Contra Bullshit Great example of your morality. Keep it up.

ONESTEPAHEAD I’ll second that. I especially enjoyed the part about we “use something called our brains” to make moral judgments about the world. Oh really? Then what happens when two atheists, two Christians, two anybody’s, disagree on an issue of morality? What then? What to do...what to do.... What this responder seems unaware of is that in saying “we use our brains” he has offered up that he is his own source of objective morality. All right then, but what happens when someone stronger than him comes along whose objective morality is at odds with his own. He’ll then undoubtedly cry foul and argue that this person’s morality is simply wrong, but the interesting thing is that this stronger person would simply offer up the same argument back to him and say “I’m just using my brain”. At this point he has no grounds to say anything in his own defense, because the second person is simply applying his same logic with more strength and vigor than he was capable of. So in the end his “objective morality” that he “uses his brain” to arrive at is, in reality, nothing more than a subjective opinion. The second interesting thing about the statement “we use our brains” is that it seems to presuppose some sort of objective moral standard written in the minds of mankind. The problem is here that, strictly on a materialist worldview, he has no right to appeal to such a thing in the first place. The contradictions that these types get themselves into (and by “these types” I mean the sort who try to pop in to a thread for a quick “Zing! Got ‘eem!” moment and run away before the actual discourse can begin) are a source of constant entertainment for me.

Some form of the Golden Rule (treat others how you want to be treated) is found in nearly all cultures. Ultimately, the Golden Rule is a humanistic principle, unless you wanna believe that all those other cultures' gods existed too.

@@MrKilopapa Hitler and Starlin "used their brain" to make what they thought were morally suitable judgements. I'd say its dangerous to rely on your brain to arrive at morality suited to todays modern society .

@@MrKilopapa You self-deceived clown. You didn't even understand his argument. This demonstrates the the Fallen nature humans have and yet more evidence to believe the story of Adam and Eve. Thanks for validating the biblical account for us.

VideoAudioDisco09 "Nonsense - You start assuming this God of yours exists beyond man made mythology" Atheists like to say the God they don't believe in is a bloodthirsty tyrant. They are a little confused on whether God exists or not when it comes time to express their disgust of him. Christian morals built the west and if you like those values then you like Jesus because that's where they came from. "The slaughter and blood soaked pages of the bible are no guide, more something to learn from as what not to do" Get specific. I have no idea what you're talking about and couldn't know until you get specific and tell me. What are you taking issue with? "Instead apply empathy, sympathy, ethics and real morals." I find those in the Bible. Where do you go to get yours?

VideoAudioDisco09 Well? What say you?

Robert Sparks It's been a week and like I said, atheists run from the conversation.

Robert Sparks I’m surprised that you think that God didn’t know what the Canaanites would allegedly do (child sacrifice)

The description of shooting down a plane headed for destroying thousands of people or amputating a gangrenous limb was very good in describing this case as well as justifying the flooding of the entire world if you do a careful study of the Genesis 6 account . The flood was necessary to insure the salvation of untold billions as well as the extermination of certain Canaanites insured that it would not happen again.

Without God can't neither good nor bad. So everything that God does is good.

I do see this line of thinking that if God is good he wouldn't allow evil but that's the thing people themselves decide to do evil. God would prefer us being good but some of us are not.

All these arguments are very good and open up new views on the subject. They are almost enough to cause me to stop believing the reason for exterminating Canaanites ( or at least certain tribes of Canaanites ) was their relation to the offspring of the union of angels and women from Genesis 6. I might except that the Bible and artifact evidence show too much of that really happening, so I have always believed it and still continue to do so. After all., you notice it was only certain tribes required the killing of all males or all adult people while others it was required to kill everything that breathed. Some tribes the Israelites could keep the livestock and others it all had to go. Maybe it was different levels of genetic contamination that only God would know, maybe some tribes were so bad even their animals were corrupted.

I think the person who "flips the switch" is as despicable as any other killer for hire.

YY4Me133 ; if you find a nest of rattlesnakes living in your house you don't just kill the mom and the dad, you kill the babies to! God has the authority to administer his justice and also he knows how and who to give his mercy to!

I agree the atheists leaders took killing to a whole new level. The ideology and machinery they developed was incredible for quickly killing humans.

What do you think it means to be "absent from the body and at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8), if not existing in a disembodied state?

@@ob4161 Well, the context is talking about heaven, and Paul's earlier letter to the Corinthians says that happens by means of resurrection and transformation into spirit bodies.

I see where you're coming from, but there are still indigenous tribes that exist today that don't want to be integrated into larger societies or a 'promised land.' To us, that's weird af because we love our 1st world creature comforts. But everyone has something different that floats their boat.

Quotes don't justify belief. Only evidence can justify a belief, and nobody has evidence of a god.

@@majmage replied, "Quotes don't justify belief. Only evidence can justify a belief, and nobody has evidence of a god." Do you have any evidence based data to support that belief of yours, or is that just your personal belief?

@@hwd71 Yeah I've asked like 400+ theists for evidence of a god, and they all respond _exactly like you did: by presenting zero evidence!_ The thread still has zero evidence of a god, and pay attention to how that will never change no matter how long or short our conversation goes. Well that means neither of us knows a god exists. Well I'm honest about that lack of knowledge: I admit I don't know. But most theists _pretend to know_ when they don't actually know, and that's not very honest.

@@majmage Most atheists argue from personal incredulity. There is plenty of evidence for God if you sincerely follow the evidence where it leads. Briefly consider the following arguments from what we do know about the following which point to an Intelligent Creator. Fine tuning of the Universe. Kalam Cosmological argument. Interactomes in the cell. Information in our DNA. Homochirality of the DNA Molecule. Irreducible complexity of ATP Synthase. and other nano machines in our cells. Law of biogenesis. Bible prophecy. God appeared to Human Beings in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, and did miracles to support that claim. If you reject that, why do you accept that the Virgin Mother Earth gave life from an inanimate mud pool, billions of years ago which has never happened to be observed since? You too have a burden of proof to provide data that particles to people evolution is true.

Well to this day Craig still doesn't have evidence of a god, so not sure we really miss out on him not ending up in a debate with any given person. He just trots out the same tired arguments each time, like the Cosmological Argument (where he fails to establish a logical necessity for a god) or the Moral Argument (where he just _says_ objective morals exist without evidence and _says_ they must've come from a god without evidence, then treats that assertion as evidence of a god). Logic isn't really theists' strong suit though. For example you said if there is a God and Jesus was raised from the dead Christianity is true, yet we can imagine many scenarios where that's wrong (like one where "God" is simply a powerful alien that tricked humanity into worshiping it). So how do you get theists to _truly care about truth?_ I wish I knew. It's one of the dangers of Dunning-Kruger Effect: a person has to be at least somewhat logical to understand when they've made logical errors; a persona has to have at least some knowledge of a topic to have an accurate sense of how much they truly know, etc.

That's not a logical argument "against religion". I mean he's fairly correct that you can't just take a straight-up association and act like it's a meaningful relationship unless you can prove it (using something like statistical significance, _not_ just vaguely pointing to the crusades). But _the entire topic is irrelevant,_ because if we care about truth the only thing that matters is whether we have evidence of any god(s) _and we don't._ So this entire bait-and-switch to whether religion causes violence is just one more way theists use to keep the true discussion at arm's length. The only thing that matters is whether we have a good reason to believe in gods, and we don't.