DarwinToJesus has a lot of awesome Christian apologetics arguments and memes both on his X & KZitem account. His youtube: www.youtube.com/@darwintoJesus On X: x.com/darwintojesus This is the 38th testimony featured in this atheist converts to Christianity series. A series with a cumulative view count of over 2,300,000!
@eugenetswong
Ай бұрын
That's a powerful testimony. When atheists don't have the government and judiciary supporting them, then they become toothless.
@FoolReborn
Ай бұрын
I grew up Christian, learned a bunch of science, and pretty much went through the thoughts you've described. Thank you so much for your testimony! I, too, leaned too heavily in empiricism and materialism, believing myself a follower of logic. The truth, which is foolishness to the world, is that God gives us the duty of pursuing holiness and sanctification, with Jesus being the example lifestyle. As you've stated, and I agree, God is good.
@mykombie
Ай бұрын
Thank you for making this video series. As an ex atheist, I can resonate with what you are saying. Following Jesus Christ is the most freeing, life changing, and best thing I have ever experienced. God is real.
@zyxwfish
20 күн бұрын
Everyone is living for something. If what you’re living for can pass away or change that is what’s known as an idol. If what you’re living for is outside of Christ not only will you be lost, you will also feel lost. There is no lasting peace or joy while being lost. People put counterfeits in place of Christ. The counterfeits can range from hedonism to asceticism. The counterfeit is like a salve over a wound that never heals. Or like a drink for a thirst that can’t be quenched.
@Ryukuss
Ай бұрын
good content i left Jesus for 10 years but he called me home.Thank you Jesus!
@ThereIsHopeInCHRIST777
Ай бұрын
Praise GOD! Welcome to the body of CHRIST!!!!
@Warriorking.1963
Ай бұрын
Very good... EXCELLENT! I too escaped from atheism, not maybe by the same route as you, but whether we go over the wire or dig a tunnel, every escape's a good one. I did have similar problems when I heard my fellow atheists try to justify things such as "grape" isn't necessarily wrong, but I just lived by my own moral standards, which just happens to be the same as those of my Christian brothers and sisters. I turned to Jesus in June 2023, and have seen enormous changes in my life and interests ever since.
@ForGodsGlory70
Ай бұрын
Glory be to God!!
@AnampiuMarangu
Ай бұрын
Jesus Christ is our saviour. Amen.
@jMerkyJJ
Ай бұрын
Incredible intellectual integrity. NICE!!!!
@v1e1r1g1e1
Ай бұрын
Coup de gras question for Atheists: ''Why do you care?''
@99range92def
Ай бұрын
Amazing testimony, and was surprised to hear his x handle, i see his posts quite often.
@camillewilliams3185
Ай бұрын
Loving the atheist to Christian series
@davidquatermass789
Ай бұрын
Wow! What an argument 👏
@kidkratoski3778
Ай бұрын
Jesus is King.🙏😇🙏✨✨🙌🙌🙌
@ArchibaldRoon
Ай бұрын
As an atheist I do not believe in objective morality, that true. I also think human dignity is made up by humans. It makes no sense without a Christian God. All the other things in your video I find very difficult to relate to. Things can still be true or false. Things can still be immaterial without the need for a spiritual creator. Just because humans name immaterial things, and invent concepts, does not mean there is a creator. Of all the religions in the world, I also think Christianity is one of the least likely ones to be true. I find it very hard to believe that reasons in the video, made you believe there is a creator. But I find it absolutely unbelievable that out of all the Gods, you ended up with the Christian God, one of the more implausible ones in my opinion. Good luck with it all, but I can’t help but concluding you moved further away from what’s true and what’s not. And yes, atheists care because they are after the truth.
@s981318
Ай бұрын
If you are honest, if atheism is true, everything is meaningless. The only way you can believe in atheism and still care about things: you are being dishonest.
@AndyZach
Ай бұрын
My first video of yours. Well done! I was an agnostic since 8, since it was evident I didn't have proof of God--nor did I have proof He didn't exist. At 12 I learned of the Big Bang and the Steady State theories of cosmology (1968) and I realized both required creation of matter from nothing. That meant God had to exist. It took me 3 years to commit my life to God, not 3 months like you. Your logic about atheism being self-contradictory and stating "I know nothing", made me think of Psalm 14: 14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. 2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord. 5 There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous. 6 Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the Lord is his refuge. 7 Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.
@puffin51
Ай бұрын
Humans are a social species, but we only attained that status recently, in evolutionary terms. Until less than 20 000 years ago, we existed in small bands that were essentially extended families. Even at that level, we must co-operate to survive. Humans who don't co-operate with others are selected out. But as human society grew, into towns and cities, greater co-operation at a far more extended level became necessary and advantageous, even if the results are not immediate. That is, when humans act co-operatively and altruistically towards one another, it's because we are selected for it. But because we are relatively new at this, we still see aggressive and purely self-interested individuals appear. That's why we do good, and also why we do evil. The point is, there is no need to invoke the commands of a deity to explain this. If none is needed, none should be assumed. So there is an effective atheist explanation for human morality. But there is no theistic answer to the problem of an all-powerful and benevolent deity that does or allows natural evil. That is, there is no theodicy. The very problem that you think applies to humans doing good or evil, is far worse for a god or God. Look up the Epicurean paradox. That really hasn't got an answer.
