You are welcome. Thank you Bahnsen Institute for allowing us to host his content on our channel.

Thanks for listening

Bahnsen was a child abuser who allowed sexual abuse in his home. He was a fool.

😂

It’s because ‘saving faith’ can only come from a *supernatural* work of God on the hearts of men. We don’t come to faith in God based on our (fallen/sinful) intellect. Sin has corrupted every aspect of our being-mind, heart, body.

65 % of Nobel Prize winners are Christians and 97 % of world population are not atheist. If the tiny minority who believe a bucket of dirt, sunlight and time somehow wrote the complete works of Shakespeare are the intellectuals, I'll pitch my tent with the dummies. Peace and Love God bless you all

You'll find out which choice you made. Please confess the plain truth.

@@Exitnextright2 Have you chosen to pretend to know things that you cannot possibly know? Please confess the plain truth.

@@jamesyoung1022 You use moral language far too often for someone who cannot justify the preconditions for such things. In a universe where there is no God, one can pretend to be whatever they like, and so they are since today it is common for men to imagine they are women and vice versa, or even cats and dogs or indeed a completely different age or race than the one they really are. If there is no God then there is no should anything.

@@SomeChristianGuy. Aspiring to ethical moral principles does not require belief in the supernatural as a precondition. Millions of secular people prove that to be an observable fact. I am one. It is worth noting that there is no crime against humanity that theists are unwilling to commit when they believe they are acting at the behest of their god. History is filled with examples that prove that to be an observable fact. You may correctly argue that atheism does not deter evil human conduct, nor does it inspire ethical moral behavior. I will agree. Likewise, I can correctly argue that belief in a god does not deter evil human conduct. Nor does it inspire ethical moral behavior. You may deny this fact but you will be denying observable reality when you do. I am an atheist. I cherish and aspire to live by ethical moral principles far superior to those of any theist faith, including yours. How do I know this to be true? Because I dare to share mine with theists and they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge their value. I predict you will be hard-pressed to embrace any of them. · Any human behavior that unjustly jeopardizes or damages the quality of life or the pursuit of happiness of others is evil, unethical, and immoral. · We must not subject others who are different to the kind of malevolent treatment that we do not wish to be subjected to. · We must demand of ourselves adherence to the same standards of integrity that we demand of others. · All people have an equal claim to certain inalienable rights among which are life, freedom of conscience, freedom of choice, freedom of expression, equal opportunity, tolerance, and social equity. No law, government, majority, religion, ideology, or prejudice can ethically deny even one individual equal opportunity to enjoy them. · The only legitimate application of love and ethics is without respect for divisive ideologies that capitalize on differences in race, ethnicity, national origin, philosophy, religious belief, or the lack thereof, gender, or sexual orientation. · It is only by way of empathy with those suffering, languishing in poverty, ostracized, disenfranchised, or oppressed that we can achieve equity in our treatment of others. · Any attempt to defend indefensible unethical standards, inhumane views, and/or hateful rhetoric/behavior is an assault upon human decency. Those who make excuses for unethical conduct are themselves ethically bankrupt. · Ethics must include an uncompromising commitment to freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, equity, equality, justice, and tolerance for all. These values must mandate the character of our integrity and ethical standards. · Any person, faith, political movement, religion, scripture, church, or institution, whose teachings or policies are divisive, threatening the rights and/or quality of other people’s lives, should be abandoned. · We must not engage in hate rhetoric. Any person, group, institution, faith, philosophy, or religion who nurtures hate, bigotry, and intolerance for others whom they view objectionably different, only because they are different, and attempt to negatively stereotype, scapegoat, dehumanize, ostracize, disenfranchise, vilify and/or otherwise damage their lives, are committing a crime against humanity and represent the most-evil elements of humankind. · We must recognize, expose, and condemn the malevolent character of those who deliberately malign, oppress and damage the lives of others who are different, even when they are doing so in the misguided belief they are acting at the behest of a god. · We must recognize that rejection (shunning) is one of the most painful of all human experiences. It must be reserved solely for those who are a significant threat to society. We must not reject, shun, oppress, or ostracize people who are not a threat to us. Instead, we must seek them out, talk to them, associate with them, try to understand them, learn from them, value them, befriend them, and if possible, love them. If we only value people like ourselves to the exclusion of others who are different, we have no chance to benefit from the better answers they may possess. · Intolerance of hate, bigotry, tyranny, discrimination, fascism, and inhumane views is the ethical imperative of an inclusive democratic society. It is not an assault upon the rights of any person, religion, ideology, or institution to vilify efforts to promote, practice, or institutionalize hate, inhumane views, tyranny, and inequality. Oppressive individuals, institutions, or majorities have no legitimate ethical mandate to impose tyranny upon minorities that pose no threat to the rights or lives of others. · Forgiveness is critical to social equity. When transgressors are sincerely contrite and repentant, they have taken the first steps necessary to redeem themselves. Society should encourage and respect reform. We must not allow one great transgression, committed in ignorance, to overshadow everything else in a person's life. Nor should we subject transgressors to eternal torment just because their mistakes were egregious or cannot be undone. · Any person, group, institution, faith, philosophy, or religion who deliberately spreads lies, uses demagoguery, misinformation, conspiracy theories, suppresses truth, spins narratives, exaggerates, deliberately omits important details, misrepresents facts, or manipulates (spins) information with the intent to manipulate others is ethically bankrupt. Their narratives must not be embraced.