Were Nazis wrong to kill the disabled? Glen Scrivener vs Matt Dillahunty
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- Matt Dillahunty and Glen Scrivener debate whether an atheist can argue that Hitler was wrong about killing Jews, gays and the disabled, or whether a Christian concept of morality must be invoked in the face of such evil.
Watch in full • Glen Scrivener & Matt ...
For more debates, updates and a bonus clip of Matt and Glen discussing the Trans controversy that divided The Atheist Experience sign up at www.thebigconve...
Listen to more sparkling conversations every week via the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchri...
The Big Conversation Season 2:
1. Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein: Pt 1 • Alister McGrath & Bret... Pt 2 • Alister McGrath & Bret...
2. Roger Penrose & William Lane Craig • Sir Roger Penrose & Wi...
3. Bart Ehrman & Peter J Williams • Peter J Williams vs Ba...
4. Dave Rubin & John Lennox Pt 1 • Dave Rubin & John Lenn... Pt 2 • PART 2 Dave Rubin & Jo...
5. Tom Holland & AC Grayling • Tom Holland vs AC Gray...
6. Matt Dillahunty & Glen Scrivener • Glen Scrivener & Matt ...
The Big Conversation Season 1:
Jordan Peterson & Susan Blackmore • Jordan Peterson vs Sus...
Steven Pinker & Nick Spencer • Steven Pinker vs Nick ...
Derren Brown & Rev Richard Coles • Derren Brown & Rev Ric...
John Lennox & Michael Ruse • Michael Ruse vs John L...
Daniel Dennett & Keith Ward • Daniel Dennett vs Keit...
Peter Singer & Andy Bannister - • Andy Bannister vs Pete...
The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
Videos, updates, exclusive content www.thebigconv...
For weekly debates between Christians and sceptics subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchri...
![VENEZUELA vs. ARGENTINA [1-1] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 9](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SJfoPdeOPCQ/mqdefault.jpg)
If an argument continues long enough Hitler usually comes into the conversation.
Concur. And Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, are conveniently forgotten.....
Godwin’s Law!
@Caratacus: True.
@@gavinhurlimann2910 Concured. The list is pretty long....
@@gavinhurlimann2910 But Hitler was a Christian.
Seeing as the Nazis & most Germans at the time where predominately Protestant / Lutherean/ Catholic i find this whole discussion funny that they put the question on non believers
No, the Nazis were NOT "Lutheran Catholic". They were pagan occultists.
@@marthaj67 They were both.
Most Germans were Catholics, including the death-camp murderers.
And plenty of the Catholics at that time believed in goofy, superstitious, pagan, nordic crap.
You know you can just *LOOK THIS STUFF UP* , right?
There is such a thing as being affiliated with a religious group (cultural catholic/Christian) without actually following the doctrines of the faith. Otherwise known as a hypocrite. Realistically we are all hypocrites but very silly to associate genocide with Jesus who preached to love your enemies. Hitler used religious propaganda as a tool to control the masses, he was crazy, evil but intelligent.
@@gy5240 Much like Donald Trump.
@@gy5240 Yep, well said.
I like how Matt flipped that shiznit, "I don't value human life, change my mind" and 'ol Glen was like flabbergasted by that
What's a shiznit?
@@Raz.C A synonym for 'shit' that somehow time-traveled here from the 90's.
@@CausalityLoop
Thanks mate.
In hindsight, it really seems like I should have been able to work that one out on my own. I guess I just presumed that _shiznit_ was a Yiddish word, or somesuch, culled from a foreign vernacular and resettled into the american lexicon. With time and the kind of easy familiarity that comes with repeated use, those foreign-born words become ingrained in local dialects, but ultimately incomprehensible to 'outsiders' separated by a common language. Case in point: I'm convinced that the word *"Chutzpah"* has never been spoken outside of the usa (not counting americans travelling overseas, of course). Were it not for the ubiquitous american media, I suspect that the profusion of such words would make american English increasingly incomprehensible to native speakers of U.K. English and Australian English.
Ps: My apologies if I unexpectedly waved philosophical- dare I say _Verbose_ philosophical, at that? As it happens, I'm rather rabidly smashed. And with great heroin comes great responsibility. Or something like that...
matt is pro choice. that alone contradicts this entire conversation from his side
@@Sir-IKON how so?
Looks to me that the editing was very clever. Matt was about to drop logic bombs and then it either cut to a new scene or just plain finished.
Burkeys randoms in several of these the moderator steps in and stops the subject before matt can go off on him.
if i had a nickle every time I heard someone say that.
@Not the real Tupac you know us cults. We want to hide the truth.
