Response to Atheist's "Moral Challenge for Christians" (InspiringPhilosophy and David Wood)

David Wood and Michael Jones (InspiringPhilosophy) will be LIVE at 9:00pm (Eastern Time) responding to atheist Paulogia’s “Morality Challenge for Christians.”

To watch Paulogia’s challenge: Morality Challenge for Christians - YouTube

#DavidWood #InspiringPhilosophy #MoralArgument

Here’s InspiringPhilosophy’s video series on God, Morality, and Ethics: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TX3tuBN--XNn4TQcLfVtqiq

You dont “poke holes in two seconds” in the “reduce pleasure” theory with your “pedo likes cp so why stop him” example because it absolutely reduces pleasure to allow the production and consumtion of cp. Drastically and unimagonably so.

Even if hes in a room forever, it causes harm for us to know about it and be okay with it because this is one of those “give em an inch and they take a mile” stiutations, just dont allow it at all whatsoever. Thats the safest bet for not causing harm in the world.

“Theyve never considered objections” is a pretty unfair assumption

Thank you David!! You are so clear when you speak. Unfortunately I just can’t understand Michel as well, he just speaks right over my head. I’ll just have to listen half a dozen times what he is saying and maybe still not understand all. So thank you David!!! Such an important topic

What person is smart enough, has enough leadership, and has a grasp on well-being enough to create a set of working morals laws? There is quite a majority of people who think harmful activities equal well-being like: media entertainment, sensual pleasure, comfort, convenience, dominance, self-righteousness, and recreational waste. If there were more people who thought hard work, accountability, universal love, and equal human value were well-being it would be more probable human beings would be competent at creating productive ethics.

Instead of doing meaningless philosphy I suggest you watch some animal clips on youtube, where mammals and birds show empathy. This is because you got it all backwards. Empathy is a trait selected for in social species. No imaginary sky daddy involved. One and a half hour obfuscation to answer a ten minutes clip of Paulogia.

Matthew 5.

AP should Debate IP On Morality and Problem of Evil

Paulogia has a wonderful response to this video

Its astonishingly how much time you spend dodging and rewording and attempting to poison the well and turn the questions back onto Paulogia rather than simply trying to answer a simple question… all to avoid the simple fact that you don’t seem to have any solid foundation for your claims about the source of your morality.

Just jesus christ

This is too much for me.philosophy is just not for every one.

This Objective Morality (or lack of thereof) is why Christianity is pretty much finished.

God Bless David wood Always :innocent:

Listen guys, stop showing yourselves up. No amount of semantic obfuscation can hide the fact that I am just as ‘moral’ as you are… without your Gods writing on my heart. The Argument From Morality doesn’t stand-up to reality. Let it go, it’s your weakest apologetic… worse than W Lame Craig and HIS Kalam Kosmiligikal Effluent.

More theists getting crap wrong. Who knew?

Morality is indeed something that we have evolved to establish as a social compact via the human capacity and ultimately, requirement, for cooperation. Maximizing “well being” isn’t predicated entirely upon self-interest, for the very reason that we DO require cooperation to maximize achievement. There are varying levels of individual empathy, as exhibited by such psychological conditions as sociopathy. But these tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Our species is unique in the area of communication. We don’t just express simple communications to one another, but actually record and expand on knowledge with writing. It follows that such ability to understand a greater level of intimate understanding of others that we would find ourselves also expanding the sense of self to the sense that others are not different and face the same emotional experiences as we do personally. So we find the personal experience in others experiences. NONE of this requires a “moral law giver” and if your faith needs to have such “proof” of anything being exclusively the provenance of a supreme being, then measure the depth of your own faith, especially if such proof is found to be unrealistic.
As you dithered over the definitions that the presenter quite obviously kept as vague and functionally malleable as possible, you really spent a LOT of time on this without having any concrete definitions even of “christian” morality yourselves, I believe you neglected to see that point entirely, that he DID deliberately leave it open to interpretation. The alternative view of “religious” morality comes from religion itself becoming an institution of crowd/populace control. Humans obviously have always strived to understand everything in their world, from the sun to earth quakes to disease to floods, the list goes on. In a time when no one had the broad based knowledge to understand many of these things, the the sun was being pulled across the sky in a chariot by a god, epilepsy was demon possession, volcanoes needed virgins thrown into them regularly to keep from erupting, and so on. Mythology and superstition arose, and it was institutionalized and subsequently exploited for social control. And it worked, so it remained and morphed. Tribalism is yet another facet of human psychology, and separating on religion became another form of that tribalism.
Thus you denigrate this presenter’s argument rather than attempt understanding, even though one of you admit knowing and actually speaking with him. That’s rather telling, isn’t it. He’s not one of your “tribe.”

My argument for a God is seeing a demon.
My husband was an atheist all his life but became a christian after trying to prove the bible wrong… Anyway, Chris had never had any supernatural things happen to him until I did something very stupid one Christmas late afternoon.

We lived in Largo Florida and we decided to walk off Christmas meal so we went to the beach. I was wearing a Christmas silly necklace. I walked to the edge of the water and held the necklace over the water and told the beast of Revelation to come forth. I laughed and he said ‘not cool’ I was just messing with him… After the walk we sat down on a bench so we could watch the sun set… I’m looking down at the sand making shapes in the sand with my feet and Chris says to me.~ Look!

I looked up and saw a man all in black standing on the water about 40 feet out. and I said ‘’‘’‘’'hey ! how is that guy standing on the water… and that’s when it hit me that it wasn’t human. Chris had already realized this. Chris told me to get up and head for the van… so I started walking fast as I could and I turned back to look and Chris was still standing just staring at this thing and then Chris turned and said 'GO GO. We got in the van and his face was in shock and he was freaked and he didn’t want to talk much about it until years later.

This didn’t impress me at all, nope.

YouTube Christians are so banal and unsophisticated. And when they try to lay out what a Christian is and what the Bible says, many of them give the impression that they haven’t read the Holy Bible at all. They spout out their pet, 'to go" scriptures and stumble through scriptures, parse its words and try to give it relevance in reality. They might think that they’re convincing others who don’t agree with them, however, it seems that they are trying to convince themselves that what they believe is true.