I want to watch that, bit about stars starting out, I wish it had some references.

If all of your morality comes from the bible, why aren't you out stoning the cashiers who work at Wal-Mart on Sundays? That's what the bible tells you to do after all.

If you question it, or make up your own mind then your morality doesn't really come from the bible at all does it?

Wait? He needs to be debunked?

He debunked himself. The man is clearly an idiot. Carry on.

The man is an ignorant, and the worst, most dangerous type there is. An ignorant who refuses to learn.

I for one, am glad he doesn't talk to atheists. Thank you for not wasting the time of someone with a working brain.

The main problem all these blindly repeated "arguments" have is the fact that the answers to them require a literally mind boggling amount of time to occur. You see the explanation that a star came from a compaction of gases etc but to wrap your head around the idea that it took an unfathomably long amount of time and not *poof* is just to hard for the average (or even above average) mind to conceive of except in the vaguest of terms. The brain can't really grasp the sheer size of it, so they prefer the simpler explanation of a wish granting genie man taking 6 days (omnipotence only goes so far apparently) to put it all in order.

We're equating giving to charity with morality?

I hope I'm not going out on too much of a limb (ooops, I hope that isn't too similar to my ape cousins) when I suggest that donating money and morality are two very separate things.

I think you just need better examples of "good" atheists than Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and James Cameron.

Wasn't it discovered that Mother Teresa had some journals where she questioned the existence of God? That would have a deeper impact IMO. Atheists really need to fire their PR manager.

Yeah, it's already been covered. He doesn't deserve the time and energy required for something like this. Besides, it's not a good idea to gratify each drooling retard with a refutation.

Steve Harvey knows he's right. Game over, don't bother. It's literally hopeless.

>> ^VoodooV:

We're equating giving to charity with morality?
I hope I'm not going out on too much of a limb (ooops, I hope that isn't too similar to my ape cousins) when I suggest that donating money and morality are two very separate things.
I think you just need better examples of "good" atheists than Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and James Cameron.
Wasn't it discovered that Mother Teresa had some journals where she questioned the existence of God? That would have a deeper impact IMO. Atheists really need to fire their PR manager.


No, well, sort of, the video creator is giving simple, easy to digest cases of people who are atheists and are clearly NOT idiots, and also have done great good. It's hard to say that the donations they make are not morally good. Sure you can definitely be moral and not donate, and you could donate and not be moral, but as a quick 'just think about your inane comment' fire back against the moron that is Steve they are very good examples.

I understand what the intent was, but the problem is, the video is trying to use logic and intellectualism to convince people who have obviously rejected logic and tend to be anti-intellectual.

It's the same tired trap atheists fall for all the time. We don't live in a world where logic and facts reign supreme so don't expect non-atheists to listen when you bring out Dawkins or Bill Gates on your side. It's never going to work.

Gallowflak said it already. Harvey has made up his mind that atheists are idiots and lack morality. Facts and logic aren't going to convince him. Nothing short of an atheist selflessly saving his life would.

He asks what atheists believe, yet immediately walks away when he meets one?

>> ^VoodooV:

I think you just need better examples of "good" atheists than Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and James Cameron.
Wasn't it discovered that Mother Teresa had some journals where she questioned the existence of God?

Who would you recommend?

Mother Teresa is both a poor example of an atheist and a poor example of a moral person. She used the sick people in her "care" to collect donations and then used the funds to evangelize instead of getting medical care for her patients. You should watch Hell's Angel if you haven't already.

What an ass.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'debunk, atheist, theist, religion, truth' to 'debunk, atheist, theist, religion, truth, gastrous ball' - edited by RhesusMonk

100% atheist speaking here; how is it that videosift continues to fuel this bullshit debate after so many years when it's obvious how a person of belief can disagree and fail to understand the belief of another? I'd think by now you'd recognize how smug and complacent you are in your own atheistic views that you'd learn to understand exactly how a Christian feels about your own beliefs, but apparently I'm dead wrong. Videos like these are simply incendiary and serve only to contribute to the hatred and violence which is so pervasive between separate beliefs systems to this day, and I especially can't see how they're still interesting or funny to any of the regulars here.

edit; my first comment since roughly 2008, I believe? Funny to see that some things never change.

This video is obviously not intended for Steve Harvey, but for all the people who are on the fence and somehow persuaded by his argument.