Honestly though
As Christians we feel we have the.intllectually better answer. So feel like we have nothing to hide here.
@Not the real Tupac hey bro. I don't think it's arrogance. I would say it's close to how you feel about your own worldview right? You think you have the intellectually superior position correct?
@Not the real Tupac no I don't. We are all a product of our experiences. But we as humans have the ability to look past our experiences.
The editing and cut are very bias against Matt.
Because this is a Christian channel, of course they are going to be disingenuous in their presentation.
@Caratacus An apologist lecturing someone else about fanaticism, cute.
@Caratacus Why would they be mad about the truth? You're the one claiming there needs to be intrinsic value, not us? Your response makes zero fucking sense.
@Caratacus
forced? Matt has been saying for years that humans lifehas no intrinsic value, we add value to life both as individuals and as a social convention.
i would argue that the editing makes the christian look disingenuous, arrogant and dishonest.
To say that you need to believe in God to oppose Nazism (or anything like that) is to admit that you don't see anything wrong with it unless a supernatural being from beyond this world says it's wrong. That is pretty disturbing to me.
That would also mean that you are just following orders and you are not a moral human.
I was all for killing puppies and the elderly UNTIL I learned that the bible suggested it was wrong.
That's not anything like what they're saying.
Morals in Christianity aren't orders from God you're obligated to follow.
They're an intrinsic sense you have for what is Good and what is Evil.
This sense is you sensing wether something aligns with the purpose of the world or not. This purpose is based in God's nature.
Their point didn't even talk about what people need to be moral. The New Testament even explicitly says that everyone has the moral law written on their heart.
The question is about wether Right and Wrong are real things, or just arbitrary opinions.
@@Menzobarrenza Sorry, last time i checked, the heart doesn't store memory, it only pumps blood.
"They're an intrinsic sense you have for what is Good and what is Evil.
This sense is you sensing whether something aligns with the purpose of the world or not. This purpose is based in God's nature."
Baseless claims.
The intrinsic sense for what is good and what is evil do not require god.
If he exists, god himself doesn't know that he is the biggest evil.
Eccentriastes God is not a being, God is being itself
I really need a mass murdering god to be able to say that the nazis were wrong about mass murdering.
That makes total sense.
Glen is so confused. Believing in an invisible magical friend obviously doesn't do much good for reasoning, or even common sense.
It actually does a lot.
When a person is religious they can invoke god as ultimate moral authority.
You can say that you disagree with me but you cannot disagree with the source of morality.
If you do not believe in absolute moral source of morality it all becomes a matter of opinion.
"I do not think we should kill people"
"Well I disagree"
" Killing people makes society worse to live in"
"I disagree, weak die and strong thrive"
" You can be killed in an ambush even if you are strong"
" If you were ambushed you were dumb and deserved to die, in 20-30 generations we will have next level humans who can make plans within plans within plans just to stay alive"
"It is terrible society to live in"
" It is not nice place but gives humans great evolutionary boost"
Jakub Mike so the Spanish were right to invoke god when they slaughtered indigenous populations who refused to convert? American pioneers invoked god as they bashed in the heads of Native American babies. Ref.
Salem, the crusades, even Vietnam. Seems religious moral authority has a lot of blood on its hands.
@@jakubmike5657: Brilliant!
@@rovert46:
Shutup Liberal.
Of all known & recorded wars in mankinds history, Christianity is culpable for 2.98% of all human conflict.
The most common root of most wars is Imperialism not religion.
- Encyclopedia of Wars, Charles Phillips and Alan Axlerod. Publisher: Facts on File.
Gavin Hurlimann not the point I was making. Nevertheless, imperialism and religion are not exclusive, they justified eachother.
The Christian’s objection is akin to saying “if someone believed drinking battery acid was healthy, and they even might be able to reason you or others into believing it was healthy, then doesn’t that mean that therefore god is the only logical source of what is and isn’t healthy?” It’s just nonsense. We can never be absolutely positive about everything, but that doesn’t mean we can’t reason about anything. The definition of “healthy actions” is totally arbitrary (all definitions are made up at some point). But reasoning about whether or not an action meets the definition of healthy is an objective process of reasoning, even if some people are incapable of being rational. It doesn’t have to be a goal that you indulge in healthy actions, but whether or not you are to be healthy is a matter of what your subjective values are. What are ought to do is a totally separate question from what is or is not healthy. Whether you ought to be moral is a totally separate question from what is moral.
