Can atheists be moral?

The real question is whether you can justify morality without God.

[@raptor0535]

I like the analogy on purpose. Very good.

[@erictaylor5462]

No, it's not good.

[@yoe91]

But I like the analogy accidentally. Same result I guess.

[@hamzaakbar913]

@MaloTheYoshi likewise atheists can't prove empirically that there is no god. Don't say that the onus is on theists to prove that there is a god. I say there is no god but I want proof that there is no god and there is no such proof. What follows then?

[@kenethernandez6246]

@@user-iv5qh4cq6s Creation itself is proof. We didn't come out of nothing. Also if you don't know then why would you argue with someone who believes there is enough evidence to say that there is a God and therefore believes in him? You literally gain nothing.

[@hamzaakbar913]

@@user-iv5qh4cq6s agnostics take the position that they don't know. Atheists take the position that there's no god, and that too is based on faith. So the fact you mock theists for having faith in the existence of god, you atheists have faith in the non-existence of god which makes you no different. But maybe you didnt knw that since you didn't knw the difference between agnostics and atheists in the first place and were ascribing the position taken by agnostics to atheists.

[@julianad4932]

We have a sense of morality because of who created us. The book Legislating Morality talks a lot about this.

0:55 the fact he said he grew up with high morals and didnt want to sound conceited is his and people like Hitchens problem. They take all the underlining Christian principles and claim it as their own. 3:00 he was choking cause he has no answer without God.

[@stevent8362]

People have different levels of morality. While Jesus is forgiving all sins, some people clearly have more sin than others.

[@stevent8362]

@J Don We are all slaves to our desires. In order to be free to do what is right we need to follow the Lord. By being a servant of God, you are free to do good. What more could you want? We are all being used in a plan against each other. Everyone at some point feels like the world is against them because it is. Everyone in sin is constantly being used against everyone else even if they don't know it. Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Jesus will come like a thief in the night.

[@dariusnoname12]

@@stevent8362 "We are all slaves to our desires." >>But he meant slavery as in owning other person as property.

[@stevent8362]

@@dariusnoname12 When you are in sin you are property

[@dariusnoname12]

@@stevent8362 Wow, you know how to deflect. First. bible literally teaches where to buy slaves, how to treat them and so on. Second. What sins? Not believing in god? And if I sinned I am less valued than human? That is some vile thing you believe.

[@SoddingSuperHero]

The Thumbnail of that guy looking at the kid 👀

[@joshjohnson3347]

You talkin about the brother?

[@SnakeMan448]

1: Stop assuming that opinions are all just arbitrary. Many opinions are well informed. 2: Stop assuming that your views aren't opinion. If anything, it's the religious that have the arbitrary and uninformed opinions on morality; you don't have evidence of a god or it's direct opinions on morality, just humans interpreting things or just making it up to suit their agenda.

[@mischarowe]

Well said.

[@PhillipCummingsUSA]

Ah, I see a scientist that rejects anything that ignores anything that contradicts his opinions.

[@SnakeMan448]

@@PhillipCummingsUSA Thank you for your meaningless take.

[@GSpotter63]

If the end result is exactly the same no matter what you or any of us do, then why do you care what you or anybody does?

[@dariusnoname12]

Result is not the same. If I help someone, I will feel better if I ignore it, I will feel bad. It is how we live till the end, not the end that matter. Also given that there are numerous gods, that care about faith, there is extremely small chance that you believe in right one(if they exist), then basically no matter what, you will pay for you don't believe. Also it looks like you do things not because they are good but because you fear hell or hope to go to heaven. That is selfishness, not goodness. therefore god will see it.

[@doctorwebman]

Empathy does not require that objective purpose exists.

[@GSpotter63]

@@doctorwebman Without an objective moral standard or scale then your empathy has no more meaning or purpose then apathy. They are both simply reduced to personal choice. So therefore you have no more moral right to impose your particular personal choice onto others then they do to impose their own onto you.

[@doctorwebman]

@@GSpotter63 Give me an objective reason that murder is wrong. If you can't, them you are pretending that your morality is objective in a way that an atheist's is not. We don't need an objective standard to care about one another. We say murder is wrong, and that is an opinion, for the same reason it is your god's personal opinion that murder is wrong, because we love. I don't need for there to be an afterlife in order to care about others. I want them to have the best life they can, and I feel bad for those who are unfairly treated. "So therefore you have no more moral right to impose your particular personal choice onto others then they do to impose their own onto you." Why would I need a right in order to convince you that murder is wrong, when you already have empathy that forces you to agree with me (assuming you aren't a psychopath who lacks empathy)? Also, your God has no right to impose his morality on me, if what you say is true, because he literally just pulled his morality out of nothing, and has nothing objective to base it on. 'Objective' does not mean 'made up by God out of thin air for emotional reasons'. If murder is not wrong without God, then murder is not inherently wrong, and God is just making it up that it is. According to your reasoning, you also have no right to commit murder, which means I don't have to impose anything. I can just point to your lack of justification for it.

[@GSpotter63]

@@doctorwebman *"Why would I need a right in order to convince you that murder is wrong, when you already have empathy that forces you to agree with me"* You can't claim moral relativism then turn right around and use an objective moral statement to say that something is wrong..... Claiming that something is wrong would violate the very premise of moral relativism. By what bases can you say that anything is good or bad? Who or what is to decide the good from the bad, you or me, Hitler, Mussolini? I know, how about Hannibal Lecter or Jeffry Dahmer? : All atheists one and the same. Without a non-moveable base as a standard all you are left with is opinions and preferences. Both Hitler and Mussolini thought that they were doing mankind a favor and helping evolution along by getting rid of the less evolved. In fact there were some societies in the past that found it quite acceptable to eat their own children. And every single one of these societies believed that what they were doing was morally good and was in their best interest. What makes these men any different than a moral relativist? Like a moral relativist, they measure their morality by comparing it to the morality of those around them. Without a moral absolute than what is right and what is wrong in simply the opinion of those involved. The accepted morality of the day is simply the one held by the majority. A majority I might add that is quite often dictated by social pressure or even violent force, which has nothing to do with what is ultimately right and ultimately wrong.

[@gamingdad2549]

Can a religious person really use the word moral when they believe in a book that supported slavery and genocide?

[@kristijanpavlovic8605]

A person can believe in God and not be religious.

[@gamingdad2549]

@@kristijanpavlovic8605 People tend to believe in a god because they became religious.

[@kristijanpavlovic8605]

@@gamingdad2549 I think the reverse also applies. But you can believe in God and not be religious, as any logical person can see the errors and flaws in religious systems that are currently on the planet.

[@hix9306]

I think it’s more common sense . Killing and hurting people is wrong no question . We don’t need anyone to believe that . Some of the meanest people in those world are religious

[@AdmiralBison]

Morality is independent of God(s) and the Bible. How do I know this? Just look at Christians that pick and choose what their book says, they've been operating on their own set of morals. IF they completely followed the morality of the Bible they'd come off as sociopaths or lunatics. *As an ex-Catholic turned Atheist my morality has mostly stayed the same, I'm just no longer anal retentive about how people live their life in private, who they should and shouldn't marry and can't behind a god belief for things I am responsible for.

[@Yamyatos]

This. Im really glad most people are morally superior to their gods lmao

[@samsendar5155]

A lot of Christian "morality" is nothing but PRUDISM anyway, which I think people can DO WITHOUT.

[@Hoi4o]

Yes, some christians have this prudist and overly judgemental understanding of morality, but that's a deviation from Christ's teaching.

[@craigslist6630]

Yes, because all of our friends who grew up with alcoholic, philandering parents don’t call us for suicide watch. 🙄 You will know them by their fruit.

[@oftin_wong]

It's a way to discriminate against others, Christianity is simply used by human nature as an elite club ...human nature isn't easily squashed

[@cnault3244]

Christian morality is the morality they get from the Bible, which they use as a menu to pick and choose which commandments to follow and which to ignore.

[@TestTest-me8zt]

What do you mean by this?

[@RegebroRepairs]

It's the exact opposite. Using god does not justify anything. It's just pointing to an authority, but does not justify that authority. It's no different than pointing to a law book. Claiming that god has to be moral because it's god is a circular fallacy that is self-evidently incorrect even to children, and it has the extra problem that we have no idea what god wants. You are not pointing to god, you are pointing to yourself and your personal interpretation of a 3000 year old book that we know was not written by any god. That is a DOUBLE failure of justification.

[@cagebeast]

I wish one of these pastors would walk up to you with a microphone instead of these 17 year old kids

[@Spillers72]

I'm a Christian and i think you can say the purpose is summed up in one word, LOVE.

[@w1z4rd9]

That we could agree as the same human being.

[@ronarprefect7709]

Love must be in accordance with truth to be love. If you put peanut butter in a treat for someone with a peanut allergy that you had no knowledge of, you have attempted to be loving but have harmed them. At times, the most loving thing we can do is to take drastic and painful action to get someone to repent.

[@ep8470]

From Roman's 3:16 love ?

[@spencergsmith]

As a Christian, the purpose can be summed up by saying we are meant to GLORIFY GOD.

[@enlight_8360]

Except for unbelievers and homosexuals

[@MsYeiri]

Loved the quarterback analogy.

[@fewblack1572]

Yeiri C. Serrano ikr

[@hera9191]

The only 1st half. Because the "purpose of life" has nothing to do with god.

[@jacobschweder7535]

@@hera9191 So what is the purpose of life exactly? And who dictates said purpose? Who are you to say what the purpose is, you're just a man.

[@hera9191]

@@jacobschweder7535 My "personal purpose" of life is enjoying it with my family and my friends with certain level of helping other people to have same enjoy. It has nothing to do with any god.

[@wwfera00]

@@hera9191 you're either not getting it, or don't care enough to really understand what Frank is saying because it conflicts with your personal worldview. Then again most athiest/agnostic tend to be callously ignorant and arrogant towards followers of Christ.

[@GearSolid]

Who else saw how the people seated down kept moving their heads back and forth😂😂

[@atheistangel007]

Yes, because Frank's BS is so mind boggling.

[@GearSolid]

@@atheistangel007 how easy it is to speak out crap in the dark.

[@atheistangel007]

@@GearSolid What "crap" and what do you mean by "dark"? Because I can and most certainly will back up what I claim.

[@atheistangel007]

Tell me, if you are in a room filled with Nazis, and Hitler is speaking...would you think it _odd_ for most of the room to be shaking their heads back and forth if you came in questioning Nazism?

[@nathanmitchell5217]

“If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do“

[@adamandeveourfirstparents4709]

Jesus saves

[@bradleyreed5762]

What a bully. The statements he battered this young man with were nonsensical. I’d love to have a reasonable chat with him so we could post that in a public forum. Your Bible states that your God slaughtered millions, condoned rape and torture and supported slavery. How dare you beat up on a clearly moral and thoughtful person. Take care of the log in your own eye…

[@MrJimMajor]

And endless stream of ambiguous claims and questions coming from Turek. There are people who live happy fulfilled lives all over the world without any concern about some unknown, philosophical, after death end point.

[@evangelistkimpatrik]

Shannon85 Then there are those who live a completely meaningless life, without food and other resources.

[@MrJimMajor]

+Evangelist Kim Patrik I don't know what that means. There isn't anyone who lives without food. If you were intending that to be a metaphor, I don't know what you mean.

[@evangelistkimpatrik]

Shannon85 I mean that a lot of people don’t live happy and fulfilled lives. Life is unfair. We in the west have all we need, but others are struggling. Is happiness the purpose of life? Sounds pretty shallow to me....

[@MrJimMajor]

+Evangelist Kim Patrik Yes, happiness is the purpose of life, happiness in all its forms. That would include basic fun, feelings of accomplishment, love, the joy of giving to charities and those less fortunate, and the delight in making others happy.

[@ericmago4110]

Evangelist Kim Patrik Just because you subjectively think it sounds shallow - probably because you have been bought into believing there is a life after this - does not mean it is the truth. As an Atheist I believe there is no meaning to life apart from the meaning we give it. There has been no evidence for an afterlife - it would be irrational to believe so as of now.

[@princeothello4153]

Raised in a family of high morals. But what is the origin/source of those high morals? We know about what’s right and wrong. But what is the origin/source of right and wrong?

[@AnonyMous-og3ct]

Optimization of long-term biological goals (survival and avoiding needless suffering) against unknowns. A person absent superstition and ideologies can do better. Take physical health. If you know a lot about fitness and nutrition, you can use it to make yourself healthier by eating right and training your body, and then you improve (not guarantee) your chances of survival and needless suffering. Superstition and ideology get in the way of this, much like religion. There are crazy people out there who think that a mono-diet of eating nothing but chocolate each day is healthy. There are fat-positivists who assert that obesity is perfectly healthy. There are fruitarians that assert that eating nothing but fruits and veggies with almost pure carbs is healthy, even though they are often prone to malnutrition in the long run. We can use science to criticize why these ideologies are unhealthy. Take the Golden Rule. Why should you treat others as you would like to be treated? Sometimes this might extract a cost on you that isn't paid back. Yet if we look at human history and people around us, you can start to see that people who constantly mistreat everyone around them will often (not always, but often) work towards their own demise since they form no allies to support them and only end up making more and more enemies. We can use a scientific mindset to criticize those who don't operate by the Golden Rule by using this evidence. Take the idea of protecting women and children in dangerous situations. At face value, this might seem sexist. Yet look at our biology and evolutionary history. If we lived in a population with few children and few women and a whole bunch of men, the human species is at a high risk of extinction. Optimizing our survival and well-being (which extends beyond our immediate selves and towards our siblings, loved ones, potentially the entire human race) combined with this scientific mindset justifies why we should protect women and children. Primitive human tribes figured this out (at least for those within their tribe) long before they established religious ideas or a formal code of ethics. Take Christians who massacred Jews during the Black Death out of the belief that Jews were behind it. They were operating based on a superstitious belief of what is right. If they understood modern science and medicine, they'd realize that Jews were not the cause behind the Black Death and would not have massacred them. Take communists. They've caused endless suffering of millions of people throughout the world since they're driven by superstition and ideology. Meanwhile, someone who looks around at history and what sort of economic systems actually causes nations to develop and prosper and minimizes suffering can use that knowledge to avoid becoming a communist and avoid repeating history. Wisdom and scientific objectivity combined with biological goals lead to a moral human being (i.e., a human being that does a good job of improving the well-being of themselves and those around them and helping to ensure their survival).