@treat atheism is not a belief.

treat I have to agree with gwiz665.


if you think atheism is a belief system, you are obviously not "100% atheist", or a very poorly informed one at least.

I was hoping it would be Steve Harvey debunking himself
The family feud is ruined! RUINED!

...it was sorta ruined before but still

Thank you gwiz665.

>> ^treat:

Videos like these are simply incendiary and serve only to contribute to the hatred and violence which is so pervasive between separate beliefs systems to this day

How is this video incendiary? It's a response to Harvey's incorrect statements about science and morality, not an attack on religion.

Sun comes up, sun goes down. What else do you people want? God.

Or as that other girl would put it :

Why are there still monkeys ? Think about it. Think about it. (

>> ^treat:
Videos like these are simply incendiary and serve only to contribute to the hatred and violence which is so pervasive between separate beliefs systems to this day,


Really?

Then as a militant atheist, I'm gonna violently upvote this video. Take that, Christians!

Yeah, but what about the tides? Checkmate.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

If all of your morality comes from the bible, why aren't you out stoning the cashiers who work at Wal-Mart on Sundays? That's what the bible tells you to do after all.
If you question it, or make up your own mind then your morality doesn't really come from the bible at all does it?


You're misinformed about the Bible. If you're going to criticize a religion, it might be best to read the literature, in this case... know the reasoning for the Old and New Testament.

[redacted]

@Toshley - Please explain Exodus 31:12-15. Although Jesus made a few exceptions for reasons of "compassion" in Matthew 12:1-14, but I don't see how that is a total rejection of the law.

I would advise you not to assume that atheists do not know the literature. Most of us in the US were raised Christian and became atheists because we learned *too much* about Christianity, and had the capacity for critical thought, which is anathema to religion.

If you feel that the Bible contradicts or invalidates a statement made by an atheist, please state the quote rather than telling somebody that they don't know the literature. Otherwise you will likely find that it is you that don't know it.

>> ^MaxWilder:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Toshley" title="member since February 6th, 2011" class="profilelink">Toshley - Please explain Exodus 31:12-15. Although Jesus made a few exceptions for reasons of "compassion" in Matthew 12:1-14, but I don't see how that is a total rejection of the law.
I would advise you not to assume that atheists do not know the literature. Most of us in the US were raised Christian and became atheists because we learned too much about Christianity, and had the capacity for critical thought, which is anathema to religion.
If you feel that the Bible contradicts or invalidates a statement made by an atheist, please state the quote rather than telling somebody that they don't know the literature. Otherwise you will likely find that it is you that don't know it.


I don't even know where to begin with this.

I never said that atheists don't know the literature and I honestly don't appreciate you trying to turn what I said into a attack on the atheist community.

Let me break it down for you so you can understand it better:
"You're misinformed about the Bible. If you're going to criticize a religion, it might be best to read the literature, in this case... know the reasoning for the Old and New Testament."

Notice that I used "You're" at the beginning of the sentence, meaning you are. You, being a single person. Notice again that I began my next sentence the same way, clearly stating it was directed at the author of the comment, I was kind enough to quote so people didn't take it out of context (oddly wasn't enough).

I don't feel the need to respond to the rest of your message because you seem like the type of person to just twist what I say and try and use it against me.

If you want to be civil and talk with an open-mind, you're more than welcome to talk with me.

@MaxWilder

Not a Christian, but I was genuinely curious about the answer to your question and I found this website. Basically the author believes the Old Testament stuff is no longer "law" in the sense that it must be followed strictly to letter but it is still canon in the sense that it can be used to inform Christians about what God considers a sin and how to avoid sinning. That's the way most of the Christians I know interpret the Old Testament as well--not as a prescriptive rulebook but more as a descriptive history that offers guidelines for how to live well by avoiding sin.

Why is this blocked in my region when it's a bloody Channel 4 UK programme? I'm in the UK! FFS!

I am wondering if atheists and christians will ever be able to accept each other simply as people with different beliefs, instead of declaring the other side idiot. I don't know any atheist who will take the time to investigate the bible to check if it makes sense for them, and if they did, it would probably comfort their denial of religion. Same goes with christians examining the atheists' point of view : if they don't value logic as much as faith, they'll never change their mind on the subject. What I'm saying is that arguing about this is improductive for everyone. Once these differences are accepted, there is much more interesting stuff to discuss.