Truth Matters wrote “There is no moral truth or reality without God”. Really Mr or Mrs Truth? Really? I held a deistic type belief until my forties and after that no belief. I saw no difference in reality or in my morals. All my life I have seen a steady degradation in the public morals of Christian fundamentalists who have ended up with fully supporting a serial adulterer, serial philanderer, compulsive liar, white supremacist, and a person who has admitted assaulting women and lusting after his own daughter.
@Truth Matters hi caratacus! I see you're under one of your 4+ accounts trolling with idiotic nonsensical "rebuttals" 🤭🤭🤭
@Truth Matters liars do indeed suck...so why do you do it?
I KNOW you have at least 3 other accounts...you've admitted this much yourself about 4 months ago.
Now I caught you making a statement which is nearly identical to one I just had with you under yet another troll account and you're going to claim that it's just chance that you two happen to have made nearly verbatim rebuttals on the same video in different comment threads?
Also indicative is that I blocked your other account "caratacus" and for some reason my phone did not notify me of your response here?!? 🤔🤔🤔 It's almost as if by muting caratacus, I also blocked truth matters???
You are cringey. I won't be back to see if you've responded, just know that you've been caught red handed!
The condescending tone of the theist makes me so frustrated.
Yup, that’s how they’re used to talking to their flock, they think it makes them sound smart
@@Clefargle lol funny
I'm sure that Matt has never been condescending/rude to a theist in his life.
@@patrickmcardle952 That tends to happen when people badger you with constant verifiable bullshit.
J w we are talking about this debate, if you have an issue with Matt’s temperament in another show or debate. Ok, fine. That has nothing to do with the criticism for this debate
If someone says to you, 'I don't value human life. Change my mind'...there is only one way to do that -
“Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.”
- Avicenna
That would simply mean they value their own life.
Call to authority fallacy.
well some people dont even value their own life ie that guy who was about to be executed and he said because his name was french or whatever hows this for a headline french fries?
When these questions of Hitler, or Stalin, or any other of these are put forward, the only retort needed is this - if the flood story is true, it is the single greatest act of genocide ever commited in human history, and there is no moral ground for that, god or no god.
But if you support the flood, you cannot argue against Hitler et al.
Frank Illes completely agree. Unfortunately the rebuttal I come against is that they weren't actually human, they were nephilim. Therefore it's ok..? Ridiculous logic and not even supported by the Bible, but where there's a will to defend beliefs against all the odds, there’s a way.
Except God is all knowing and knows the human heart better than the human does and it says in his word that man was continually Wicked in his every thought so God wiped them out. We're talking about if the flood is true here. So IF this is true and God is who he says he is then he is righteous and just in his every decision. It only seems unjust to you because you're bringing God down to the same level as an ordinary man.
@@johnsoto7414 If he truly was all knowing he would of know the outcome beforehand and not needed to commit torture and genocide. How could a baby be wicked? How could a person with severe special needs be wicked?
John Soto it’s strange how god acts and reacts to events just like a man would.
@@johnsoto7414 that doesn't follow any sort of logic at all. Christians are so easily duped into believing in a god, yet become incredulous/outraged that their god, as described in their own religious texts, comes of as a bit of a jerk.
Matt asks the other guy to steelman him....
And he can't.
Hahaha that moment when Matt calls out Scrivener for just saying "Mhm" over and over
@Caratacus No, he's just calling out a condescending behavior of an arrogant twat.
@Caratacus Mhm mhm mhm....yeah mhm mhm
@Caratacus How is that relevant and not also apply to you as well? You realize that you're criticizing me for doing the same thing that you're defending from the other speaker in the video. If you consider "mhm mhm" to be lashing out, then how do you NOT agree with the OP of this thread?
Keep your patronizing tone to yourself. "When you are an adult", oh please STFU, because besides your point being pedantic, it's also not even true. Welcome to the real world buttercup.
@Caratacus Mannerisms? That guy was dismissive with his "mhm"'s. You think Matt, someone who has hosted a talk show for over 15 years would have been bothered by simple mannerisms? No, the guy was doing that thing where you say "I know, I know" just to get the person your talking to to let you butt in. What the other guy was doing was rude and Matt pointed that out. Pointing out when someone is being rude and dismissive is NOT being rude and dismissive. Hence why YOU got upset at me saying "mhm". Otherwise, why would that have offended you? Please think before you type.
If you think that the only measurement of politeness is not swearing, then you don't understand what it means to be polite. Who fucking cares about the shit any cunt says when it comes to cussing, only the weak-minded get so hung up on "fowl language" as to even bring it up as a point. That's a fall-back tactic, showing even further how little you really know about the subject.