[@AnonyMous-og3ct]

The *unknowns* part is key and why I think morality is so difficult for many to grasp without simply being told what is good/bad by other people or reading commandments from some holy scripture. It's like learning how to play Poker well. You have to learn how to make good decisions even when they might sometimes yield unlucky results, and that's very counter-intuitive for human beings. Yet any Poker player can play perfectly if they could see their opponent's cards, but they can't, and that actually changes the definition of "good/bad" decisions. Take this example: say you had a magic crystal ball that told you for sure that inviting a neighbor into your home for dinner will result in him killing you and your family. Would it be moral then to invite him still, knowing for sure that you will all be murdered? No, right? That's about as moral as rounding up your family and jumping off a cliff. But you can't possibly know the consequences of inviting this neighbor into your home upfront, so absent this knowledge, it becomes a good and moral action from a categorical perspective because a society that makes this a habit will foster goodwill and prosperity.

[@giocommentary]

your situation, we as humans are only ever as moral as we are allowed to be. we are only after preserving ourselves ofcourse as our brain's demand. right and wrong are empty words on their own, they have no meaning. morals are therefore a social construct not an absolute. 'the store clerk shot the robber in self defense, he is considered a hero for saving everyone at the store, yet that doesn't mean there isn't a mother somewhere crying for the loss of her son, to her nothing could ever justify his death'

[@flashoftruth]

//But what is the origin/source of right and wrong?// Situational objectiveness brought about by a consensus of subjective morality.

[@smashleyscott8272]

@@AnonyMous-og3ct ... again, every one of your answers has a presupposition of what's better, best, or optimal... EVERY ONE. Each one of your answers presupposes VALUES. If there is no transcendent standard of values, best, better, or optimal, then your answers are 100% SUBJECTIVE & irrelevant to others. Well, we ALL know in our heart of hearts that true good & true evil exists, and people have value. Universal principles and laws exist, especially moral laws (i.e. the Golden Rule), and if ANYTHING is objectively wrong, there IS a transcendent moral law & therefore a transcendent moral Lawgiver. PERIOD.

[@estrachquirino8291]

How do I find the entire video?

[@jameslucas1270]

search frank turek and filter the searches to long duration video

[@helenamoniqueclarke8135]

The logic of forming safe cohesive societies supports morality and ethics, no religion needed. Look at The Chinese family driven society.

[@keithhunt5328]

But forming safe cohesive societies in and of itself means that interests of the individual are being restricted. In my moral worldview I want full freedom to do whatever I want.

[@helenamoniqueclarke8135]

@@keithhunt5328 Sorry. There are laws.

[@ismailmounsif1109]

Nope again Subjective morals can create distraction in the society and chaos because you have no criteria to establish your morals you just come up with it while you go and what if he come up with something that is wrong that could destroy the society or the people or create oppression in land you have no criteria to say a dictator is wrong

[@TonyMiyamoto]

Brilliant Man

[@cnault3244]

"The real question is whether you can justify morality without God." According to the Bible, owning other people as your property is moral. Also moral ( according to the Bible): - killing adulterers -killing disobedient children -killing women who weren't virgins on their wedding night - killing people who work on Saturday ( the Sabbath day) - killing people who worship a different god - killing people who worship no god According to the Bible, if a man rapes an unmarried woman who is not engaged, the penalty is he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

[@cnault3244]

@He loves you! Context matters? Tell me, what is the moral context for buying,selling, or owning someone as your slave?

[@cnault3244]

@He loves you! "Hint: They're not the kind of slaves that you're thinking of." Hint:I don't think you have actually read what the Bible says about slaves. "You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. " When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

[@cnault3244]

@He loves you! Still waiting for you to present evidence fore the existence of god.

[@cnault3244]

@He loves you! "ou want a presentation of evidence watch Frank's full power-points. You can also check out some of Pastor Jeff Durbin debates with Atheists" Our discussion is taking place here. Do you have any evidence you can present here? " How many other people do you know that can raise the dead, turn water into wine, walk on water, heal the blind, and resurrect themselves?" I don;t know of anyone ( Jesus included) that can do those things. I know there are a lot of fables and myths making those claims.... and numerous older stories have gods and demigods doing those things. "Oh but he didn't resurrect Himself you say?" I never said that. I am asking the people who claim he was resurrected to prove the claim. So far, they haven't. "Okay, where's the body then?" LMFAO. Do you know what an empty tomb proves? it proves the tomb is empty. It doesn't prove the dead person that was in it was resurrected.

[@TheLegendOfRandy]

@He loves you! What's the correct "context" to morally justify barbarically stoning a human being to death for innocuously gathering sticks on the wrong day of the week? (Numbers 15:32-36)

[@mattdavis4701]

Wow. Awesome video. You can see the gears turning in that kids head.

[@KingAries85]

The better question is can religious people be moral ? I think someone who don’t believe in religion but is still good is more moral then a person being good because they fear what religion tells them

[@RA-ie3ss]

Yes religious people can be moral, in fact religion established most of modern morality. Can atheists be good sure I suppose atheists can somehow get and uphold notions of good by pure chance and those very few that are good can possibly have that wrong sense of moral superiority you ascribe to all of them. I suppose people who are good without having parents growing up are morally superior to normal people too.

[@KingAries85]

@@RA-ie3ss you are the perfect example of what I was taking about thanks

[@itz_yanii378]

Yes because religion is the origin of morality. All atheist morals are in fact based on religion unless they deny it. There’s no such thing as secular morality.

[@one-il5fu]

YAY! The old music is back!!!!!

[@bricemakes1180]

Made him think lol. Everything pointed right back to God whenever Frank asked him a question.

[@salpertia]

Human life is valuable to individuals without a god because they themselves give it value.

[@Kaymen1980]

Salpertia Yeh, it’s really not that hard to figure out..

[@AussieZeKieL]

Salpertia but Hitler and Stalin say life doesn’t have value and you don’t have a higher basis say they are wrong.

[@Kaymen1980]

ReeceAUS Salpertina has the same basis for saying they are wrong, as you do for saying slavery is wrong..

[@AussieZeKieL]

J Ovesen exactly, but opposing or aligning opinions don’t give justification.

[@Hernal03]

Morality in an Atheist is _not_ rare. It's likely as common as finding morality in a religious person. It's all about the individual and how well adjusted they are psychologically and emotionally. There are immoral people everywhere --- and, sometimes, unfortunately, they can even turn out to be very religious individuals, such as Priests, Rabbis and Imams, the very people whom the worshipers look to for guidance. Your body may regularly attend prayer gatherings at your local Church, Synagogue or Mosque but as to where your mind is, well, that could be a much darker and frightening place --- one that we rarely confront or even admit to on an individual level. The human mind is very complex and following one ideology or another is no guarantee of morality. We as human beings face a daily ongoing battle to keep ourselves in check and try to understand and empathize with those around us whenever possible. Those who fail at that _individual_ effort, regardless of ideology, run the risk of regressing into the savages that we believe we've distanced ourselves from. We haven't really --- not totally. It is a battle we've been fighting for centuries --- one that is still ongoing. Will we ever get there? Well, It starts with us.

[@TestTest-me8zt]

Great explanation and I agree with a lot of your points. Who do you mean when you say us?

[@Hernal03]

@@TestTest-me8zt I guess I am using _"us"_ in its broadest sense --- basically all of mankind --- more specifically, this current generation. Because each generation (to a certain degree), is like hitting a reset button, it is contingent on that generation not to lose sight of the past gains we've made and not regress due to ignorance or laziness. It's up to us as a species to take the best of what each previous generation has left us and to build on that --- basically keep the momentum going. One day, we may actually make it to the top of the mountain, take a look down and wonder how in the world we managed to get there. That would truly be a wonderous time to live in.

[@baldwinthefourth4098]

What is stopping an atheist or agnostic from basing his morality on utilitrianism?

[@170221dn]

If some kids called me bald would it be ok if I unleashed a wild bear on them and 42 of them were mauled to death?

[@andrewoliver8930]

@Niko Kapanen What is natural?

[@andrewoliver8930]

@Niko Kapanen people born with extra fingers etc are genetic traits. Are they natural or artificial?

[@GoldenWolf248]

@Niko Kapanen We all deserve to go to hell, but because of what Jesus did on the cross (taking our punishment), we can be saved if we believe in Him and repent from our sins. The problem is that most people have different standards than God, but Jesus says if you even look at someone with lust, you've committed adultery in your heart. God will judge people on their hearts. If you have ever lied, you have already broken the commandments. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." (James 2:10) All people need to do is repent and trust in Jesus. If they don't love God, why would God force them to be with Him for eternity? But the only other option is separation from God which is hell. God is good and every blessing on earth is from Him. It's important to warn people about hell so they'll reconsider God, but they have a choice to make. They can live in sin and pretend God doesn't exist, or they can repent and trust in God and be in heaven with Him forever. "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away" (Revelation 21:4).

[@andrewoliver8930]

@Niko Kapanen The average person has less than 2 legs.

[@sukruoosten]

who gave those kids life to begin with ! who made that bear ! who takes life en gives life ! there is no other answer then YHWH EN YHWH ALONE !!!!! ONLY HE is above GOOD EN EVIL

[@alanbaraka9800]

Seriously Frank? You can't have purpose without god? Ok. And what method did you use to determine it was your god and none of the gods of the thousands of other religions?

[@interpretingscripture8068]

Alan Baraka 1) purpose involves conscious choice so how can the universe or life have a purpose if it is simply the result of random natural causes? 2) do you have better evidence and logical argumentation to support the existence of another God other than the judeo Christian God?

[@alanbaraka9800]

Interpreting Scripture _ Who says life or the universe needs a purpose? If a rock sits on a beach then it's just a rock. Bit if a person picks it up, sharpens it and uses it as a primitive cutting tool then it gains a purpose. The lack of any perceived purpose in use doesn't erase the fact that the rock was there before we found it. As to the "better evidence" of another God you spoke of. No, I have no such evidence. Because I don't need to present it. The burden of proof is forced onto someone when they make a positive assertion for or against something. Atheism isn't the claim gods don't exist but the disbelief they exist. Disbelief isn't positively affirming for or against anything, it's a neutral stance. And as such atheism has no burden of proof. You and many theists like you are in fact claiming your god exists and do have a burden of proof. However in many cases your standard for evidence is horribly flawed. One standard to validate your religion can easily be applied to validate another. Yet you don't apply it. That's the special pleading fallacy. And it's why I asked what method you used to determine all other gods of all other religions are wrong but yours is right. I don't need to present such evidence since I'm not saying any god doesn't exist. You are saying your god does exist and by extension are saying all other gods are wrong and do need to provide the method you used to arrive at that conclusion. So... what is that method?

[@interpretingscripture8068]

Alan Baraka so you seem to confirm that in atheism life snd the universe do not have a purpose. As far as atheism being a neutral non belief and not needing to defend any positive claim....that is a relatively new definition of atheism that seems to contradict the historic definition that does in fact make the positive claim "there is no God". This new definition seems to be more of a strategy and play on words in an attempt to avoid any responsability to degend its claims because atheism has failed to do so when challenged.....thus the recent modern claim of neutrality. As far as arguments for the positive claim God exists...there are many and as far as positive arguments for the Christian God in contrast to other gods...Christianity rises to the top as well with Jesus being grounded in history while Zeus for example does not. The evidence for the life, teachings, miracles, death and resurrection of Jesus out weigh by far any evidence for Zeus...in fact what evidence is there for Zeus? Anyway Frank addresses these issues in detail in his material along with other grreat apologists lihe William lane Craig and others. There are a number of good debates online that ibvan recommend.

[@alanbaraka9800]

Interpreting Scripture _ I never said that life and the universe have no purpose. I said that things in and of themselves don't have a purpose until we give them one. Things can and do exist without a purpose. There's a stick in the woods right now. Does it have a purpose even though you haven't found it yet? If you did find it and use it as a walking stick then it has a purpose. But before you found it did it still have a purpose? And if so who are you to say what that purpose is? Why is your purpose right while others are wrong? Or vice versa. As for atheism supposedly avoiding responsibility, let's review that shall we? Theism is defined as the belief in gods. The A prefix is added to the front of a word to denote the meaning of opposite. Like symmetrical and asymmetrical. Atheism is simply theism with the A prefix. So if theism is the belief in gods and the A prefix denotes the opposite meaning we must ask ourselves what is the opposite of belief? Is it the claim that no god exists? Of course not. The opposite of belief is disbelief. So atheism is correctly defined as the disbelief in gods. The burden of proof is forced onto someone when they make a positive assertion for or against something. Is disbelief claiming something is or isn't true? No. Ergo we can say with confidence that atheism has no burden of proof because it makes no positive assertion. Simple and to the point. As to what you said about evidence for Jesus and against Zeus, that's the argument from popularity fallacy. The number of believers in something doesn't by definition make it true. At one point many believed in Ra. At one point many believed in Zeus. Their religions like yours have claims of magic, resurrection, and prophecies. Thus far you have presented no credible evidence to show any god exists, let alone yours. Which is why I asked my question what method you used to determine all other gods of all other religions are wrong but yours is right? I've reviewed Frank Turek and William Lane Craig. They were entirely insufficient and lacking in any credible evidence for their god. So if you do have credible evidence then by all means present it. But I would like to pose two questions regarding the biblical heaven. Which I assume you believe in. In your opinion do you think sin is a byproduct of free will?

