined to be a child at this point in his career as a deity.
Psychedelics are about understanding yourself. And by understanding yourself, you can have a greater understanding, and empathy, for others. Disagree? Do the research. There is only one way to know for sure- you have to take a chance on knowledge. NO RISK NO REWARD. DON'T BE A COWARD!
If we go by your definition of faith (which is the same to blind faith) then I wouldn't agree with you. We have trust on what the shastras (scriptures) say based on experience and observation. For example reincarnation. Most people would say it is a believed based on faith, but actually it has reasonable justification. Ever hear of Dr. Ian Stevenson? He has 3.000 cases of reincarnation in his record. Based on that, how would you say it is unreasonable, or based on faith?
Is there eny possibility of making subtitles? I want to share your show here in Brazil, but translating would take too much time and would not be as perfect. Even EN subs would do it, so I can put it on google and translate. Thanks
It's especially odd when they seem to want to argue, yet they are frustrated when they're told that they're using fallacious/incoherent argumentation so their reasoning doesn't follow.
His "record"? You mean the 3000 cases of supposed children that remembered "past lives"? There are numerous peers of his that have published papers casting significant doubt on his methodology including detailed analysis of confirmation bias. One person's supernatural claims without *extraordinary* evidence is an insufficient basis for believing something to actually be true. So yes, Faith. Big time.
Please explain how you came to this idea using only Bible quotes. If you read the Bible, nowhere does it say anything of the sort. Women are fully expected to understand and uphold The Law, hence the law about killing women who touch your genitals to break up a fight for example. As for stoning, it's not abortion. It's execution. Stoning people was to the death. If they wanted an abortion, the Egyptians/Chinese figured out how to do that without throwing rocks long before this was written.
If 80% of Americans were running around claiming that Michael Corlione was the ruler of the universe and we need to make our laws match his morality, I would fight that also. It is funny that you choose a gangster as your example as the Mafia "protection racket" is a good analogy for Christianity. "If you pay up and show 'respect' I'll keep you safe from the harm that I will do to you if you don't."
@@matthewtenney2898 If killing is immoral, then God is immoral. (Genesis 38:10) If killing is immoral then Barack Obama is immoral. (May 2, 2011 Abbottabad, Pakistan)
Regardless, he brings good, well thought points to the conversation. Atheism isn't at all about debate skills but instead about having a solid, fact based foundation for your beliefs.
this. the moment a person says "god is mysterious, and we can't understand him." is the moment we should stop caring what they have to say since anything they say about god is heresay.
Your salvation lies in you and any people who have helped you and stood by you as you struggled to stand. It does not lie in imaginary friends or in superstition. It seems you mean well so I wish you the best of luck.
Yes, I am the one having a screw loose for saying that causing harm to other human beings is not moral. By saying that it's moral to kill the child, you imply directly that the act of killing is "GOOD", which it isn't because it causes harm. You can say however that you are morally justified to defend yourself as preserving your own life IS good. But that is something else entirely. I really don't think someone who believes that causing harm is moral should lecture on morality.
I go to mdanderson every 3 months, you are 2:15 east of here on I10 (keeping to the speed limit) and you got mondo humidity and mosquitoes. Minute Maid park sucks as a concert venue and the highway to Galveston is always congested. Am I close?
I really hate the whole "what if they are innocent" argument against the death penalty. It means nothing to me; this is not a reason not to kill someone, this is a reason for a better law system
"And the debate would be settled." if you look in the video, the caller doesnt want to answer question, its not a debate if its one sided, and the host is not there to provide ALL the answer. i think the moral standard of society keep changing because all within it wanted to better themselves/not caused harm to other people, the host wanted to ask the caller what his moral standard is (and caller avoid it) because moral standard come from all of us.
i think sometimes hating god can be a step into becoming atheist, like hating god for letting "evil" things let go unpunished, or the hypocracy of religious institutions can lead ppl to hate god. but a true atheist cant hate god
I don't think that you need a majority to determine whether morality is correct or incorrect. Majority only ensures that your shared point of view can be enforced. Morality IS subjective, relative to the individual.