@Caratacus Do you have anything relevant to say or are you conceding the argument? Because if you're just going to cry, then you're done here. This is a youtube comment section on the internet, not an academic debate. Besides, you're the one who's smearing Matt's name to begin with, you're just projecting your inadequacies onto others. Now you're telling me what I enjoy? What a conceited and arrogant bully YOU are! Doesn't feel good when someone calls you out on YOUR shit, does it?
94% of the German population were already Christians in 1939 and Hitler was himself a Catholic, and somehow the apologist is scoffing at the non-Christian's approach of moral suasion in this hypothetical... scenario. Talk about irony.
The Nazis were objectively wrong. I believe Matt’s point was that you do not need a god to prove that, or to know it in advance. Once defined, morality can be objectively determined.
How do you define it then such that it is true for all people even if they dont believe it was wrong? How can we made a law such that what the nazi's did was wrong even if the nazi's dont believe it is wrong themselves.
@J w matt literally took like 5 mins to answer exactly that question
*"Once defined".* That's the opposite of objective!
@J w if only there was a concise video that was cut from the main discussion that highlighted the specific points you're looking for
@@LtDeadeye Not in the slightest. You make objective assessments once you have an agreed upon framework. I'll give you an example. 2+2=4. Is that _objectively_ true? Yes, but only after we subjectively establish what 2, +, = and 4 mean.
What makes Yahweh's morality objective? Well, Yahweh is _defined_ as the ultimate authority. Everything springs forth from him. His nature is what is morally correct. In other words, as long as you begin with that subjective framework, then you cam make objective assessments.
Scrivner cannot stay on a sungle topic long enough to have a productive chat.
Why should he? He was destroying Matt with ease. It was clear on every single question Matt was left saying ... 'well its my preference (rather than a moral obligation) or a collective preference if we should have stopped an action (rather than evil). Matt is so hallowed out and debauched he cannot bring himself to admit the existence of evil and good in the world.
@@anthonyfreund129 and it was clear Scrivner was basically saying that it is not his preference. What's ur point? If u just gonna move on to some other topic whenever u r answered with sounding argument from the other side. Ur conversation is gonna b unproductive af.
And bringing up Hitler on the basis of moral relativism is ridiculous, u can just do the same with those Christians during the Crusades, with their Christian moral.
An effective, enlightened, secular moral view is what the prosecutors in the Nuremberg Trials used to find the Nazis guilty.
Uh…no not really anything like today. FDR was still calling America a “Christian Nation” back then. And have you seen propaganda films like “Went the Day Well?” The people being gathered into the church, where the rector dies a martyr at the hands of Nazi oppressors. On radio and then afterwards, on TV, Archbishop Fulton Sheen has one of the most successful shows. The 1930s-1950s were drastically different than today.
@@harpsichordkid Fulton Sheen is amazing..
You mean secural world view that is manifested and is uphold by the substructures by Christianity that builded up the west ?
10:29
is that really true? you see, i live in México, and im sure the world knows how terrible drug cartels and theyr members can be, theyr level of value to human life is extremely low, and yet this people believe the god and jesus stories, some of them go to church and all that stuff, not only that, they have theyr own saint they pray to, its called "san malverde" so how is telling a story the best way to encourage people to value human life.
that is completely stupid to me.
@Daniel Bouhadana Not to the devil; against people that will not change their human trafficking and drug dealing worldview. I mean, if someone is angry and punches me or yells at me, then certainly, I'll turn the other cheek. But if some cartel lord has a gun pointed against me or is going to kidnap my children, Jesus has granted me the right to sell my cloak and buy a sword to defend them and me self
When will theists figure out that asserting a magical solution to a question that doesn't have a provable answer doesn't solve the problem.
When atheists stop using smoke and mirrors to get from an 'is' to an 'ought' 👍🏽
@@brundlefly204na...the bible is atrocious
Churchill was a prominent member of the English Eugenics Association.
"When he was Home Secretary (February 1910-October 1911) Churchill was in favor of the confinement, segregation, and sterilization of a class of persons contemporarily described as the" feeble minded. " (winstonchurchill.org)
I'm not saying this to criticize Churchill, but to put the question into perspective.
Fortunately, he did not get through any of the eugenic laws that he proposed when elected into the politics of England. In the United States, however, in several states, eugenic laws were passed. So, it seems that Christianity does NOT affect where such ideas emerge.
Eugenics thinking lowers the human value and strengthens the thinking of people as tools for society ... that's the problem. Trying to make augenics a Nazi problem is simply historical revisionism. To claim that England or the United States went to war against the Nazis because of eugenics is a conscious lie.
Hitler was also a Christian. His perspective on the master race depended on it.
