Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@CrossExamined says : FREE Download of sermon I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist!: 👉📱https://cutt.ly/cInI1eo>> <<@ptango101 says : Of course you can have morals without subscribing to a religious ideology. In fact I would postulate that religious and religious acting ideologies are the direct opposite to being a moral human being. You are more likely to commit crimes against humanity if you are neck deep in these fantasies for adults>> <<@kwokleongawyong1064 says : What is evil? What is the definition?>> <<@kwokleongawyong1064 says : Can you imprison a lion killing zebra?>> <<@kwokleongawyong1064 says : Terrorists well beings?>> <<@alejandrojoselizano says : I defy god here and now.>> <<@PhilosophywithProfessorParsons says : Even if moral naturalism is false, it doesn’t follow that God is necessary for there to be facts about moral obligation>> <<@happybeejv says : Deuteronomy 22 13-21 Deuteronomy 22 28-29>> <<@piijay14 says : In a Nutshell the answer is "NO! Bible says "All have sinned and have fallen short..."-Romans 3:23.>> <<@piijay14 says : Bless his heart! This Kat tried his best to explain Morality without God! Doesn't work!>> <<@TimLeBlancProduction says : Since Frank wanted to bring up Hitler as if that's the moral standard of atheists in the world, let's make sure he gets his history straight. Hitler used the Bible and manipulated Christians through propaganda (much like the anti LGBTQ propaganda we see today) to give the moral argument that God wanted christians to wipe out Jews AND HOMOSEXUALS. God being the being of pure goodness is the ultimate definition of morality. But the BIBLE IS NOT. For the Bible has been used to kill millions of people all in the name of God. In fact, the Pope even gave crusaders the moral approval to rape, kill, and steal without any sin. The problem that the church doesn't understand is that the Bible was written by man during a time of great hard ship and lawlessness. The Bible tells us that it's 100% Gods words... but then again... it's speaking for God. That's like me saying God told me I'm right and you're wrong. Sure some people will believe it but does that actually make it from God? What if the Bible wasn't from God at all? Even Jesus warned the Pharisees that they made a mockery of Gods word. Not because they didn't follow it but because they used it as a weapon against everyone. This is why Jesus says "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". The point is morality may be defined by God, but if you define it by the Bible then you give radical people the rights to use Lev. to kill homosexuals. It means women shouldn't be in your house when they are on their period. No shrimp or mixed clothing. This is why Jesus calls us to love one another. Do good to those who persecute you, bless those who cure you. When we continue to base morality on the bible we judge in harsh ways that a God of love and goodness could not morally agree with. Jesus tells us to look past ones sins and don't judge them less you'd be judged. Turn the other cheek for if you do on to others as they would have them to unto you, you will find the morality built into this universe. Karma will come back to haunt you when you do wrong. Even Hitler and Stalin thought they could get away with it yet, they did not. Their evil ways did catch up to them and they died miserable and alone.>> <<@dobr4481 says : Given that the God of the Bible was never 'good' to begin with, being a genocidal despot who endorses rape, murder, incest & sundry other atrocities, what makes any thinking person think that's where our morality comes from? 'Doing the right thing' as goodness might be called is both innate ( we observe it in the animal kingdom as they care for their offspring & avoid unnecessarily harming other animals ) & taught to us by our forebears, dependent of course on how they were treated themselves & the prevailing attitudes of the time ( what was considered 'right or just' 100 years ago may not be considered so today ). You see, it's simple, stop overthinking the obvious in order to make your irrational beliefs fit. Do you honestly believe that the 95% atheist nation of China has no moral compass? How then do you explain their by capita low crime rate? Say what you like about these Godless Communists, they behave in a more dignified manner than the average Evangelical Trump rally audience with their bigotry, intolerance, aggression & hostility towards anyone they disagree with. No, I'm afraid the average American Christian is not a good yardstick by which to measure a moral person, any more than a muslim or jew is. Immoral yes, moral no. The actions of the conspicuously religious speak far louder than their pious & insincere words.>> <<@geraldbennett7035 says : Amazingly, the questioner thinks people are good and if you are nice to people we dont need God.