The part of all of this that always blows my mind is when theists first claims that, without God, there can be no "objective" or "absolute" morality and we are left with mere "relative" morality that changes according to different needs, situations, cultures, opinions, etc. And then, when you point out all the horrible commandments and useless prohibitions in the Bible that are no longer followed today, they start talking about how those commandments and prohibitions were given to meet the needs, situations and cultures of the people back then and back up that claim with a bunch of opinions as to why they no longer need to be followed today.
Theists like to say "objective moral values" because the word "objective" implies that it's above criticism, somehow not subject to interpretation or correction. They forget the fact that moral values are inescapably subjective. Love your work. I am so happy to have found your channel.
Frankly, I find the claim that morals come from someone's favorite god, insulting. As if we couldn't figure out, on our own, that we would rather not live in a society where murder was acceptable behavior?
It strikes me that, in many ways, some believers want to defer to god's morality for reasons similar to those why they want Jesus to come back and run things: because living their own lives and determining answers to difficult moral questions is *Just Too Hard*. If their god comes back and has his way, they're off the hook, and it's all good. "Thy will be done." It may be the single most pernicious phrase of the bible.
Society: the less god, the better life.😂 No evidence against it. Every philosophical discussion must begin with an eschatological argument. This is a needed series of discussions...Dalton is an intellectual, cultural, social treasure... as his life's work in his several series on the God notion bring clarity to so many fundamental, unexamined ideas/assumptions that have been unquestioned, accepted and taughtto young minds unprepared to question them. And he is friggin' subtle and funny! Genius!❤😊🎉
The supposed will of god is never spoken by god but through men who have something to gain from the obedience of believers. This desire for power and wealth demonstrated so clearly by many Christian 'leaders' says that they are *not* being led by anything but their own self serving purposes, attaching a god logo to it only means you are not supposed to ask questions, just do what the self serving leaders say comes from their god. Says who? Is an absolutely necessary question which people like WLC do not want to hear. From what I see of North American Christians, many of them are their own god, full of pretense and hypocrisy, having a very strained relationship with objective reality.
I have known "true believers" in religions, my father included, and in politics...and in many ideas, frankly. Once one looks to human dignity and well being for individuals as the primary purpose of society, God must go. The "I can't know" answer with regard to belief in deities, is also, "you cannot know", so let it go.
Me thinks that underlying all this is that most humans arrogantly take feeling truth as actual truth, regardless of credible evidence. I have seen this in both conventional religious people and mystic/woo people.
These apologists are targeting your autonomy. They don't want you thinking for yourself. To them morality isn't something you hold but rather something held over you without your volition. He's showing you how to be a subservient nonautonomous volitioness object without agency. Were as, life is about taking responsibility which requires volition and autonomy. It's very creepy to target everyones autonomy like this. Like a zombie trying to scratch at your face.
Lets get real. There are no such things as 'sock demons'. Socks disappear because the dryer in its spinning and adding heat opens a portal to an alternate dimension where the inhabitants use missing socks as an alternative fuel source.
Further research has shown that the missing socks are merely used as temporary catalysts to their energy producing reactions. The evidence for this is that they always return the socks to us, usually placing them in the arms of the shirts that were in the same load of laundry.
Okay I have a hypothesis about this very thing. When the Christian says you can't be moral without god. Or claims any of your moral actions somehow don't count because of your lack of belief and faith in a god. I think what they really mean is; you're not allowed to make believe in justice and mercy without first make believing a sky daddy that admisters justice or grants mercy. Justice and mercy are lies. They don't excists outside the imaginations of men. To be more accurate justice and mercy are human social constructs. There's no molecules of mercy nor atoms of justice. Although to function as a technological social spieces we must act as if or pretend they do exist. God is a lie that gives helps the religious make believe justice and mercy. Because without make believing sky daddy is up there with his paddle and sky pie, then why should you make believe justice and mercy,? Christians don't seem to like the possibility that you can make believe justice and mercy while skipping the god step. That people can do good because it is good for them. No god required. That it's better if people act justly and show mercy on their own. That threats and bribes are not a good path to justice. And they definitely don't facilitate mercy. That seems to terrify Christians. Because their entire system is a toxic relationship with a malignant narcissist with very destructive master/slave power dynamic.
I am alone. I look at the Heavens and I find them empty and if not empty, I find the idea of worshiping whatever dwells there obscene. Why do we continue? Because it doesn't change what's right. If there is nothing but what we make in this world brothers. Let us make good - Beta Ray Bill My fictional heroes make more sense then some imaginary sky bully.