Ok, class dismissed....

"The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest." (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

I can't find the spot where it says they should be stoned to death at the moment. Is killing them enough to satisfy you?

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
If all of your morality comes from the bible, why aren't you out stoning the cashiers who work at Wal-Mart on Sundays? That's what the bible tells you to do after all.
If you question it, or make up your own mind then your morality doesn't really come from the bible at all does it?

As Toshley said, that is a pretty poor attempt. I don't have the Bible memorized to know what quote or implied idea you are talking about, but I'm pretty sure cashiers were never intended to be stoned. Not to mention the complete difference in the old and new testaments.
I do, however, disagree with morality comes from God. Here are the two possibilities that seem plausible to me: Morality was an evolutionary occurrence, as in creatures and animals had to make decisions that would further them among a species. Naturally as animal societies grow more complex so do choices, and as such you often have a "moral" and "immoral" choice to make. The second one is that morality was a result of sin entering the world. Naturally, if sin had not entered the world all would be perfect, and as such no choices would need to be made because it would be the only instinctive choice. However, when sin corrupted the world it opened up the ability to make "immoral" choices.

In fact, I'm really interested to hear why you think the Bible "tells us" to stone Wal-Mart cashiers.

So, you're using human reasoning to decide the correct moral path.

What part of that comes from the bible then? If you use reasoning to decide your morality, then your morality comes from man.

>> ^Toshley:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
If all of your morality comes from the bible, why aren't you out stoning the cashiers who work at Wal-Mart on Sundays? That's what the bible tells you to do after all.
If you question it, or make up your own mind then your morality doesn't really come from the bible at all does it?

You're misinformed about the Bible. If you're going to criticize a religion, it might be best to read the literature, in this case... know the reasoning for the Old and New Testament.

[redacted]

So you get to choose between new and old testaments? If humans have a choice in their morality then it is people, not God who decide upon correct moral behaviour.

Thank you for supporting my argument.

>> ^Mcboinkens:
The Old Testament. He was telling his people how to live by his law. Then the new testament came and that rule is no longer a standard. That should help clear some things up.

Unfortunately for people who believe atheists have no morality because morality comes from religion, science now knows where we get morality, and it is a specific part of our brain. We evolved to have morality because morality is important in a tribal culture. We evolved to have morality as well because it was a powerful motivator for life to strive to succeed. Evidence of this can be seen in many species of animal, including our species.

This thought that morality stems from religion is so ingrained in society even my mother (the most open person I know when it comes to religion) thinks that people without religion, or people who haven't grown up with religion don't have a center of morality built within them.

And the whole 'if we evolved from monkeys than why are there still monkeys' just shows supreme ignorance. It shows that Mr. Harvey never picked up anything on evolution and read it just to determine whether he believes it or not. It shows that he avoids anything that has to do with evolution because he simply doesn't want to even think that it is fact. He isn't even intelligent enough to pick up a book, read the theory and it's evidence and make an intelligent choice as to whether he would stick with 'god made everything in 7 days and the universe is 6000 years old' or to accept Evolution.

Again I am seeing the whole 'atheists have beliefs too because they don't believe in gold, that is a belief!' argument. Oh and how circular it is. I am not an atheist so I cannot presume anything but I can tell you that lack of belief is not belief in and of itself, but the lack..there...of.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

So you get to choose between new and old testaments? If humans have a choice in their morality then it is people, not God who decide upon correct moral behaviour.
Thank you for supporting my argument.
>> ^Mcboinkens:
The Old Testament. He was telling his people how to live by his law. Then the new testament came and that rule is no longer a standard. That should help clear some things up.



At this point, I am going to go ahead and assume you're a troll.

If you're honestly confused, I suggest you watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PrZeqhsdqE

Umm, he says repeatedly in the video that morality is subjective. I got as far as the point where he said he wasn't going to talk about using the bible as on objective standard. The rest just seems to be excusing all the wicked behaviour in the Old Testament on a variety of thin pretexts. I'm not going to waste my time with the whole thing. He certainly seems to be backing my side of this argument.

See this page for moral problems in the New Testament. Obviously even the new/old testament argument doesn't really hold much water. Humans make their own morality, 2,000 year old books are out of date and any idiot who thinks a modern person can safely determine moral issues using no human judgement, only the Bible as a source is utterly hopeless.

