Before any quotes, I'll give my own overarching point: Life without a higher purpose may be ultimately meaningless (I'll get more into what sense I mean), and that makes life more difficult than if there were ultimate meaning, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of the existence of Yahweh. You cannot derive Yahweh's existence (or any deity or pantheon) from your claim that life is easier that way. [Edit: Turns out I never actually get to that conclusion in my comments below, so you might as well address it here, but after you've read the rest.]

The point was never that a meaningless Universe makes life more difficult; you simply decided that was the point. The point the video makes, and which I have also been making, is that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance by having no ultimate justification for your value system, but living as if you do. You admit that under atheism the Universe is meaningless, and so we've been debating on whether you can find any justification for a value system in a meaningless Universe. The explanation you have ultimately given me is that you believe there is a right and wrong, and people do have value, because you feel it. Do you realize this proves what I have been saying all along?

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

Cognitive dissonance is the term used in modern psychology to describe the state of holding two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously.

Your atheism tells you that life without God is meaningless. Your feelings tell you that life is meaningful. These are two conflicting cognitions. Instead of realizing that and re-evaluating your atheism, you say that you don't know why and you don't care. That is the very definition of cognitive dissonance.

But the fact is that somehow, in the context of my own little 80-year microblip in the lifespan of our planet, I do care. I just do. I have nothing more than a pet theory about why I care. I care, and I care a lot. I suppose I'm somewhat curious as to why I care, but it's not of primary importance for me to know. I just do, and it's pleasing to notice that just about everyone else around me does too. The only question for me is how to follow this desire of mine to be good given my circumstances.

The facts are simple: the existence of God explains everything that you feel about wanting to do good, and the love that you have for people and life, and your atheism denies it. Yet you embrace what is contrary to your own experience.

And why should I reject being a slave to chemicals? The chemicals MAKE ME FEEL GOOD, remember? Should I purposefully do things that make me feel bad? Why on Earth would I even consider it? Ridiculous.

So if it makes you feel good its okay to be a slave? You don't mind being enslaved to a mindless irrational process because you get rewarded for it like a rat activating a feeder?

I reject the description that I live my life "as a Christian does", as if Christians invented or have some original claim being good. All humans, regardless of faith or lack thereof, believe in the value of humans (or, any societies that don't value humans go extinct very quickly). We all generally shun murder and violence, foster mutual care, enjoy one another's company, feel protective, have a soft spot for babies and so forth, and have been doing all of this as a species since before Christianity began.

So I would turn it around and say instead that it's Christians who go about their lives living like normal humans, but thinking they're being good because their religion tells them to.

Most people in this world (around 85 - 90 percent) are theists. If we are going to talk about universal belief in this world then it is theism which is normal. That is historically where our morality comes from. Everyone who believes in God has an ultimate justification for right and wrong, but atheists do not. So I will modify this and say that you're living like a theist does but denying it with your atheism.

I can claim that I have a stronger sense of what's right and wrong than the psychopath simply because they are defined as lacking that sense (or, perhaps non-psychopaths are defined as people having that sense). And you're right that I do not claim that my way of determining which actions are appropriate is inherently superior to the psychopath's. As it happens, my way of determining morality puts me among the overwhelming majority, and so it's relatively easy for me to mitigate the negative impacts of people like that by identifying and avoiding them. I don't say that my way should be preferred to the pshychopath's; I just notice that it is, and I'm grateful for that, and for the fact that psychopathy is not a choice.

Actually, psychopaths do know right from wrong, but they don't care.

In any case, what you're saying here contradicts your later claim that my hypothetical about a society approving of child rape is ridiculous, and proves my point. You admit here that you couldn't say that your way of morality is superior to psychopathy, it just so happens that there are more of you than there are of them. You name that as the reason why your way should be preferred. Therefore what you're talking about is a herd morality.

Now think about if the situation were reversed and psychopaths were in the majority. Your version of morality would no longer be preferred, and psychopaths would no longer need to conform to your standards; you would need to conform to theirs. Whatever was normalized in a psychopathic society would be what was called good and whatever the psychopathic society rejected would be called evil. This is proof that everything I said was true. The entire point of my example was to show that if we simply have a herd morality where the majority tells us what is good and evil, then if the majority ever said child rape is good it would be. This is simply a fact. Whether you think it could happen or not is relevent to the point.

You're drowning in a sea of relativism, where a justifies b and b justifies c and c justifies d, and this goes into an infinite regress.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you give an example of a justification to infinite regression that would cause some kind of problem unique to non-thesitic morality?

I'll get to this later.

I don't accept that it's any more natural to worship Yahweh than some other deity or pantheon or idol, and I can't imagine how you could justify such a position without referring to dogma. Ask a Muslim. He'll tell you with the same conviction that Allah is the natural way and show you his own dogma. 100 years ago, a Japanese would have told you it was natural to worship the Emperor, and today he'd say it's natural to worship ancestors. My point is that any worship will satisfy our natural urge to worship, which is why almost all people worship something, and the object of worship you're brought up around is the one you're most likely to be comfortable with worshipping, naturally.

