Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@CrossExamined says : FREE Download of sermon I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist!: 👉📱https://cutt.ly/cInI1eo>> <<@ashrieltanjiaen1619 says : .>> <<@Ejaezy says : I find it disturbing that Turek always says that torturing babies FOR FUN is wrong. Is he secretly saying that torturing babies without having fun is not wrong? He does know that sometimes people do bad things for (what they believe to be) good reasons right? Isn't this similar to god commanding slavery and genocide?>> <<@marvenlunn6086 says : Science theories change when proven wrong. The bible stays the same when proven wrong .>> <<@jannaswanson271 says : We live under a firmament and the Earth does not move.>> <<@LetsgoB says : Management dosgers>> <<@Spamua13 says : Theists like to pick and choose which parts of science fit into their world view but it does not work like that. The principles of science remain the same no matter the findings thus denial of results for say evolution leads to denial of the entire system. The same process that was used to hypothesize the theory of evolution was also used to discover chemistry, biology, atoms, planets, gravity, light, sound, electricity, etc.. If you say one scientific finding is false, you deny the whole process and thus are not allowed to pick and choose. The thing is science hinges on the final step in the scientific method which is to begin the process again. This means it is self checking because the entire system relies on REPLICABLE results. In this way, with new data and new findings we get closer to the truth and eventually the evidence is strong enough for us to say we have "proved" our hypothesis to be true. Theists like to point out that science has failed before and while this is true, many of the issues with science come from human error and imprecise tools. As technology advances we improve our data and again get closer to the Truths of reality. However, science and religion fundamentally can not be compared. This has to do with the problem of interaction that theists face. The classical depiction of a monotheistic god states that god is immaterial. The P.O.I. questions how can the immaterial affect that which is material? There is no satisfactory explanation by the theists that explains how anything immaterial including god can influence the physical realm. More importantly theists then like to say that god is in fact physical, however, this puts them in an even worse predicament because anything physical must be measurable. If god does exist in our physical reality yet we have not measured him, then god is just as likely to exist as a unicorn. Because neither have been observed both may exist in mythology only. As the P.O.I. prevents god from interfering with reality, ZERO technological advancements can be attributed to religion. Thus it is important to question ourselves as to what purpose or function does religion serve us? Finally I will dismantle the idea that morality can not change. As technology improves we find ourselves in new moral dilemmas that were never given commands in the bible. The bible was obviously written many years ago and thus they had no idea of the modern world. We already see a divide in interpretation of god's message for many many many different moral situations. While the majority of theists may interpret god's message to say one thing, social culture and new information could lead theists to interpret the message differently in the future. For example abortion. There is still a great divide between religious people who say it is or isnt okay. The theist could argue that regardless of interpretation god commands us to act a certain way thus the fault lies with us. The problem is we have no way to verify what is moral with god. Don't you think that it is an issue if our views of morality begin to detach from god? Why doesn't god just give us all an updated commandments list to settle whether it's okay or not so we don't have this weird grey area of morality? Now, I can hear people saying that through careful reading, meditation, and prayer over the bible text we can discover whether abortion is moral and that is our job to do so i'll choose a moral dilemma that has zero consideration in the bible. How about climate change? How about artificial intelligence? How about gene manipulation. These are all things that due to technological advancements are posing new moral considerations, yet NONE of them have been written about in the bible. Because of this, moral obligation is bound to change at least once or twice as we discover new information, but god will remain silent. One is to wonder if he never speaks is he even there?>> <<@Kenneth-ts7bp says : Things change with revelation as you state.>> <<@2l84me8 says : Science is willing to change its mind when the evidence presents itself. That’s the beauty of science. Religion remains stuck in the past and is as irrelevant and immoral today as it was back then.>> <<@harryfaber says : Morals have changed hugely since I was a boy. Now, folks, can we all agree that June is the month to venerate the Sacred Heart of Jesus?>> <<@nothingbutthetruth613 says : Lol. I already say the resurrection didn't happen so what is he talking about?