Why it was so important for Catholics to stamp Hitler as an atheist after the war was to cleanse themselves, for guildt for their support of Hitler's growth to power. In addition, Catholics have called everything and everyone pagan throughout the ages, including Protestants, Anglicans and Orthodox. And in addition, they had no trouble supporting Mosolini throughout the war. Mosolini was, unlike Hitler, an open atheist already when he came to power. Ther was no holocost in Italy.
Wikipedia writes: "Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate. Historians regard Hitler as having anti-Christian views[1] and establish him as a secular theist".
I think it is more correct to say that Hitler *used* christianity as a tool to support the nationalistic ideology and gain power.
The idea of eugenics may certainly emerge in any context. But what ideology provides a better foundation for combatting it? Christianity or Matt's brand of atheism?
@@gkoymnbxykfb Well, how can we know if someone is not Christian when they claim they are ... with so many denominations? I accept everyone who shows his disgust for what he stood for, but it is arrogant to claim to know what he believed. When he lost the support of the Catholic Church and the Protestants rejected him, the Nazis made their own denomination, like so many before them, Positive Christianity. Thats why there is so manny denominasjons today. Who gets to decide which is autentic and not.
"But what ideology provides a better foundation for combating it?" That's a good question ... I share Matt's secular humanist ethics. Although I think it is a better system, I cannot claim to know ... I - belive - it is better ;-)
@@davidsalts: MD is the perfect poster child for everything that's wrong with secular humanism & atheism.
@Caratacus:
Atheists can't cope with the carnage of the 20th century, so anything outside of that is just deny, deny, deny.
Atheism = disorder, chaos & ultimately the malevolence of humanity :(
@@gavinhurlimann2910 Explain to everyone how the Crusades and countless other wars didn't really have anything to do with christianity.
G.S. missed the boat bigtime when he said "justify fighting a war against hitler", as this pretty much overlooks the fact that Germany was the aggressor in WW2. Clearly. They invaded Poland to start it, and the war was mostly about the 3rd Reich invading.
5:31 very crucial point by Matt here. We do not want war. If you can sort this out in a symposium. You ought to do so. If the same 6million Jews had unfortunately perished in concentration camps and germany was defeated in a symposium without war, it would still be better than the *75 million* people who would perish if the entire world went to war. Thats 40 million civilians btw. Drawn into a conflict they likely had no say or stake in. And 20 million military personel.
Matt is on such a Higher level.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Atheists are delusional. Here are 10 reasons why:
1. They dismiss morality as nothing more than strongly felt subjective preference, but admit they act as if morality is objective in nature.
2. They speak, act and hold others responsible for their behaviors as if we all have some metaphysical capacity to transcend and override the deterministic effects of our body’s physical state and causative processing, yet they deny any such metaphysical capacity (like free will) exists.
3. They deny truth can be determined subjectively while necessarily implying that their arguments and evidences are true and expecting others to subjectively determine that their arguments are true.
4. They deny that what is intelligently designed can be reliably identified when virtually every moment of their waking existence requires precisely that capacity.
5. They deny that some abstract concepts are necessarily true and objectively binding on our existence (such as the fundamental principles of math, logic and morality) yet reference them (directly or indirectly) as if they are exactly that.
6. They deny humans are anything other than entirely creatures of nature, yet insist that what humans do is somehow a threat to nature or some supposed natural h.
7. They insist humans are categorically the same as any other animals, but then decry it when humans treat other humans the same way other animals treat their own kind (alpha male brutality, violence, etc), as if humans have some sort of obligation to “transcend” their “animal” nature.
8. They insist that physical facts are the only meaningful truths that exist, but then want to use force of law to protect subjective concepts that contradict physical facts, like “transgenderism”.
9. They insist spiritual laws that transcend the physical do not exist, but then insist that all humans are equal, when they factually, obviously are not equals at all - either physically or intellectually.
10. They pursue social systems that attempt to force the concept of equality on everyone as if they expect that through ignoring the physical realty of human inequality they can build a sound social system, which would be comparable to ignoring the inequality of building materials and insisting that they all be treated as equal when building a skyscraper.
Yep
If by higher you mean stoned you are probably right.
@@bullshtingtaqiyahallalq3544 I literally just dismantled this comment point for point in another video...you are just a copy and pasting troll and your reasons are absolute rubbish.
Dillahunty's argument could be used to oppose abortion at 7:42 "What have you lost? Is your society better and are you just looking at the short term? How do you know that you didn't lose a cure for disease? How do you know you are worse off because it has fundamentally changed your psyche? How do you that you are fundamentally worse off because you have lost art? because you lost human connection?