Good reflections, as usual. I have never understood how a _subjective_ reading of one translated version of one man made book could render _objective_ morals that incorporates everyone.
Something that struck me a while ago about this argument. Theists often claim that without god there are no objective moral values. Even granting for the sake of argument that they do exist, how do they know that? How did they determine that there are no other possible ways for objective moral values to exist.
It's how they roll, put a monopoly on things they have absolutely no grounds for... I think in a way arguing against such claims seems to give the god (that does not exist, making the claims ridiculous) even more gravitas... as simply said: if god does not exist why are you so lively arguing on his claim on objective morality... imagine arguing that Santa Claus could never fit through a chimney ... seriously arguing such a case would make it look like you entertain his existence... in the same way, religions need not much more than people entertaining the existence of their creation...
I think the band, Coven, summed up one of the points well in the song "One Tine Soldier": Go ahead and hate your neighbor Go ahead and cheat a friend But do it in the name of Heaven You'll be justified in the end.
Finally! Someone else gets what a crucial question "Says who?" is! I said "Sez who?" as a kid to be a smartass, but as an adult found it goes much deeper than that. It means: What (who) is the source of your information and is there any merit to it? And as you brought out, what are the implications of believing this information and trusting the source? And when it comes to God and the Bible, there is no merit at all to either. The information and its source are unreliable, discard them and the whole mess. Bravo, sir!
i have come to conclusion that morality itself constantly changes over time with little additions by each generation either for good or bad depending where you stand on each issue.
We have a common sense gland, Mr D. It's called the brain. Whether or not people use it is another matter entirely. I'm beginning to suspect it's becoming a vestigial abnormality in some unfortunate people due to lack of exercise.
+Remiel Pollard that is an interesting way to look at it! Kinda sad though. Why wouldn't we want to rely on one of the most important evolutionary advantages we have? People just want to stay ignorant I guess.
Just seeing this. Thanks so much for the kind words. I'm glad you're enjoying the series. A new chapter is up on Patreon now. I'll release it here shortly.
Only really smart people can be this funny! I absolutely love you, Mr. Deity! I also love asking especially talkative Christians: "If you could go back in time with a machine gun, and you could shoot all the Roman soldiers and thus prevent the crucifixion, would you either: A) Save the life of the lord, but give up atonement via the blood of Christ, or B) Stand-down and enjoy the cleansing of sins via the blood of Christ?" They absolutely cannot answer it either way. YOUR WELCOME! Also... when discussing miraculous cures, ask why god never cures amputees.
Golly. I'm sort of freaking out over here. I... I thought I was an atheist, but now that you have replied to my comment I have to admit: I BELIEVE IN YOU! XD
Brilliant! The only things I would have added are 1) that morality is about the well being of not just humans but all conscious creatures and 2) that determining moral truth is done by determining what maximizes that well being, as challenging as that may be on occasion (rather than simply saying you don't "have the solution for determining moral truth").
Gumby The Green I didn't say that because I'm not certain of those things. Those things are more definitional in terms of figuring out how we define "the good" (and very Sammy at that). This whole series, however, is not about establishing anything. It's simply a take down of religious thought and ideology. And my attempt to show that there is absolutely no knowledge to be had in terms of God and the solutions religion pretends to offer.
I missed ya, Mr. D! I'm catching up on some of your videos. I probably can't ever re-join the fray, but that doesn't mean I can't mull over a wee bit of wisdom.
It is hard to figure out what Christians are getting at when they say "if there were no god, it would be awful". Do they mean. 1. I really really want there to be a god, therefore there must be one. 2. It is important that people believe in god even if there isn't one. Fear of god keeps people in line. 3. God keeps the world tolerable. Without one all would go to hell. Life is reasonable, therefore there must be a god. 4. If we stop believing in god, he will disappear and the world will go to hell. 5. the notion of god existing is a happy idea. They seem to think whether they believe in god has something to do with god's existence.
With or without a god, with or without a knowledge of good and evil, humans must get along merely to survive as a species, a venture in which we have somehow managed to succeed quite well without either - or in spite of them.
Technically, the claim that one should not want to worship God is a Buddhist invention (or possibly earlier, I'm not an expert on 2500+ year old religions.) Anyway, not an original atheist idea. :)
Yes, in the East it was the Buddha who considered god irrelevant (and his worship outright harmful). In the West, roughly around the same time, Heraclitus had pretty much the same idea. One might say 2500 years ago (or so) was the time for the non-theist idea to spring up in more places than one.