>> ^Toshley:
At this point, I am going to go ahead and assume you're a troll.
If you're honestly confused, I suggest you watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PrZeqhsdqE

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

Umm, he says repeatedly in the video that morality is subjective. I got as far as the point where he said he wasn't going to talk about using the bible as on objective standard. The rest just seems to be excusing all the wicked behaviour in the Old Testament on a variety of thin pretexts. I'm not going to waste my time with the whole thing. He certainly seems to be backing my side of this argument.
See this page for moral problems in the New Testament. Obviously even the new/old testament argument doesn't really hold much water. Humans make their own morality, 2,000 year old books are out of date and any idiot who thinks a modern person can safely determine moral issues using no human judgement, only the Bible as a source is utterly hopeless.
>> ^Toshley:
At this point, I am going to go ahead and assume you're a troll.
If you're honestly confused, I suggest you watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PrZeqhsdqE



There's no point in continuing this conversation.

I am looking for intellectual and rational discussion here. You've admitted that you didn't watch the entire video and then expect me to follow some link you provided?

Feel free to continue calling me an idiot, I personally don't care.

Tell me the timecode where he provides the brilliant argument that makes your point then. I don't have time to waste on stupid Christian videos that seem to be only tangentially related to the argument at hand and don't even appear to support your side.

>> ^Toshley:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Umm, he says repeatedly in the video that morality is subjective. I got as far as the point where he said he wasn't going to talk about using the bible as on objective standard. The rest just seems to be excusing all the wicked behaviour in the Old Testament on a variety of thin pretexts. I'm not going to waste my time with the whole thing. He certainly seems to be backing my side of this argument.
See this page for moral problems in the New Testament. Obviously even the new/old testament argument doesn't really hold much water. Humans make their own morality, 2,000 year old books are out of date and any idiot who thinks a modern person can safely determine moral issues using no human judgement, only the Bible as a source is utterly hopeless.
>> ^Toshley:
At this point, I am going to go ahead and assume you're a troll.
If you're honestly confused, I suggest you watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PrZeqhsdqE


There's no point in continuing this conversation.
I am looking for intellectual and rational discussion here. You've admitted that you didn't watch the entire video and then expect me to follow some link you provided?
Feel free to continue calling me an idiot, I personally don't care.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

Tell me the timecode where he provides the brilliant argument that makes your point then. I don't have time to waste on stupid Christian videos that seem to be only tangentially related to the argument at hand and don't even appear to support your side.
>> ^Toshley:
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Umm, he says repeatedly in the video that morality is subjective. I got as far as the point where he said he wasn't going to talk about using the bible as on objective standard. The rest just seems to be excusing all the wicked behaviour in the Old Testament on a variety of thin pretexts. I'm not going to waste my time with the whole thing. He certainly seems to be backing my side of this argument.
See this page for moral problems in the New Testament. Obviously even the new/old testament argument doesn't really hold much water. Humans make their own morality, 2,000 year old books are out of date and any idiot who thinks a modern person can safely determine moral issues using no human judgement, only the Bible as a source is utterly hopeless.
>> ^Toshley:
At this point, I am going to go ahead and assume you're a troll.
If you're honestly confused, I suggest you watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PrZeqhsdqE


There's no point in continuing this conversation.
I am looking for intellectual and rational discussion here. You've admitted that you didn't watch the entire video and then expect me to follow some link you provided?
Feel free to continue calling me an idiot, I personally don't care.



You don't have time to waste on a stupid Christian video but yet you had time to watch this one, comment on it, and defend your lack of belief militantly.

Congratulations on time management.

Please stop replying to my messages unless you want to talk in a civil manner. The video was directly related to the discussion at hand, you would have known that if you had watched the entire video.

Of course it "Do not even appear" to support my side because the video touches on multiple subjects.

Troll somewhere else. I am done.

Hey, I understand. Trying to defend the bible is a bit like being a one legged man in an ass kicking contest, I have the high ground so to speak. But there's no need to be uncivil, I had a perfectly reasonable request which led you to tuck your tail between your legs and sound the retreat. I know it seems that logic and rational argument are unfair weapons in debates on theology because you have no ammunition of your own. Come back when you are ready to discuss things rather than pointing to something someone else made that doesn't even support your side.