@glenliesegang233
Ай бұрын
Can I show you a theistic solution to natural evil? First, your conception of what an "all good, all loving Deity must be like is simply limited by your limitations as a human. Suffering is necessary for evolution. Every natural evil exists because of larger phenomenon or random processes which are part of a greater overall phenomena. You cannot have good without the bad in natural systems which govern themselves without God being too hands-on.
@puffin51
Ай бұрын
@@glenliesegang233 I agree. We humans cannot know what God is like. That is, we cannot know Him. Isaiah 55:8-9 refers. We cannot, therefore, know Him to be benevolent or loving or good in any way that we can understand. If we worship Him, then, we worship a void, out of fear of the unknown. I don't accept that as a reason. Yes, suffering is necessary for evolution. This at least provides a reason for suffering. A benevolent deity provides none. If God ordained evolution, then He is neutral to our weal or woe - and this is the case generally with all natural law. It is blindly indifferent to human suffering. If that is the nature of God, there is no reason to praise Him, but only to return the indifference He displays. But there is no need to assume any intent to natural law, and thus no need to assume any mind behind it. Occam's razor would suggest that that assumption should be discarded.
@s981318
Ай бұрын
@@puffin51 You just said a bunch IS, but you cannot explain why we Ought to.
@puffin51
Ай бұрын
@@s981318 We should act co-operatively in one another's interest because, being a social species, each member, including ourselves, is more likely to survive if we do. That's why we ought to. It's as simple as that.
@mike16apha16
Ай бұрын
you clearly didn't watch the video. just because we must co-operate to survive doesn't mean we *ought* to co-operate to survive. if humanity died tomorrow it would be no different then when the dinosaurs perished we. the world would just move on and something else would take our place. we are owned and deserve nothing second problem is you didn't prove good and evil exist you just magically granted those to yourself. if i unalive someone but it helps my survival in even the slightest way you can that truly be wrong? evolution and what not only drives survival animals unalive each other over food, territory, and mates. it doesn't tell us what is right and wrong it only makes us put our well being over others. animals will even eat their own mates and children if that is required to survive, why is it that we shouldn't do the same or is some magical way just so special that doesn't apply to us? "human rights" and "morality" are just as much a fiction made up by men like you not able to cope with the cruel indifference of the universe third problem is can you have to prove love and evil/suffering are incompatible and unable to coexist. why does evil existing mean somehow someone isn't loving? parents inflict pain on children and from their point of view it would seem evil, but its cause the parent loves them and wants what is best for the child that they discipline them. also please define these terms what is love exactly to you? only nice things happening at all times? cause that certainly isn't it. so no, evil just existing doesn't magically make God unloving. you first have to prove that that is somehow the case, as God could have his reason for allowing it to happen. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13 i'd say being put in a position where you have to die for someone else is often a result of evil and Jesus died one of the most evil deaths imaginable to save us from our sins so we could spend eternity in heaven with him. so the question becomes why would an all loving God prevent himself from being able to participate in the greatest form of love for his creation possible? the greatest act of love imaginable requires the existence of evil. saying how could a loving God allow evil now becomes a paradox as he would be withholding his love if he didn't allow evil to transpire at times evil isn't the absence of love nor is love the absence of evil. and the strongest acts of love often only can shine in the presence of evil so this claim is a non-sequitur
@sparkyy0007
Ай бұрын
God is not the conclusion to a syllogism, he is the only way any syllogism can exist. Peace and love in Jesus Christ God bless you all
@SheepofChristAmen
Ай бұрын
Thank you so much for sharing this stories, I myself was an atheist, and I belong to a Hindu community, since I am new to Christianity, sometimes I just get lost in the shuffle, can you suggest me good sources( books, KZitem channels) that will help me to grow my faith in God and Jesus based on evidence and logic and not in blind Faith. It will be very helpful if everyone gives me their valuable suggestions 😢
@charlestonscnative9083
Ай бұрын
@@SheepofChristAmen David Wood on YT has a testimony video where he is traveling through the subway. He was an atheist and has a PhD in mathematics. His channel has changed names in the past, but I think the current name may be Apologetics Roadshow. He had a dear friend that converted from Islam to Christianity (Nabeen?), but he has sadly passed away from cancer. Also read through comment sections on videos, in doing that I was able to find good channels that are mentioned by others and that helped lead my out of New Age/New Thought. Thank you Jesus for saving me!
@StraightShot2977
24 күн бұрын
To the author of the account: Welcome home. I just came back too.