>> <<@DrewTrox says : This is a total false equivalency and representation. Science is not a dogmatic belief system. It is a tool. This is like arguing between the bible and a telescope. "but the bible is a tool too" No, it's a myth. Go read the Odyssey and then read that sea voyage of Jesus. Then go research how Greek scribes were taught to write. Take a young christian scribe trained on Euhemerus and Homer and viola the gospel of Mark. Everything in the gospels is equally likely to be myth. Which makes it pretty difficult to use as evidence. If you think the resurrection happened, just wait until I tell you about Inanna, Osiris, Dionysus, and Romulus. Because I have just as much evidence for them as you do for Jesus. But Josephus…you’re kidding yourself if you think he wrote that. I love when they use them but the three women aren't that embarrassing. No, women’s testimony was ok, it is a literary device for the chiastic structure and clearly not historical. Also if you want embarrassing look at the Attis Cult.>> <<@RangerRyke says : Biblical morality is about as relative as it gets.>> <<@Ironpetals2964 says : Did anyone said bible and morality Numbers:31:17:18 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the girls, who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves>> <<@repelsteeltje310 says : All morals change/ evolve. I bet even every Christian is glad that old testament morals don't apply anymore>> <<@thierry860 says : Facts Frank's sheeps can't handle : - Resurrection never happened. - Morality evolves, just like humans. - Christianity is anything but moral.>> <<@stephenkaake7016 says : Frank, we don't need to wait 50 years, The Resurrection did not happen because Jesus did not exist, I am God, I would know Frank>> <<@backjack7068 says : Mankind is always changing. God never change.>> <<@zerosteel0123 says : Good job, brother Frank. Explained very well.>> <<@Sumtingwongbruh123 says : electron views>> <<@harryfaber says : I would love to stay and chat, but it is Sunday, and I have an appointment to keep. Across the whole world, people will be going to Churches to worship the risen Christ, who set us free from the bond of sin. The Church I will be attending is in rural France, so I will take some Euros for the collection, they do not accept Sterling. It is a recently built Church, with a tiled roof. A team of tilers did a great job on it with not one slater to be seen. Before the service, it is smart to fast but the Church understands we are not all as young as we once were, so we will not fast hard. This month, of all months, celebrate the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and pray to Him for all peoples to be enlightened and have true peace.>> <<@GSpotter63 says : Well if atheism is true and morals are based on drifting trends then yes subjective morals can change..... But if they are subjective then saying that another person's subjective morals are wrong would be logically incoherent. You can't claim moral relativism then use an objective moral statement to say that someone else is wrong. It would violate the very prmes of moral relativism.>> <<@davidross5593 says : Im the 300th like>> <<@TheSavioursServant says : Turek, truth is not a confirmation bias routine where your faith amounts to nothing more than affirming your desired beliefs to yourself. That isn't what the Bible means by faith. And truth does not change but men need to change to conform to the truth. It doesn't matter what it is. If you are not prepared to learn anything then you are no longer a disciple. And in case you didn't notice, the moral code did change in the Scriptures. "You have heard it said... But I say to you." A higher morality than before. Did you not understand him?>> <<@Papa-dopoulos says : It’s more than a little bit hubristic to consider a change in our understanding to reflect a change in the underlying truth. We didn’t change our understanding of science because gravity did a 180. Whether it’s moral, physical, or whatever else - the truth is just sitting there watching us try to reach it. Nothing changes.>> <<@seblanuz7741 says : Great job!!! God bless you all! :D>> <<@williamhutcheson6511 says : The question keeps recurring. Does our morality arises from our mighty cerebrations or the Almighty's impartations? I think/believe/live the latter but have no fist-on-the-table proof of it.>> <<@thatomofolo452 says : 🤔🤔🤔>> <<@gorillaz_jbi says : Moral relativism is more easily understood in comparison to moral absolutism. Absolutism claims that morality relies on universal principles (natural law, conscience). Christian absolutists believe that God is the ultimate source of our common morality, and that it is, therefore, as unchanging as He is. Moral relativism asserts that morality is not based on any absolute standard. Rather, ethical “truths” depend on variables such as the situation, culture, one’s feelings, etc. Several things can be said of the arguments for moral relativism which demonstrate their dubious nature. First, while many of the arguments used in the attempt to support relativism might sound good at first, there is a logical contradiction inherent in all of them because they all propose the “right” moral scheme—the one we all ought to follow. But this itself is absolutism. Second, even so-called relativists reject relativism in most cases. They would not say that a murderer or rapist is free from guilt so long as he did not violate his own standards. Relativists may argue that different values among different cultures show that morals are relative to