[@KarpKomet]

Interpreting Scripture Last time I checked Mohammed was also grounded in history. Doesn’t make the religion true. Jesus May or May not have even existed, I think he did personally, but I have the intellectual integrity to admit we don’t know. All religions are faith based, at least admit that, you need to wiki historical evidence for Jesus.....

[@jshadnot]

Let’s hope Frank Turek never looses his faith with that moral outlook, can you imagine, he looses his faith and just starts killing everyone screaming NOTHING MATTERS BECAUSE WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE IN 5 BILLION YEARS!!! 😂

[@yokiryuchan7655]

Not 5 billion, Something will happen to humanity long before that, we'll either blow ourselves up with nuclear weapons, Or something else will happen that will cause life on this planet to end. The point is, since we are all headed towards the same place nothing ultimately matters. You can be a murderer or saint it's your choice. and yeah killing people is fine if atheism is true.

[@noahfletcher3019]

Ngl I'm kinda like this. Only think holding me back is faith. I don't want to hurt anyone violently but I am often tempted to do hurtful things and sometimes Im like "if only I wasn't a Christian". But that's the flesh speaking. Can't let the flesh win.

[@evinafur4797]

1. Subjective morality is opinion. 2. Objective morality is the standard outside of humanity(God) that justifies morality. I get it.

[@linklawson5633]

A lot of Christian MORALITY in nothing but PRUDISM anyway, which I think people can DO WITHOUT.

[@eatmylogic]

God is a subjective belief. God is always silent, which is very convenient for his self-appointed spokesmen on Earth. The bible is ambiguous and has been interpreted to justify a lot of cruelty.

[@pursaveer9027]

We don't kill each other because we have morality, which we have because of God- REALLY? Hmmm. A pack of wolves live in relative harmony, as do many other pack animals. Ants and bees live together and work together towards a common goal. Conclusion: mammals and insects are moral too.

[@AussieZeKieL]

Pur Saveer God created the animals too.

[@pursaveer9027]

We are animals. We have souls, and are born guilty of sin, and with a debt towards a creator described to us by humans. They have no souls, so don't sin, and are guilty of nothing. I wonder if the different life forms on some of the other zillions of planets in the universe have separate sets of rules too?

[@IsraelCountryCube]

You have no reason not to kill another human being and you've cornered yourself and there's no way out buddy exception out of atheism

[@pursaveer9027]

@@IsraelCountryCube Your remarks are unintelligible and 4 years late. I can't disagree with what you've said because I don't know what you said ;) That said: I have many reasons not to kill other people, and the reasons are so obvious they don't need explanation. The golden rule applies to all, regardless of which god you believe in (or don't believe in). Since I don't want to be killed, I don't kill others. And I'm afraid of needles :)

[@helpmaboabb]

Just keep in mind the best insight on morality, by one of the west's greatest philosophers "all morality is just enlightened self-interest"

[@w1z4rd9]

@@williamsmith9948 Then elaborate if you can.

[@samsendar5155]

A lot of Christian "morality" is nothing but PRUDISM anyway, which I think people can DO WITHOUT.

[@Hoi4o]

Please do explain how leading a life of virtue is "self-interest". Because anyone who's tried it can absolutely confirm to you that trying to live honestly and virtuously is very difficult and very inconvenient.

[@cnault3244]

Define what you mean by "a life of virtue".

[@oftin_wong]

Morality is saving an injured animal that you don't have to acknowledge for no reward

[@luiscofresi]

Beautiful. Love hiw Frank enagge with him and kept pushing him for the ultimate answer. The young boy was struggling to find an answer from a atheistic worldview. Praying his eyes are opened

[@thebigone3437]

Yes an athiest can be moral. As long as you base your decisions on wether it'll benifit oneself or others positively in the bounds of the law and well-being of yourself and or others.

[@staghornthedruid957]

so as long as they align with your own personal morals, other people can be moral?

[@thebigone3437]

@@staghornthedruid957 Personal morals are principles, everyone should have them. I was talking about a moral consensus, what everyone typycaly agrees on how to treat others. The law is a form of that as well as societal norms. You don't need a god for those.

[@staghornthedruid957]

@@thebigone3437 agreed, thanks for clarifying, i clearly didn't understand lol.

[@thebigone3437]

@@staghornthedruid957 You're welcome, glad to be of help.

[@thahtran3236]

Amen frank 👍🏽

[@piijay14]

He got stunned! He didnt know what to say!!

[@Sirdudee]

Well yes. He used a method called the Socratic method. Very much used in debates. The kid's ability to speak was overwhelmed. Not a clear answer in my opinion.

[@nokafisher2771]

Like you do lol

[@piijay14]

@@nokafisher2771 I do! Thank you!!

[@callumwilliams7439]

And he is young he still has a lot of life to live he will form his own opinions when he reaches full maturity. The joys of growing up

[@piijay14]

@@linklawson5633 What do you mean by that? Please elaborate!

[@MrPicklepod]

Idk golden rule is how I derive my morals.

[@Rostos1978]

What if someone wants to be treated like crap, does that mean it is ok for them to treat others like crap?

[@MrPicklepod]

@@Rostos1978 wtf lol, no one thinks like that

[@AnonyMous-og3ct]

We have to have some way to filter certain deranged or mentally ill people out or else anything goes. Yet I know of no one born suicidal. Typically they progressively work towards suicidal depression or experience a traumatic event that causes them to conclude that the way to minimize their own suffering is to end their own life. There's typically a stage preceding their final act of suicide where, if there was a way to end their suicidal depression, they would have readily accepted it... in fact, I would suspect most were desperate for such aid at some point. Same for physical health. There are crazy people out there who think that being obese is healthy or eating a mono-diet of nothing but chocolate is healthy. Of course, ideas of what is "healthy/unhealthy" become completely subjective and prone to insanity if we do not establish objective criteria like a scientific method to determine what actually is "healthy/unhealthy". Same with concepts of right and wrong. Same with our whole perception of reality. If we don't have objective criteria to determine what is real, then superstitious ideas based on faith like the idea that we are visited by extraterrestrials every night who control what we think and say can become orthodoxy. There's no way to say something is more or less plausible if we don't have objective criteria to help us converge towards what is plausible/implausible.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

@@AnonyMous-og3ct The problem is, anyone can invent their own criteria and objective means to accomplish it. This means that even if we bring objective criteria in this sense, it is still based on the human opinion without God and therefore no matter what someone concludes to achieve, they would be right... If Stalin wants to kill his own people, he can create objective criteria for it. One might say "Yeah, but that would harm others". True, but that's because one presupposes that not harming others is good. Stalin could have said of someone else's opinion "Yeah, but that would help others". This presupposes that not helping others is good. If morality comes from the human mind, then Stalin isn't doing anything different than anyone else by inventing a moral code in his own mind just as someone else would do who objects to Stalin. There is no grounding for morality apart from the human mind without God, which means whatever a person decides to do is just as legitimate as whatever you decide is moral, even if it is the direct opposite of what you decide. This is why if we hold someone else accountable who disagrees with our morality, then we are acknowledging that one view is more right than another, knowing that whatever is someone has decided to do is truly wrong, not that we simply prefer one over another. That means we are appealing to a standard, which implies that there is a standard beyond the human mind, which implies a moral law, which implies a moral law Giver, God.

[@tamething1]

@@MrPicklepod: Masochists do.

[@Yamyatos]

Yes you can justify what is moral without god. Personally im more curious as to how people justify what is moral *with* their god.

[@yokiryuchan7655]

You can only justify YOUR morality and no one else's .

[@Yamyatos]

@@yokiryuchan7655 True, so? How can you justify the morality of a psychopath who's void of empathy for other people and goes on a killing spree because they see nothing wrong with it and think it's fun, or they think that these people deserved it anyways? My world view perfectly accounts for people like that existing. Morality is simply the social rules that were beneficial for the local groups survival. Successful rules were passed on, similar to genes. Thus the overwhelming majority agrees on the basic social rules, like dont kill each other, steal from each other, or rape each other. You will find very few people who disagree on those, and the law exists for the sole purpose of protecting the majority who does agree on those values, from the minority that does not. On a higher level than that however, you will find people disagreeing on social rules / morality. The muslims think women should not publically show their face. Most christians, thus statistically likely including you, think sex before marriage is immoral. Yet you will find major parts of the world disagreeing with those views. You will be hard pressed arguing for some objective moral framework that everybody knows, because reality looks different. Thus, by definition, morality is "subjective" - but that does not mean the majority wont agree on most of the core rules. Keep in mind that you argue from the perspective of a book that openly condones slavery (exodus) and portraits someone as the good guy who literally offered to give away his daughters to be sexually violated by multiple men (genesis, lots daughters). Or the perfectly morally good being that turns someone into a pillar of salt for turning around (lots wife). The list goes on. The moral values displayed in your holy scripture are atrocious. You simply look away on the ones you dislike, which probably is most of them. I will openly argue that most religious people, including christians specifically, are far morally superior to their holy scriptures, and the god depicted within them. For centuries christians saw no problem with, for example, the rules laid out in exodus, and openly used them to justify keeping slaves. It has only been very recently that the need to "reinterprete" these verses arose. Not because the stuff written within them changed, but because people realised what's actually written there is abysmally immoral (according to modern standards, which changed, unlike the text), and since that cant possibly be true, it must be interpreted in a different way, obviously. It's still immoral tho.

[@yokiryuchan7655]

@@Yamyatos You really think I am going to read all that? Condense your points please. Many of us have lives outside of the youtube comments section.

[@Yamyatos]

@@yokiryuchan7655 Nobody forces you to read it. I know it's probably longer than the parts of the bible you actually read anyways, so dont force yourself to something you are not comfortable with. I just thought you cared about the matter after *you* replied to *me,* but i guess your flimsy moral framework doesnt hold such a high importance in your life after all. I absolutely get it. Defending it *is* a waste of time after all.

[@zxx5]

*justification* is the KEY

[@lifesuckshaveaniceday8951]

Why does morality need a justification, and why does that justification require god?

[@devipriyaaugustine4387]

You can't even ask a question without saying The word" God". God is eveywhere. GOD IS IN YOUR Question. The Same God you are Questioning is the answer for all your questions. His Name is JESUS CHRIST. You might have billion questions but JESUS is the Answer.

[@lifesuckshaveaniceday8951]

@@devipriyaaugustine4387 Amazing answer, very informative. You’re insane.

[@treyjones2642]

@@lifesuckshaveaniceday8951 morality is subjective, Frank claims that God is needed to justify it, but isn’t what God says to be right or wrong just his opinion too? Therefore making morality subjective?

[@Malhaloc]

@@treyjones2642 Assuming God exists nothing He says is subjective. God created everything, God knows everything, God is all powerful. Subjectivity only exists because we describe things how we see them with our limited scope. God's scope is 100% accurate and all-encompassing.

[@Malhaloc]

Well, it's like Frank said. Any moral statement you can make is just your opinion or you parroting someone else's. If there is no God, morality is arbitrary. Why is killing millions of people wrong if people are just going to die anyway and there's no purpose beyond that?

[@jaypeedelarosa4867]

Turek is redherring this kid.the kid just asked a simple question which turek clearly answered perfectly but then turek continues by asking a question on the kid so that he can insert his god on the subject.and like bill o reilly he uses the stalin,pol pot,hitler fallacy to suggest that to be a good person and not kill people you need god which contradicts his first answer to the main question of the kid

[@w1z4rd9]

As soon as he used the Socratic method on that kid, I felt sorry.

[@DevoutSoldierYT]

Without God, people (in general) cannot justify good or evil, period. You can't say murder is wrong if everything is just "human opinion". If we're all "animals", then there is nothing wrong with killing others. Animals do it all the time. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist because there is no morality if a person doesn't believe in God. People can 'make up' good and evil as time changes .... Which is problematic. No foundation, etc.

[@linklawson5633]

A lot of Christian MORALITY in nothing but PRUDISM anyway, which I think people can DO WITHOUT.

[@DevoutSoldierYT]

@@linklawson5633 :)

[@warriorsofchrist1_342]

@@linklawson5633 Your assuming, that it will be better why will it be a good thing? who said?

[@Ozzyman200]

Theists have no way to explain why any act is right or wrong based on their religion. They can be moral, but their system has no way to explain morality.

[@carlfernandes1275]

2:20 Stalin allowed his own son to be killed.

[@1godonlyone119]

And?

[@AnonyMous-og3ct]

Stalin was an ideologue not unlike a religious fanatic. There are both secular and religious ideologues. What they share in common is an allergy to any sort of scientific evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

[@MrKit9]

God allowed his own son to be killed.

[@briankid4737]

Kit Cumbie haha

[@simonpedersen9703]

Just like god.

[@pursaveer9027]

Can a Bhuddist be moral? A Hindu? Muslim? Jew? Zoroastrian, Jainist Taoist, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon.... the list goes on. If an atheist or agnostic can be moral, so can any one from these groups. The real question is whether they can justify morality without God as believed in and advocated for by Dr. Frank Turek. And that god has a lot of requirements, just like all gods do.

[@fredmench4552]

The need to perpetuate, live long enough to replicate, that is your purpose. That is the reason for the positive feed back loop we call life, without that it ceases to exist. This is fundamentally how all creatures morals are formed. Any culture with a social construct on which they depend must adopt the golden rule @ least for those in ones community making morality subjective to individual collectives respectively. Once a life form can come to the level of consciousness to adequately understand that we all depend on one another to continue in this word of terminal resources it can then abridge morals to every race of life.