@Torby4096
Ай бұрын
Welcome to the mob of believers!😊
@dugonman8360
Ай бұрын
Its not just the fact that Atheism cannot make an objective claim to a moral standard, but its worldview outright should contradict any moral standard it could create. Atheism must be materialistic to be coherent so it must craft its moral standard from what we can obverse in nature, essentially we can know murder is wrong because an animal doesnt murder willy nilly. This was a philosophical worldview in the past used by many secular philosophers who believed in the tabula rasa philosophy. Yet when we see nature it shows us not only do animals freely commit murder, rape, infancide and genocide, but that nature benefits the animals which do it. The lion which kills all the male cubs in its newly aquired pack isnt accosted by the female lions or outed by them, he is accepted. Ants wage war on other ant colonies and kidnap the larvea to enslave yet they are not hindered or damned by these tactics. Honestly they florish due to this. Whats even more disturbing is that we can clearly see a link between intelligent animals and the enjoyment of harming and hurting other animals. Killer whales are known for their insane levels of torture. They're not alone since dolphins, chimpanzees, even dogs and cats do this. This weighed heavily on Jane Goodall who thought cimpa lived egalitarian peaceful lives before watching them rip each other asunder simply for the pleasure of it. This concept of the cruelty of nature may weigh upon the soul of a religious man but its damning to the secular man because it means our morality is a fluke and our most natural habits are those which we deem criminal. They have no ground as to why since their own world view contradicts this.
@KOIFishcat
Ай бұрын
God did all that for me too, except smoking
@voiceofreason162
Ай бұрын
Quote: "It doesn't matter if ALL the evidence supports intelligent design, and contradicts naturalistic evolution. [Or] Even if all that data points to an intelligent designer. Such a hypothesis is resisted because it's not naturalistic." SD Todd, Nature, 30th September 1999. "Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We ONLY believe it because the alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable." Sir Arthur Keith. "Evolution is a theory universally accepted not BECAUSE it can be proven by logical coherent evidence to be true, but BECAUSE the ONLY alternative, special creation, is incredible." DMS Watson, Nature Magazine. If the evidence points to God, reject it, says the science. If ALL of it proves God, reject it says science. Because the evidence that leads to God.... is UNACCEPTABLE - even if true. That's the mindset, evidence irrelevant.
@Harpazo_to_Yeshua
Ай бұрын
Because it's not science. It's Lience. Anti-God Lience. They're a cult who doesn't actually care about truth, but only denying God exists to fool the world into becoming atheist.
@enderwiggen3638
Ай бұрын
@@seanpierce9386scientists don’t have an objective to prove Christianity wrong. It’s atheists who are trying to prove that. There are thousands of Christian’s who are scientists.
@voiceofreason162
Ай бұрын
@seanpierce9386 So you believe. "The first eye, the first wing, the first placenta. How they emerge. Explaining these is the foundational motivation of evolutionary biology,” says Armin Moczek, a biologist at Indiana University. “And yet, we still do not have a good answer. This classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time, has so far fallen flat.” Armin Moczek is a German evolutionary biologist and full professor at Indiana University Bloomington. Wikipedia Born: July 08, 1969, Munich, Germany Age :54 years Fields: Evolutionary biology Institutions: Indiana University Bloomington Known for : Mechanisms that facilitate the evolutionary origin of novel, complex traits. “If we cannot explain things with the tools we have right now,” the Yale University biologist Günter Wagner said, “we must find new ways of explaining.” Ergo, relying on the evolution model. Günter P. Wagner is an Austrian-born evolutionary biologist who is Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary biology at Yale University, and head of the Wagner Lab. Born : 28, 1954, Vienna, Austria Fields : evolutionary biology, evolutionary developmental biology Alma mater : University of Vienna Notable awards : MacArthur Prize (1992), A.O. Kovalevsky Medal (2016), Daniel Giraud Elliot Medal (2018) In 2014, eight scientists took up this challenge, publishing an article in the leading journal Nature that asked “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” Their answer was: “Yes, urgently.” Why? If it's "settled" -- The public and private face of science are very different arenas.
@enderwiggen3638
Ай бұрын
intelligent design isn’t eliminating evolution either. God could manipulate the variables within the natural laws he has for life to adapt. No different than the laws of gravity (which we don’t seem to really understand how that works on a system or even galactic scale). An all powerful God could easily perform a miracle to cause a step change that sends life sprawling in a different direction up until you end up with humans. Even though it’s comedy, a movie like Idiocracy shows just how over a large amount of time we are being less competent and dumber in society the more “advanced” we become. In a few hundred years we will have either killed society as we know it or things will be so automated we won’t even know how to grow food or build anything.
@PhilIsaak
Ай бұрын
Good apologetic against that junk!! Good witnessing material pressing people to search their own hearts and motives for choosing not to believe
@rustyshackelford3590
Ай бұрын
Is this the transcendental argument I’ve been hearing about recently?
@skepticalstrom6247
Ай бұрын
Yes it is
@peterbassey9668
Ай бұрын
Amen.
@Krillian777
Ай бұрын
Great channel and great video. I think you provide a reasonable case for why you rejected atheism, but what persuaded you towards Jesus? Did you study other religions or was there something about the Christian story or Western cultural ideology that lead pushed you in that direction? And thank you for the DarwintoJesus recommendation! I'll check it out.