· · The exercise of free will and freedom of conscience is not possible to the extent we are denied the opportunity to make informed decisions. Those who would deny us access to important information are attempting to deny us the ability to exercise free will and freedom of conscience. · There is no higher authority than reason and critical thinking. To question is the answer. Intellectual growth cannot occur unless we continue the search for better answers from a variety of sources. Institutions hostile to critical inquiry or the consideration of differing ideas only nurture intellectual arrogance, impeding intellectual growth. · We must identify our harmful biases and prejudices. We must make a concerted effort to resist and purge them from our deliberations and conclusions. · Demagogic and simplistic answers do not adequately or equitably address complex problems. · We need to be careful about the messages we are consuming with our minds. This is especially important in today’s world where hate messaging is rampant. If we associate with hateful people in hateful environments or hateful institutions and buy into their messaging, we will become hateful ourselves. · Moral judgments require flexibility. Absolute dogmas, pseudo-morality, and inflexible rules fail to serve the interests of social justice. · There are only natural and human solutions to human problems. Until we are willing and able to solve a problem, it doesn’t get solved. Crediting undetectable supernatural entities as the source of our fortunes and misfortunes is a denial of reality that encourages us to shirk our responsibilities, and obstructs human progress. · A single well-substantiated fact, irreconcilable with a belief, is sufficient to prove that belief false. Willful blindness, pretending not to know well-substantiated facts in service to a faith-based agenda is one of the characteristics of a charlatan. · The ability to make a distinction between reality and magical thinking is no accident. Discovering the best answers is only possible when we make a conscious decision to reject all untestable, faith-based claims, along with the fallacious argumentation charlatans use in trying to convince us to embrace them. · Blind faith in unfalsifiable claims does not trump objective reality. Claiming to know things that are obviously unknowable and spreading those claims, pretending they are inerrant truth is unethical. Investing confidence in unsubstantiated, untestable, unfalsifiable, claims is the path to self-delusion. · Pretending to know the unknowable does not serve the interests of human enlightenment or progress. Teaching children that they can know things that cannot possibly be known by simply pretending to know them is a crime against humanity that will permanently damage their lives and in turn, the lives of others they indoctrinate.

​@@jamesyoung1022 "Aspiring to ethical moral principles does not require belief in the supernatural as a precondition." Correct. But to make any moral claim requires you justify the existence of objective morality. That millions of atheists act morally is merely an indicator of little more than the fact that people can act in ways that contradict the foundations of their world view, and that atheists act like Christians because most of them grew up in a Christian world "indoctrinated" by Christian moral presuppositions. What I am speaking about is justification. On Atheism you have no justification for objective moral values and duties, in other words, you have no preconditions whatsoever to believe that anything such as objective morals even exist, and as such on atheism the belief in morality is as much of a delusion as belief in gods. What you mistakenly call morals are merely the current societal tastes and taboos of whatever your current culture has decided to clutch at its pearls about, or enforce in a totalitarian manner, the vast majority of which you borrow from the Judeo-Christian world view anyway. You artificially prefer the psuedo morality of your particular culture or group whilst having no objective reason to insist it should be universal, because Atheism is nominalist at its core. Therefore Atheisms pretenses of morality represent little more than a kind of cultural imperialism. You engage in the process of trying to get an aught from an is, which on the grounds of atheism itself is an illegitimate move since Kant. On Atheism you cannot even justify the existence of objective truth, induction, reason, critical thinking and a host of other non material things, especially since evolution selects for fitness, and not truth, much less universal truths. Therefore literally everything you are trying to say here, whilst it pretends to contradict Christianity, does nothing but borrow from its world view, and literally do nothing more than make lists of moralistic assertions. If there is no God, and there are no other grounds for objective and universal moral values and duties. then anyone can do whatever the hell they want if they have sufficient power and capacity to do so, and you have literally no grounds whatsoever upon which criticize Christianity because on Atheism Christians are doing the exact same thing you are doing just differently.