[@craigslist6630]

Cite your source. The other side is quoting the Bible. What is your source for this idea?

[@fredmench4552]

@@craigslist6630 observable reality

[@DruPetty42]

If atheists truly believed in a subjective morality without an objective foundation, they shouldn't see anything wrong with evil. Why? Because it would all be subjective and nothing more than an opinion.

[@h.d.mech.mortenson2098]

Exactly. Yet they for some reason have issues with selective things like so called slavery. Abortion is fine though lol. So sad how delusional people are.

[@DruPetty42]

@@h.d.mech.mortenson2098, Yep! I'm with you on that.

[@disrupt94]

" If atheists truly believed in a subjective morality without an objective foundation, they shouldn't see anything wrong with evil" And unless christians have a fool-proof, demonstrable method for determining morality, then they have no moral grounds to oppose the actions of islamic terrorists. Come to think of it, you don't have a right to oppose anybody unless you KNOW what the objectively good or objectively bad action is. This means a world where EVERYTHING is permitted because everybody will justify their actions with some version of "My god told me to do it". Unless of course, you manage to do what no other theist has done and demonstrate this method. Does that world sound any better to you? Maybe consider the holes in your own boat first? Also, most atheist are not hardline relativist, most subscribe to some form of utilitarinism relative to the well-being of a society. While that's not a flawless model, atleast it works in practice unlike the one based on divine command.

[@DruPetty42]

@@disrupt94, I'm sorry you feel that way. For the record, Christians don't do what's morally right just because it's by divine command as you put it. All humans have a conscience whether it's distorted or not. The only holes in any logic was found in your response to my comment. Have a good day.

[@disrupt94]

@@DruPetty42 " m sorry you feel that way. For the record, Christians don't do what's morally right just because it's by divine command as you put it. " Then how do you determine what's morally right? the moment you fall back on what feels intuitive and compassionate, you are approaching that subjective morality you dread. " All humans have a conscience whether it's distorted or no" Allright, so how do you measure distorion of a conscience? objevtively speaking, why is the conscience of a murdered any less valid than yours? " he only holes in any logic was found in your response to my comment" I'll advise you to reread it. I never stated christians could not do things out of the goodness of their hearts for instance, yet that is something you felt the need to bring up. My comment was solely based on how YOU justify your moral worldview.

[@kingbugs3558]

"How can an atheist justify morality without god" I think the problem with this question, and why the answers seem so dissonant to a Christian mindset, is that it implicitly discounts any other form of justification out of hand. Here's a classic moral quandary: would you murder someone to save 10 other people? You either kill or allow others to die. To a moral objectivist, only one answer can be morally right. When belief systems claiming morality to be objective lay down tenets such as "do not kill" and they come in conflict with tenets stating "help those in need", it creates a moral dilemma. In principle, moral objectivism presupposes that one answer will always be right and one answer will always be wrong, as there is no other mechanism with which to determine morality apart from the central objective source. In practical application, this never works in society. In beliefs like Christianity, this inconvenient reality must be sidestepped by way of grace and forgiveness, or declaring that whichever decision god wants is objectively morally correct. The problem with those three things is they strip objectivity entirely out of the situation. Grace and forgiveness both require a degree adjudication and arbitration, which both arise from subjectivity themselves. Stating that "whatever god wants" to be correct is also still subjective by it's very definition, as we would all then be *subject* to the whims and fancies of god whether we agreed with it or not. In truth, moral objectivism does not exist in a secular or religious framework. One side must create special rules and pleading in order to bypass its own presupposed notion, and in practice rendering it moot, the other merely shrugs and proceeds right into the inevitable arguing and debating.

[@kingbugs3558]

@Deyandra Hutama "you need to sacrifice your self like Jesus" As I stated, special pleading. And if you believe that it is up to people to decide right and wrong, as it seems you do, then you reject Divine Command theory. That calls into question the entire concept of the Christian afterlife involving judgement and punishment.

[@roelsvideosandstuffs1513]

Sorry no not kinda like that. It is kinda like you are saying. "Well the final say is God so what's the purpose" or something like that God makes law but He also makes forgiveness. Because He knows you can't always follow the laws, you can't always be moral, you will always have hard time. Etc. Just like in your example kill 1 save 10? (Something ) if you ever get to the situation it is hard right? That's why there is forgiveness. But you must ask for this forgiveness (it will not be given to you unless you ask) and *try not to commit your sins again. Maybe then you will say "So I/someone can repeat sins all over again and just ask for forgiveness?" The thing is you want to lessen both *willing sins and *accidental sins or something. And by God's words and if you confess your sins again. You should be forgiven. Also this is what God's grace means. Giving something to undeserving. In human capacity (our grace to someone) are usually short of it, or none of it for other humans. But God is different, full of grace and merciful I hope it can clear your misconceptions and misunderstandings. Though there are things I don't understand by I'll keep working on it. I think

[@kingbugs3558]

@@roelsvideosandstuffs1513 Sorry, but I don't have any misconceptions or misunderstandings. Those "He knows you can't always follow the laws" platitudes, and grace and forgiveness, and such, are prime example of special pleading. All common contemporary moral claims fit within an entirely secular moral framework. People claiming morality is derived from god are shoehorning in the answer before looking at the evidence to arrive at the answer to the question.

[@roelsvideosandstuffs1513]

@@kingbugs3558 Okay if you say so. Yes, we are pleading? Is something wrong? I mean you also plead to people. (don't try to tell me no. that would contradict yourself and the purpose of your comment) The human system won't work without pleading. So what's wrong is pleading only to people who believe in God. Well. No. pleading can be done by anyone Is pleading bad? No. Objective morality will always technically ends with the one in charge. By the way objective morality have nothing to do with sect religion etc. I hope it clears your misunderstandings or misconceptions, but if you say you don't have one and ask again. I'm gonna try to make it clear again. I think.

[@kingbugs3558]

@@roelsvideosandstuffs1513 Pleading and "special pleading" are two different things. I'd suggest you look into that before equating the two. Yes, I am fully aware that objective morality has nothing to do with a particular sect or religion beyond the fact that most all sects and religions proclaim that morality is objective. I myself am not an atheist, I am a deist. I don't believe nor accept that any morality is derived from god or that god, implicitly or explicitly, expects any certain behaviors or dogma from its progeny.

[@diamondlife-gi7hg]

It does say in the bible that Gods law is already written in our heart so that's why an atheist can have a sense of morality our conscience bear's witness. We just make choices.

[@walacelopes114]

I don't care where we're going or where we came from. It is fact that we are here, we're alive and we feel pain and suffer(at least i do), therefore hurting people gives them a bad experience, which doesn't matter if we're not living forever. What gives life its value is that it is not eternal, so hurting people lives is damaging something valueable.

[@qassam2227]

Well u r a good human but if we generelise the " I don't care where we re going or where we came from " idea , then we won't be able to ask bad ppl why they hurt ppl so in general ppl will suffer and as u said we dont want that

[@badatpseudoscience]

The truth is that its the Christion that doesn't have any foundation for morality. Not only are you forced to all sorts of creative justifications to make the bible fit into modern moral standards, even after doing so the bible can be used to justify any position you want.

[@glowheat4469]

No, that is not correct. Romans 2:15 makes it clear we are born with a conscience, knowing right from wrong.

[@badatpseudoscience]

@@glowheat4469 Then it's obviously wrong. The Christion God has been used both today and throughout history to justify both great good and great evil.

[@glowheat4469]

@@badatpseudoscience I never said people would listen to their conscience, or that it stops them from doing evil in the name of God. They just know better.

[@badatpseudoscience]

@@glowheat4469 Like I said. With faith and intent, you can justify pretty much anything with the bible. Quoting a verse from the bible doesn't do anything to argue against my point.

[@glowheat4469]

@@badatpseudoscience All that I can say is, God sets the standard, His guidance will be there. If you choose to do your own thing, that is on you. Anybody can justify anything they want, but Christians have that standard, unbelievers do not have that. The Salem Witch trials were wrong in every way imaginable, but so was Pol Pot an atheist, so two different groups doing evil.

[@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763]

I disagree with the guy in the video. I mean, he says that to justify morality you need a purpose in life which can only come from God. Which is nonsense in my opinion. 1) He assumes that morality is objective. I know no good reason why that would be the case. 2) If morality is subjective, why do I need a purpose in life to have an opinion on what I consider to be good or bad? 3) That mankind will in the end go extinct and we will cease to exist does not mean that there is no meaning to our existence. People can find meaning in the moment, in caring for their children, enjoying life, teach others. 4) If we assume for the fun of it that a deity exists, and the deity determines what is moral, and the deity says "doing X is wrong", then why would you need to have a purpose to follow that order?

[@IrfanKhan-resistance]

Morality itself is a purpose. I myself can't be satisfied just by living in the moment with children family e.t.c. Meanwhile, I must be sure about my existence, my family which is actually not mine we've to quit everything one day as if it was never ours. Why do I risk everything for not believing over believing as believing may cost nothing but what if I don't believe and I find it true then what next? Long lasting humiliation ans punishment of hell.

[@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763]

@@IrfanKhan-resistance Well, the main problem with your argument is that whether you believe or not is not a choice. Rather, it is the conclusion of a thought process. An analogy: imagine I would tell you that the Moon is made of cheese. Would you believe it? No? What if I'd tell you that if you don't believe me you'll get punished? Would you then believe me? Of course not. The claim that the Moon is made of cheese does not become less absurd if you get threatened for not believing. So you still couldn't believe it. At best, you could lie to me and pretend to believe it. Same with your religion. You can threaten me all you want, it doesn't make your religion more believable to me. So such a threat is really a bad argument.

[@IrfanKhan-resistance]

@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 God is not like a threatening goon so my point was not about threat but you failed to give me correct answer. You don't make sense. Finally, whatever trash you have filled in your mind is all based on speculations, irrational thoughts which you said in your comment "thought process" my believe is faith on a divine code. If someone teaches to not kill and steal then its for my benefit. U also have known it through God and through your surroundings but ultimate source is God's divine commandments. U are even not trust worthy for anything if u don't believe source of morality then there is no morality. How can u be so sure when u can't even cure yourself from a small disease. U can't recreate yourself nor even a mosquito, u can't do anything about day n night. U can't create moon,sun,stars and their order, their discipline and the way they're so organized and managed. This is utter ignorance. Only insane minds would not believe in higher source.

[@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763]

@@IrfanKhan-resistance _"God is not like a threatening goon"_ Of course he is. :D Don't believe in him and you will get tortured. It's like a goon holding a gun to your head and telling you to give him your wallet. But the goon makes more sense than God, because you can actually give somebody a wallet, while a threat won't suddenly make you believe something. _"if u don't believe source of morality then there is no morality"_ Do you have evidence that morality comes from God? I mean, that claim is already absurd, considering that the Bible states that owning people as slaves and abusing them is perfectly fine because they are your property. _"Only insane minds would not believe in higher source."_ Same as most theists, when you notice you have no good arguments, all you have left are insults.

[@IrfanKhan-resistance]

@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 Don't mix bible teachings with morality of God. Although slavery still exist in the form of servants but we're civilized enough today that we have to gave them Rights and treat them as equal human beings and this is stated in Islamic teachings. Meanwhile, both religions are from the same source including all other religions. So, fabrications, changes and manipulated books and teachings is not God's problem. Its human beings who've always exploited religions. All religions major and basic teachings are humanity,compassion, love justice and universalism rest all is irrelevant.

[@raczyk]

But I still, don't fully understand. How does human instinct tie into this? Does a child not understand by gut instinct that torturing a dog is not moral?

[@theovanrossum8652]

Yes, I think so. It's call empathy.

[@LiveBenchmarks]

@@theovanrossum8652 Empathy for only dogs? What about human beings? What about bugs? Plants? What is your level of empathy limited to?

[@theovanrossum8652]

@@LiveBenchmarks You're the one who insinuates "only for dogs". Enough said then I think.

[@infinightsky]

I’d still like for believers to show us where and what their god is?

[@ismailhafeji5091]

Id still like for non believers to show where love and consciousness is?

[@Sirdudee]

@@ismailhafeji5091 Millions of years of evolution contributing to conplex mechanisms. Your point being?

[@ismailhafeji5091]

@@Sirdudee whats ur point lol😂

[@Sirdudee]

@@ismailhafeji5091 My point is science will get there. It may take a 1000 years or 10, but it can find the answer.

[@ismailhafeji5091]

@@Sirdudee like its taken over 100 years to find the answer how the universe was created but cant find it?😂

[@theovanrossum8652]

I'm not convinced. Why do you need God for morals?

[@onlyechadtherebellious2467]

This was answered many times

[@theovanrossum8652]

@@onlyechadtherebellious2467 Not really.

[@georgederuiter1412]

people who need gods ordering them around for having morals are just lazy thinkers

[@IrfanKhan-resistance]

They're not lazy. Your argument is just based on speculations, irrational thought process, you've filled your mind with trash. I would have believed your argument if u could recreate yourself even cure yourself from a small disease. Can u create a mosquito? Can u change this organized cycle of day and night, can u create a sun or moon? No, nothing. You can't do anything, you're helpless, you can't even stand without God's will. Its your utter ignorance which led you to arrogance n fake pride, the day when death will strike u from your legs to your throat. It will shake you in a way that all your believe system with no foundation will shake and fall down, uncertain, hopeless.

[@DEEJAYNH10]

That's not the question . The question is "Can you be immoral as an atheist and that would still be acceptable " the answer is yes an their is nothing wrong about it .

[@PM-rh6yq]

The purpose of life is to Love God because he Loves you. Though many will not do that. But he won’t mind control them because it’s not Love to do it.

[@tefky7964]

So why everyone repeat that atheists will end in hell,when he loves us anyway?

[@PM-rh6yq]

@@tefky7964 what do you mean by that? Also speaking of hell, did you know that the people who will isn’t actually there yet?