@bhocatbho
Ай бұрын
@@Krillian777 I become a theist because of science and math (my bread and butter). All religions have necessarily a common moral ground. Apart from the moral arguments only one religion can be true. For instance, a Christian says Jesus was raised from the dead. A Jew says he died and he did not rise again. A Muslim says Jesus never died. Only one of these religions can be true. There is no proof for Jesus’s resurrection, but I found out that there is very reasonable evidence leading to his resurrection. So I became a Christian and everything got in place. If you are convinced that there are pieces of evidence that Jesus raised from the dead you feel obliged to listen to him. So it was no cultural biases that led me to Jesus. I hope you will follow the same path and I wish you well.
@philipbrooks7640
Ай бұрын
Atheism isn't a thing to be true or not. The atheist position is this: I don't believe in your claim because the reasoning or evidence you give is not revealing what you believe it does. Essentially, the atheist reserves judgement until sufficient evidence is provided.
@s981318
Ай бұрын
Please provide evidence for atheism, then I will use your own logic to reply you as follows: I don't believe in your claim "there is no God" because the reasoning or evidence you give is not revealing what you believe is true.
@AspiringChristian
Ай бұрын
Testimonies of The Evangelists by founder of Harvard Law Simone Greenleaf. This may help you in your quest. www.newhumanityinstitute.org/pdf-articles/Simon-Greenleaf-Testimony-of-the-Evangelists.pdf
@gfujigo
Ай бұрын
Atheism is irrelevant to reality given your description. We theists are focused on understanding reality by looking at the evidence from human experience and drawing rational conclusions from the evidence. Since atheism is not true or not, it is irrelevant. The fact is God is the only explanation of reality. Period.
@christopher_ecclestone
Ай бұрын
Is this the Transcendental Arguement for God (TAG)?
@nschlaak
Ай бұрын
I enjoyed this segment very much, and I thank you for producing it
@AspiringChristian
Ай бұрын
I enjoyed producing it. Thanks for watching!
@rtgskating8220
Ай бұрын
@@AspiringChristian Why did you delete all of trumpbellends comments ? He was polite and presented sound arguments. I thought truth matters to you but it seems you prefer an echo chamber of your views . Perhaps you will ghost my question also, that would tell me all I need to know about your moral integrity or lack of
@Zachre3000
Ай бұрын
God bless you
@galatician8063
Ай бұрын
Atheism is highly illogical. Also, thanks for making this video! Well done!
@kymdickman8910
Ай бұрын
Welcome to the family! 👏🏽
@nomore6939
Ай бұрын
I don't think I have ever listened to such nonsense. You don't need to be religious to be moral. Of course rape is wrong. I don't believe in any God but I know rape,murder etc are wrong ..... And yet, in a so called christian society such as America, Holy Joes condone execution. No one ever went to war in the name of Atheism. I don't spend hours in chat groups talking about not believing in a God no more than people sit in chat groups pondering over the existence of Santa Claus, I simply don't believe in a God, but I have morals because I was taught right from wrong, no man in the sky was involved.
@maplebrooklne
Ай бұрын
The point he's making is that none-subjective morality and atheism are not compatible concepts. Moral high ground without a higher moral authority is not a logical argument. Cops don't arrest criminals because of opinion, they do so because state or national laws give them authority to arrest people if state or national laws are broken, so they are on a higher law ground. Atheists might recognize man-made laws, but do not make a logical case for not hurting other humans if they will not be punished under man-made laws.
@onceamusician5408
Ай бұрын
atheism goes to nihilism end of story. i was a teenage nihilist back in the 1970's because of this (I am now 65) and this logic i have never repudiated in the 46 years since. But God had other ideas. though the logic of my opening assertion is sound the implicit claim of FACT - that there is no God - was and is FALSE. A Damascus Road conversion back in 1978 when i was 19 was how God started the process of changing my mind but because no one puts away attitudes simply on converting to Christ, this took time
@christopheespic
Ай бұрын
Where is the stunning discovery???
@AspiringChristian
Ай бұрын
5:00
@rtgskating8220
Ай бұрын
Why did you delete all of trumpbellends comments ? He was polite and presented sound arguments. I thought truth matters to you but it seems you prefer an echo chamber of your views . Perhaps you will ghost my question also, that would tell me all I need to know about your moral integrity or lack of
@gsquat
Ай бұрын
I wish you could talk to my son... 😔
@jerryjohnson9531
Ай бұрын
Same with me. My son used to be a Christian but turned his back on God in college. He is still fairly open to conversations about the Bible but I fall short on answering his questions.
@AspiringChristian
Ай бұрын
I was somebody’s son who became an atheist for 5 years. (Ages 18-23) .. late youth, early 20s, it’s common for people to leave the faith. I think for most, someone or something brings them back.
@jpix96
Ай бұрын
Please, read 1e Peter entirely!!! 😄 (which is a small Bible letter!) 😬 Read it at least 4 to 5 days in a row!!! 🕊️❤️😇 You will know why i suggested it when you read it. For God has already given a answer for your struggle!!! 🕊️❤️😇
@stevenbatke2475
Ай бұрын
What objective moral standard exists in Christianity?