It could be used to defend abortion too, but it's irrelevant because his argument for reproductive freedom is that people have a right to body autonomy that shouldn't be trumped by a potential person.
They can't say what they have done objectively is wrong but they can only say based on thier subjective moral apparatus and any atheist who claims an objective foundation for thier morality then they are either naive or delusional.
Theists can’t provide an objective foundation for their morality either.
The foundation is Well being ... Checkmate 🙊
You know whats not objective one persons opinion a god included
Have you *READ* the Bible???
Christian morality is ENORMOUSLY subjective!!!
@@GoodAvatar I really wonder what's moral about judging people in the first place at their belief! The Bible is pretty Clair that I'm as an atheist go straight to hell just for not believing as an mass murder who aceptes Jesus in his heart makes it to heaven? It's unmoral so shut up until you can show how such system would be moral!
@@ichsehsanders Well, I don't believe what the Bible says.
I think it says a lot of inaccurate, utterly false nonsense.
There's no real reason for people to believe what it says, same as the Quran or the Book of Mormon or Harry Potter.
-we’re having a symposium when we should be fighting a war.
-No! We should always be having a symposium so we don’t have to fight wars!
Daaaaaaaamn.
Actually got em
Are you suggesting Delahunty's comment was a slam dunk winner? Cringeworthy. How could anyone who is a mature adult present such a ridiculously naïve argument? A symposium requires two sides who are willing to sit down and chat. If one side is marching across borders and invading neighbouring countries do you think holding symposiums will put a stop to their aggression and genocide rather than bullets and bombs? It's people like Delahunty who enabled Hitler and gave him the very clear message that they would not raise a finger in defense of the countries he invaded. If a few more leaders had ben like Churchill perhaps WW2 may never have happened.
@@markmooroolbark252 because he’s not referring to when Hitler had invaded Poland.
He’s was talking about the period before when it was still possible to pull back from the brink so that a war could be averted.
Of course with hindsight talking to Hitler probably wasn’t to work but you don’t know that at the time and should at least try.
@@Gumpmachine1 It was never going to work. As I said, everything Churchill predicted came to fruition. They simply didn't want to believe it. They let him rebuild the army which went against the sanctions placed on Germany at the end of WW1. They continually turned a blind eye in the hope he would leave them alone if they let him invade other countries.
As Churchill said:
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
That's Matt Delahunty.
@@markmooroolbark252 I don’t think Matt was suggesting in any and all situations you can reason with everyone but he was merely suggesting you should make the effort using the methodology he laid out.
He never referred to appeasement at all costs, you inferred that.
Matt even joked that once the fighting started that talking at that point probably wasn’t going to work.
Xtianity: How can an atheist say that killing a group of people you don't like is wrong?
Atheism: Wasn't that pretty much all that your god did in the OT?
@Caratacus Atheism: A rejection of claims that gods exist and nothing more.
Christianity: Assigning whatever strawman philosophy it wants to atheists because it's easier to argue against those than try to prove God.
Christianity Part 2: We humans are filthy, worthless wretches not fit to be in the presence of God, but he gave us a loophole to enter into his kingdom by him/his son having a bad weekend.
@Caratacus
man - you got into a right tizzy on this page didn't you. Your comments are everywhere - and each one so full of bullshit.
My favourite line of reasoning was "don't bring up Biblical slavery or I'll call you a Nazi!" but your fabulous strawman of atheism here is also just as hilarious.
sad.
@Caratacus
lol. I've never met a conservative Christian sjw before. It must be fun for you.
@Caratacus
why do Christian trolls insist on creating meaningless strawmen?
@Caratacus Sorry, cupcake. Atheism is nothing more than a rejection of claims that gods exist. Whatever else you try to assign to it is your being intellectually lazy and dishonest because you can't argue your side. Thanks for playing.
Theological interpretation is not simply what dogmatic theologians do when they use the Bible to support their respective doctrinal positions.
If you claim to stand for truth, but then edit your videos to make "the other guy" look bad, then you don't actually stand for truth.
The comments are nothing but Matt's fan club totally missing the point.
On the belt buckles of the nazis it said “ Gott mit uns “ translated means “God with us”. Look it up!
It’s called using religious propaganda to control the masses. Propaganda doesn’t have to be truthful, just convince people God is on their side and you gain power. The real teachings of Jesus go like this; love your enemy, bless those who curse you and forgive those who hurt you.
@Caratacus And????
You're acting like the Nazis were secular or something.
They weren't.
They were Catholics, for the most part.
Did you think the anti-Jewish, anti-communism stuff *FELL FROM THE SKY* or something??
@frank quinn
Which God though?.... Not Jesus of course.