Great video -- like to point out that those authors you mention also cherry-pick which verses of their holy books they observe (how many fundamentalist Christians do you know keep Kosher, or avoid watching football on the Sabbath?). And as Susan B. Anthony pointed out, those "objective moral values" tend to align with the pastors' own prejudices, opinions, thoughts, and wishes.
Sorry for my ignorance, but apart from the times God ordered the rape of the females of the loosing side of the wars, and the underlying responsibility of the rapist to marry their victims, is there any other mention of rape? Or that it's a bad thing like working on the sabbath and punishment of death is necessary? Why in the commandments is rape not mentioned 😲, yet theft is?
David Miller I think it's a good example to show morality is a human construction more in tune with social community and culture than being a devine order.
Danlo Troth There is no specific prohibition against rape in the Bible as far as I know. But ironically, having sex outside marriage could get you killed. If you were a woman that is.
"Christian apologist and philosopher William Lane Craig" Ummm.... no. He is a philosopher like I'm a heart surgeon, I can try it but it's just going to hurt people and make a mess.
I know that this video is several years old (4 as of right now), but I have a few observations that relate to what is said in it. * There are Christian fundamentalists that advocate the execution of LGBTQ people, among them Matt Powell and Kent Hovind, though there are a lot more these days who are saying it out loud * About sock demons, I refer you to my "channel" - there's no ambiguity as to which video to look at I really appreciate this series and the other content on this channel.
"Slavery is an objective moral good." "What?! How so?" "Well you see, a slave has no freedom of choice. If he does not do what his master wants, he will be punished severely. A slave is but an extension of the master's will. As such, a slave cannot possibly act immoral, as long as he acts according to his master's will. He simply does not have the capacity to act in an immoral way, since he has no freedom to choose - as such, for him, following his master's will is an objective moral good, since he cannot objectively be judged immoral. Therefore, if the entire world's population consisted only of slaves, following a singular master, immorality would be reduced to as close to zero as possible, as nothing they do can be judged as immoral as long as they follow their master's decree." "How can they be moral then?" "What?" "How can they be moral in such a world? You said they cannot be immoral or engage in immoral acts, as long as they follow the word of their master - but if they lack the capacity to be immoral, how do they have the capacity to be moral? If you take away someone's freedom to choose to be immoral or moral and leave them to the will of their master, then take their ability to be both - you take away their agency. You do not leave them as being free from immorality, you leave them not as being moral agents at all - you reduce them to a state of being animals or children. Or, well, slaves."
Morals are easy! A moral interaction is an interaction between 2 sentient beings. An _immoral act_ is quite simply an act that violates the consent of 1 of the parties involved.
I never understood the obsession with absolute or objective morals. Any group or society I have been part of have an set of general codes of conduct, some of which are formal and some of which are informal, but which all evolve through social negotiation based on human needs and the context in which that takes place. They can be more or less successful in doing that but the reason that this is reasonably stable over time is that the human organism has certain straight homeostatic needs with a set of bio-cultural homeostatic needs on top that range from the universal to the culturally negotiated in a complex weave, the most important of which, in terms of morality, is empathy. Most of us want the fruits of a safe an empathetic environment. The vast majority anyway. So we kind of know what it is we want and need and it takes something like war, famin or natural disaster to tip the scales - and even then we always claw our way back to a point where we can more safely raise our children and curb our destructive potential. That's all we need to build a just city. Empathy, negotiation and cooperation and stability in terms of fundamental needs. There is no need to fear things fall apart in relativism. Relativism is mostly a language issue. The world has patterns in it, many of which are fairly objectively demonstrable - like empathy. I don't need philosophical backup to see the need for us to find a way to stop one guy from kicking another guys ass for no reason and to get enough folks together who agree. Sure we have to work at maintaining civilisation all the time. That effort is not a piece of math that needs to add up perfectly. It's just an effort to avoid things most of us want to avoid to have happen to ourselves and those we care for. It needs to be argued for, certainly. It needs to be negotiated under the circumstances. But most of all It just needs to generally get the job done and keep complete madness at bay.
If there is an objective moral system, then just the foundation/basis is not enough. You need the whole thing otherwise it's useless, because if only the foundation is objective and the rest is subjective, then you have a subjective system.
If god is the moral standard because of his power and knowledge is satan's set of morals better than ours because of his higher power and knowledge? If god was gone would Satan be good?Talk about subjective morals.