@jessebryant9233
Ай бұрын
You can start with the 10 Commandments of Exodus 20.
@stevenbatke2475
Ай бұрын
@@jessebryant9233 are they objective?
@jessebryant9233
Ай бұрын
@@stevenbatke2475 Do you have an objection of some kind? If so, according to whose or what standard? There is one of the 10 that isn't moral in nature...
@tombrown7654
Ай бұрын
No Such Thing As An ''Atheist'' = ROMANS 1:18-32
@naturalbornhillbillies6138
Ай бұрын
Something about this reminds me of Paul Harvey.
@gemmo
Ай бұрын
When do you make a "from religion to atheism" series?
@jessebryant9233
Ай бұрын
Technically, atheism (and secular humanism) are religions.
@gemmo
Ай бұрын
@@jessebryant9233 in which universe do you live? Atheism rejects what religions fail to prove
@jessebryant9233
Ай бұрын
@@gemmo In the one where dictionaries matter and people aren't completely ignorant of the Supreme Court ruling...
@gemmo
Ай бұрын
@@jessebryant9233 you must be alone in your universe. Do you care to demonstrate how "I dont believe your god claim" is a religion?
@jessebryant9233
Ай бұрын
@@gemmo So more snarks, denying the obvious, refusing to educate yourself, and strawmanning? Sadly, you're are NOT alone in the universe. Lots of "woke" folks "think" [sic] like you do.
@matthewsandy4118
Ай бұрын
Amen brother!
@Lavklumpen
Ай бұрын
"Rape is wrong, but that is just my opinion". The problem you made is inserting the "but" there. Instead, say: »I believe rape is wrong.« If someone then says that they believe it is right, ask them for their reasons. If they don't produce anything valid, you don't have to stand back if they demand to be left alone when committing this crime. I don't really see the need for an objective morality here?
@b.c6688
Ай бұрын
Well that's because the purpose of the question isn't just about is it right or wrong, it's to figure out how you ground the viewpoint. So, even if you say I believe r**e is wrong, then the follow up isn't to take an opposite viewpoint, it's to simply ask why. You have to justify the statement, otherwise it is just an opinion. If you admit its an opinion then the opposite opinion is equally valid, but people rarely think that is the case when dealing with this topic. While I do believe in objective morality, at this level of the thought experiment/argument, the point is to test for a grounding principle. Why is the statement true? If the principle doesn't properly ground the statement in reality, then it is an insufficient principle and the statement is no longer true, placing us either in the realm of opinion or lies. So, either both positions on: I believe r is wrong are equally valid, or at worst the position I believe r is good becomes true. Point being, you need a grounding principle for your world view.
@b.c6688
Ай бұрын
@@seanpierce9386 To your first point, thats a bit of a poor standard. There are some life saving procedures that cause pain. So are doctors not suppose to save people's lives because it will cause them pain? Whether or not something hurts somebody doesn't dictate if something is right or wrong. Ex, someone is going through anaphalactic shock due to a severe allergic reaction. They don't have an epipen on hand and none are available. Luckily there is a doctor present that knows how to perform a triacheatemy that could give the patient enough time to get to a nearby hospital before there throat seizes and closes shut. This procedure will hurt them, but it has a chance to save there life. Should the doctor operate knowing that this procedure will cause pain, even though this procedure can possible save the individuals life? I hope we can agree that saving the persons life at the expense of a bit of pain is worth it. Whether or not something is painful doesn't dictate correct action. I agree that we shouldn't cause pain, but if that is the fundamental basis for a moral system then it quickly becomes relative and in order to remain intellectually consistent one must admit that the opposite action is equally valid. To the second part of your first point. Why should anybody agree with anybody else? I propose that we all collectively agree that I get special treatment over every other individual in the world. Do you agree with this, if not then why? Isn't the onus for us all to agree. Again, I'm not saying your wrong for wanting human agreement and to lessen pain and suffering. This is a good thing, but your foundation isn't sustainable for these ideals. I have given a proposition for us to come into agreement over, if you do not agree to give me special treatment above all other human beings you will cause me great harm. Should you therefore capitulate to my unreasonable demands simply because your standard is agree and don't cause harm? Or should you go against your standard because I am unreasonable and am in the wrong. The problem now becomes if you go against your standard then you must admit that your standard is relative, this puts it in the realm of opinion. If your subjective standard is don't cause harm and my standard is to cause harm these are just differentiating opinions. My standard isn't right, your standard isn't right. My standard isn't wrong, you're standard isn't wrong. It's just relative. My standard works for me your standard works for you. But, if you stick with your standard, then you must allow me to disenfranchise you, which I think we can both agree isn't a good thing either. Now, you would have to say that this standard of don't cause pain and simply agree isn't a good standard to judge moral actions by. Well, if you cherry pick any text that is fallacious. Remember the whole point is to come into accordance with truth, with reality. Reality is logical, cherry picking is fallacious and illogical. So, you would objectively be wrong to cherry pick from any text because that is a fallacious illogical means to derive truth from. It doesn't comport with reality. You must read in context and decide if the evidence supports the best probabilistic view of reality/truth. No, you can not justify any action. The Bible makes a truth claim, John 14:6. Jesus claims to be the truth, claiming to be the ultimate source for reality, reason, objectivity, logic, etc. So, I am not allowed to justify anything, instead my actions must be justified by the ultimate source of reality. If my actions don't align with that source I am living in an illogical, harmful, chaotic manner. For example, Jesus says love your enemies and also says love your neighbor as you love yourself. He also tells you what love is and how you are to love. Standards are given and we test the standards to see if they are good standards, just like we did with the standards you put forth. So, if I don't love my enemies or my neighbor (neighbor is just anyone that isn't you) then I am outside of the standard that was set. That would be my own shortcomings. If the standards that God gave are insufficient, then you would have an argument, but you must first showcase that the standards god gives are insufficient, using proper context of course. We can't cherry pick, I think we can both agree that cherry picking is a fallacy.