[@tefky7964]

@@PM-rh6yq What do you mean by ,,did you know that the people who will isn’t actually there yet".

[@linklawson5633]

A lot of Christian MORALITY in nothing but PRUDISM anyway, which I think people can DO WITHOUT.

[@icouldntthinkok6912]

Empathy is a product of evolution, empathy is able to let us help others survive, empathy takes experience with people or animals and makes us care for them, this empathy also makes us apply this to others thus bringing laws.

[@thaboselloman4575]

What you're saying sounds great and would be beautiful if it was true but fundamentally opposes the basic tenets of evolution. Its survival of the fittest. From an evolutionary perspective all organisms struggle to survive and reproduce at any cost even if means committing acts that are considered heinous in our society. The strong survive by reason of strength and the weak perish in weakness.

[@icouldntthinkok6912]

I’m going to give you the benefit of doubt you haven’t got deep into your biology lessons yet. Some genes such as the Green Beard gene (yes that’s a real gene) allows an empathy-type effect to happen, however the Green Beard gene only works for a single species, although we don’t know what gene makes people empathetic, we know that it is genetic, people who are more empathic for others usually have more similarly matched DNA with other empathetic people. My (non scientific definition) theory on why empathetic genes are dominant: At the point of community, when we were more hairy creatures, made the species rely more on each other, this lead to speech, and thus, the ability to warn others of snakes, lions etc. Warning people was important, empathic genes started to appear to complement the environmental trait, this lead to emotional traits complementing empathetic ones.

[@keithhunt5328]

There are some people who don't have empathy- psychopaths and sociopaths.

[@icouldntthinkok6912]

@@keithhunt5328 See how I said ‘dominant’ rather than ‘constant’? I’ll once again just hope that you’re just yet to progress to middle school biology and have an excuse for not knowing genes can be lost when being passed on.

[@icouldntthinkok6912]

@@keithhunt5328 also wow this comment was a year ago.

[@dr.davespinballrestoration3764]

Truth!! Will be sharing this with my pagan and atheist neices and nephews

[@darthbane2669]

I wish you luck!

[@WilliamsWorldView]

Lol.. I'll guess they'll see right through Franks BS.

[@dr.davespinballrestoration3764]

@@WilliamsWorldView How is what Frank say BS?

[@WilliamsWorldView]

@@dr.davespinballrestoration3764 Haven't you heard him speak? He does what he always does. He makes claims he can't back up with facts, he makes assertions and he exploits the inexperience in debating from the young man. There is no inherent purpose to life. Frank has failed to prove there is. There is no objective morality. Frank has failed to prove there is. additional question. Why do you upvote your own comments?

[@dr.davespinballrestoration3764]

@@WilliamsWorldView No inherent purpose to life? Do you not know He who reated you and everything around you? You would have yourself your own god. Do as though wilt Alister Crowley like is the road to the enemy and hell. You know in your heart what is right as God the Father has written in there.

[@robertshelley4223]

I have a question besides the fact that God said do not kill what is wrong with it in the Christian world view? Let me elaborate let’s say I’m a Christian who at the moment is on the good list and I’m going to heaven. If you were to murder me would that not be the greatest thing you could do for me? You not only sent me to heaven you have taken away the risk that I may stop believing in the future and go to Hell. Then my murderer goes and gets “saved” now I have to spend the rest of eternity with my murderer. Which admittedly I would be fine with bc the aspect of eternal bliss out weighs me having to see the person who killed me. Contrast that with the “Atheist” morality there is no afterlife of eternal bliss or damnation this 80 years or less of life is all we have. Now if you were to murder me you would rob me of the only chance I have to experience any kind of pleasure or happiness. You would take away any chance for me to see my loved ones and their ability to see me. Would this not be the most evil thing you could possibly do?

[@dalelerette206]

I find it to be a 'weird reveal' when an atheist reveals their former denomination's theological bias when they agree with another Christian's logical perspective. I am puzzled when they agree with each other but are loathe to admit it. All faith's have their intellectual bias. I would recommend reading "I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist" by Frank Turek & Norman Geisler. As a Roman Catholic, I recommend this thought provoking Protestant work.

[@trumpbellend6717]

The claim that theistic morality is somehow superior because its "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔

[@dalelerette206]

@@trumpbellend6717 Admittedly, I am not fully familiar with Trump's religious views. But there are groups of atheists I strongly agree with, such as Buddhism's respect for all life. There are also atheists against abortion who seem to be of a very high moral caliber. If your view is for all humanity to 'be fruitful and multiply', then your philosophy is the correct one. Oddly, there is a subset of Christians that eschew their spiritual morality to be pompous and self-centered.

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@dalelerette206 Athiesism itself is not a world view, we agree on one issue and one issue alone. That insufficient evidence has been provided to justify belief in a god, that's it. We have different positions with regard to most else, politics, race, sexual equality, morality, evolution, almost everything. So I find it strange that people think they can judge an atheists morals with a sweeping all encompassing generalization. Of course *"I"* that is to say me personaly have a WORLD VIEW, atheism however does not as I said it has views on one single isolated issue,

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@dalelerette206 regarding tureks "not enough faith to be an atheist" I find it hilarious. Can I also just point out that Christians think "faith" is a good thing don't you ? 😜 you believe "faith to be a reliable method of ascertaining truth, yet you want to claim that no one has more faith than an atheist and infer that its bad hmm 🤔🤔🤔 You see what you are really doing is engagingly in the "tu quoque fallacy " ( or hypocrisy fallacy ) which typically deflects criticism away from yourself or your position by accusing others of the same problem or something comparable It's often used by theists to distract from the issue. ITS almost as you understand just how absurd it is to believe anything by faith, so you think if you can somehow saddle atheism with the same pathetic reasoning, it would make yours seem less pathetic ( it doesnt ) Your "faith" is no more reliable or valid than the faith used by followers of Zeus, Thor, Allah, Buddah, Mithrah, Dionysius or any one of a thousand other man made "Gods". Obviously if "faith" can be used to believe in God *X* and also used to believe in God *Y* then faith is NOT a reliable pathway to truth. _"Faith doesn't move mountains, but people with faith - and shovels - will move mountains in order to defend their faith"_

[@dalelerette206]

@@trumpbellend6717 You seem to be assuming a lot. I never agreed with you that insufficient evidence has been provided to justify belief in a god. 😀

[@oftin_wong]

Yes they can...I'm an athiest, I'm generous, kind, I love animals I help people, I'd rather give people praise than complain about stuff, I believe in team work and compassion Apparently I'll be tortured forever

[@a.nash.594]

Are you not concerned about that??

[@karozans]

This is one thing that Christians get wrong because they are wrapped up in a lot of traditional thinking that is not correct. Even Frank has said this before. In the Bible, very little information is given to us about heaven and heII. Of the little that we do know about it, we know that there are different levels of rewards in heaven, and different levels of punishment in heII. Traditional Christians believe that every non-Christian is going to be tossed in the Lake of Fire right along side of HitIer, Satan, and all his demons. This is not true. If you are what you say you are, then you will not be tortured forever in so far as God punishing you like he is going to punish the worst actors like HitIer and Satan, but you will be in a heII of your own creating. If you are what you say you are and your good deeds are tested against your evil deeds, then your punishment may be as light as simply being removed from God's sight. You might be relieved to hear this, but that's because you haven't thought about it because you are a non-believer. For the atheist who is not an evil person who is simply banished from entering heaven, it would be heII for you to know that you are stuck living life as you live it now, compared to the paradise that you know you could have had. I don't know about you, but when I wake up, I am still tired, my body sometimes aches, and it's a pain in the neck to find things to eat and cook and clean up and then go out and work and make a living. To me this life isn't horrible, but it isn't a party either. Now imagine if you had to do this for the rest of eternity knowing that you could have been living in the greatest party imaginable. That would be enough to drive most sane people crazy after a long enough time.

[@beanteam2217]

You know? Because u have sinned and fell short the glory of God!

[@ginjordom6065]

Your comment is missing something... "Yes they can...I'm an athiest, I'm generous, kind, I love animals I help people, I'd rather give people praise than complain about stuff, I believe in team work and compassion Apparently I'll be tortured forever" Adolf Hitler ...There,fixed it for you. xD

[@eclipsos8187]

You can be all those things but can you say what your doing is right? If you say yes then how?

[@CoyKiyote]

Doing right feels good. I found someone’s gold class ring, gigantic university ring with a diamond. I could’ve gotten $1500 from it from the gold store but instead I tracked down the owner. Talking to him on the phone, listening to him in tears of disbelief from me finding it and returning it to him not wanting a reward didn’t seem like the right thing, it seemed like the only thing. I didn’t need the fear of some sky god to prod me to do the right thing.

[@algerienvevo9202]

but what happens if u didn't return the gold ring and sell it getting 1500$. means not working for a month and that will make you more happy. is returning the ring makes you more happy than not working for a month with getting up 8 am and working 7 hour's a day ?

[@tochukwuiroezindu2376]

@@algerienvevo9202 your reply is so superb !!!😂😂👊🏾👊🏾

[@CoyKiyote]

@@algerienvevo9202 I would feel like I didn’t do the right thing. I can empathize and think about how I would feel if someone returned my lost ring. The fact it had his name on it meant keeping it would basically be stealing.

[@catluvvr]

God is a God of love, not of fear :)

[@Enaccul]

@@kristijanpavlovic8605 You say soul, id say conscience. Literally we know our conscience is the source of guilt etc. And we know that its a result of the brain. Why introduce the concept of the soul which is unproven when the conscience already provides the feelings you mentioned and is known to exist? The soul seems superfluous considering everything it supposedly does can already be easily explained by other aspects of the brain, which again is real.

[@Venaloid]

Why is it morally wrong to disobey God's commands? Or, why is it morally wrong to act incongruently with God's nature? Is that just how you choose to define it? If so, then that's arbitrary. Or, if that's just how GOD chooses to define it, then why ought we accept that definition? Why is it right to accept that definition? Why is it right to obey God's commands?

[@kristijanpavlovic8605]

Hi Venaloid, God's laws stem from God's character and nature. They are a reflection of God's will and desire, they are God's intention. Everyone of these laws revolves around love and breaking those laws(sin) results in pain and suffering. Why is it wrong to break them? Because going away from goodness results in badness. God does not set the laws arbitrarily, they are a part of Him, so God is not moral, He is morality itself. The same way goes for justice, intelligence, creativity, power and so on. EDIT: For clarification, I do not believe that religions have a correct depiciton of God as there are many errors, illogical and unloving teachings in them. I believe God to be a perfectly loving, logical and just being. If anyone is interested, the truth about God can be found at the Divine Truth youtube channel.

[@Nimish204]

@@kristijanpavlovic8605 why is being consistent with God's nature good? Why ought we be consistent with his intentions?

[@kristijanpavlovic8605]

Hello, @@Nimish204. _why is being consistent with God's nature good?_ Because God is good. _Why ought we be consistent with his intentions?_ Because His intentions are good and although no one is forcing us to act or be in harmony with these laws, we will experience pain and suffering if we disobey and pleasure and happiness if we obey them.

[@tomoates8568]

The "purpose of life" can actually be different for a lot of people. My purpose in life can be different than your purpose. This man appears to be an educator, that's part of what he's chosen as his "purpose". Morality doesn't necessarily need to coincide with your chosen purpose. Morality is simple, and most religions teach the same basics. They all have that "golden rule", treat others as you'd want them to treat you. I believe every person has inherent value as people, and I believe the same for animals on a lesser plane. I try to base my actions on three virtues, kindness, respect, and justice. You can figure out if what you're doing is right or wrong if you simply ask yourself, is what I'm doing kind? Is what I'm doing respectful? Is what I'm doing just? Even if there is a God, what makes the purpose of morality any greater with his existence? Just because he said so? If that's the case then where does God get his moral code from? Is it morally just to do something against another person if God is the one who told you to do it? I used to be religious but would now consider myself atheist.

[@yokiryuchan7655]

exactly, and Joseph Stalin's purpose was to kill people. for him that was good. If the purpose of life is different for everyone. Then you can be a murderer or Saint it ultimately doesn't matter because we are all headed to the same place anyway.

[@RA-ie3ss]

The golden rule is worthless on its own. There is no atheist communities or adequate atheist moral system. The new atheist enlightenment didn't happen and things got worse. You can conplain about the nature of purpose in life or the importance of God on morality but the results speak for themselves. I'm sorry you have become an atheist, I hope you get better.

[@trumpbellend6717]

​@@yokiryuchan7655 Just what "purpose" does bone cancer that causes untold suffering and death to millions of innocent children and their families serve ? Did God not have a "choice" to create a world without bone cancer? How about the multitude of other Diseases, Tsunamis, Viruses, birth defects, Earthquakes, Floods, Famines, ect ect. ?? I think Epicurus put it much better than I ever could........ _"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able_ ? _Then he is not omnipotent_ _Is he able, but not willing_ ? _Then he is malevolent_ _Is he both able and willing_ ? _Then whence cometh evil_ ? _Is he neither able nor willing_ ? _Then why call him God"_ ? Epicurus

[@salpertia]

Imagine being so out there that you can't accept that people have subjective morals in that these morals become objective because of the societies that enforce them. Yes and he's he's can be moral in the end it will always be subjective in core but is made objective by the power to enforce it Change my mind

[@salpertia]

@G Will that's the thing they ARE all subjective preferences, (until sufficient evidence for a god comes along) made objective by the society enforcing them. for now, I don't kill people as I please, as it would damage the quality of life that I enjoy today and having the compassion to recognize that I wouldn't want that done to me. (sure there are life or death situations, but that doesn't mean you're required to not do what that same view tells you not to) and that's all there really is to it

[@nachoooooo800]

Just want to clarify: you believe morals become objective if (the majority of) society enforces them...

