Christian vs. Atheist - VOCAB MALONE vs. SPENCER HAWKINS

[@forsakenbanksy1269]

Watching from North London. God bless you Vocab.

[@Ydk7775]

ISAIAH 42:8

[@jonathancrocker366]

1 Peter 3:15

[@Ydk7775]

@@jonathancrocker366 MATTHEW 7:12

[@jonathancrocker366]

Exactly. "Treat others like you want to be treated" 👍

[@jonathancrocker366]

Mark 16:15 😁

[@andrea_leon100]

This was very interesting! Thank you

[@VocabMalone]

Glad it was helpful!

[@jonathancrocker366]

I'd love to see more debating video's from Vocab...

[@harrypotter-believingathei6191]

I'm an atheist I don't accept things that doesn't show to exist like myth gods.

[@isaiah68craig36]

As CS Lewis points to... we as human beings point to an outside law of fairness. Where does that come from? The fact that we inherently know there is a mighty being - and it is not us.

[@seanirishterrier6588]

The atheist didn’t answer the ?, who or what does he get his morals from.

[@bryanryan941]

spencer hawkins + richard dawkins = 2 atheist birds in the flock that be squawking! you can have that rhyme for free, vocab!

[@ryanbagwell7714]

He judges the Bible instead letting the Bible judge him. Rc sproul would have had fun in this debate towards the end.

[@ryanbagwell7714]

Is this a old video ?

[@VocabMalone]

Yes from the archives I never uploaded it though !

[@primeminister66]

But why?!…

[@WesleyJeftha]

at 35:40 - the woman talking has very poor and unbiblical arguments, whoever was moderating should have shut down this dialogue

[@p4pdestined8]

The atheist has no basis to make moral judgements. The moment he does, he has effectively undercut his worldview- atheism cannot account for objective morality. For any act to be good or evil in and of itself, there must be an external moral order, an objective standard with transcendent grounding. The atheist is limited in his knowledge because he rejects the source of all wisdom and knowledge, God. What he- the atheist- does know, he knows by virtue of being made in God's image. But genuine knowledge, apart from God, cannot be obtained. The atheist fails to realize that, by virtue of showing up to the debate to defend his stance, he has undercut his worldview. The fact that he-the atheist- has showed up to the debate means he thinks his position is true. Why else would he attempt to defend his position? Does he think his position is objectively true? He must, by virtue of debating, be pursuing truth. I'm curious- in what world would the atheist say that torturing children for fun is morally permissible? Is the act wrong in and of itself? Is it a wrong that applies to all people at all times and places? Why is harming others wrong? The only way for an atheist to live out their worldview, is to be utterly indifferent to evil. However, none of them live out their worldview. They can't

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

BS. My position of atheism - to suspend any acknowledgement as to the existence of a god until sufficient credible evidence is introduced ‐ has no bearing whatever on my capacity to form moral assessments. There is no such thing as _objective_ morality. All assessments, including moral ones, require a subject's consideration. Therefore, morality is _always and necessarily_ SUBJECTIVE. Would you agree?

[@p4pdestined8]

@@Theo_Skeptomai I strongly disagree. Objective morality does exist, and every human being knows it. Your argument goes against our deepest intuitions as human beings. "there is no such thing as objective morality". Is that true? That's a truth claim. According to your view, we would have no basis for condemning the nazis and slave owners. Both groups agreed, as a collective and subjectively, that they were doing something intrinsically good. According to you, opposing the mass extermination of jews and slavery was merely a matter of personal preference. Any attempt to quelch such acts would not be objectively good, rather imposing one's personal preference over another. Utterly ridiculous. The sole reason why the nazis were fought against and slavery was abolished was the CENTRAL ISSUE, namely, the human beings who were having their rights violated. Human beings have intrinsic value and moral worth by virtue of being made in the image of God, and thus, no one can treat another human being as property nor rule over another without their consent. you cannot extrapolate human value from any other worldview. As an atheist, you can’t provide the preconditions of intelligibility, for rationality, or understanding life, for thinking scientifically, or thinking at all logically and in terms of general principles, or being moral. Q- When is it ok to rape and torture kids for fun? "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse," Romans 1:20

[@Stephen-yw9sn]

@@p4pdestined8 But the source of your objective morality is extremely immoral according to the stories in the bible

[@p4pdestined8]

@@Stephen-yw9sn a biblically illiterate troll with a typical biblically illiterate comment. I'm sorry, but that comment is typical of people who know nothing about scripture. What's next? You're going to cherry pick verses, without exegesis or any knowledge of the context, in order to make a moral judgment against God despite having zero justification for your morality? You defeat yourself by virtue of responding. You have no basis to call anything immoral or moral; the most you can do is make a claim of personal preference. To which I say, who cares? Take your low tier arguments somewhere else. Internet memes don't help you, bud

[@Stephen-yw9sn]

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. He ordered the genocide of the Amalakites, including killing their babies. Ordered Abraham to murder his son as a test of faith. Drowned millions including children in Noahs flood. Murdered thousands of innocent first born egyption children. Allowed Jobs wife and children to be killed to test his loyalty. Watched as 6 million Jews died in the holocaust and did nothing.. And this who you call the source of your morality. Wtf happened to your brain.. This is cognitive dissonance in action.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of a god until sufficient evidence is introduced. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._* And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 10 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by theists that a god exists. To be clear, these are not premises for an argument concluding there to be no gods. These are simply facts I take into account when evaluating the claim. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists. 5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain either fallacies or false or unsubstantiated premises. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

[@savedby_grace6110]

Does your naturalist model accept supernatural evidence? For instance, if a person who was hateful, prideful, immoral, etc had a faith experience which changed his behavior to exhibit the opposite behavior, would you accept that as evidence?

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@@savedby_grace6110 Would I accept that scenario as evidence of _what?_

[@MissCati1]

@@Theo_Skeptomai what about the universe expanding? It suggests that the acceleration must have had a beginning energy source. You are arguing for a beginning that nobody can see or verify, (hydrogen atoms just hanging around until they ran into each other perfectly to make some energy) And then, is matter eternal ? It either has to be created or is eternal. The easy argument is it was created by hydrogen ..

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@MissCati1 Which of my facts are you commenting upon? I am not certain of your point.