>> ^Toshley:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Tell me the timecode where he provides the brilliant argument that makes your point then. I don't have time to waste on stupid Christian videos that seem to be only tangentially related to the argument at hand and don't even appear to support your side.
>> ^Toshley:
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Umm, he says repeatedly in the video that morality is subjective. I got as far as the point where he said he wasn't going to talk about using the bible as on objective standard. The rest just seems to be excusing all the wicked behaviour in the Old Testament on a variety of thin pretexts. I'm not going to waste my time with the whole thing. He certainly seems to be backing my side of this argument.
See this page for moral problems in the New Testament. Obviously even the new/old testament argument doesn't really hold much water. Humans make their own morality, 2,000 year old books are out of date and any idiot who thinks a modern person can safely determine moral issues using no human judgement, only the Bible as a source is utterly hopeless.
>> ^Toshley:
At this point, I am going to go ahead and assume you're a troll.
If you're honestly confused, I suggest you watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PrZeqhsdqE


There's no point in continuing this conversation.
I am looking for intellectual and rational discussion here. You've admitted that you didn't watch the entire video and then expect me to follow some link you provided?
Feel free to continue calling me an idiot, I personally don't care.


You don't have time to waste on a stupid Christian video but yet you had time to watch this one, comment on it, and defend your lack of belief militantly.
Congratulations on time management.
Please stop replying to my messages unless you want to talk in a civil manner. The video was directly related to the discussion at hand, you would have known that if you had watched the entire video.
Of course it "Do not even appear" to support my side because the video touches on multiple subjects.
Troll somewhere else. I am done.

So wait... are we stoning Jews for not working Saturdays (since their sabbath is that day, not Sunday), or are we stoning wal-mart workers on Sunday? While you all were arguing I went out and got a bunch of rocks for us all.

I do not need an imaginary friend to make it through life. I do not need a book 1500 years out of date to tell me how to live. I do not need an institution telling me how to think. I do not need a guy in a funny hat telling me what to believe. I do not need to be saved. I follow my morals not because I'm told I must. I follow them because it is my choice to do so. Telling me I need to follow a book or belief for the correct morals is akin to telling me if the book or belief did not exist you would be the evilest person here.
My life, My morals, My Choice.
I do not tell anyone what to think.
I do not tell anyone what to believe.
I do not force anyone to follow my beliefs or morals or choices.
I do not need an excuse for my beliefs or morals or choices.
I take full responsibility for my life and No one else.
End of line

>> ^Toshley:

I don't even know where to begin with this.
I never said that atheists don't know the literature and I honestly don't appreciate you trying to turn what I said into a attack on the atheist community.
Let me break it down for you so you can understand it better:
"You're misinformed about the Bible. If you're going to criticize a religion, it might be best to read the literature, in this case... know the reasoning for the Old and New Testament."
Notice that I used "You're" at the beginning of the sentence, meaning you are. You, being a single person. Notice again that I began my next sentence the same way, clearly stating it was directed at the author of the comment, I was kind enough to quote so people didn't take it out of context (oddly wasn't enough).
I don't feel the need to respond to the rest of your message because you seem like the type of person to just twist what I say and try and use it against me.
If you want to be civil and talk with an open-mind, you're more than welcome to talk with me.
>> ^MaxWilder:
Toshley - Please explain Exodus 31:12-15. Although Jesus made a few exceptions for reasons of "compassion" in Matthew 12:1-14, but I don't see how that is a total rejection of the law.
I would advise you not to assume that atheists do not know the literature. Most of us in the US were raised Christian and became atheists because we learned too much about Christianity, and had the capacity for critical thought, which is anathema to religion.
If you feel that the Bible contradicts or invalidates a statement made by an atheist, please state the quote rather than telling somebody that they don't know the literature. Otherwise you will likely find that it is you that don't know it.




Sigh. I know you were talking to a specific person. I'm not an idiot.

You said to Drachen_Jager "You're misinformed about the Bible." And that was the entire thrust of your refutation of his point. But what do you know about his Biblical understanding? That is an assumption you are making because you disagree with him. Rather than dismiss his knowledge on the subject, it would be more helpful if you could support your opinion with facts.

I am simply trying to encourage you to be more specific. If you offer nothing more than vague "You're wrong" responses, you are not contributing to the discussion. As you can see by the other responses in this thread, you will also be barraged by replies questioning your intelligence. Around here people respect two things: humor and rational debate. Rational debate includes supporting evidence and logical reasoning.