[@salpertia]

@@nachoooooo800 they are objective in their subjectiveness. They are only as total as the people who enforce them.

[@mellaru4999]

@@salpertia so what is it really that you want an answer to

[@jdforjc3693]

He was sort of vague toward the end or just didn’t finish but it’s important to note that the flesh cannot please God Meaning “good” morals from unbelievers ultimately are fruitless since they are not intended to magnify Gods name

[@doctorwebman]

A god that does not value good morals is not worthy of praise or worship.

[@jdforjc3693]

Christopher Johnson a human that does not give thanks to his Creator but boasts in of himself for his own good deeds is not worthy of Gods pleasure But he who worships his Creator and does good because of the good God has done for him, God will find pleasure in.

[@doctorwebman]

@@jdforjc3693 Why should I care who your god finds pleasure in? Why should I care about his opinion? I don't give thanks to creators who brutally slaughter small children, condone slavery, and torture souls forever. That is sick and twisted morality.

[@jdforjc3693]

Christopher Johnson then why do you reply? Did you want to argue me? Are you attempting to find fault? I don’t want to argue. I just want to extend the truth of what the Bible actually says I’m so sorry that you feel this way. You are deceived about Gods character. Read about Gods character with a soft heart and you will see his true character. Looking for error you will not see and will be blinded by your hard heart

[@doctorwebman]

@@jdforjc3693 The Bible is not truth, and its reasons for why rape and murder are wrong are the same as for most others: love. I am not deceived about your god's character, you are. People who brutally kill small children and torture souls are NOT good righteous people. You have been lied to about what a righteous God would look like. I don't read books with a 'soft heart', as that is a good way to be deceived by a book. My heart is surrounded by hard armor, to keep the lies and baloney out. If you want to get an idea into my heart, you must go through my brain, which is the filter that keeps lies from entering my heart. You want me to put down my reasoning, and to go with feelings instead of knowledge and wisdom. If you read the Bible with Jesus-googles on, like you seem to want me to do, then you will be utterly blind to everything that is wrong with the Bible and its twisted morality. Just because a god keeps repeating, "I am righteous', does not mean he actually is righteous.

[@ramaraksha01]

The One moral that trumps all is - Might Makes Right Even the most moral, principled person can be made to follow Hitler and not even realize that they are doing it! See religion!

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

Idk if it’s just me but I can’t hear Frank that well in this video.

[@daydayall-day668]

Probably you man sorry

[@paragonofvirtue270]

Morality and spirituality are 2 different things ,the man who perpetrated the New Zealand massacre or ISIS are not atheists .

[@BFizzi719]

@G Will So mass shootings are the work of strong and courageous people?

[@BFizzi719]

@G Will Well I seem to have a much lower view of mass murderers than you. But to each their own.

[@Paulthored]

Happy Advent Season, Happy Christmas, and Merry New Year!!! Also, well argued Mr. Turek! GOD Bless!!

[@atheistangel007]

No...it really wasn't.

[@Paulthored]

@@atheistangel007 Really? 🤨 How so??🤔

[@Paulthored]

@@atheistangel007 Edit: _Anyone can be, and/or act, Moral._ _And a purely secular universe, has nothing inherently justifying any particular morality. Since Atheism assumes that there is at least no supernatural/overarching intelligence that can quantify a moral standard..._ _Then Atheism lacks a moral standard that can be justifiably applied in every case, regardless of whether or not someone agrees with Atheism._ As many Atheists love to use as a philosophical dodge, Atheism is only based upon one idea... and everything that ultimately flows from that respective idea. The consequences for said position, don't really allow for an Atheist to justify their morals in a way that aligns with their beliefs concerning existence of Divinity. *Atheism's basic premise, has the ultimate Corollary of denying any nonhuman justification for a Moral Standard.* Meaning that Atheism is relying solely upon human thinking and beliefs, to say anything about Good or Evil. _( And the Stalin & Hitler examples provided by Frank... Show how faulty this could be._ _The Nuremberg Trials, could only take place once it was established that even though the soldiers/officers of the various Nazi/Axis militaries..._ _couldn't just use the excuse of just following orders, or it being part of their culture. To deny any moral responsibility for their actions.)_ Science, and particularly evolution, certainly cannot justify morality. Theology, is dismissed automatically. Psychology, basically says the same thing as evolution, and thus cannot be considered as justification for a morality. Even Philosophy, can only really say something unsatisfactory about how Good/Moral standards... Are Good &/or Moral, because that's what they are. Nothing about WHY'D they be considered Morally Justified. Merely that they are.

[@atheistangel007]

​@@Paulthored "And a purely secular universe, has nothing inherently justifying any particular morality" I disagree, I believe barring any excessive mental issues, we are all born with a certain sense of empathy. "Since Atheism assumes that there is at least no supernatural/overarching intelligence that can quantify a moral standard..." No it doesn't, and this is a strawman and an intellectually dishonest argument, "atheism" in itself deals with one thing and one thing only, "the rejection of the god claim", it speaks nothing towards morality nor other "supernatural" claims. Frank loses the debate right there automatically by purposely misrepresenting the opposition's argument. "The consequences for said position, don't really allow for an Atheist to justify their morals in a way that aligns with their beliefs concerning existence of Divinity. " Yes it most certainly does...we don't need a god to be "good". "Atheism's basic premise, has the ultimate Corollary of denying any nonhuman justification for a Moral Standard." Again, no it doesn't...there is only 1 "premise" to atheism, based on the lack of evidence for any god, we are not convinced any god exists, and unless you are convinced all gods exist, then you too are an atheist towards all the gods you are not convinced exist, we just take it at least one god further. When you begin to understand why you do not believe certain gods exist, you might begin to understand why we are not convinced your god exists either. Hold your god to the same scrutiny. "Science, and particularly evolution, certainly cannot justify morality." Yes, both can...look up "Can science justify morality?" by Sam Harris, and evolution justifies morality because any objective morality is as a result of the evolution of the consensus of subjectively moral positions. "Theology, is dismissed automatically." Of course it is, as it cannot prove its premise, that a "moral law giver" even exists. "Psychology, basically says the same thing as evolution, and thus cannot be considered as justification for a morality." Psychology is a branch of the sciences, it makes no claim to morality, just like atheism doesn't. "Nothing about WHY'D they be considered Morally Justified. Merely that they are." Ok, what is the reason for morality and why should anyone care what the Bible or any other "holy" book says about it? Even if you could prove a god exists, you would still have a long way to go to prove why anyone should care what it wants...because, what would a GOD _need,_ and how would you know for sure? Because no "holy" book is evidence for the claims contained within, so...what else ya got? Your claims are no more valid than any other theist's.

[@Paulthored]

@@atheistangel007 and the rejection of God's existence and/or claims... Results in no source for morality outside of human thoughts about morality. To give you a good reason for why that's a bad thing, especially if you're trying to establish moral values and/or standards... You disagree with my views on morality, I disagree with yours. I have believe in a objective standard that exists outside of ourselves. Atheism literally denies that that standard exists. But critically, doesn't provide any viable alternative, if it provides one at all. Edit: also to reiterate, Why's Frank wrong?? _Also, Atheism isn't science. It's a belief about the supernatural, which is naturally nonscientific in nature._ _PLEASE don't tell me that you're operating under the ridiculously illogical notion, that Atheism cannot be Theological or Religious in nature??_

[@maxdoubt5219]

What a pile of guile. Xianity is a straitjacket on morality, cramping and confining it and keeping it from becoming what it could be. I'm talking about absolute moral values. What does absolute mean? "Without exception or condition." So if some act is "absolutely" immoral then it's immoral without exception or condition. How many conditions and/or exceptions does that allow? ZERO! But wait! If some act is absolutely immoral then it would _still_ be immoral even if committed by God, isn't that right? Or are you saying that's a different situation? Then that's situational - not absolute - morality. Here's a hypothetical morality duel between an xian and me, a hard atheist. Xian: "We xians have absolute moral values." Me: "So do I. Let's compare! I feel that slapping frail, elderly people around just for kicks is absolutely immoral. Do you agree?" Xian: "Yes, of course." Me: "Then I don't get you! Your god - the biblical god - makes people slaves; he condones, commands and commits millions of killings by way of drowning, burning, stoning, spearing, starvation, giant hail from the sky, venomous serpents, wild beasts, the swords of their enemies, the swords of their families and plague after plague after plague. Don't you find any of that absolutely immoral?" Xian: "No. For me to call any of that absolutely immoral would be judging God and that's taboo." Me: "So fun-slapping elderly people around _is_ absolutely immoral to you but killing people for harmless acts or for what others did is _not_ absolutely immoral to you? You need to get your moral priorities straight!"

[@dimains6011]

You fail to see that any hardship mankind faces or receives in this life is less than what we deserve; therefore, God is merciful. We all deserve to be condemned forever as soon as we sin for the first time, so why are we allowed to live at all once that happens? Because God is merciful. It would be completely just for us all to be killed and locked in hell forever, but he chooses some to have their debt paid by Jesus' sacrifice. God doesn't owe it to anyone to save them, and salvation cannot be earned. Any difficulty we face in this life is far less than the punishment we actually deserve.

[@traybae2_]

Since he knows so much he should say what the purpose of life is

[@nupsi6]

Interesting. Here he open admits that acting and being moral does _not_ depend on believing in the christian god. In many other occasions he _explicitly_ denied the same and claimed that no person can have a moral without truly believing in that "god". Second part of his answer: "it's just your opinion of there is not god" What a nonsense: sure, _obviously_ it is an opinion (though it may very well have much, much deeper biological roots), but the important thing here: that does _not_ mean that a "god" is required. He makes an obvious logical mistake here. Then he quickly changes subject to talk about the "purpose of life", being very well aware that this is an absolute pointless discussion, since there is no way for us to know if there is any or should be any. It _obviously_ comes down to exactly the same thing: an opinion. Because as long as there is not the smallest _real_ evidence for anything like a "god" all this preaching is worthless.

[@mellaru4999]

there is evidence but the evidence isn’t to be deemed from a biological or scientific standpoint you can’t prove the existence of God scientifically it’s historically prove. that Jesus was a real being and breathed, walked, talked and died and resurrected

[@karlazeen]

@@mellaru4999 I see little no evidence for the supernatural aspect of Jesus' life. Maybe he actually existed but his story was exaggerated over the course of centuries to make him seem more amazing, I mean we see the exact same thing with Julius Caesar as well. I bet that if his story did happen it was a genuine sacrafice for the people he loved and not this weird contorted death for sins ritual.

[@linklawson5633]

A lot of Christian MORALITY in nothing but PRUDISM anyway, which I think people can DO WITHOUT.

[@nupsi6]

@@mellaru4999 That is nonsense, sorry. Everything can be examined, tested by scientific methods. Those are open to any topic. The attempt to make an exception and _claim_ that this should not be possible is nothing but a cheap excuse for the fact that there is no evidence and that you simply do not _want_ those claims to get tested like anything else. That however is irrelevant. Whether you _want_ something is irrelevant to whether something _is_ ... "Jesus" is a character based on one or more persons that lived long ago. That is all we know. That has nothing to do with "god", except again for _claims_ . _Unless_ you can provide real evidence that any of all those claims about that character is more than just that: wild claims. Which we both know you can't. So stop changing the subject and PLEASE stop talking of "proofs", no one except you does.

[@samsendar5155]

A lot of Christian "morality" is nothing but PRUDISM anyway, which I think people can DO WITHOUT.

[@kaugh]

Laser beams of truth. 1. There is no moral omnipotent all-knowing supernatural eternal personal God. 2. The purpose of life is inherently to live. 3. The moment life becomes conscious, morality is formed. Example to illustrate: Smash a rock, perfectly moral. Smash a tree, a little less moral because we know it's living, but we're not sure of it's level of consciousness. Smash a person and you destroy a beings life experience and the greatest known level of consciousness illustrated to date and similarly negatively impact those conscious beings that are tied to the death of that conscious being. Conclusion: To say that it can't be wrong or bad because a God didn't specifically give the foundation that it was wrong is psychopathic.

[@charlesbruneski9670]

IF, (and that's a big if,) premise 1. is true: 2 and 3 still do not follow. 2. Life is inherently alive. That is simply a definition. But you conflate two definitions of purpose in the way you put this. Life is inherently alive; that is its FUNCTION, (i.e. purpose,) but that is not its INTENT, (i.e. another definition of purpose,) or the reason for which it exists. There is no inherent value in existence. It simply is. 3. This point is nothing more than your opinion. As is all "morality" in this view. Is the 'purpose' of oxygen to sustain the life of certain creatures? It does. It functions that way, but under your view there was never any intent for this. A zebra may even have an (instinctive) intent to live. So does the lion. Is that its purpose? Couldn't I say that the purpose of the zebra is to sustain the life of the lion? It certainly performs that function when the lion eats it. For all of existence creatures have survived at the expense of others. Frank Turek brought up Stalin in the video. I'd like to mention Ghengis Khan: the earliest individual to whom we can (most likely) trace the spread of a specific chromosome. The y chromosome that appears to trace back to him accounts for one in every 200 males on the planet, (1 in 8 in mongolia.) He exemplified your point 2 better than any other human being that we know of. And he did it by rape and murder! You didn't explain how value is imbued in conscious life. I value my consciousness, and you value yours, but that doesn't mean that our consciousness is inherently valuable to to anyone else. Each persons subjective value to others is only gauged by how we fit in to their view of purpose, whether to cooperate and trade with you or to kill and rob you. And we can't say that any one of these is inherently 'better' than another view; that, too, is a subjective judgement. We can only say which ones survive. We can't even use a majority of people with a given view as 'better.' Say your view is for 'human flourishing' for the most people. (Some others think it would be 'better' if humans didn't exist.) But if your view of 'flourishing' comes at my expense, and I could survive better at your expense, why should I buy into your, even the majority, view? Survival in this view has always been from an individual that had a new means of gaining advantage for themselves and supplanting the existing population, (whether genetically, or behaviorly.) Conclusion: For you to come along now and say that anything is inherently wrong or bad because you personally say so is utter hubris. Many atheists still believe in a god; they just believe it's them.