The reason I said this was in reply to your assertion that we developed religion because it answered questions and made us feel comfortable. My point was that we all come pre-programmed with a need for worship, which you apparently agree with. That is what is natural to us. It has nothing to do with whether it is more or less natural to worship Jesus. It is actually more natural for us to rebel against God because of our corrupt nature. It's only through personal revelation that we direct our worship in the right direction.

People don't naturally conclude life is meaningless; they know from their experience that it is very meaningful. They are taught it is meaningless through philosophy and the ennui that comes from modern life. You will never find a population of natural atheists anywhere on the planet.

The problem —and one that I fell into myself— is the conflation of two senses of the word "meaningless". For example, I can say without conflict that the planet and humanity is doomed and so forth, so our actions are ultimately meaningless, AND that interacting with people gives meaning to my life. Now, in the first sense, I mean there's no teleological purpose to my life. In the second sense, I mean certain people and things in my life give fulfillment/bliss.

The sense we agreed upon and have been discussing is that that life without God is meaningless. In this sense, it is still equally meaningless whether human civilization implodes or doesn't implode. Therefore the meaning you derive from your feelings is only an illusion created by chemical reactions in your brain.

Your anecdotal evidence about depression doesn't make you an authority on *the single cause* of depression. Some depressives follow your pattern, and others don't. I don't. When I'm depressed, my feeling isn't hopelessness. In fact, these days, I'm feeling rather hopeless, but I'm not depressed.

You can feel hopeless and not be depressed, but the source of the depression is almost always hopelessness. I'll give you some examples. If you put all of the worlds depressed people in a very large room, and gave each of them a check for 10 million dollars, you will have instantly cured around 80 percent of them. The majority of depression comes being stuck in a bad situation that you don't feel like you can change, situations that cause a lot of stress and unhappiness. A lot of money buys a lot of change. Many of the rest are probably depressed because of health issues, and if you could offer them a cure (hope), they would be cured as well. The remainder are probably depressed because of extreme neurosis. There are other causes of depression but you see my point. Hope is the solution to depression.

It's not my hope. I believe that dead is dead. Much simpler than your belief. Much more likely too. You're implying that I'm following some faulty reasoning about the afterlife. Among the things I don't know are an *infinite number of possibilities* of what could happen in the afterlife, one of which is your bible story. My best guess is nothing. Since nobody's ever come back from the dead to talk about it (Did nobody interview Lazarus? What a great opportunity missed!), nobody knows, so there's no reason to speculate about it ever. Your book says whatever it says, and I don't care because to me it's fairy tales. I'd have to be an idiot to live my life differently because of a book I didn't first believe in. Just like you'd be an idiot to live like a non-believer if you believe so much in Yahweh.

On what basis do you say your belief is more likely?

Someone has come back from the dead to talk about it: Jesus Christ. You don't have to believe the bible; you can ask Him yourself. You say there is no reason to speculate (ever); now that is an interesting statement from someone who believes in open inquiry. What you've said is actually the death of inquiry. And let's be clear about this; you have speculated. You are basing your conclusion on no evidence but merely your atheistic presuppositions about reality. You say no one has come back but one man has, but of course you dismiss the account as fantasy (again because of your atheistic presuppositions).

I would also ask how you think the brain understands the complex moral scenarios we find ourselves in and rewards or doesn't reward accordingly? Doesn't that seem fairly implausible to you?

It's quite plausible. I'm no biologist, but I'm sure there's a branch of evolutionary biology that deals with social feelings. My own pet theory is that these feelings are comparable to the ones that control the behaviour of all communal forms of life, like ants and zebras and red-winged blackbirds. It's evolution, either way, IMO.

Of course anything is possible when you summon your magic genie of evolution. "Time itself performs the miracles for you."

What makes someone a bad person?

In the absolute sense, religious faith, only, can bring that kind of judgement as a meaningful label.

In the relative sense where I would colloquially refer to someone as "a bad person" (my prime minister, Stephen Harper is an example), I mean someone who has shown they are sufficiently disruptive to other people's happiness due to acting too much in their own self-interest that they're best removed from influence and then avoided. But I would only use that term as a shorthand among people who knew that I don't moralize absolutely.

So no one is really bad?

Do you think this could have something to do with the fact that the bible says you should do things you don't want to do, or that you should stop doing things you don't want to stop doing?

An interesting question, but no. I don't believe it because everything I see points all religion being a human invention.

Well, I'm fairly sure you've told me before that you hate the idea of God telling you what to do.

Your hypothetical is an appeal to the ridiculous. It simply is a fact that just about everyone —including child rapists, I'm guessing— believes that child rape is wrong for the simple reason that it severely hurts children. If it increases a person's suffering, then it's wrong. I can think of nothing simpler. Your hypothetical is like one where a passage in the bible prescribed child rape. Would it be OK then? Does the bible that say that rape is wrong? Does it say you cannot marry a child?