different people. But this argument confuses the actions of individuals (what they do) with absolute standards (whether they should do it). If culture determines right and wrong, how could we have judged the Nazis? After all, they were only following their culture’s morality. Only if murder is universally wrong were the Nazis wrong. The fact that they had “their morality” does not change that. Further, although many people have different practices of morality, they still share a common morality. For instance, abortionists and anti-abortionists agree that murder is wrong, but they disagree on whether abortion is murder. So, even here, absolute universal morality is shown to be true. Some claim that changing situations make for changing morality—in different situations different acts are called for that might not be right in other situations. But there are three things by which we must judge an act: the situation, the act, and the intention. For example, we can convict someone of attempted murder (intent) even if they fail (act). So situations are part of the moral decision, for they set the context for choosing the specific moral act (the application of universal principles). The main argument relativists appeal to is that of tolerance. They claim that telling someone their morality is wrong is intolerant, and relativism tolerates all views. But this is misleading. First of all, evil should never be tolerated. Should we tolerate a rapist’s view that women are objects of gratification to be abused? Second, it is self-defeating because relativists do not tolerate intolerance or absolutism. Third, relativism cannot explain why anyone should be tolerant in the first place. The very fact that we should tolerate people (even when we disagree) is based on the absolute moral rule that we should always treat people fairly—but that is absolutism again! In fact, without universal moral principles there can be no goodness. The fact is that all people are born with a conscience, and we all instinctively know when we have been wronged or when we have wronged others. We act as though we expect others to recognize this as well. Even as children we knew the difference between “fair” and “unfair.” It takes bad philosophy to convince us that we are wrong and that moral relativism is true.>> <<@StruckDownNotDestroyed says : Scientifically speaking, if this is the planet of the apes, there is no higher objective moral standard and your "feelings" are no reason for me to not say or do anything. Right and wrong mean nothing when they're ever changing and are totally subjective in nature. Only God who created all things and remains as every generation passes away has the authority to set that standard and He will judge all by it.>> <<@UgliestManOnEarth-69 says : Yes. Morality IS subjective after all.>> <<@mikeramos91 says : Science tells you what does happen, it doesn’t tell you what should happen. Science has nothing to say about morals>> <<@jeffphelps1355 says : Is it healthy for morality to be fluid. Will adultery stealing rape eventually be acceptable?>> <<@markgreen5435 says : The moral rules only changed when science hypothesis change, for the Nazis.>> <<@maxhagenauer24 says : But science is supposed to change because it's about observation.>> <<@michelangelope830 says : Would you listen to me because I may know something that you don't and you claim to be rational, open minded and seek the truth? The innumerable religions that have been made up proves that humanity are dishonest because only one could be the revealed truth to an honest prophet and all the others are lies intended to hurt others. How is it possible that liars intended to hurt others made up gods that coincide in their concept with who is claimed to be the true god that loves you? Would you for God's sake understand my point? Would you for your own eternal sake understand my point? Is it possible to understand the unintelligible religious texts you claim to understand if you don't understand my point? If i asked you to describe something you don't know about what are the chances that your description coincides with reality? How could dishonest charlatans guess right that the intelligent creator of the creation is a personal god that interferes with reality doing miracles for prayers, governs hell and heaven and is pleased with your sacrifice? Religion is a lie that looks like a lie and there are eternal consequences for living unethically hurting God’s Creation blinded by victimism fulfilling the valley of tears religious prophecy like religious people do. The religious god doesn’t exist because it is impossible to foreknow the future of life because free will is an uncaused cause, and the argument is definitive! If the religious god knew the future of life all reality would be deterministic, even his own actions would be determined. You can not lose a debate against an atheist. Creation is what has a beginning of existence or is not eternal, like for example yourself. The question "does God exist?" means "does the creator of the creation exists?" or "was the creation created from something or nothing?" or "was the creation created from something that exist or from something that doesn't exist?". Atheists ask for evidence that the creation was created from something that exist instead of something that doesn't exist because they claim the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. The proof