It's been awhile, and I'm probably remembering some of his stuff incorrectly, but this reminded me a little of TheoreticalBullshit's videos in all but the delivery. Really good work.
Scott is a friend, but I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't seen a ton of his videos. Shame on me. Because everything he does is fantastic. We're trying to do some more stuff together, but if you haven't already seen it, look up, "The Bourne-Again Identity."
I believe that religion was a necessity in the past, in part, to give rulers a reason to show mercy to those they mean to rule. Also, what came first, religion or man made laws?
I'm not sure how necessary religion is to humanity, but I do know religion is an excellent tool to control large numbers of people to work against their own best interest.
Saul ofTarsus I didn't say humanity, I said rulers. But could you give me an example of how religion has been used as a tool to control large numbers of people and have them work against their best interest?
Great video. It puzzles me why Christians believe an appeal to a subjective supreme being can provide an objective moral standard for them. I believe all morality is subjective no matter where you may believe it comes from. It would help their argument greatly if they could objectively produce their objective moral giver so he could objectively present his case.
The part of all of this that always blows my mind is when theists first claims that, without God, there can be no "objective" or "absolute" morality and we are left with mere "relative" morality that changes according to different needs, situations, cultures, opinions, etc. And then, when you point out all the horrible commandments and useless prohibitions in the Bible that are no longer followed today, they start talking about how those commandments and prohibitions were given to meet the needs, situations and cultures of the people back then and back up that claim with a bunch of opinions as to why they no longer need to be followed today.
Theists like to say "objective moral values" because the word "objective" implies that it's above criticism, somehow not subject to interpretation or correction. They forget the fact that moral values are inescapably subjective.
Love your work. I am so happy to have found your channel.
The world would be a better place if BKD really was our deity. Awesome episode of an awesome series! Thank you BriBri!
"A myth wrapped in a legend, protected by delusion and placed in a box of fables..." Just brilliantly put ....!
Frankly, I find the claim that morals come from someone's favorite god, insulting. As if we couldn't figure out, on our own, that we would rather not live in a society where murder was acceptable behavior?
Grateful Apostate Humans couldn’t possibly have figured out that murder is bad without help from above!
Must be aliens!
It strikes me that, in many ways, some believers want to defer to god's morality for reasons similar to those why they want Jesus to come back and run things: because living their own lives and determining answers to difficult moral questions is *Just Too Hard*. If their god comes back and has his way, they're off the hook, and it's all good.
"Thy will be done." It may be the single most pernicious phrase of the bible.
Troubleshooter125 Well said.
Society: the less god, the better life.😂 No evidence against it. Every philosophical discussion must begin with an eschatological argument. This is a needed series of discussions...Dalton is an intellectual, cultural, social treasure... as his life's work in his several series on the God notion bring clarity to so many fundamental, unexamined ideas/assumptions that have been unquestioned, accepted and taughtto young minds unprepared to question them. And he is friggin' subtle and funny! Genius!❤😊🎉
You're my new best friend. Call me!
The supposed will of god is never spoken by god but through men who have something to gain from the obedience of believers.
This desire for power and wealth demonstrated so clearly by many Christian 'leaders' says that they are *not* being led by anything but their own self serving purposes, attaching a god logo to it only means you are not supposed to ask questions, just do what the self serving leaders say comes from their god. Says who? Is an absolutely necessary question which people like WLC do not want to hear.
From what I see of North American Christians, many of them are their own god, full of pretense and hypocrisy, having a very strained relationship with objective reality.
Macnutz420 WOW!!! That was fantastic!!! Time to start making your own videos.
misterdeity
Thanks. I did that and grew very weary of it. Now I'm writing a book instead. I'm too much of a grump for this format.
These just keep getting better and better.
I have known "true believers" in religions, my father included, and in politics...and in many ideas, frankly. Once one looks to human dignity and well being for individuals as the primary purpose of society, God must go. The "I can't know" answer with regard to belief in deities, is also, "you cannot know", so let it go.
That's why I call myself an apatheist!
Me thinks that underlying all this is that most humans arrogantly take feeling truth as actual truth, regardless of credible evidence. I have seen this in both conventional religious people and mystic/woo people.
Well-written and delivered, and the lighting was great, too!
"Science flies you to the Moon,. Religion flies you into buildings." - V. Stenger
That is soooo god......I mean good.