@b.c6688
Ай бұрын
@@seanpierce9386 To your first point, thats a bit of a poor standard. There are some life saving procedures that cause pain. So are doctors not suppose to save people's lives because it will cause them pain? Whether or not something hurts somebody doesn't dictate if something is right or wrong. Ex, someone is going through anaphalactic shock due to a severe allergic reaction. They don't have an epipen on hand and none are available. Luckily there is a doctor present that knows how to perform a triacheatemy that could give the patient enough time to get to a nearby hospital before there throat seizes and closes shut. This procedure will hurt them, but it has a chance to save there life. Should the doctor operate knowing that this procedure will cause pain, even though this procedure can possible save the individuals life? I hope we can agree that saving the persons life at the expense of a bit of pain is worth it. Whether or not something is painful doesn't dictate correct action. I agree that we shouldn't cause pain, but if that is the fundamental basis for a moral system then it quickly becomes relative and in order to remain intellectually consistent one must admit that the opposite action is equally valid. To the second part of your first point. Why should anybody agree with anybody else? I propose that we all collectively agree that I get special treatment over every other individual in the world. Do you agree with this, if not then why? Isn't the onus for us all to agree. Again, I'm not saying your wrong for wanting human agreement and to lessen pain and suffering. This is a good thing, but your foundation isn't sustainable for these ideals. I have given a proposition for us to come into agreement over, if you do not agree to give me special treatment above all other human beings you will cause me great harm. Should you therefore capitulate to my unreasonable demands simply because your standard is agree and don't cause harm? Or should you go against your standard because I am unreasonable and am in the wrong. The problem now becomes if you go against your standard then you must admit that your standard is relative, this puts it in the realm of opinion. If your subjective standard is don't cause harm and my standard is to cause harm these are just differentiating opinions. My standard isn't right, your standard isn't right. My standard isn't wrong, you're standard isn't wrong. It's just relative. My standard works for me your standard works for you. But, if you stick with your standard, then you must allow me to disenfranchise you, which I think we can both agree isn't a good thing either. Now, you would have to say that this standard of don't cause pain and simply agree isn't a good standard to judge moral actions by. Well, if you cherry pick any text that is fallacious. Remember the whole point is to come into accordance with truth, with reality. Reality is logical, cherry picking is fallacious and illogical. So, you would objectively be wrong to cherry pick from any text because that is a fallacious illogical means to derive truth from. It doesn't comport with reality. You must read in context and decide if the evidence supports the best probabilistic view of reality/truth. No, you can not justify any action. The Bible makes a truth claim, John 14:6. Jesus claims to be the truth, claiming to be the ultimate source for reality, reason, objectivity, logic, etc. So, I am not allowed to justify anything, instead my actions must be justified by the ultimate source of reality. If my actions don't align with that source I am living in an illogical, harmful, chaotic manner. For example, Jesus says love your enemies and also says love your neighbor as you love yourself. He also tells you what love is and how you are to love. Standards are given and we test the standards to see if they are good standards, just like we did with the standards you put forth. So, if I don't love my enemies or my neighbor (neighbor is just anyone that isn't you) then I am outside of the standard that was set. That would be my own shortcomings. If the standards that God gave are insufficient, then you would have an argument, but you must first showcase that the standards god gives are insufficient, using proper context of course. We can't cherry pick, I think we can both agree that cherry picking is a fallacy.