I've covered this above, but I will also add that if we had evolved differently, then in your worldview, all of this would be moot. We are only in this particular configuration because of circumstance, and not design. It could just as easily be 1000 different other ways. There could easily be scenarios where we evolved to exploit children instead of nuture them.

In both cases, you didn't address my point. 1) I'm stating that Yahweh's laws are far, far more complex than secular morality. You countered that Yahweh's laws were as simple as Jesus' two rules. I showed that was wrong with my AIDS in Africa example (condoms saving lives). You can address that, or you can agree that Yahweh's laws are more complex that Harris' model of secular morality.

I hope I don't need to point out that the bible says nothing about condoms. Gods morality is really as simple as the two greatest commandments because if you follow those you will follow all the rest:

Romans 13:9-10

The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

When you love your neighbor and love God you are basically doing the whole law right there. There are some particulars that can emerge in different situations just like we have laws for different situations, and so Harris would have to accommodate those as well.

2) I also pointed out that Jesus gave us a moral model that requires the individual to determine for themselves based on fixed criteria what's good and what's not. "… as you would have your neighbour do unto you…" implicitly requires the individual to compare their actions with what they themselves would want someone else to do to them. That means relying on their own understanding. This contradicts your other statements that we shouldn't rely on our own understanding. You see? To follow Jesus' second law, you must rely on your own understanding.

Yes, in this case we would rely on our own understanding, as informed by the biblical worldview. What scripture is saying when it says "lean not on your own understanding" is that we make God the Lord of our reasoning. So, when we think about doing unto others, we would think about it in the context of how Jesus taught us to behave.

[you:]What about all of Pagan societies throughout the ages that sacrificed their children to demons?

You're making my point for me. Paganism is religion. Non-believers would never justify a habit of killing their own children.

Yes they would:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html

So your answer is yes? You think that without religion, society may decide torturing babies is good because it decided that killing Jews was good?

[me:]If you think I’m being ridiculous, what do you think is more likely: that a society somewhere will suddenly realize that they feel just fine about torturing babies, or that a society somewhere will get the idea that it’s their god’s will that they torture babies? Human instinct is much more consistent than the will of any gods ever recorded.

Yes, I think an entire society could end up agreeing on something that depraved, just like the ancient Greek society approved of paedophilia. You also act as if I am trying to defend all religion, which I'm not. There are plenty of sick and depraved religions out there, and religions can easily corrupt a culture, like islam has done to the Arab culture.

In any case, there are many examples of non-believing societies doing sick and depraved things to their populations. Millions of Christians were murdered by communists in the 1940's and 50's. I highly recommend you read this book:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gracealoneca.com%2Fsitebuildercontent%2Fsitebu
ilderfiles%2Ftortured_for_christ.pdf&ei=PSNiUIyTCsPqiwLYtYGQCw&usg=AFQjCNG-ro4rM7dfvFCkgIvjnmgdhQnSPA&cad=rja

The fact is, in a meaningless Universe you simply can't prove anything without God. You actually have no basis for logic, rationality, morality, uniformity in nature, but you live as if you do. If I ask you how you know your reasoning is valid, you will reply "by using my reasoning".

You're slipping back into solipsism. We agreed not to go there. I'm not going to answer any of those things.

Now you're just trying to duck the issue, and perhaps you don't understand what solipsism is, because this is not solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that only your mind is sure to exist.

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

What I am talking about is right in line with the video. Without God you don't have any ultimate justification not just for any kind of value, but even for your own reasoning. It is a direct implication of a meaningless existence. This is what I mean about a justifies b justifies c justifies d into infinity. You have nowhere to stake a claim which can justify anything which you experience, or even your own rationality. If you feel you do, please demonstrate why you believe your reasoning is actually valid.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

@shinyblurry


We seem to be getting into a lot of repetition in this thread, so rather than going line by line, I'm going to attempt my points and reactions to yours with fewer quotes, hopefully hitting the important themes. I don't want to minimize anything you've said, so if I skip anything you feel is a separate issue and is cogent, feel free to draw my attention back to it specifically, but check first and see if you can't answer that same point with something I've already said in here.

Before any quotes, I'll give my own overarching point: Life without a higher purpose may be ultimately meaningless (I'll get more into what sense I mean), and that makes life more difficult than if there were ultimate meaning, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of the existence of Yahweh. You cannot derive Yahweh's existence (or any deity or pantheon) from your claim that life is easier that way. [Edit: Turns out I never actually get to that conclusion in my comments below, so you might as well address it here, but after you've read the rest.]

My overarching point is to demonstrate the cognitive dissonance inherent in your position ... if this world is not under the sovereign control of God, it is doomed to destruction ... You live as a Christian does, judging what is good and evil … these are just chemical reactions in your brain … why be a slave to chemicals?… you have no rational justification for … saying your sense of right and wrong is any better than the psychopath, or that yours should be preferred.