These apologists are targeting your autonomy. They don't want you thinking for yourself. To them morality isn't something you hold but rather something held over you without your volition. He's showing you how to be a subservient nonautonomous volitioness object without agency. Were as, life is about taking responsibility which requires volition and autonomy. It's very creepy to target everyones autonomy like this. Like a zombie trying to scratch at your face.
Such a great point! And so we’ll said!
One of your finest!
Lets get real. There are no such things as 'sock demons'. Socks disappear because the dryer in its spinning and adding heat opens a portal to an alternate dimension where the inhabitants use missing socks as an alternative fuel source.
Further research has shown that the missing socks are merely used as temporary catalysts to their energy producing reactions. The evidence for this is that they always return the socks to us, usually placing them in the arms of the shirts that were in the same load of laundry.
Okay I have a hypothesis about this very thing.
When the Christian says you can't be moral without god. Or claims any of your moral actions somehow don't count because of your lack of belief and faith in a god.
I think what they really mean is; you're not allowed to make believe in justice and mercy without first make believing a sky daddy that admisters justice or grants mercy.
Justice and mercy are lies. They don't excists outside the imaginations of men. To be more accurate justice and mercy are human social constructs. There's no molecules of mercy nor atoms of justice. Although to function as a technological social spieces we must act as if or pretend they do exist. God is a lie that gives helps the religious make believe justice and mercy. Because without make believing sky daddy is up there with his paddle and sky pie, then why should you make believe justice and mercy,?
Christians don't seem to like the possibility that you can make believe justice and mercy while skipping the god step. That people can do good because it is good for them. No god required. That it's better if people act justly and show mercy on their own. That threats and bribes are not a good path to justice. And they definitely don't facilitate mercy. That seems to terrify Christians. Because their entire system is a toxic relationship with a malignant narcissist with very destructive master/slave power dynamic.
Love your channel - keep up the good work. People need to hear this!
I am alone. I look at the Heavens and I find them empty and if not empty, I find the idea of worshiping whatever dwells there obscene. Why do we continue? Because it doesn't change what's right. If there is nothing but what we make in this world brothers. Let us make good - Beta Ray Bill
My fictional heroes make more sense then some imaginary sky bully.
Corvus That's an awesome quote! Thanks for sharing!
Holy shit. This is absolutely fantastic. Subscribed. Look forward to watching more of your videos.
This serious is brilliant. I've watched it again and again. Well done Brybry.
That was quite a dissection of that argument. Very well done.
Good reflections, as usual.
I have never understood how a _subjective_ reading of one translated version of one man made book could render _objective_ morals that incorporates everyone.
Something that struck me a while ago about this argument. Theists often claim that without god there are no objective moral values. Even granting for the sake of argument that they do exist, how do they know that? How did they determine that there are no other possible ways for objective moral values to exist.
It's how they roll, put a monopoly on things they have absolutely no grounds for...
I think in a way arguing against such claims seems to give the god (that does not exist, making the claims ridiculous) even more gravitas...
as simply said: if god does not exist why are you so lively arguing on his claim on objective morality...
imagine arguing that Santa Claus could never fit through a chimney ... seriously arguing such a case would make it look like you entertain his existence...
in the same way, religions need not much more than people entertaining the existence of their creation...
I used to be a big fan of Mr Diety, and I've missed the show. Now, I've found this. THANK YOU!
David Miller I still do about six a year.
Mr. Deity, it's nice to know there is at least one other sane person on the planet. Thank you for everything that you do.
Well...let's not get carried away. ;-)
Excellent presentation
each new video is better than the last!
Well said. Thanks.
Thank you Mr. Dalton, this series may be your video yet.
I think the band, Coven, summed up one of the points well in the song "One Tine Soldier":
Go ahead and hate your neighbor
Go ahead and cheat a friend
But do it in the name of Heaven
You'll be justified in the end.
Finally! Someone else gets what a crucial question "Says who?" is! I said "Sez who?" as a kid to be a smartass, but as an adult found it goes much deeper than that. It means: What (who) is the source of your information and is there any merit to it? And as you brought out, what are the implications of believing this information and trusting the source? And when it comes to God and the Bible, there is no merit at all to either. The information and its source are unreliable, discard them and the whole mess. Bravo, sir!
Absolutely brilliant assessment. 👌
Thank you. 😉👍
Thank you for all your videos, just wonderful!!!!
i have come to conclusion that morality itself constantly changes over time with little additions by each generation either for good or bad depending where you stand on each issue.
absolutely. our species will continue to evolve, as well, so our morals will continue to change too.
hopefully one day our species will evolve a commonsense gland but i am not holding out on that one
Thuggee don't hold your breath.