[@kaugh]

@@charlesbruneski9670 I didn't mean to be interpreted as giving logical premises. These were factual answers to questions ignorant people struggle with. I grant that using your definition there is no *intent* to life. Intent is super important and we have to determine each individuals intent in life to judge whether they are friends or enemies. You seem to quote a consequencialist interpretation of Genghis Khan's reign; as if his acts were justified by the outcome of our current situation and his successful life according to some Darwinian spread. You have to stop at rape and murder of conscious creatures under the correct definition to be able to call him a monster under any outcome. When someone says 2+2=5 and I ask where they got the extra 1 and they reply God made it so and I say they are wrong and 2+2=4 because it "is", if that's hubris then I am guilty.

[@charlesbruneski9670]

@@kaugh Ghengis Khan had a successful life, isn't that the purpose? I never said he was a monster. You suggest that based on a moral principle that does not exist in a materialistic, life has no higher meaning, universe. I had to laugh at your supposed math analogy. Math has a certainty that doesn't exist in other disciplines, but: Materialistic universe appears without purpose and sets no purpose = 2 Random life appears without purpose and sets no purpose = 2 higher moral principles that only come from purpose = 1 Where did YOU get the extra 1?

[@kaugh]

@@charlesbruneski9670 does 2+2=4? or does your God make 2+2=4 and he can make it equal five if he desired to? If he can't then my statement for #1 is not "a big if" it's as absolutely true as 2+2=4. Now for conscious creatures there is a pure morality conducive to absolute arithmetic to be discovered! That is to say a God has no say to change it and we do not create it, we discover it. Granted we are flawed and we fail miserably often, but progress is apparent. These are laser beam truths that are observed by our current reality. I suggest you keep laughing at me silently to yourself as you wait for a God or an Apocalyptic ending to appear. If/when that happens I'll gladly tip my hat to you.

[@kaugh]

@rehecked1. This quote is merely a claim, but I want you to take a deep look at how one who believes God has the power to alter reality supernaturally is put in the same position as I am. For example: Beastiality is wrong according to most religious texts, we can assume God approves that rule. If God appears and shares that beastiality is no longer forbidden but encouraged. You now stand contrast to a deeply held moral truth and cannot tell a soul practicing this activity that they are wrong. The best argument I've heard against that is something like, "God would never do that because God IS good". Well to me that's a nasty claim to know what a God will or won't do and it only dodges but doesn't address the underlying problem of what good is your morality if God can change it at will. 2. Given we don't throw out everything learned from history and religion. We atheists simply don't have a universal understanding of right and wrong yet. To recognize that and begin a process of inquiry is far more important than arguing about why or how do we know. It's not about abiding by the law it's about acting within the threshold of moral understanding that you hold. For example: I know under my moral compass for certain that slavery in any form is wrong and always has been wrong, but I don't believe slave owners in the past were sinners, they had different reasons means and understandings. They could be and likely were, perfectly well intentioned highly moral people committing an immoral act in ignorance. Honestly I justify my morality by it's function and results it's universality and simplicity. I put it up against any other moral code. It doesn't tell you the answers if that's what you hope but it could make the best moral conscious beings. I hope.

[@stinkyjoshua5753]

To answer what the atheist in the argument wasn't answering very well, it's wrong to kill because you would not want someone to kill you, it's called empathy, we don't mistreat others because we ourselves understand that it would feel bad if we were also mistreated.

[@fireandworms]

And if you kill someone painlessly? I.e. injecting with too much morphine

[@kristijanpavlovic8605]

Where does empathy come from?

[@augustuscaesar-thesonofgod8710]

How do you know the biblical god is moral?

[@andrewoliver8930]

THERES A BOOK AND EVERYFINK.

[@hypergaming4070]

gods all knowing😀

[@augustuscaesar-thesonofgod8710]

All I see is circular reasoning so far.

[@augustuscaesar-thesonofgod8710]

G Will How do you know moral is what your god is?

[@andrewoliver8930]

@@hypergaming4070 The gods are all knowing? Or just yours.

[@thaliaebus2912]

I get it when he asked what's the purpose of life the answer is to lived, so killing someone is unethical because we are here to live our life, and taking someone life is bad.

[@w1z4rd9]

Yes, that’ll be it. But that’s just basing from natural knowledge and common sense. Some retard could say that there isn’t a pure logical rule therefore using philosophy they could kill somebody. But luckily we humans prefer the side to not kill each other and make it as a bad thing so we can follow the most logical thing we have observed. And that is following nature were we want to live.

[@Chris-bv8qd]

Why is it bad? Killing is one primary survival instinct, kill or be killed

[@samsendar5155]

A lot of Christian "morality" is nothing but PRUDISM anyway, which I think people can DO WITHOUT.

[@ismailmounsif1109]

Hahahaha it is still your subjective opinion because the murder or the rapist in his perspective it is right so who can tell him it’s wrong when your own opinion could be wrong? So you have to put God in the middle and say God the one who created us the one who know what’s good and bad for us says it is wrong to murder innocent people and murder people unjustly.

[@kstar1489]

@@ismailmounsif1109 except there is no proof of god.

[@pursaveer9027]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you- morality explained in one sentence.

[@Dominick7]

Morality explained or stated??

[@pursaveer9027]

Dominick7, good point- stated. No explanation necessary ;)

[@somerandom3247]

@Root 66 Its a far better reason to do good things than "God said so". especially when there is no good reason to think that a god even exists.

[@expertvisual]

@@somerandom3247 My co-worker who is not a Christian said: "I am so thankful for the Earth's atmosphere." I was like oh yeah? Why's that?. He said "because there was a meteorite that exploded that caused an explosion bigger than the Hiroshima atomic bomb and would have blew us up." Thank God for the atmosphere he put in His great design to protect and preserve human life!

[@somerandom3247]

@@expertvisual What makes you think that god had anything to do with our atmosphere being here?

[@pursaveer9027]

If a farm family has 10 members, that's 10 sets of hands to do the work of running the farm. If somebody killed one member, that's only 9 sets of hands- more work for everybody. I'm alive, and would like to remain so. Because I value being alive, I can assume my fellow humans value being alive. So, I know it's wrong to kill them without needing the 'right'- or any- religion.

[@dashar9568]

But his point is you saying that doesnt objectively make it right. What you just said is your opinion and without God it cant be justifiably right. You may believe it is but other people may believe it is not. Who is to say theyre wrong since we are all on equal footing?

[@linklawson5633]

A lot of Christian "morality" is nothing but PRUDISM anyway, which I think people can DO WITHOUT.

[@Diamondraw4Real]

How does the kid know being "open minded" is moral?

[@Sirdudee]

Well morality is a human concept like money, and God, and companies. They don't actually exist, but collective agreement suggests such a thing. I believe human empathetic capacity is a good measure of morality. In that sense, adhering to a set of rules oppressive to a group, does sound 'bad' in the morality scale.

[@samsendar5155]

A lot of Christian "morality" is nothing but PRUDISM anyway, which I think people can DO WITHOUT.

[@craigslist6630]

@@samsendar5155 how many times did you write that in these comments? You are obsessed with getting the message out that Christians are prude, over, and over again. Sit back and ask yourself what is driving you to do that? Why can’t you just say it once? I think I met you at 5th and Washington. Bringing clean underwear.

[@connormcflurry6708]

2:50 Why killing other people is wrong without a god? 1.Yse common sense. Killing means taking someone's life. And that isnt good because thay cant live anymore. And ask yourself this question. Do you want to live, or be killed. Ofcourse you would say live. So you know almost everyone wants to live. So you dont kill. In religion you wouldn't kill anyone because you are trying to avoid hell, but atheist do good, because they are good. Tell me which one is more good. Someone that does good to achieve something? Or someone that just does good to make others happy. Obviously the one that wants to make others happy. Please think about this.

[@connormcflurry6708]

so follow the 10 commandments

[@connormcflurry6708]

@@alexs3546 cool I don't hate anyone

[@dimasrahadian360]

@@connormcflurry6708 what if somebody want to be murder, or somebody want you to kill or eat them. Do you think it okey, because they want too. The Answers is no, because laws will not permitt that. Second, you say Christian do good because they fear go to hell, it is just your opinion. So I can assuming you atheist, you do good because you fear go to jail, 😂do you see you double standard. You say Christian do good because fear hell, but you don't say atheist do good because fear jail😂 hypocrite. We Christian doing good because we love God, god never force us to be good. We love god with our free will. Because we love god, we love everyone, and do god command. It's the same reason you subdued to your parents/wife because you love them, not because you fear punishment from them.

[@connormcflurry6708]

@@user-xv8wy4nd7u no, if you want to kill me, then we have the police. If you still kill me, that still doesn't prove god. You wanting there to be a objective morality won't make it be there. So even if you think killing is moral, then that's on you. That still doesn't prove god.

[@callmebee2560]

This is heavy with Logica Fallacies

[@maul5578]

CallMe Bee their isn’t one logical fallacy you just don’t want to hear the truth

[@t72oftruth66]

Pseudo intellectual

[@chrislanglois3598]

I don't think there's a God night if we all burn up in the end so be it oblivion sounds fine to me

[@hadassah179]

"The Brothers of Karamazov" arguement.

[@ploppysonofploppy6066]

So Gods morality is enforced, decreed, to be followed. Atheist morality is a freely chosen personal choice. Atheist morality is therefore of greater value, confers more respect on the Atheist.

[@stephencastro4723]

Freely chosen but NOT OBJECTIVE AND ONLY OPINIONATED. If it is not objective, it is not valid.

[@ploppysonofploppy6066]

@@stephencastro4723 Interesting. If objectivity is so important, how would you define it in this context?

[@stephencastro4723]

@@ploppysonofploppy6066 Objectivity is beyond anyone's opinion. Objectivity is being true independent of one's belief.

[@ploppysonofploppy6066]

@@stephencastro4723 So basically objectivity is doing what Gods book says is ok. Murdering slaves, raping virgins and genocide etc.

[@ploppysonofploppy6066]

@warrcc c Mao and Stalin did not take one life in the name of atheism. Their beliefs were irrelevant. Many innocent lives have been taken in the name of god. Even the Saintly Mother Theresa advocated her patients to suffer so they could be more like Jesus. Disgusting.

[@horseman4242]

I don't understand how invoking a God changes anything. A theists questioning an atheist about where morality comes from usually says "why should I be moral if it's only subjective". An atheist might as well counter with "why should I follow what a god says". If a God makes some rules/morals what's preventing us from deciding we don't want to follow them?

[@allama.]

Little late perhaps, You do have the choice to follow whatever god says. Most religions give you that choice but with the consequence of going to either hell or heaven (at least in the ibrahamic religions since it does become weirder with some asian religion). The goal is heaven (or hell if you are into that) and the rules of the game are what the creator chooses.

[@ismailmounsif1109]

Nothing but you not following them which is objective morality and following your desires and your subjective morality is foolish that’s all

[@supreme5580]

Invoking a God establishes one dynamic. You don't need to be consistent. It's moral when God says it is although 30 pages ago he said the exact opposite. Join in the subjective tap dance...

[@thedisgruntledharpist6699]

If you are religious it's just your opinion too. Morality is ALWAYS an opinion, for example.. The Christian God demands child sacrifice in the old testament and Christians defend it and call it righteous and just.. They even defend genocide and infanticide. Is that 'moral'?

[@ligase75]

To bring life to every corner of the universe.

[@TheRedMooncorp]

Good choice I like it

[@cnault3244]

"Can atheists be moral?" Define moral.

[@cnault3244]

@He loves you! " According to atheists there is no purpose to life, we're a cosmic accident and nothing ultimately matters. " It''s pathetic that so many theists either don't know what atheism is or do know but are so dishonest that they add a lot of things that are not part of atheism to their depiction of atheism. Atheism is a non-belief that any god exists...period. When someone tells you they are an atheist, the only information they have given you about themselves is that they do not have any belief in the existence of a god.They have told you nothing about what they may think about how we came to be or what (if any) purpose our lives may have. The theist position is that they must spend their life here preparing for the life that they have faith --not evidence --awaits them after they die. "And he commands that we love one another and not to awful things to one another " Except for the long list of people he ( according to the Bible) says to kill..and his endorsement of & rules for slavery....and his instructions on how to correctly rape someone.

[@cnault3244]

@He loves you! " I know you don't believe IN God, that's clear. But you know He's there regardless. You're only lying to yourself. " You are being dishonest & are lying about me. Doesn't your book say something about not bearing false witness? "So there's not any skating or dancing around here, let's be clear: 1. God is real. 2. God is NOT real 3. I don't know Which one are you?" Let's be clear here.Your phrasing is you being dishonest again. Atheism is not a claim that a god does not exist. Atheism is a claim that the atheist has no belief a god exists. If you had phrased your question honestly, it would have said: 1. I believe a god exists. 2.I do not believe a god exists. Which one are you? "You have no idea what you're talking about. " Until you define your god clearly,YOU have no idea what you are talking about. "Besides, to what standard are you judging God by/with? " I don't believe a god exists, so I don'tjudge any god. "And if God kills someone (hypothetically speaking), is that murder?" By definition,no. The definition of murder is "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another".