There's no cognitive dissonance in my mind –at least, not about doing the right thing. I acknowledge a life without God has no ultimate purpose, and that in the grand scheme of things, the Earth is going to be swallowed by the Sun in a few billion years and nearly all traces of humanity will disappear with it, and at that time, nothing anybody has ever done will matter because there will be nobody left for whom it can matter. With that in mind, it does seem odd that despite realizing this, I would still care about doing the right thing.

But the fact is that somehow, in the context of my own little 80-year microblip in the lifespan of our planet, I do care. I just do. I have nothing more than a pet theory about why I care. I care, and I care a lot. I suppose I'm somewhat curious as to why I care, but it's not of primary importance for me to know. I just do, and it's pleasing to notice that just about everyone else around me does too. The only question for me is how to follow this desire of mine to be good given my circumstances.

And why should I reject being a slave to chemicals? The chemicals MAKE ME FEEL GOOD, remember? Should I purposefully do things that make me feel bad? Why on Earth would I even consider it? Ridiculous.

I reject the description that I live my life "as a Christian does", as if Christians invented or have some original claim being good. All humans, regardless of faith or lack thereof, believe in the value of humans (or, any societies that don't value humans go extinct very quickly). We all generally shun murder and violence, foster mutual care, enjoy one another's company, feel protective, have a soft spot for babies and so forth, and have been doing all of this as a species since before Christianity began.

So I would turn it around and say instead that it's Christians who go about their lives living like normal humans, but thinking they're being good because their religion tells them to.

I can claim that I have a stronger sense of what's right and wrong than the psychopath simply because they are defined as lacking that sense (or, perhaps non-psychopaths are defined as people having that sense). And you're right that I do not claim that my way of determining which actions are appropriate is inherently superior to the psychopath's. As it happens, my way of determining morality puts me among the overwhelming majority, and so it's relatively easy for me to mitigate the negative impacts of people like that by identifying and avoiding them. I don't say that my way should be preferred to the pshychopath's; I just notice that it is, and I'm grateful for that, and for the fact that psychopathy is not a choice.

You're drowning in a sea of relativism, where a justifies b and b justifies c and c justifies d, and this goes into an infinite regress.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you give an example of a justification to infinite regression that would cause some kind of problem unique to non-thesitic morality?

People worship because they're made to worship … 1 Romans says that God has made Himself evident to people in the things He has made. So, rather than people worshiping because they wanted to avoid meaninglessness, they worship because it the most natural thing for them to do which matches their experience.

I don't accept that it's any more natural to worship Yahweh than some other deity or pantheon or idol, and I can't imagine how you could justify such a position without referring to dogma. Ask a Muslim. He'll tell you with the same conviction that Allah is the natural way and show you his own dogma. 100 years ago, a Japanese would have told you it was natural to worship the Emperor, and today he'd say it's natural to worship ancestors. My point is that any worship will satisfy our natural urge to worship, which is why almost all people worship something, and the object of worship you're brought up around is the one you're most likely to be comfortable with worshipping, naturally.

People don't naturally conclude life is meaningless; they know from their experience that it is very meaningful. They are taught it is meaningless through philosophy and the ennui that comes from modern life. You will never find a population of natural atheists anywhere on the planet.

The problem —and one that I fell into myself— is the conflation of two senses of the word "meaningless". For example, I can say without conflict that the planet and humanity is doomed and so forth, so our actions are ultimately meaningless, AND that interacting with people gives meaning to my life. Now, in the first sense, I mean there's no teleological purpose to my life. In the second sense, I mean certain people and things in my life give fulfillment/bliss. If by "natural atheist" you mean people who have no supernatural practices including ancestor worship or anything, then yes, you're right, I don't believe such a society exists. To me, this points to the universal human tendency to worship something—anything, and to feel better about life when we do so. Slaves to chemical reactions in their brains, as far as I'm concerned.

I can speak on depression because I used to be depressed. I know what it is like, and having come out of it, I am qualified to speak on what I can clearly see as being the number one issue; hopelessness.

Your anecdotal evidence about depression doesn't make you an authority on *the single cause* of depression. Some depressives follow your pattern, and others don't. I don't. When I'm depressed, my feeling isn't hopelessness. In fact, these days, I'm feeling rather hopeless, but I'm not depressed.

If someone feels it right to hurt and steal from you, who are you to tell them that they ought not to do that?

I would never say that someone "ought not to do" anything on objective moral grounds. If I ever said something like that (I wouldn't use the words "ought" or "should"), it would be on the understanding that this person either knows the local laws and is violating them, or more likely shares a moral foundation with me, is acting against it. Either way, that person, upon consideration, would probably prefer not to be doing that mean thing, and is only doing it to satisfy some other need of theirs that they consider higher than their need to do the right thing by me. (This isn't to justify the bad act, but to show you how I think about bad acts and the people who do them. In other words, I don't believe people get encouraged by Satan or anything to do bad things.)

[me:]There’s nobody who’s going to judge my soul when I’m dead, so in that sense, once I’m dead, it won’t matter to me in the least what I do now once I’m dead because I’ll be dead.