We have a common sense gland, Mr D. It's called the brain. Whether or not people use it is another matter entirely. I'm beginning to suspect it's becoming a vestigial abnormality in some unfortunate people due to lack of exercise.
+Remiel Pollard that is an interesting way to look at it! Kinda sad though. Why wouldn't we want to rely on one of the most important evolutionary advantages we have? People just want to stay ignorant I guess.
Brilliant! Thank you for this.
Brilliant, as always!
Superb, Mr. D!
Totally.agree.thanks
Nice series, Mr. D. I like your hard-hitting, reasoned argumentation as much as your more humorous and witty, absurdist parodies. :-D
Just seeing this. Thanks so much for the kind words. I'm glad you're enjoying the series. A new chapter is up on Patreon now. I'll release it here shortly.
Well said!
We inherit the gods of our tribe, defined in its language and supporting its mores.
Lohitaksha Beautiful. Who said that?
Thank you. It's an original.
Great video! Thank you.
Great video!
Thank you for all the hilariously thought provoking videos!
Thanks for the kind words. Glad you're enjoying the vids!
Please, keep up the good work.
Only really smart people can be this funny! I absolutely love you, Mr. Deity!
I also love asking especially talkative Christians: "If you could go back in time with a machine gun, and you could shoot all the Roman soldiers and thus prevent the crucifixion, would you either: A) Save the life of the lord, but give up atonement via the blood of Christ, or B) Stand-down and enjoy the cleansing of sins via the blood of Christ?"
They absolutely cannot answer it either way. YOUR WELCOME!
Also... when discussing miraculous cures, ask why god never cures amputees.
Jack Gamboa There was a very funny bit on "In Living Color" where the Terminator goes back in time to save Jesus. Very funny stuff.
Golly. I'm sort of freaking out over here. I... I thought I was an atheist, but now that you have replied to my comment I have to admit: I BELIEVE IN YOU! XD
That's a really bad idea.
This is excellent, thank you.
fantastic video. brilliant!
Divorce is also higher among the religious. Eric Hovind said he would be a criminal without religion.
Eric Hovind is a criminal and con with religion , and a liar as well.
Brilliant! The only things I would have added are 1) that morality is about the well being of not just humans but all conscious creatures and 2) that determining moral truth is done by determining what maximizes that well being, as challenging as that may be on occasion (rather than simply saying you don't "have the solution for determining moral truth").
Gumby The Green I didn't say that because I'm not certain of those things. Those things are more definitional in terms of figuring out how we define "the good" (and very Sammy at that). This whole series, however, is not about establishing anything. It's simply a take down of religious thought and ideology. And my attempt to show that there is absolutely no knowledge to be had in terms of God and the solutions religion pretends to offer.
Gumby The Green PS: I love Gumby and Pokey so much!!!
I missed ya, Mr. D! I'm catching up on some of your videos. I probably can't ever re-join the fray, but that doesn't mean I can't mull over a wee bit of wisdom.
Ladyhawk's Lair of Learning Awesome. Glad to have you back!
Yes
Great video.
excellent
Brilliant!
It is hard to figure out what Christians are getting at when they say "if there were no god, it would be awful".
Do they mean.
1. I really really want there to be a god, therefore there must be one.
2. It is important that people believe in god even if there isn't one. Fear of god keeps people in line.
3. God keeps the world tolerable. Without one all would go to hell. Life is reasonable, therefore there must be a god.
4. If we stop believing in god, he will disappear and the world will go to hell.
5. the notion of god existing is a happy idea.
They seem to think whether they believe in god has something to do with god's existence.
I like your longer form videos much better
Nailed it!
With or without a god, with or without a knowledge of good and evil, humans must get along merely to survive as a species, a venture in which we have somehow managed to succeed quite well without either - or in spite of them.
THE ELEVENTH COMMANDMENT HAS BEEN FOUND!
"NEVER MIX FLOUR WITH SUGAR UNLESS YOU ARE MAKING COOKIES"!!!
Humans have been around 100,000 more years than Christianity. So no, objective morality is not necessary.
Technically, the claim that one should not want to worship God is a Buddhist invention (or possibly earlier, I'm not an expert on 2500+ year old religions.) Anyway, not an original atheist idea. :)
Yes, in the East it was the Buddha who considered god irrelevant (and his worship outright harmful). In the West, roughly around the same time, Heraclitus had pretty much the same idea. One might say 2500 years ago (or so) was the time for the non-theist idea to spring up in more places than one.