[@cnault3244]

@He loves you! "Now you're playing semantics games. Why do you guys always do that?" Using the actual definition of a word is NOT semantics. Why do you guys never want to define your words clearly? "Also you contradict yourself constantly." And you are once again making a claim without presenting any supporting evidence. Point out where I contradicted myself. ""I don't believe THAT God exists". Which is a claim, and burden of proof is a double edged sword my friend. " It is a claim about what the person does not believe. It is NOT a claim that god does not exist. "You've taken away your moral accountability, " What moral accountability would that be? If you mean moral accountability to god you need to first prove the god exists. "at first it's a scary thing to admit God is real." Which god? So many gods and goddesses to choose from, and they all have an equal amount of evidence for their existence. " But once you do, and you sincerely call on the name of Jesus, He will change your life forever." More unproven claims. " He knows when you're being genuine or not though, kinda goes with the territory of being Omniscient" More unproven claims.... and a way to weasel out of the earlier claim, meaning if I call on Jesus and he doesn't change my life, it is not because he doesn't exist, it's because it is my fault. "The Bible says many things" Yes, it does. So do the Hindu Vedas, the Norse Eddas, and numerous other books about deities. But there is no reason to take any of their claims seriously. "Is the fallible sinful creation capable of lying lying, or the infallible Omniscient Deity incapable of lying lying? Careful with your answer.." Your question is moot, since no one has proven that an infallible omniscient deity exists. You obviously are not referring to the god of the Bible, the Bible has god lying, making mistakes, and not being omniscient.

[@todbeard8118]

@He loves you! Wouldn't you think the bible isn't an ultimate basis for morality when it endorses slavery in Leviticus and Exodus as well as God endorsing atrocities such as slaughtering the Midianite women and children as well as the Amalekite infants? If you're a Trinitarian, that's Jesus endorsing this.

[@Sergei_kv82]

@@todbeard8118 They cherry pick and make excuses for everything they don't feel comfortable with or isn't socially acceptable.

[@akasatana202]

Can atheists be moral? Of course, yes. Can theists be moral? Of course, yes. As is always the case with Frank, he doesn't understand the simple fact. Whether someone is a theist or an atheist doesn't tell you anything about his/her morality. Therefore, the expressions "theistic world view" and "atheistic world view" don't mean much. He always likes to talk about Mao, Stalin, Hitler when he talks about atheists but doesn't talk about 911 hijackers when he talks about theists. Intentionally or not, he ignores all the horrible acts Christians or other theists (Buddhists,, Hindus, Muslims, and Jews) have done in the name of God. The truth is that we'll be still scared if someone actually tries to "justify their horrible moralities",whether that person is a theist or an atheist. The simple rule we should keep seems to be "Don't impose your values on others. When we disagree, let's talk.Your values can be justified only when others accept them." Having said that, the reality is we are all human beings before being theists or atheists and already share secular morality and laws. Are those secular morality and laws justified "ultimately"? I don't know. Should they?

[@sookh4807]

The whole point of the video is to show that despite being able to follow morality, atheists are not able to philosophically justify said morality. Ask a Christian "why is murder bad?" and they will tell you its bad because god said so. Ask an Athiest "why is murder bad?" they will not be able to justify it.

[@akasatana202]

@@sookh4807 Why is murder bad? Because you don't want to be murdered. What more justification do you need? I'm from one of the most atheistic countries in the world and I guess many people in my country would say things like that. That's how people had known that murder was bad before Christianity was even founded. That's how people have justified that in many many atheistic countries in the world, isn't it? Again, think about this. As you probably know, some religions have taught its believers that it was OK to kill non believers because their "holy books" said so. According to the way Frank always categorizes people, those people are "theists", too because they believe the existence of a god/gods. The question is how you would react if they said their killing is justified by their god. Are you going to accept their justification because they (claim to) have “their god” to justify their morality? Whether or not whatever they or we call morality is justified by some ultimate authority isn't that important. It actually becomes what Frank calls a matter of opinion after all because not all the theists share the same morality.,either. Our justification should be based on something we all share. And what is it? What morality do atheists and theists (believers of different religions) share? That's the secular morality based on the secular world we all agree we share, isn't it?

[@sookh4807]

@@akasatana202 Your answer presupposes we should value life, why should one value life?

[@akasatana202]

@@sookh4807 Because I want others to value my own life. Again I guess people in atheistic countries would say things like that. And why not? Yes, it's true they presuppose that we could come to agreement on moral issues. But what about theists? Believers have to presuppose the existence of some ultimate source of morality, don't they? And do you think they can come to agreement on moral issues using their own "justifications based on their theologies"? We can at least agree that we share the existence of this secular reality, can't we? Then why shouldn't we base our morality on that part?

[@sookh4807]

@@akasatana202 You are missing the question, Why should life be valued?(including yours)

[@fandude7]

This simple idea seems to escape Sam Harris. Sam argues that atheists are moral, but fails to understand that it requires a 'basis' or 'foundation' for morality. One's desires or past patterns or "human flourishing" do not constitute a basis for morality, they are just predilections. Watch Sam's debate with W L Craig. He doesn't seem to be able to grasp the idea.

[@TheBastius]

But of course, desiring not to make whatever made up deity angry to flourish its well-being somehow constitutes a basis for morality and is not a predilection, right? Double standard? Anyone? You people are embarrassing! Btw, appealing to a mere nature of a god as supposed basis for morality doesn't tell you why the morals derived from it are good. For example, other than merely arbitrarily deciding it to be so, why would murder be the opposite of divine, moral perfection? This is a question you cannot answer without being desperately dishonest. In other words: Why would it be _murder_ and not charity as opposite to divine goodness? What aspects of it is what is in contradiction to divine goodness? This is something you have to answer in order to make sense of a divine basis for morality. But then, you have to appeal to reasons outside of your god's nature. You'd have to admit that actions here in the real world have consequences here in the real world. And you'd have to admit that 'good' and 'evil' are based on deciding which consequences are desirable and which are not.

[@haizer8885]

Morality evolves . It was morally ok in America at one point to be racist towards people of color . It was ok to smoke back then and commercials promoted it making it seem like a decent thing to try . Morality changes therefore objective morality doesn't exactly exist . It depends on the religion , culture , childhood and environments that you grew up on and many other factors . If you grew up in a Nazi family in the time of WW2 and joined the army , you would be right in your own eyes to assume Jews deserve the worst . And for Frank question 'Why is killing wrong.' Would you want to be brutally killed ? Probably not . It makes it wrong because it is something people don't want to go through as a victim . He is over complicating and justifying the need for religion . What can a religious person do any better than a non religious person ? Can he do amazing acts that a non religious person would be incapable of ? No ...

[@adamandeveourfirstparents4709]

That's not morality lol

[@Malhaloc]

"It was morally ok in America to be racist towards people of color" "Killing is morally wrong because you wouldn't want to be killed" So you would want to be racially discriminated against? Also, are you saying social acceptability makes morality? If so, then why was slavery wrong? It was socially acceptable in the south, where it took place. Your last statement has nothing to do with morality.

[@fearthelamb8084]

The purpose of life in simplified form: to enjoy God; to glorify God and fellowship with Him. Matthew 22:37-40 NKJV Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' [38] This is the first and great commandment. [39] And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' [40] On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." Romans 10:9 NKJV that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

[@Kaymen1980]

Sonic PixelGears That would be _your_ purpose in life..

[@darthbane2669]

@@Kaymen1980 Those that follow God command will enjoy life everlasting, those like you would rather burn in hell I guess. ok. Well a bad choice but yours to make.

[@Kaymen1980]

Darth Bane Hehe... Ever after hearing that pseudo threat for the one hundredth time, I’m still baffled that one can believe something so nonsensical in the 21st century..

[@matthewcooper4248]

J Ovesen It's bot a threat, that's just what it says in the Word. If you don't want to choose God in this life He won't force you to be with Him in the next one. Also, just saying that something is nonsensical isn't an argument, and you compounded it with the 'it's the *insert time period here*' fallacy. You're not just floating above the rest of us on this higher plain that only atheists are able to achieve. You have to explain your position or else no one will take you seriously, and you won't convince anyone to agree with you.

[@Kaymen1980]

Matthew Cooper The “insert time period here” fallacy... Did you just make that up? LOL

[@eileen1820]

Seems like this guy is looking for God. That's awesome 😊

[@eileen1820]

@J Don Kinda like a guy pursuing a girl. Not a great example but I've got a mtg at 10 lol. No woman (or guy) wants to be hounded. God is there. He does not force Himself upon us. Free will. Up to you, provably. Choose Him and He will be present in your life. It's complex but also pretty easy. I know and lived both sides so honestly I get it.

[@tylerjholmespa7670]

@J Don Because the doctrines of most men publicly is based on desires, therefore God is in opposition to desires/sin. This leads people being conditioned to being clouded by what is easy to see. If we are to be truly honest, there is no morality without God. I could easily use my human intellect to justify population control based on the young man in the videos standpoints of for my family, future of the earth,etc. So forced abortions, limitations on who can have how many kids, and who might destroy the earth well they can't have kids so well restrict them too, but that sounds like hell on earth doesn't it? Actually? So as a Christian, I believe in a God who doesn't allow people to think like this and guides them to not acting like this, whereas man s own intellect will lead to Hitler's and Stalin's and you honestly cannot logically go against them without God-given/inspired morals. It's a conundrum you cannot bypass if you are moral. If you truly are moral that is and not just doing what you must to justify meeting your own goals for your sake and the sake of your family. Doing what is right morally and doing what one must to meet needs and to fit in to society are two separate things while looking similar and at times being the same. I pray for your understanding to be opened by God and to have Jesus fill your heart, by his mighty name, through his power, none of my own, to him be the glory, amen

[@darthbane2669]

@J Don Ugh this guy will just go in circles and circles no point. I hope you find Jesus Christ in your life accept God as your savior. A dictactor would not give you a choice at all, God does, but to deny him he clearly says you will suffer for all eternity as he does not ever go in Hell to relieve suffering, he stays where the light is.

[@tylerjholmespa7670]

@J Don alright, to that I say there is higher morality with God if you out just a little time into comparing and contrasting.Not that you haven't but let's point a few things out. Out of having s higher standard of morality it is your free will god gave you, to accept his morals or not. The god of the Bible doesn't force you to accept them but warns you what happens if you don't. So he's not a dictator, a dictator leaves you no choice. Furthermore, this same god having higher morals and love gave us the morals to follow, knew we wouldn't anyways and forgave us for not being able to and taught us all manners of goodness, etiquette, psychology, charity, mercy, kindness and forgiveness, through first showing why harsh law never works even when enticed by such blessings and miracle's as splitting of a sea to free the people from slavery and oppression, to giving the world ease in living with each other through example of how best to live and treat eac h other through the example of his only begotten son. There are no morals any moral person would disagree with that Jesus taught. In fact I would challenge you to find one. The truth is that the world hijacked what Jesus gave us, and then will reject the entirety of the Bible once they get told they are doing anything wrong at all because of pride and shame. Not because they disagree with the morals, but because they do not want change.

[@maow9240]

@J Don hell is simply a separation fron God. Its only bad because God isn't there to stop all the bad from happening. Its not a loaded gun its a promise that He won't force anyone to be with Him so either fellowship with God or go your own way. Hell just happens to be the opposite direction from God so that's where you would be going. Its a choice that you can change at any time

[@Mohammad-bg1xc]

I like his answer

[@MaximeTremblay-qy3bc]

The problem is that God being linked at the morality is just the opinion of the theism.

[@JeramyRG]

Life is beauty, I may not believe in your god, but I do have beliefs surrounded by the unique beauty of our conscience. To my knowledge, we are the only ones capable of experiencing like this. You can say that we'll all burn up one day, but you don't know what we are capable or what we will be capable. That's my view, carrying on so that more may experience this beauty and live out as long as possible; I don't know how you couldnt see our potential as, given time, infinite. We can minutely bend reality to our will, but thinking beyond blind reason and using the proven method for finding truth, science; has only been here for 1000 years of our 2 million; and look at what we've done. As we progress to new energy levels and understand greater parts to our reality; it is very possible that we can continue on past our known inevitable end. We could be the God's we made up. Maybe even creating universes, my morality would not ask for worship from the new planes. But it would be understood that fiction may be a necessary part of this game to get through our adolescence. While on the subject - Your god is the only one that prohibits this growth - to me, your thinking is more detrimental a meaning derived from misguided morality than an atheist who hasn't pondered the deeper questions. Most of us have. Some of us haven't, yet.

[@ifeawosika966]

Solar system is a lie to begin with. We are all going to burn up if we dont receive Jesus. End of story.

[@kingjesus9097]

@@ifeawosika966 amen

[@JeramyRG]

@@ifeawosika966 The natural response. Do you not think I can reasonably doubt his existence?

[@illogicallogic2039]

@@JeramyRG You can doubt his existence but you shouldn't give up on finding the truth. If you keep searching for God and learn about him with an open heart ask him to open your heart to believe and pray every night though you do not believe. You will get there and find him. When you know him you can not doubt his existence anymore then your whole life will change knowing there is a God that loves you and watch over you after that comes the dark part which not many talk about you will realise how sad it is and how many people are going to hell around you especially loved one then fall into a depression for a while then grow out of it then fall into it again. Honestly that is my experience with God and the way I'm giving to find him is the way I did.

[@EaZiE01]

1. Technology hasn't all been progress spiritually speaking. Humanity still has their darkness. Cell phones are a neat invention but porn and atomic bombs are not. 2. Well I don't believe it's fiction but believing in God does develop us. There's those that mature just fine without believing in God. The bible does say we are gods. 3. Belief in God in no way prohibits growth. I believe in God for the reason that I love truth. I love science because I believe in truth. Ultimately what we do with truth is what is important in spiritual matters. 4. There's no such thing as an "eternal" place of suffering non stop in hell in a linear fashion. That thought wasn't even considered in those times. None of the bible is talking about what will happen in an after life if read correctly. We enter life by following him and we are separated from God(life) if we lack faith.