@b.c6688
Ай бұрын
@@seanpierce9386 To the point about compromise and agreement. My example still stands. What I want is for everyone to treat me better than everyone else, if this doesn't occur and you do not agree to create a world in which this is possible, then you have contributed to causing me pain. Should you make concessions in order to make this a reality for me? Or should you allow me to suffer this pain so that the entire world doesn't have to inconvenience themselves for my sake? What is the morally right decision to make? I don't think you should, nor any other person should claim to have objective truth, because no one is the possessor of truth. In order to have objective truth one would need to be divine. I didn't introduce John 14:6 as an objective truth, I introduced it as a claim. It is a truth claim, the same as your truth claim. You claim people shouldn't cause harm and people should agree, is your claim true? Jesus claims that he is the truth, is this claim true? There is a difference between claiming something and providing evidence to showcase the probability that the claim is actually true. Again, I didn't say this is objectively true, I didn't even say that it is true. I simply said this is a claim. Also, I believe that we should test all claims, or as many as we are logically able to anyways. In terms of john, he aligns with the rest of the Synoptics and the Synoptics align with the old testament teachings. I have talked to plenty of Muslims, I just use logic, the same way I'm using logic in this conversation. Lastly, I didn't cherry pick anything. The cherry picking fallacy is when only evidence supporting an argument is presented, while contradictory evidence is ignored. Jesus makes a claim, I am the way the truth the life, anyone who wishes to get to the father must go through me. This is a claim, how is it cherry picked? You would have to show in the bible where Jesus contradicts this claim by saying something like I am not the way the truth or the light, you dont have to go through me to get to the father. If you show me that verse then I admit that this was cherry picked. Also you haven't answered the question of what makes your standard true. If you don't think it's true then it is just an opinion. There's nothing wrong with that, but you can't really take the moral high ground when someone dare goes against your moral opinion. Again, its right back in the realm of what works for you works for you, and what works for me works for me. Whatever stance you take on an issue you have to recognize that the opposite stance is just as valid, even if you disagree with it. That person might disagree with you, so who should capitulate the position?
@b.c6688
Ай бұрын
@@seanpierce9386 I hear what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing with the concept. These are great attributes for understanding morality but I disagree that they are the fundamental principles. Like the first paragraph just Begs the question, what makes a request equal in value with another request, and who is the one that has that say so? Like if I'm in charge: or you, or any other person. And they determine that person A's request is valuable but person B's request is not valuable; what gives that person the right to decide that. Also, how is that fair to each individual? It would seem like they are appealing to an arbitrary standard. Should standards be arbitrary or should they be rational and reasonable. If they should be rational and reasonable, then what is rationality and what is reasonability and who defines this? It doesn't seem like we are getting at the root of morality, we are just describing how we would like it to be instead of understanding what it actually is. If my language is bad thats on me. Let me try again. So, if I justify reality, then I create my own reality and any action taken by me, I can justify it because I am the ultimate standard for my own reality. But, if I am justified by reality, then I must be in accordance with reality for any action that I take to be objectively right or wrong. It is on each individual to be in alignment with reality, not for each individual to distort reality for their own benefit. Thats the general concept I'm trying to communicate. Thats not what I was saying, again if I was confusing I apologize. I was accusing myself of being chaotic if I fail to get in line with reality. For example, schizophrenia. When you can't distinguish between reality and your own imagination, your actions can become irrational, chaotic or your fundamental understanding of reality is less trustworthy. That doesn't mean you are a bad person, it doesn't even mean that you will behave chaotically or irrationally, but the probability increases for sporadic behavior when there are medical issues concerning mental states. it just means that your perception's on the world you live in and your own imaginations intermingle at times, making it more probable that your understanding of reality is less reliable than someone else who doesn't have that issue. A similar example is like magic tricks. A coin disappears and reappears right in front of our eyes. We both agree that things don't just appear and disappear in reality/ the natural world. But, if I dont know that and a coin magically appears and disappears, what's stopping an alligator from just appearing in front of me and eating me. Is that a possibility, yes. But, its not probable within the naturalistic framework of reality we ultimately trust to be true. If I cant differentiate between an optical illusion and reality, then people should be less trusting of my ability to comprehend what is real and true. I'm not trying to suggest that in the right context god cannot be wrong. I simply said that God made a claim, and that we should test that claim. I wouldn't necessarily say its the same but I think I know what you're getting at. But first we must establish if anything at all can be objectively true. The laws of logic for example are objectively true in all possible worlds and realities. One of the laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. A and not A cannot both be equally true in the same way. So, something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. Whether its in this world or another hypothetical world. If something exists, then it exists, irregardless of human perception. This is important because it showcases that the laws of logic are not only immaterial but also outside of the human mind, as in we didn't invent the laws of logic. We discovered them. They exist and we adhere to this objective law whether we want to or not, even if we aren't aware of it, it's an objective absolute all things adhere to. Now, I agree with the color example that shapes, forms and even certain concepts can be relative. But if there is an objective standard, then it is on us to figure out the proper way to place concepts like morality in the correct category. Just because you show there is relativity in the world doesn't make everything relative. The same way that if I can show something is objective doesn't make everything objective. Lastly, if we miscategorize something like placing a relative standard into an objective framework then thats not in line with reality and it would be illogical to do so and will inevitably lead to absurdity and chaos. This is also the case for me and my position. So, we need to figure out what category morality belongs in. Obviously I think it is in the category of objectivity. Thats all I'm trying to convey. I don't have a problem with how you explain morality or how you adhere to it. I agree with a lot of it, I just think these things shouldn't be the fundamental grounding principles for morality. Because again, if I want people to treat me better than everyone else should you just agree with me and allow this to happen so you don't cause me pain? And if so, why are you the moral authority. If you disagree why are you the moral authority? Thats my only point, how do you ground morality and why is the way you ground it true. The same question applies to me. I ground morality in truth. I believe there is sufficient evidence to showcase that the world we live in (on a scale of probability) is ultimately real. I also believe that there is sufficient evidence that the claim that Jesus made is also true (probabalistically speaking. You can't know anything 100 percent. But some things can be more certain than others in my opinion). But that was the only point. Also I don't know what you mean by our morality, what is our morality. For humans to have a morality that would be an objective thing, at least as I understand it. .anyways man I ain't trynna take up ya whole day. Just was curious about your thought process. Feel free to respond, would love to hear your answers. Hope you give this some more thought and I'll think on your understanding of morality some more as well.