And I would just add that if everything that makes us what we are are our memories and experiences, then you can not possibly claim we are the same person if you have no memory of a previous existence.
"...for I would not have known lust, except that the law had said, “Thou shalt not covet.” Sexual attraction would have been present regardless of any writing. "For that which I do, I know not. For what I would do, that do I not; but what I hate, that I do."
People. Please stop clicking on the creationist comments and marking them as spam. We should leave them easily open to the public so their stupidity can be admired by all.
Mike is just another Ray Comfort poser. Disingenuous at best. Just ask Mike what difference would it make? Who says? Even if this god didn't like it, nothing would stop it.
I was just told a few days ago that God killed so we would have an illustration in contrast to his love. You have to see the result of Sin (the death of sinners) to be able to discern between good and evil. It would be fun to watch the two of you debate your differing interpretations. You would think that watching 30,000 people suddenly die for absolutely no reason would be convincing enough, without all the dead babies.
well interesting point.. but the same can be said to children with abusive parents. what would it mean to have those children becoming more prone to abusing their own children in return. that being said, perception of a certain experience can change through time, and there is no telling what a person may conclude based on an experience locked in their own memory.
As an atheist, I think morality is subjective. The subjectivity opens room for dialogue, we can entertain new ideas and eventually update our views. You can't argue with an absolute, and if you present a controversial situation to a "moral objectivist" he starts to sweat and seek a way how to avoid the answer. I think nothing should be immune to discussion or criticism - let's get rid of the tabu topics, those are the things that can be worked on, because most are afraid to talk about them. ;)
What are these "new rules" that you'll have been dancing around? Why wouldn't you be allowed to mention El Arroyo restaurant? Is it considered a "commercial promotion" in violation of "public access"?
Things like this makes me happy that in the usa we have the right to broadcast our thoughts.... without being killed or thrown in jail....for the most part
I will say Buddhism is not a blind faith because it is not a faith at all. It is a lifestyle. It has no creation story, god, or messiah. Instead it is to be taken as a guide to personal peace.
Maybe the point of the story with Abraham & Isaac is that though everybody had gods at that time period, this god who says he's one actually takes Abraham through a standard ritual at that time yet his god says, "hold on...I got this, I can provide just fine for myself thank you very much."
My favourite is when the president of the greatest nation on earth explained that god had told him it was right to go to war. I can safely guarantee, even in writing that that never happened. So, a president who is lying or hallicunating, that is what we have to choose between? Which is more ok to you?
By definition you have to base morality on objective criteria or absolutes. For morality to have any meaning at all it has to be consistent or you have created an argument based on a contradiction which is invalid. Remember that the definition of madness is to repeat actions and expect different results. Therefor if you base your morality upon an argument where you expect different result then it's based on madness. It also means that we often do immoral action because life is not perfect!
Please go to the evolution wikipedia and tell me if there is anything wrong with. No, better yet. Please go to the talk pages, with over 60 archives and tell the people there what is wrong with it. And you will see how Wikipedia while made by user unwanted and wrong info is filtered out. Especially on a article like evolution, which is even semi-protected against creationist vandalism. Also thanks for catching my mispelling.
The most frustrating thing about theists is that virtually none of them have any idea about the principles of argumentation. I see these sorts of examples all of the time.
Maybe what that meditation guy tried to say when he stated that he learnt that "we are all one, all the same" That phrase has a link with secular morality. If we are all one...why should I hurt somebody if that somebody is the same as me? That morality is much more healthier than religion. That guy couldn't explain it well.
You severely oversimplified how it works. You could say that about ANYTHING. Edits are observed and there are preventions in place to prevent blatant lies or misinformation about the sciences.