[you:]You say this with certainly but I think you have to recognize that this is your hope. I wonder where this hope comes from? Since you've never been dead before to see what happens, what makes you so sure about it? Could this information about life after death exist in the 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of things that you don't know?

It's not my hope. I believe that dead is dead. Much simpler than your belief. Much more likely too. You're implying that I'm following some faulty reasoning about the afterlife. Among the things I don't know are an *infinite number of possibilities* of what could happen in the afterlife, one of which is your bible story. My best guess is nothing. Since nobody's ever come back from the dead to talk about it (Did nobody interview Lazarus? What a great opportunity missed!), nobody knows, so there's no reason to speculate about it ever. Your book says whatever it says, and I don't care because to me it's fairy tales. I'd have to be an idiot to live my life differently because of a book I didn't first believe in. Just like you'd be an idiot to live like a non-believer if you believe so much in Yahweh.

I would also ask how you think the brain understands the complex moral scenarios we find ourselves in and rewards or doesn't reward accordingly? Doesn't that seem fairly implausible to you?

It's quite plausible. I'm no biologist, but I'm sure there's a branch of evolutionary biology that deals with social feelings. My own pet theory is that these feelings are comparable to the ones that control the behaviour of all communal forms of life, like ants and zebras and red-winged blackbirds. It's evolution, either way, IMO.

What makes someone a bad person?

In the absolute sense, religious faith, only, can bring that kind of judgement as a meaningful label.

In the relative sense where I would colloquially refer to someone as "a bad person" (my prime minister, Stephen Harper is an example), I mean someone who has shown they are sufficiently disruptive to other people's happiness due to acting too much in their own self-interest that they're best removed from influence and then avoided. But I would only use that term as a shorthand among people who knew that I don't moralize absolutely.

Do you think this could have something to do with the fact that the bible says you should do things you don't want to do, or that you should stop doing things you don't want to stop doing?

An interesting question, but no. I don't believe it because everything I see points all religion being a human invention.

Your atheism leaves you in the position of not being able to tell me that something like child rape is absolutely wrong. In your world, there is no such thing, and if everyone thought it was right, it would be.

Your hypothetical is an appeal to the ridiculous. It simply is a fact that just about everyone —including child rapists, I'm guessing— believes that child rape is wrong for the simple reason that it severely hurts children. If it increases a person's suffering, then it's wrong. I can think of nothing simpler. Your hypothetical is like one where a passage in the bible prescribed child rape. Would it be OK then? Does the bible that say that rape is wrong? Does it say you cannot marry a child?

[me:]Yahweh’s morality is nowhere near as simple as a secular morality. Where in those two commandments of Jesus does it say that using condoms or allowing same-sex couples to marry is wrong? In fact, saving lives, preventing unwanted pregnancies and allowing all loving couples to get married are ways to love your neighbour, and they’re exactly what I would want my neighbour to do or advocate for on my behalf.

[you:]God wrote His commandments on our hearts, which is the reason your feelings tell you what is right and wrong.

And elsewhere…

[me:]First, you’re talking in circles. If Harris’ model of morality is arbitrary, then so is Jesus’ model of “do unto others…” because they amount to pretty much the same thing, and what one person wants his neighbours to do may not be the same as someone else’s, etc. At some level, we’re going to have to determine for ourselves what’s right and what’s not.

[you:]We have the freedom to obey or disobey God. The one thing God will never do is make you obey Him. In that sense, you have to determine whether you will do what is good or evil.

In both cases, you didn't address my point. 1) I'm stating that Yahweh's laws are far, far more complex than secular morality. You countered that Yahweh's laws were as simple as Jesus' two rules. I showed that was wrong with my AIDS in Africa example (condoms saving lives). You can address that, or you can agree that Yahweh's laws are more complex that Harris' model of secular morality. 2) I also pointed out that Jesus gave us a moral model that requires the individual to determine for themselves based on fixed criteria what's good and what's not. "… as you would have your neighbour do unto you…" implicitly requires the individual to compare their actions with what they themselves would want someone else to do to them. That means relying on their own understanding. This contradicts your other statements that we shouldn't rely on our own understanding. You see? To follow Jesus' second law, you must rely on your own understanding.

[me:]Third, do you picture a world where everyone suddenly agrees that torturing babies is OK? Do you really believe that without religion people have absolutely no internal direction whatsoever, and will accept torturing of babies as acceptable? I don’t. So, no, Harris’ moral system does not allow for the possibility of torturing babies.

[you:]This is really an argument from incredulity. I'm sure no one pictured an entire society could be convinced that killing millions of jews is a good thing, but it happened.

So your answer is yes? You think that without religion, society may decide torturing babies is good because it decided that killing Jews was good?

It's a bad comparison anyway. Genocide happens all the time, even in religious societies (by the 1939 census, 94% of Germans were Christian, FWIW). You can't compare this with an entire society suddenly deciding that torturing children is morally correct. If I ever heard of such a baby-torturing society existed, I'd immediately assume it was in accordance with their religious belief, rather than just what they all decided was OK, wouldn't you?