Very nice.
Great video -- like to point out that those authors you mention also cherry-pick which verses of their holy books they observe (how many fundamentalist Christians do you know keep Kosher, or avoid watching football on the Sabbath?). And as Susan B. Anthony pointed out, those "objective moral values" tend to align with the pastors' own prejudices, opinions, thoughts, and wishes.
Telling everyone I can about this channel.. trying to get more views.
That's a great point, how would anyone even know if god was evil?
it could be that god actually prefers atheists. religion would be a good way of sorting out the dumbos of the world.
@@HarryNicNicholas "The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps."
Proverbs 14:15
You can not argue morality until you demonstrate your god or gods are real first.
you mean objective morality
*****
yeah thats what I am saying
Stats need citing please. Love your work Mr. Diety
So, tell me again, how does Willaim Lane Craig differ from Isis?
No beard?
Bill Garthright Hahahaha!!!!
And likes BLT sammiches :)
ISIS actually understands theology?
Thanks, we need all the sanity we can get, especially with Trump in office.
Maybe this was a 'two parter'...?
I'll finish it tomorrow. Good stuff so far!
skepticallypwnd NOOOOOO! Not you too?!!! Are there any millennials left with an attention span longer than ten minutes?
I made it 11 minutes before zoning out for a few seconds.
Might be something else going on here, Brian. I'll forward it to Randy Olson; get some highfalutin analysis.
Sorry for my ignorance, but apart from the times God ordered the rape of the females of the loosing side of the wars, and the underlying responsibility of the rapist to marry their victims, is there any other mention of rape? Or that it's a bad thing like working on the sabbath and punishment of death is necessary?
Why in the commandments is rape not mentioned 😲, yet theft is?
Danlo Troth Because damaging property isn't as bad as stealing it? Well, women were property, to them. There was that whole 'no lusting' thing.
David Miller I think it's a good example to show morality is a human construction more in tune with social community and culture than being a devine order.
Danlo Troth There is no specific prohibition against rape in the Bible as far as I know. But ironically, having sex outside marriage could get you killed. If you were a woman that is.
misterdeity which always has been a problem for me, specially when the religious apologetics of abrihamic traditions argued from a moral standpoint
I'm no longer distracted. Thank you!
WLC should not be left alone with children or animals.
Are people still denying the existence of a sock demon? Thought we were all in agreement on that one.
Can I see God's character sheet?
God: *Murderers everyone but party.*
_"It's what my character would do."_
@@BornOnThursday chaotic evil
@@madelinew2884
Deity: _I am_
@@BornOnThursday this is going to be a weird reference, but I think god is something like Scam Likely from Dungeons & Daddies podcast
@@madelinew2884
That one doesn't fall within media I've watched/listened to, forgive my sins.
"Christian apologist and philosopher William Lane Craig"
Ummm.... no. He is a philosopher like I'm a heart surgeon, I can try it but it's just going to hurt people and make a mess.
Better he's a philosopher like Jeffery Dahmer was a neurosurgeon. He can try but it only makes people stupider.
I know that this video is several years old (4 as of right now), but I have a few observations that relate to what is said in it.
* There are Christian fundamentalists that advocate the execution of LGBTQ people, among them Matt Powell and Kent Hovind, though there are a lot more these days who are saying it out loud
* About sock demons, I refer you to my "channel" - there's no ambiguity as to which video to look at
I really appreciate this series and the other content on this channel.
"Yes, Mustard!" *giggle*
Josie and the Pussycats
The best yet
"Slavery is an objective moral good."
"What?! How so?"
"Well you see, a slave has no freedom of choice. If he does not do what his master wants, he will be punished severely. A slave is but an extension of the master's will. As such, a slave cannot possibly act immoral, as long as he acts according to his master's will. He simply does not have the capacity to act in an immoral way, since he has no freedom to choose -
as such, for him, following his master's will is an objective moral good, since he cannot objectively be judged immoral. Therefore, if the entire world's population consisted only of slaves, following a singular master, immorality would be reduced to as close to zero as possible, as nothing they do can be judged as immoral as long as they follow their master's decree."
"How can they be moral then?"
"What?"