I would rather live my life the way I want than be on my knees praying to an invisible being working for an afterlife that I don't believe exists. Life is hard and people don't want to take responsibility for that life. They want to believe that they are receiving some sort of supernatural help. This makes it easier for some people to live with mistakes that are made, but is it really worth wasting your life worrying about what will happen after you die?
How dare they accuse Christians of adhering to their own doctrines. It's absolutely despicable! It's completely and obviously taken out of context. If you want to claim that it's taken out of context, then show us what you believe is the actual context so we could have a proper dispute. It's pointless to argue if you're not going to do so.
Is there any culture where it's morally justified to torture a higher-order animal (including humans), one that is obviously capable of suffering, for absolutely no reason other than inflicting pain? Even beyond culture, is there any possible situation where such actions are morally justified?
Also, i want to share another thought. I believe that an Atheist, in order to be coherent with what s/he (dis)/believes, must also disbelieve an objective moral standard. If s/he believes there's an objective moral standard where is it? what evidence there is of it? If s/he can demonstrate the existence of such standard or at least find enough evidence of its manifestations, then a proper scientific paper can be produced and be sent to peer review. And the debate would be settled.
We're all lacking in knowledge on some questions. It's just that some people fool themselves into thinking that they know when in fact they don't know at all. It saddens me that there are people in the world who consider that kind of mindset to be a virtue (which they call "faith", but which I prefer to call "dangerous credulity")
My apologies I did misquote you. I had intended to frivolously challenge your term "christian nations" What exactly is a christian nation? I currently live in the USA, which is of secular, and previously in Australia where we have more important problems like weekend BBQs, bushfires general hedonism
Just like the last caller I am currently reading The Bible as well. I got it from the library and it made me a bit mad to find it in the non-fiction section. I am about half way through Leviticus. Now I am an empirical, logical person, and have found that so far it was obviously a tool for control. It shouldn't be applied to life of today. I also think that most Christians have their beliefs without reading The Bible. They should read it because it might change their minds.
If you take questions to your pastor he will only show you one side, the god side. You need to look for yourself. If a pastor can't answer a question..he just says "It's not meant for us to understand". It's a loophole they all use. Try figuring it out on your own, you will be the best judge for yourself.
true, i guess i meant that in comparison with the man on the left, the man on the right seems less open to discussion on topics he has a predisposition against, while the man on the right seems happy to field any and all questions regardless of its stupidity... just an observation possibly incorrect
If this really is the case that "an atheist didn't want to have to sit and listen to it", then I guess he did the work of the lord for the football team. Feel free to check out Matthew 6:5 and Matthew 6:6 for what it says about praying where you can be seen. If you're going to have a belief, that's fine, but people shouldn't step out of the rules of that belief, force others to have to sit through their prayer, and then condemn a group of people for basically saying "I don't need to hear this".
Dear Heavenly Father, many here are lost. I pray that you show mercy on them, as you have me, having delivered me from alcohol and drug abuse and all kinds of slanderous talk and deception, and remain patient and slow to anger as these lost souls struggle to see the beautiful truth that is in Christ Jesus, that He is Lord and that He laid down His life for us, for the sake of those whom He loves, that they may repent and be given the free gift of eternal salvation that is in Christ Jesus. Amen.
Allot worse things in the bible. Levitivus chapter 26 verses 27 to 29 It is indicated that yahweh will force you to eat your children if you disobey him.
Whenever I go to the super market and a child is acting unruly, I grit my teeth and keep my fingers crossed that the next stop the parent makes isn't to the edge of town with their unruly child and a bucket of stones.
You people keep saying "is" instead of "was", so here's a clue for you: If you're not speaking in a past tense, how are people supposed to know that you're talking about the past?
Define "spirit" and please give an example of spirit that can't be easily dismissed and/or proven by any rational means. Furthermore, what is the difference between someone claiming "spirit" and someone else claiming the "great gazoo" exists?