[me:]If you think I’m being ridiculous, what do you think is more likely: that a society somewhere will suddenly realize that they feel just fine about torturing babies, or that a society somewhere will get the idea that it’s their god’s will that they torture babies? Human instinct is much more consistent than the will of any gods ever recorded.

[you:]What about all of Pagan societies throughout the ages that sacrificed their children to demons?

You're making my point for me. Paganism is religion. Non-believers would never justify a habit of killing their own children.

The fact is, in a meaningless Universe you simply can't prove anything without God. You actually have no basis for logic, rationality, morality, uniformity in nature, but you live as if you do. If I ask you how you know your reasoning is valid, you will reply "by using my reasoning".

You're slipping back into solipsism. We agreed not to go there. I'm not going to answer any of those things.

That's all well and good, but people don't hold religion in a historical context -- they subvert science beneath these mythical stories and cling to their interpretations of said stories as 'gospel truth' above anything else, empirical or otherwise.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

The Christians most likely lived in and around greek culture dominated by roman law. The Homeric tails and the iliad most likely dominated the prevailing mindset of their area, though, not as much as the hay day of greece. The punishment for not obeying the Gods was pretty drastic, you wouldn't want to be the one to do it unless you were super brave. The bible talks about entire towns of sinners being wiped out or an entire kingdom falling for the sins of a single king, pretty drastic. We must remember not to think in our own context, but of someone whom is bought in to the idea of communing with the creator(s) of existence. It is easy to scarecrow religion to death, but in a way, it was early science...trying to put the world in context the best way we knew how.
>> ^Trancecoach:
... therefore, let's kill each other over what's true or not true on the basis of these stories, shall we.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^TheJehosephat:
Did she say 4th century... and then say 150-200 years after Christ?
Which is it?

Things were seldom written down, the actual bible stories of mark, matthew, ect, were not written by them nor where they written in those times. So, what I think she meant is the story most likely started at around that time and was then transcribed much later. Studying biblical history from a historic perspective instead of a religious one is pretty fascinating and very hard. Jesus was a popular figure and had many different story lineages until codification much much later in christian history. Just because it it written down doesn't mean it is true or accurate, getting an entirely accurate view of what is happening is hard. Most notably because pretty much all the stories we have of Jesus were finally transcribed much after his death, and anyone who has played the telephone game knows how that goes.

The Christians most likely lived in and around greek culture dominated by roman law. The Homeric tails and the iliad most likely dominated the prevailing mindset of their area, though, not as much as the hay day of greece. The punishment for not obeying the Gods was pretty drastic, you wouldn't want to be the one to do it unless you were super brave. The bible talks about entire towns of sinners being wiped out or an entire kingdom falling for the sins of a single king, pretty drastic. We must remember not to think in our own context, but of someone whom is bought in to the idea of communing with the creator(s) of existence. It is easy to scarecrow religion to death, but in a way, it was early science...trying to put the world in context the best way we knew how.

>> ^Trancecoach:

... therefore, let's kill each other over what's true or not true on the basis of these stories, shall we.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^TheJehosephat:
Did she say 4th century... and then say 150-200 years after Christ?
Which is it?

Things were seldom written down, the actual bible stories of mark, matthew, ect, were not written by them nor where they written in those times. So, what I think she meant is the story most likely started at around that time and was then transcribed much later. Studying biblical history from a historic perspective instead of a religious one is pretty fascinating and very hard. Jesus was a popular figure and had many different story lineages until codification much much later in christian history. Just because it it written down doesn't mean it is true or accurate, getting an entirely accurate view of what is happening is hard. Most notably because pretty much all the stories we have of Jesus were finally transcribed much after his death, and anyone who has played the telephone game knows how that goes.

... therefore, let's kill each other over what's true or not true on the basis of these stories, shall we.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^TheJehosephat:
Did she say 4th century... and then say 150-200 years after Christ?
Which is it?

Things were seldom written down, the actual bible stories of mark, matthew, ect, were not written by them nor where they written in those times. So, what I think she meant is the story most likely started at around that time and was then transcribed much later. Studying biblical history from a historic perspective instead of a religious one is pretty fascinating and very hard. Jesus was a popular figure and had many different story lineages until codification much much later in christian history. Just because it it written down doesn't mean it is true or accurate, getting an entirely accurate view of what is happening is hard. Most notably because pretty much all the stories we have of Jesus were finally transcribed much after his death, and anyone who has played the telephone game knows how that goes.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^TheJehosephat:
Did she say 4th century... and then say 150-200 years after Christ?
Which is it?

Things were seldom written down, the actual bible stories of mark, matthew, ect, were not written by them nor where they written in those times. So, what I think she meant is the story most likely started at around that time and was then transcribed much later. Studying biblical history from a historic perspective instead of a religious one is pretty fascinating and very hard.


This is all very fascinating, thank you!