"How can they be moral in such a world? You said they cannot be immoral or engage in immoral acts, as long as they follow the word of their master - but if they lack the capacity to be immoral, how do they have the capacity to be moral? If you take away someone's freedom to choose to be immoral or moral and leave them to the will of their master, then take their ability to be both - you take away their agency. You do not leave them as being free from immorality, you leave them not as being moral agents at all - you reduce them to a state of being animals or children. Or, well, slaves."
gimme back my avatar!
stiimuli
Blue suns unite!
Morals are easy! A moral interaction is an interaction between 2 sentient beings. An _immoral act_ is quite simply an act that violates the consent of 1 of the parties involved.
I never understood the obsession with absolute or objective morals. Any group or society I have been part of have an set of general codes of conduct, some of which are formal and some of which are informal, but which all evolve through social negotiation based on human needs and the context in which that takes place.
They can be more or less successful in doing that but the reason that this is reasonably stable over time is that the human organism has certain straight homeostatic needs with a set of bio-cultural homeostatic needs on top that range from the universal to the culturally negotiated in a complex weave, the most important of which, in terms of morality, is empathy. Most of us want the fruits of a safe an empathetic environment. The vast majority anyway.
So we kind of know what it is we want and need and it takes something like war, famin or natural disaster to tip the scales - and even then we always claw our way back to a point where we can more safely raise our children and curb our destructive potential. That's all we need to build a just city. Empathy, negotiation and cooperation and stability in terms of fundamental needs. There is no need to fear things fall apart in relativism. Relativism is mostly a language issue. The world has patterns in it, many of which are fairly objectively demonstrable - like empathy.
I don't need philosophical backup to see the need for us to find a way to stop one guy from kicking another guys ass for no reason and to get enough folks together who agree. Sure we have to work at maintaining civilisation all the time. That effort is not a piece of math that needs to add up perfectly. It's just an effort to avoid things most of us want to avoid to have happen to ourselves and those we care for. It needs to be argued for, certainly. It needs to be negotiated under the circumstances. But most of all It just needs to generally get the job done and keep complete madness at bay.
Mista D spits hot fire.
Bill also ignores the Sermon on the Mount, as do all Christians.
If there is an objective moral system, then just the foundation/basis is not enough. You need the whole thing otherwise it's useless, because if only the foundation is objective and the rest is subjective, then you have a subjective system.
If god is the moral standard because of his power and knowledge is satan's set of morals better than ours because of his higher power and knowledge? If god was gone would Satan be good?Talk about subjective morals.
It's been awhile, and I'm probably remembering some of his stuff incorrectly, but this reminded me a little of TheoreticalBullshit's videos in all but the delivery. Really good work.
Damn, I sure wish Theoretical Bullshit would start posting videos again! What, does he think his career is more important or something? :)
Scott is a friend, but I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't seen a ton of his videos. Shame on me. Because everything he does is fantastic. We're trying to do some more stuff together, but if you haven't already seen it, look up, "The Bourne-Again Identity."
Oh that'd be nice. I really liked his videos.
Amen!
You missed a shot for some screen pun with 'Uber Religious', although a taxi choke might have been too light hearted there...
I believe that religion was a necessity in the past, in part, to give rulers a reason to show mercy to those they mean to rule. Also, what came first, religion or man made laws?
I'm not sure how necessary religion is to humanity, but I do know religion is an excellent tool to control large numbers of people to work against their own best interest.
+Saul
You're right. And I have to wonder how much "mercy" religious rulers have ever shown to anyone with no power who didn't back the ruler 100%.
Saul ofTarsus I didn't say humanity, I said rulers. But could you give me an example of how religion has been used as a tool to control large numbers of people and have them work against their best interest?
ISIS? catholic church?
CHECK OUT MY TRAILER [BASED ON ACTUAL EVENTS] My problem isn't really with religion so much as it is with monotheism. It's so arrogant and vicious.
Does that mean that, Ozzy was being Godly, when he _"beheaded two doves"?_ lol
I must disagree: "Hooey" is slang. The scientific term is "balderdash".
only in certain parts of the world, poppycock is a much more definitive description of poop.
you know I look forward to the day when children don't know what religion even is and have to look it up because its so obscure
catseye10000 What a great day that would be!!!
IKR
@15:41 LOL!
Preach!
You should do debates!
David Heller I would love to. No one has asked. D'oh!
Great video. It puzzles me why Christians believe an appeal to a subjective supreme being can provide an objective moral standard for them. I believe all morality is subjective no matter where you may believe it comes from. It would help their argument greatly if they could objectively produce their objective moral giver so he could objectively present his case.
Brilliant . Thanks a lot. :-)