that the creation was created from something that exist is that it is impossible that was created from something that doesn't exist! An analogy would be that a knock on the door is heard and a theist claimed something hits the door and an atheist didn't believe something hit the door until it is proven! Should not atheists provide evidence how the creation was created from something that doesn't exist since they are claiming an impossibility or miracle happened? Nothing would suffice as evidence when evidence is not wanted, and the proof is that atheists defend an idea without any arguments rejecting the logic that they consider irrefutable proof when the conclusion is not that God exists. Everything with a beginning of existence has a cause, because can not exist infinite causes and effects must exist a first uncaused cause that is the origin of everything else. God must have will or consciousness because the first cause is uncaused, it is not an effect of another cause or is not triggered or created. The nature of the religious god is sadistic and religious people worship a bully out of fear thinking they would be rewarded, and the fools could not be more wrong! The more foolish the behavior the harsher the eternal would be. The more God's Life is damage the harsher the hell. Who benefits worshipping the religious god? Who benefits having to pray 5 times a day like Muslims do? Who benefits having to do something you don't want to do to please sky daddy? The life of believers deteriorate obeying under threat of eternal torture a religious god believing they would be rewarded for satisfying his sadistic appetites! Religion is lunacy and no fool ever lived happily ever after having misunderstood reality.>> <<@ryanrockstarsessom768 says : Thank you>> <<@Jenni_Sofia says : I think it's sloppy to say that scientific answers change (btw why change = bad?) without adding that science is made through observation, and in the beginning the image is usually blurry, so the answers we get through scientific endeavor are evolving from less accurate answers to more accurate answers kind of like a camera lens is focused. But the real picture was always there, we weren't looking at a wrong picture, only our guesses about what we were looking at could have been wrong.>> <<@seymourwhitetail4945 says : Yes. Governments use science to justify actions on the masses for "the greater good". With or without consent, is it moral?>> <<@regstoy says : That's the thing about science, it's willing to accept new evidence and amend its findings. theists beliefs are locked into a 2000 year old book, and their only option is to try and change the meanings or interpretations of bits of it, to account for new views. Science gathers evidence and puts forward views based on the evidence, theists have views and try to find 'evidence, to match that view.>> <<@cisuminocisumino3250 says : Laws may change over time, but the word of God remains the same.>> <<@cnault3244 says : The Bible says to do the following: Kill People Who Don’t Listen to Priests (Deuteronomy 17:12 ) Kill Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13 ) Death for Adultery (Leviticus 20:10 ) Death to Followers of Other Religions . (Exodus 22:19 Deuteronomy 13:7-12 Deuteronomy 17:2-5) Kill Nonbelievers (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 ) Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 ) Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 ) Kill People for Working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15 ) Do you follow these commands from god? If not either morals have changed or you are disobeying god. Owning people as your property is OK. (Leviticus 25:44-46 Exodus 21:7 Exodus 21:20-21 Ephesians 6:5 1 Timothy 6:1-2 ) Do you think it is moral to own another person as property you can beat? If not either morals have changed or you are disagreeing with god.>> <<@Gek1177 says : Moral answers have changed. As human society and cultures develop so too does their sense of morality. We see this even between current cultures and societies. In the secular West, marriage rights are given to everyone and the right to divorce is granted to both men and women at request. In some Muslim majority countries, same srx marriage and divorce are seen as immoral and are illegal.>> <<@incredulouspasta3304 says : The main difference is that we can study electrons in great detail. If our knowledge is wrong, we can correct that knowledge. We can't study the resurrection itself. We just have to hope that ancient authors got it right. If they didn't, we have no way to correct that knowledge. That's why you can't imagine not believing in the resurrection: we have no method to check if it's wrong. It should be a huge red flag to people that you manage to twist this in your mind as warranting more confidence, rather than less.>> <<@alphabeta1337 says : Real science says: - Something will never come from nothing ✅ - The universe is fine-tuned for life to exist ✅ - The natural origin of life is massive failure ✅ - Genetics reveals marvelous molecular engineering ✅ - Historical data only supports few 1000 years of history ✅ - All humans come from 1 male and 1 female lineage according to genetics ✅ - Fossils and rock layers can form rapidly ✅ Science does NOT say what EvoAtheists claim: - Universe from nothing ❌ - Billions of years ❌ - Primordial soup ❌ - Multiverses ❌ - Geologic ages ❌ - Junk DNA ❌>>