>> ^TheJehosephat:

Did she say 4th century... and then say 150-200 years after Christ?

Which is it?


Things were seldom written down, the actual bible stories of mark, matthew, ect, were not written by them nor where they written in those times. So, what I think she meant is the story most likely started at around that time and was then transcribed much later. Studying biblical history from a historic perspective instead of a religious one is pretty fascinating and very hard. Jesus was a popular figure and had many different story lineages until codification much much later in christian history. Just because it it written down doesn't mean it is true or accurate, getting an entirely accurate view of what is happening is hard. Most notably because pretty much all the stories we have of Jesus were finally transcribed much after his death, and anyone who has played the telephone game knows how that goes.

I'd go so far as to call the Noachian Flood episode as attempted speciecide.
>> ^hpqp:

The two most popular Bible stories for kids after the baby Jeebus one are the Garden of Eden/Creation story (hello incest) and the Noah and the Flood story (hello incest and full-scale genocide). Am I wrong?

>> ^hpqp:

The two most popular Bible stories for kids after the baby Jeebus one are the Garden of Eden/Creation story (hello incest) and the Noah and the Flood story (hello incest and full-scale genocide). Am I wrong?
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^hpqp:
>> ^PostalBlowfish:
In the sense that Creationism is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.

I would not want my kids to be read the kinds of "fairy tales" found in the Bible. The Grimm tales are dark enough, without adding incest, genocide and mass genital mutilation to the mix. The Bible is more like Ovid's Metamorphoses; an important piece of literature you don't put into small children's hands.

Yeah they don't make children read those stories. I'm sure there's one church somewhere that does but everyone I've ever talked to that had a "Churchy" upbringing never heard about that side of the bible. Death yeah, but watch tv today and you get tons of death, so it's not really that big of a deal.



There was never any incest or genocide the way that they tell them. It matters a lot how you present the stories.

The two most popular Bible stories for kids after the baby Jeebus one are the Garden of Eden/Creation story (hello incest) and the Noah and the Flood story (hello incest and full-scale genocide). Am I wrong?
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^hpqp:
>> ^PostalBlowfish:
In the sense that Creationism is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.

I would not want my kids to be read the kinds of "fairy tales" found in the Bible. The Grimm tales are dark enough, without adding incest, genocide and mass genital mutilation to the mix. The Bible is more like Ovid's Metamorphoses; an important piece of literature you don't put into small children's hands.

Yeah they don't make children read those stories. I'm sure there's one church somewhere that does but everyone I've ever talked to that had a "Churchy" upbringing never heard about that side of the bible. Death yeah, but watch tv today and you get tons of death, so it's not really that big of a deal.

It's a shame that you're so closed minded to not even hear why and how she's referencing the Bible.

She's noting a parallel of the corruption of money to an old Bible story. I believe the point of this quote isn't about religion, but rather that corruption through money is nothing new.

PS. Oh yeah, I feel obliged to state that I'm an atheist. Otherwise you might disregard my comment too.


>> ^sirex:

I was with it right up to 4:18 when the bible gets dredged up.

You can't call God immutable, then show that he can obviously change (have fulfilling relationships, have changing feelings, make decisions to do things), and say we can't understand how he's immutable. You claimed immutability. I didn't. I'm just showing you the logical consequences of the words you're using. After you say words, you can't go back and say you don't know what the words mean, or that they don't mean the same thing when we're talking about God. Again, words have meaning.

There are massive internal inconsistencies in your bible story. "God is immutable" is not a compatible statement with "God has emotional reactions to things people do", or "God has ongoing interactive relationships with people". Yes, taken to it's logical conclusion, God is a frozen thing, which is clearly incompatible with omnipotence, as you pointed out yourself. Either God is not immutable, or significant portions of the bible story are false, including every part where God does anything, feels anything, and especially claims of omni-anything.

I am applying immutability to His essential nature, I am not saying God never changes. To say God cannot change is to say that God cannot do anything or be anything. The thought that total changelessness is a prerequisite of perfection is a platonian ideal, not a Christian one. How can perfection be actualized if it is not manifest? Who God is is what always stays the same. He is perfectly good. What God does can change. He manifests that good in many different ways.

About God's supposed immutability. Why would he have two covenants with us if his basic nature never changes? Why would he have one set of rules before Christ, and another set after? Why was he such a warring murderous genocidal badass in the OT, but relatively passive in the NT, and totally absent in daily affairs since then? It seems to me he has changed plenty over the years.

His first covenant was exclusively with the Israelities to create the conditions for the coming of the Messiah. The second covenant was established for the entire world. It takes a student of the bible to understand that the entire OT is about Jesus Christ. Everything that is going on there is preparing the way for the Messiah, and is a picture of His coming. For instance, the story of Abraham and Issac is a picture of the sacrifice the Father made. Consider this video:



Not only a picture, but containing numerous prophecies. When Jesus said "My God My God why have you forsaken Me?".. He wasn't crying out to the Father because He felt abandoned, He was quoting Psalm 22, to let everyone there know He was fulfilling it. If you read it take note that when it was written (600 years before Christ) that crucifixion hadn't been invented yet.