@Shawn-q3x
Ай бұрын
Jesus said the Lord our God is one (Mark 12:29): The scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35); true believers know that Jesus Christ has the mind of God, and we have the mind of Christ by the Holy Spirit. There are no “three persons of God;” only God the Father’s power and spirit lives in many. Those who do not follow the words of Jesus Christ will be led astray from God’s truth. God’s word cannot be speculated as most do when they read scripture; it was written for us to understand only through the Holy Spirit. For example, Isaiah 9:6 appears to most that Jesus is the everlasting Father, but it is a prophecy of what mankind would call him. As it is written, there is only one God (Isaiah 45:5, John 17:3) and He remains in heaven just as Jesus has said. There is only one Lord God, and only Lord and Savior-we *_must_* know them both (1 Corinthians 8:6).
@momchilpetrov5518
Ай бұрын
There is literally NO way that there is no God!
@zyxwfish
20 күн бұрын
@@momchilpetrov5518 only the God of the Bible is true.
@momchilpetrov5518
20 күн бұрын
@@zyxwfish But there is NO other God than the God of the Bible!
@MarcWilliams-v9w
Ай бұрын
A tough way to get to Jesus, but good for him for admitting the atheistic "big ego."
@oldseer7610
Ай бұрын
The true meaning of Christianity returns, not JC personally. It starts here. The proper understanding that biblical creation is of spiritual nature, not material nature has been discovered. Biblical creation is metaphors for psychological factors not material and is the creation of Adam. THE SECOND COMING OF CHRISTIANITY. (sequence) I will send you Elijah before the great day of the lord.(the nutball has arrived. 1 The entrance of Elijah the messenger. Embodied in the knowledge of the Old Seers. 2 Christianity as present of the world is proven false. 3 The world falls into disbelief. 4 The world mostly takes on the new knowledge. 5 Governments are removed or become inert. 2 camps are created one good-the greater number falls away. 6 The good leave the cities, go into hiding for safety. 7 End time arrives. The evil with no governance destroy their own kind. (by the hand of man will man's blood be shed) 8 Proper Christianity remains. e
@martinlag1
Ай бұрын
It is big of you to admit you failed to justify morality. Atheists have a moral code. Sadly, you had to convert to theism to find one. The existence of metaphysics (logic. maths) doesn't prove God either. What a load of baloney you have presented here. Atheism does not mean I reject logic or morality or mathematics and the will to live. You might have been an ateist. You have never been a critical thinker.
@pmac_
Ай бұрын
Once you realised God must exist, why did you assume he was good and not neutral. Did not this assumption come from your inbuilt conscience and sense of morality?
@renierramirez9534
26 күн бұрын
Good question. Why. Because you need a ground above matter consciousness is not an emerging property of matter because is inmaterial.
@rtgskating8220
Ай бұрын
Why did you delete all of trumpbellends comments ? He was polite and presented sound arguments. I thought truth matters to you but it seems you prefer an echo chamber of your views . Perhaps you will ghost my question also, that would tell me all I need to know about your moral integrity or lack of
@jessebryant9233
Ай бұрын
The world will become a very crazy place when atheists recognize that this is true... and choose to live accordingly. Only God will be able to help us once that happens.
@russellh1964
Ай бұрын
I appreciate this video very much. I’m interested in cosmology and astrophysics, I find there’s numerous scientists who have moved from atheism to at least deism because of the weight of the space time theorems.
@MrHPT3
Ай бұрын
I use this argument with atheist all the time. Some laugh at it. Some can't understand it. While others can't give me an answer or jump to some other comment, usually having something to do with how evil they think God is for doing such and such in the Bible. Like you, it was logic and reason that lead me to Christ. Atheism is absurd.
@gardnert1
Ай бұрын
You've never seen your own brain, so why believe you have one?
@colincomber8027
Ай бұрын
People don't leave atheism, anymore than they join atheism.
@AspiringChristian
Ай бұрын
Interesting. I left atheism. I no longer went to atheist chat rooms or atheist forums or obsessively promoted atheism while attacking opposing views. I completely abandoned the point of view. &inb4 “atheism is just the lack of belief in a God” because if that’s all it was then it wouldn’t animate the rest of your life experience. There wouldn’t be atheist forums and blogs, atheist ‘churches’, atheist seminars, atheist activist events etc. Functionally, atheism is an ideology. Hence people can leave it. I assure you then if/when you leave it you’ll no longer cling to a facade that it is not an ideology.
Пікірлер: 125