Easy enough. The fact that you even managed to propound this challenge, presupposes the laws of logic to even be able to make such universal inferences. To even doubt of argue against the laws of logic, presupposes the laws of logic to begin with, to even be able to argue against them. A simply reductio ad absurdum can prove the existence of the laws of logic. You're welcome.

@@janpedersen4785 you’ve just proven Bahnsen’s point. All arguments are circular. The Christian paradigm can account for its circularity. Secular paradigms cannot. You’re welcome lol

@@bloom2887 All arguments are not circular one such example is a deducetive argument: P1. Socrates is a man P2. Man is mortal C. Socrates is mortal Secondly, you didn't ask for justification for the laws of logic, all you asked me to do was prove the *existence* of Logic, which I did in virtue of a reductio.

@@janpedersen4785 we’re talking about epistemology here lol. Any argument that claims to understand how we come to know things is circular. You didn’t do either. Stating that you use the laws of logic doesn’t prove their existence. I presuppose God in my worldview too, but I highly doubt you would agree that’s enough evidence to prove he’s real.

​@@bloom2887 "ny argument that claims to understand how we come to know things is circular. " False right off the start. My deductive argument above proves otherwise, and if that claim was true no one would be able to be justified in their beliefs. How do you justify that claim itself? WIth a circular argument? Your proposition for your position is self-defeating when analyzed. "You didn’t do either. Stating that you use the laws of logic doesn’t prove their existence." For you to even be able to use the laws of logic, presupposes their existence. You cannot use nothing to argue something, that inference you're making is to somethingr ather than nothing. It's absurd to think otherwise as demonstrated, since it leads you str8 to a contradiction. I prefer discord chats over youtube comments.

Thanks for listening!

He does🙂

@@gfbc1689 I was going to ask a follow up question here, but your reply is so vague that I don't even know what you are referring to him doing.

@@timeshark8727 Read John frame's or Scott Oliphant's works if you caret to educate yourself on this matter instead of spewing reddit midwittery.

@@autisticphaglosophy7128 lol, you say that as if anything I have said was wrong or from Reddit to begin with. Although its funny, my post is mostly about how to tell when someone has good evidence/arguments to present, and to "counter" what I said you didn't point to psychologists or philosophers that talk about the topic... you pointed to a pair of apologists. I have been looking into religions for well over a decade, specifically Christianity and the "evidence" for God, and haven't found a new argument for at least 8-9 of those years. That you think 2 old apologists will be the ones to "educate" me is hilarious. The constant "what-aboiutisms" that people like you present as your favorite claims are swatted down are pointless unless you manage to present something completely novel... a feat that hasn't been done in decades if not centuries. But by all means, continue to play pretend if it makes you feel better about your apologetics not finding traction with anyone who values honesty, evidence and accuracy.

​@@timeshark8727 John frame was a professer of philosophy and Oliphant has a ton of academic work in philosophy this just goes to show your level of surface level dismissiveness. I don't care about your self aggrandadizing midwit enlightened experience. I've been part of the "great debate" community since TJ shoved a banana inside himself that doesn't make me write r/atheism copypastas from the 2000s to make myself feel justified in my own ignorance as you have. "whataboutism" btw I can't take this seriously if its not ironic just goes to show the absolute state of you zogbots pushing the narrative mainstream Rockefeller funded institutions have fed you. Oh no academic literature not pertaining to current day "academics" half of whom's work has been shown to be complete bunk in every field and not surprsisingly which exclusively supported secular liberal ideology doesn't overwhelmingly agree with me the horror. Not to mention mainstream academic philsophers whom have completely abandoned the notion that true justified beiefs are even possible since Gettier I'm shoock flabergasted. "honesty, evidence, and accuracy" are veiled terms for justifying white supremacy educate yourself.