>> <<@natasharostova5186 says : there is an argument that claims that morality was acquired through social adaptation and therefore, learned, and not bestowed upon us by some higher being. How would you counter that?>> <<@trumpbellend6717 says : Actually you DO get morality from biology>> <<@paulhudson4254 says : Nice people go to Hell all the time! Read the book (Bible) it will tell you what you must do! Not YouTube! 🌺✝️🌺>> <<@davidplummer2473 says : The problem with goodness being part of the natural world is that the natural world doesn't recognize it. Naturalism offers no basis for the idea that human lives are valuable, or even a basis for the concept of value itself being anything more than wishful thinking or make-believe. This is because if you reduce humans to just so much matter and energy, then matter and energy is all there is, and there is nothing to either praise or condemn about atoms and molecules bumping into each other. So if there is no God, all discussions about morality are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.>> <<@Mr512austintexas says : Frank Turek's arguments are consistently circular and self-annihilating. "If Stalin can get away with doing evil to others but not have anybody do evil to him, why should he not do evil to others? People get away with it all the time ..." begs the question: Who created Stalin, Frank? "God", right?>> <<@KevJJ888 says : By this rationale, shouldn't everyone who believes in god be moral?>> <<@JasonGreen-jt5qt says : Nature established morality by being the first thing we hand to band together for against. We survived the dark by working together. Sometimes against. For survival. We dont have much to survive against now in most rich countries. One can easily go about life doing nothing now.>> <<@slowster2945 says : Would have really liked to hear that last bit all the way.....>> <<@landonpontius2478 says : What Turek does not seem to understand is that morality is a system of value, and ALL value stems from subjective experience. God cannot decree what is valuable if it doesn't align with what we experience. But this doesn't mean that moral truth has to be purely subjective. It is INTERSUBJECTIVE because it is a social system rather than an individual one. If Turek took the time to think through how value operates, he would see that this obsession with "objectivity" is meaningless. We have (and do) have moral truth that is both binding and valuable for everyone without imposing "god" on the equation.>> <<@kleenex3000 says : NOMINALIST here.... Is-ness (exist *ence)* and ought-ness (importance, relevance, necessity, dueness ie duty, and in latin, the debit) - each is imaginary = NO-thing. Each is merely - elicited, made up, fabricvated FROM/ABOUT... - assigned, ascribed, attributed TO... ... SOME-thing = the exist-ING. Dr.Frank Turek does not understand that Mr.David Hume's assertion {OF=objectizing} a problem is real, but the being asserted, ie the problem, it is, like is- and ought-ness, imaginary. I can debate Mr.Turek annihilatingly, but I have already found out, he is shielding himself from the written discourse.>> <<@RobertSmith-gx3mi says : Yes you can have a good set of ethics and morals without believing In the existence of a mass murdering pro slavery character in a book with its own subjective morality.>> <<@ericwantsbbd says : Can’t get an “ought” from God. God is a construct on one’s mind. If we remove god, it doesn’t change the structure of morals. We have have an anchor in what ever our society teaches us to believe. Dude loves Nazis, but if Nazis won, we’d have a different morality than we do today. I’m sure he’d be happy to tell us, in another timeline, that god is objective and that killing people Nazis disapprove of is good. Moral relativity is easy. It’s just hard to accept because it can )and does( lead to bad outcomes. Life is messy.>> <<@igotstoknow2 says : All atheists support one or more anti-God lifestyles, therefore, atheists unrepentantly produce evil directly or indirectly. God's objective morality promotes God-honoring good. Atheists' subjective morality effectively promotes evil - at a minimum, the evil of encouraging others to move away from God and His salvation.>> <<@JamesRichardWiley says : As a 75 year old atheist I continue to live a responsible life because I prefer living this way.>> <<@nickma71 says : Right and wrong are not a point of view. There is no reason to address as is. Visit the former battle ground of Theologyonline if you think the devil makes that point.>> <<@NewCreationInChrist896 says : 1 John 3:7-8 “Little children (believers, dear ones), do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who practices righteousness [the one who strives to live a consistently honorable life--in private as well as in public--and to conform to God’s precepts] is righteous, just as He is righteous. “The one who practices sin [separating himself from God, and offending Him by acts of disobedience, indifference, or rebellion] is of the devil [and takes his inner character and moral values from him, not God]; for the devil has sinned and violated God’s law from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. .”