I apologize if I seemed uncivil. That was not intended.

I would also welcome a civil conversation, where people do not make assumptions like "... you seem like the type of person to just twist what I say and try and use it against me." No, I will use exactly what you say and use it against you.

The discovery channel clip was slightly wrong in that most of the planetary accretion occurs before hydrogen fusion begins in the star. The radiation from a T Tauri star (which derives its energy mainly from gravity, but also from lithium/deuterium in later stages) dissipates the unbound gas/dust in the circumstellar disk long before hydrogen fusion begins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_Tauri_star

@MaxWilder

Nice post (I have no idea why blankfist downvoted you--for what it's worth I restored the balance). I would only disagree with this part:

Around here people respect two things: humor and rational debate. Rational debate includes supporting evidence and logical reasoning.

My experience in trying to discuss the topic of religion here on VS has been that most people only want to state their opinion over and over, talking over their opponents Bill O'Reilly-style and ignoring most of what is said in reply to them (both sides in the debate are guilty of this, by the way). There have been a handful of individuals who have actually engaged with me in rational dialogue, but unfortunately they are in the minority here on the Sift.

Just take a look at how this thread went... I posted a link above that rationally answers the question of why Christians aren't following Moses laws as handed down in the Old Testament (a link, by the way, which includes lots of Biblical citations to support that viewpoint) and that went pretty much ignored by the parties who are continuing to argue.

My experience on VS has been that talking about religion is not about reason or ration--it's about passion. There are passionately atheist people who seem hell-bent on insulting anyone who doesn't agree with them and passionately religious people who refuse to listen to even the most rational argument. Except that on VS, the atheists outnumber the religious by far and therefore threads like this turn into a dogpile for anyone expressing a religious viewpoint. I think this is what @treat was getting at in his post, but of course people here miss the forest for the trees and focus on the one word "belief" in his post (I'm gonna give a courtesy @gwiz665 here) rather than address his point rationally and then others dogpile on him for not towing the majority atheist line. Yeah, "belief" was a poor choice of words, but the response to his post I think pretty much proved his point and also what I've been writing about here.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^Toshley:
I don't even know where to begin with this.
I never said that atheists don't know the literature and I honestly don't appreciate you trying to turn what I said into a attack on the atheist community.
Let me break it down for you so you can understand it better:
"You're misinformed about the Bible. If you're going to criticize a religion, it might be best to read the literature, in this case... know the reasoning for the Old and New Testament."
Notice that I used "You're" at the beginning of the sentence, meaning you are. You, being a single person. Notice again that I began my next sentence the same way, clearly stating it was directed at the author of the comment, I was kind enough to quote so people didn't take it out of context (oddly wasn't enough).
I don't feel the need to respond to the rest of your message because you seem like the type of person to just twist what I say and try and use it against me.
If you want to be civil and talk with an open-mind, you're more than welcome to talk with me.
>> ^MaxWilder:
Toshley - Please explain Exodus 31:12-15. Although Jesus made a few exceptions for reasons of "compassion" in Matthew 12:1-14, but I don't see how that is a total rejection of the law.
I would advise you not to assume that atheists do not know the literature. Most of us in the US were raised Christian and became atheists because we learned too much about Christianity, and had the capacity for critical thought, which is anathema to religion.
If you feel that the Bible contradicts or invalidates a statement made by an atheist, please state the quote rather than telling somebody that they don't know the literature. Otherwise you will likely find that it is you that don't know it.



Sigh. I know you were talking to a specific person. I'm not an idiot.
You said to Drachen_Jager "You're misinformed about the Bible." And that was the entire thrust of your refutation of his point. But what do you know about his Biblical understanding? That is an assumption you are making because you disagree with him. Rather than dismiss his knowledge on the subject, it would be more helpful if you could support your opinion with facts.
I am simply trying to encourage you to be more specific. If you offer nothing more than vague "You're wrong" responses, you are not contributing to the discussion. As you can see by the other responses in this thread, you will also be barraged by replies questioning your intelligence. Around here people respect two things: humor and rational debate. Rational debate includes supporting evidence and logical reasoning.
I apologize if I seemed uncivil. That was not intended.
I would also welcome a civil conversation, where people do not make assumptions like "... you seem like the type of person to just twist what I say and try and use it against me." No, I will use exactly what you say and use it against you.