@Caratacus
From Secular Humanism?
@J w How is it "propaganda" if what Matt is saying is accurate?
Glen’s arguments and perspectives showed no value 😂. Good one Matt!
Obviously yes, how delusional must one be to have to seriously consider the question the title poses?
These titles are nearly unbelievable.
Tell me objectively why the nazis werw bad then
I mean philosophically you can ask such a question youd have to be crazy or evil or both to think the nazis were good yes but it is still worth asking the question
Glen came off as dishonest, disengenuis and lacking in generousity.
I have never seen a religious apologist act otherwise.
@Trolltician Yes - Glen should try that I agree.
@Trolltician Huh? I honestly didn't realize you were a theist there. Should have known from the name though.
Is it possible for one to be an apologist and not get smeared with all 3 labels online that you just mindlessly attributed to Glen? Every comment section I've ever seen with atheists talking about literally anyone that Matt has ever debated makes me think that "No" is the appropriate answer to that question
@@patrickmcardle952 I think it is possible. I have seen Buddhists do it.
Even though I agree with Matt's thinking, I think he could've made a stronger argument and just said "Killing people violates their autonomy and that in itself is immoral" so he doesn't have to argue about whether killing the disabled is better for society. It is a more deontological philosophy though, so I don't know if Matt subscribes to that kind of philosophy.
I'm not sure how anything can be considered objectively immoral.
@@maxamos7 I don't think there is such a thing as "objective morality" either. If anything that is the very point I'm making.
I'm saying is that it's pointless to attempt to appeal to the Nazi's own well-being - in an effort to "change their mind" - because everyone is going to have their own *subjective* moral principles.
The Nazis could simply say "By our own principles, killing the disabled is morally obligatory, so we can ignore the consequences of this on well-being."
Likewise, the Allies could say "By our own principles, stopping the Nazis is morally obligatory."
So we don't have to care about changing people's minds. We can appeal to our own moral principles, and just accept that there are no objective principles to appeal to.
@@philipcervenjak2493 that seems different than your original comment which said killing people violates their autonomy and is therefore immoral.
@@maxamos7 Oh yeah, my original comment was a bit misleasing. I was running under the assumption that Matt was offering his own subjective moral system of "maximising well-being", and I was simply offering a alternative moral system that is simpler but, nonetheless, subjective.
So all I'm saying is that if you're going to grant that all morals are subjective, then you might as well just say "it's my opinion that Nazis are immoral because they are violating people's autonomy." It's a more parsimonious position than trying to persuade a Nazi to change their mind by appealing to their own well-being.
@@philipcervenjak2493 ahh I see. Ok. Yeah maybe it wasn't contradictory then. I just misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification.
Glenn should be glad Matt treated him like a child and didn't drop bombs on him.
We can say they were wrong by our standards as defined and developed by humans over 1000s of years. There is no absolute right and wrong of course. Even God changes his mind about morals over time.
Panikos Of Grays is what you are saying right? And what do you mean by the standard over 1000s of years?
Jeremy Vinup there is no right and wrong built into physics like the laws of thermodynamics. We had to invent our own. We quickly decided that we didn't like being killed for example.
Most of us already had an instinct not to kill our own family (if we hadn't we wouldn't have survived to be here now) so we extended that to neighbours and made rules about it. After all we needed to cooperate with neighbours to fight large animals or for things like building a barn. Those who didn't want to follow rules tended to go off on their own and got eaten by predators.
We made rules about theft too. After all we couldn't get anything done if we had to sit up all night guarding our possessions.
This wasn't about right or wrong, but about what works. A practical solution. Even if we wanted that guy's spear we wouldn't take it as then he'd take our stuff. It just wasn't worth it.
We didn't just make rules, but taught them to our children and they grew up seeing the rules as not just rules but the right way to act.
The rest is history.
When someone invented a religion and said "Well my god says theft is a sin" this wasn't a huge surprise to people. They didn't gasp and say "why? What's wrong with taking what you want?" as they already lived in a society that frowned upon it.
Panikos Of Grays this sounds like a story. How did you come to this conclusion?
doug nut thats not what I’m asking. Looking for the evidence as to why what was posted is true.
@@jeremyvinup3868 Good question
What if you became weak and society wanted to kill you? How would you feel about that? The truth is that anyone can have an accident and become disabled. So taking care of the weak teaches us about compassion.
Roger Kreil caring for the weak is just a rational understanding of likely futures for yourself.
You can start with a purely selfish stand point and still get to altruism... if you aren’t an idiot.