Regarding the Old Testament, you should consider the other side of the coin. You may consider the actions of God the Father harsh, but then you should also consider the actions of the people He was dealing with. Consider the fact that after He brought the jews out of egypt, delivering them from hundreds of years of slavery, and doing non stop miracles in front of them, even personally leading them through the desert, that as soon as Moses disappeared for a few days, they all descended into barbarism and paganism and made golden calfs to worship saying "this is the God that brought us out of Egypt". Even after all that God had done for them, they were ready to betray Him at the drop of a hat. This is why God dealt harshly with them, because it was the only thing they understood, and that even just barely. The people whom you claim genocide (which wasn't genocide, btw..they drove them out, they didn't exterminate them) were given 400 years to repent, and the reason they were being judged because they were so corrupt that they ritually sacrificed their children to demons. We know from history that people who did this kind of thing also engaged in things like cannibalism. They weren't nice people, and even then God gave them 400 years to change.

How can God get angry when something happens if he always knew it would happen? Jesus seems to be a completely different dude from God of the OT. I like Jesus. God the father I don't

Foreknowledge doesn't rule out an emotional response when it happens. It's not easy to watch your children betraying you I am sure.

I'm glad to hear you like Jesus. And He loves you. The thing to understand is that Jesus is the Fathers heart; they are one. You have a negative impression of the Father because you disagree with how He dealt with the israelities, but you should see the other side of it and understand what He did for us through His Son. Christs very words came from Him:

John 12:50

I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

John 8:28

So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [the one I claim to be] and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

John 5:19

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

Christ did not come of His own accord, He came because the Father sent Him. He died on the cross to give us forgiveness for sins and eternal life, which was the Fathers plan all along. God doesn't want to destroy us, He wants to save us, and He was even willing to give His only Son to do it. So if you can understand the OT in that light, maybe you can understand God the Father a little better.

As far as not being active today, God is always working all the time. I see it clearly, but it takes spiritual discernment to notice it. You need the Holy Spirit for that. God is really hiding in plain sight.

>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
Words have meaning.
You can't call God immutable, then show that he can obviously change (have fulfilling relationships, have changing feelings, make decisions to do things), and say we can't understand how he's immutable. You claimed immutability. I didn't. I'm just showing you the logical consequences of the words you're using. After you say words, you can't go back and say you don't know what the words mean, or that they don't mean the same thing when we're talking about God. Again, words have meaning.
There are massive internal inconsistencies in your bible story. "God is immutable" is not a compatible statement with "God has emotional reactions to things people do", or "God has ongoing interactive relationships with people". Yes, taken to it's logical conclusion, God is a frozen thing, which is clearly incompatible with omnipotence, as you pointed out yourself. Either God is not immutable, or significant portions of the bible story are false, including every part where God does anything, feels anything, and especially claims of omni-anything.
About God's supposed immutability. Why would he have two covenants with us if his basic nature never changes? Why would he have one set of rules before Christ, and another set after? Why was he such a warring murderous genocidal badass in the OT, but relatively passive in the NT, and totally absent in daily affairs since then? It seems to me he has changed plenty over the years.
How can God get angry when something happens if he always knew it would happen? Jesus seems to be a completely different dude from God of the OT. I like Jesus. God the father I don't.

@shinyblurry

Words have meaning.

You can't call God immutable, then show that he can obviously change (have fulfilling relationships, have changing feelings, make decisions to do things), and say we can't understand how he's immutable. You claimed immutability. I didn't. I'm just showing you the logical consequences of the words you're using. After you say words, you can't go back and say you don't know what the words mean, or that they don't mean the same thing when we're talking about God. Again, words have meaning.

There are massive internal inconsistencies in your bible story. "God is immutable" is not a compatible statement with "God has emotional reactions to things people do", or "God has ongoing interactive relationships with people". Yes, taken to it's logical conclusion, God is a frozen thing, which is clearly incompatible with omnipotence, as you pointed out yourself. Either God is not immutable, or significant portions of the bible story are false, including every part where God does anything, feels anything, and especially claims of omni-anything.

About God's supposed immutability. Why would he have two covenants with us if his basic nature never changes? Why would he have one set of rules before Christ, and another set after? Why was he such a warring murderous genocidal badass in the OT, but relatively passive in the NT, and totally absent in daily affairs since then? It seems to me he has changed plenty over the years.

How can God get angry when something happens if he always knew it would happen? Jesus seems to be a completely different dude from God of the OT. I like Jesus. God the father I don't.

"...and then he got wasted and impregnated his daughters."


Also, I believe "holy cow" is pretty damn blasphemous. I mean, God had Moses order the Israelites to kill their own brethren because of it (Bible stories for children).

Tags for this video have been changed from 'louie ck, god, bible stories, abraham, isaac' to 'louie, louis ck, god, bible stories, abraham, isaac' - edited by xxovercastxx