>> <<@johnharrison6745 says : Seems like a nice, sincere guy... I'll answer in kind: Sure; it's *POSSIBLE* for one to believe that god doesn't exist, and, have a basic sense of decency, and a desire to live accordingly [I was one of those]; but, his 'ethics' are going to be very incomplete/ill-informed, and, he'll have far less incentive to live his life according-to those ethics and his desire for decency. [i.e., look at the way that most of the vocal atheists of today behave: a bunch of whiny, pretentious, spiteful, hedonistic smugness-dripping pseudo-intellectuals, whose "ideal" world amounts-to a combination of Woodstock, "Sod um" & "Go more uh", and Berkeley]>> <<@Dave_Langer says : Of course you can. If fact my morals are better than the god of the bibles.>> <<@sunnyjohnson992 says : Almighty God alone is the standard for what is good. Only He has the sovereign right to determine what’s good and what’s bad. That includes his high moral standards for us to stay clean physically and spiritually.>> <<@Tom-j4v7f says : Frank says he doesn't see any way to get an "ought" from nature. But all the "oughts" we know about come from nature, and Turek cannot show that any "ought" comes from any "god". Our morality is dictated by nothing beyond our genetic predispositions and our environmental conditioning.>> <<@heyjoe113 says : 1:39 The very fact that Stalin did what he did proves that he was not in the least afraid of not getting away with it. He simply took God out of the equation and did what he wanted. Just like all criminals do. Nobody commits a crime because he fears getting caught. The exact opposite is the case. And without the fear of a higher authority, you don't even have to have a guilty conscience. The question is, where is Stalin now? Where are Mao and Hitler and all their henchmen? Where is their empire and their power and all that they amassed in their short lifetimes. Through history, where are all these "great" men now? What were they able to take with them in the end?>> <<@Syrin23 says : Do good morals matter? Good deeds can't get us into Heaven so bad deeds can't keep us out.>> <<@ganymedkallisto5561 says : What if Stalin and Hitler had truly repented and accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior? Would they have gotten away with all the evil things they did?>> <<@bojrgensen7965 says : What makes one person think his Gods' morals are better than an other mans Gods?>> <<@griesburner says : i disagree. from a spiritual perspective you KNOW whats right or wrong if you arent disabled emotionaly. most of us just ignore this feeling. but be honest. doing something bad to others feels bad. serving others or making others happy makes us happy too. so there doesnt have to be a "personal god" . just cosmic laws. and the law is simple: you get what you give. if your unconscioius and do bad things and "think" it feels good its cause your not conscious of it cause you have a lot of trauma and are numbed. so stalin for example appeared unaffected by his crimes but only because he was so disconnected from his essence or soul . but with all his crimes he just hurt himself. after he dies he can realize this and this is called "hell" when he suddenly can see all he did wrong. that would be my explanation from a sliritual perspective that would consists of cosmic laws and no "personal god" lile in the bible but a kind of higher intelligence you COULD call god - but not for moral standards - for connecting to your self and throgh hightend awarenes realising that you are connected to all surroundings - so that you hurt yourself by hurting others vice versa. that would be the "natural" moral law. but not only considering biology. adding cosmic laws to it.>> <<@DanaKot336 says : Very simple: Can a BABY be born "Evil" ? - NO The baby must go though some kind of trauma/pain and teachings of evil/Lack of empathy in order to grow and act as an immoral being. Can a Baby know Empathy ? - Also NO. He must be shown empathy, from his parents, how to give empathy and to receive. A baby is born CLEAN SLATE. For Example : When a toddler is curious and touches and hits his mother in order to receive a reaction of attention from her and to see what's happening - Does that mean he's a bad toddler or an evil one ? - NO . He does not know YET what is right and wrong, he does not feel anything yet or sees the other - and here starts the job of the parent, or the mother in the case of that example, to show and explane the toddler that it is wrong because it hurts her that he hits , it makes her sad. she should take his hand and caress that place he hit. face or wherever. maybe to give a kiss on it too in order for it to go away and be healed. There for a moral person will be grown, in hope that he'll take the right path and do the right/moral descisions.