Thank you, MaxWilder.

This is the kind of constructive criticism that's useful without being insulting. I know this site if filled with extremely intellectual and open-minded people, I've been coming to this site for a long time and didn't sign up until recently.

You're right that I shouldn't have said "You're misinformed about the Bible.", I should have elaborated. I will be the first to admit that I am not the most intellectual person I know and at times, I don't know how to word something appropriately, that's why I sent him the video that explained what I couldn't put into words. He didn't watch it and that's his decision.

This is going to be the last time I reply to a religious video on Videosift, I don't like arguing about religion because I honestly don't care about the beliefs of others. I respect their decision to choose, we all have the right to say what we want and believe in what we want.

I apologize about my previous statement about you turning my words around, when I read:
"I would advise you not to assume that atheists do not know the literature."

I thought you were implying that I was addressing every atheist. I can tell you as a Christian that most atheists I know, know more about the Bible than some Christians. It's sad but true.

Again, thank you for the reply and I won't be commenting on religion any further.

@Toshley - Understandable. As SDGundamX said, it is mostly a shouting match, unfortunately. But I'm a little bit obsessive on the subject, and can't seem to help myself from discussing it.

@SDGundamX - That webpage said a lot of things that were very similar to Toshley's video. Though VenomFangX is a repulsive human being for a variety of other reasons, that particular video was quite interesting. Upon first watching, it seems to make sense. Unfortunately some of his arguments depend on further stretching the bounds of credulity, such as with the half-demon people. And neither site mentions Matthew 5:17-19, which appears to indicate that Jesus intended all the Old Testament laws to continue until all prophesies were fulfilled.

Anyway, poking at these trivialities is ultimately useless, since the very foundation of the religion is untenable. No point in chipping at the mortar.

MaxWilder - If you want to discuss it with me at any time, feel free to send me a message.

TROLL FIGHT!

I didn't know you had to be religious to have a sense of morality! Although isn't a sense of morality that comes from logic and your own person; a sense of right and wrong that is intrinsic to a human being more valuable than a set of morality that has to be taught and enforced? It is funny how he views atheists as idiots I don't view religious people as idiots as I "get" why they believe even though I personally do not. All hail logic, science and of course MONKEYS!

[redacted]

>> ^Mcboinkens:
... But a lot of people I know tend to believe that God gave us morality, so everyone has morals, some just choose not to use them.


I get it! It's just like brains. Everyone has one (well, except for those babies that God hates and refused to give one to), but some just choose not to use them.

>> ^Mcboinkens:
How do you "choose" history? The old testament isn't a law, it's stating what was the law. No choice involved. I appreciate the debate though, it's good practice.
Also: I am pretty sure you are hinting at the fact that God doesn't decide what is moral, but instead people do. But a lot of people I know tend to believe that God gave us morality, so everyone has morals, some just choose not to use them.


I'm not sure if you want to call it a debate. You don't appear to be presenting any arguments, which is pretty much a requisite for it to be an actual debate.

Are you trying to say the New Testament lays down the laws of God and establishes the framework for human morality then? Or are you just saying we're all born with the morals God gave us, but some of us choose to ignore them (which is entirely unprovable and functionally no different from saying morality comes from man)?

[redacted]

There is little point in attempting further debate because:

1) You do not even understand what the word debate means.

2) You are not taking the opposing view in the debate, but a third view which you are trying to insert in the middle.

>> ^Mcboinkens:
A debate is a discussion involving more than one viewpoint, so yes, this is in fact a debate.
I already stated my thoughts on morality, it's in one of the other posts I have from earlier. But to amuse you, I'll go ahead and discuss the issue at hand once again.
I suppose my viewpoint is a bit of both of the ideas you presented. The New Testament does indeed lay down a general guidance to behavior based on the life of Jesus. I don't recall too many actual laws that it lays down but I'm not a Biblical scholar. You are, however, confusing morality with choice. A person can choose what they do, but that by no means makes it moral. It's entirely possible that God gave man morals, and sin corrupted it. It's also entirely possible that morality comes from man, since there is no evidence for either side. That's why it's called faith. If there was any complete evidence for or against religion, it'd lead to a pretty big upheaval of one side. That's what makes it so interesting!

[redacted]