>> <<@michaelmacpherson-wm6mh says : to answer the question posted yes you can have good morals without god. god exists only in the mind. Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark are two good reasons to doubt the truth of everything else in the bible>> <<@jessebbedwell says : No, you cannot have good morals without God. Simply because one does not believe in God, does not mean that they aren't a byproduct of better people who did. We continue to stand on the shoulders of giants and call ourselves tall, all along we cannot see that we are extremely deluded in our own thinking. There is no morality without God and the one who sees themselves moral apart from God will justify their own immorality and call it moral.>> <<@yenkodavi3573 says : of course you can have good morals without god!!! 😂😂😂 so dumb!!>> <<@SpottedZebra says : But there is a biological need for goodness that requires no gods. It's just an obvious fact that humanity wouldn't have gotten to where it is if everyone was Hitler. Exceptions don't make rules.>> <<@laquan3661 says : "I guess it would be rationally inconsistent" 1:52 If we are nothing more than unguided collections of pond scum, why would you expect us to contain logic? Because you we evolved by unguided process? If so, would that be a scientific claim or a faith based claim? Isn't science the knowledge gained by nothing more and nothing less than observation and experimentation; that of repeatability? If so, how then could your belief in darwinian evolution not be a faith, granted that you have neither observed or witnessed a repeatable experiment demonstrating darwinian evolution in the real world? Do you admit that atheism is a faith? If so, why do you think that atheism is more reasonable that theism? Aren't objective logic and reason immaterial realities? If not, would you do us the honor of scientifically demonstrating that objective logic and reason exist? Can you do that without presupposing that your subjective logic and reason is objective? If not, what gives you or a collective the right to own and determine what is objectively logical and reasonable for everyone else? Furthermore, would you look at pond scum and ascertain whether its logical or not? If not, why not; don't you believe that that pond scum could be a human? Wouldn't it be inconsistent to ascertain whether humans are logical or not if you don't treat pond scum the same? It wouldn't be far fetched to then talk to pond scum, would it? Do you admit that there are immaterial differences? Furthermore, are you presupposing that objective logic and reason are immaterial realities? If not, what other conclusion can you come to them that logic and reason are illusions? If they are illusions, why should we trust ourselves or you for that matter? In your worldview, isn't it futile to try to make sense of something or help others makes sense of things? All glory and honor to Jesus Christ our Lord. Praise to the Father who owns consciousness, choice, morale, logic, reason, and all of existence and rightfully so.>> <<@MACTEP_CHOB says : You don`t have to be good. You need to abide The Law>> <<@JontheBerean says : I was hoping the guy asking the question was going to realise his error, break into tears and receive Christ there and then . . . . . I did in 2005 , no regrets over 18 years later ! ❤️✝️🙏>> <<@drumrnva says : Why think health is valuable? Because I like my own health, and I assume that others have the same right to health as I do.>> <<@flyawaydeath says : The problem is, it actually never objectively benefits you to kill others, even if you DO get away with it. Do you really think that Stalin lived a happy life? Do you think he felt proud looking back on all the friends he'd stabbed in the back, all the riches he'd stolen, all the children he'd starved to death? Compare that to someone who actually deserved their success, like John D. Rockefeller. Whose life do you think was happier? Could Stalin have written, as Rockefeller did? -- "I was early taught to work as well as play; My life has been one long, happy holiday-- Full of work, and full of play-- I dropped the worry on the way-- And God was good to me every day." As for deriving an ought from an is, easy: eating sugar IS bad for you, therefore you OUGHT not eat it. You shouldn't be immoral because it's bad for you.>> <<@scovafd says : the moral argument really is the checkmate to atheism. There is no correct answer without God.>> <<@ioioiotu says : Is what god commands good because he's god, or god commands something because it's good ? First choice morals are subjective even if there is a god, second choice morals are objective even without god. Checkmate.>>