Goddamn it.... let’s get this settled once and for all: The Shure SM7B dynamic mic (which now nearly everyone on RUclips uses for their vlogs and radio shows and podcasts because they see everyone else using it and no one has any goddamn original ideas anymore) needs a LOT of gain; it’s just a fact of its design. It also has a pretty wide frequency response. The net result of these facts is that if you use an SM7 for round table discussions, you’re going to have significant low-end thumps every time some doofus bangs his hand on the table when he tries to convince you that you need a goddamn moral lawgiver.
APPLY A GODDAMN HIGHPASS FILTER on your final mix buss for your video’s audio track, and those stupid thumps are gone. Christ, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
I feel like we are kindred spirits lol. This kind of stuff makes me pull out my hair. The best part? (Sarcasm incoming) nobody will do a damn thing about it. At least I know next time I won’t be pissed off alone lol.
@@bishopchalik8561 THANK you, Bishop... I also don't feel alone anymore. Somebody understands.
Typical matt. Didn't understand the conversation, started to have it explained to him, struggled, realized he was losing, got angry, changed the subject just slightly enough to avoid the topic he doesnt want to discuss.
There's something deeper within this conversation that he refuses to grapple with.
Glen looks really fucking smug in this.
Aren’t they always.
It seemed as if Glen held Matt accountable for the nazi's actions, as if Glen was morally superior.
Or Matt he failed to present a moral ground in a strong superior way. Also that we even speak about morals just shows how the west that built upon christianity as influence have in determinic consequence causality effected even your phrasing of that comment.
@@el29Western morals were not built on Christianity. Western morals are in spite of Christianity.
What are the odds Scivener has ever listened to one of the 300 examples of just Dillahunty explaining humanism, well-being, or situational ethics?
Also, I watched the full-length debate with no cuts. Great editing job, @Unbelievable?....
When he called him Neville chamberlain the debate was over. Matt you lost
Not at all. He brought up the subject of Hitler. Christianity supported Hitler. Christianity is responsible for anti semitism. Christianity looks down on anyone who is not a Christian.
Claiming God does not make you objective.
Claiming God does not excuse anything.
If we cannot prove a God, but we can prove certain consequences of actions and responses to said actions objectively, then we can work from there, no need for an imaginary God to makes empty claims.
But we still need a higher morality to determine what outcomes or consequences are good, or bad, or desirable, or undesirable.
Ultimately the yardstick must exist outside of the thing being measured.
I wonder if Glen feels as morally outraged at wiping out of Amalekitss & Caananites as he does the Jews in the Haulocaust.
Most likely not, because they were the Nazi's of their time. I would agree that they needed to be stopped, and besides that if you read a few verses after they were commanded to kill them, the Jewish people were then told not to marry them. The only logical way for that to happen would be if there were still people from those cultures still alive, just like after WW2 there were still German people there would have been some of them that lived, it was only the kings and the leaders that were killed along with those in the main cities.
@@mr.graves2867 They were not. All of the peoples around the Mediterranean were warring tribes. Each one considered the other dangerous. There is evidence early Israelites would periodically attack Greece to the point the Greeks mythologized them as demons from across the water. Consider historical sources outside the bible.
@@user-in4xs2fv8j Did God create the Amalekites and Nazis with perfect foreknowledge, knowing what they would did ahead of time? If so, he’s responsible for their beahavior. And are you saying that all Jews during the Halocaust were without sin? The Bible teaches that it doesn’t matter if your sin is eating children or lying to your parents, sin is sin. So this differentiation you’re making between the Jews and the Amalekites is not supported by the teachings of the Bible.
Lol 😂 I pity you for all the cognitive dissonance you must experience in trying explain away all the inconsistencies and logical fallacies in your belief. You are what they call a cafeteria Christian - you pick and choose the nice “love thy neighbor” portion of the Bible to believe and ignore ugly violent parts. The difference between you and me is that I acknowledge the inconsistencies and face them head on.
The Cananites were sacrificing their own children, literally sawing prepubescent little girls in half, beheading, and they burned some to death. God gave them many warnings, and He had had it with them. Archeologists have been excavating and finding the children's bodies. The horror is beyond belief. God didn't want the Jews falling away and doing things like that. That's why He judged them and destroyed them. Scripture makes that perfectly clear. The wages of sin is death. Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Repent. God is a righteous judge. It is better that a man should fall into the sun, than that he should fall into the hand of the Living God.
Can Christians say the Nazis were “wrong” after the Crusades?
Atheist,
Yeah, Christians do say that because it's true.
Of all 1,763 known & recorded wars, 6.98% of human conflict had religion as its root cause. Of these, 4.0% were the lslamic Wars.
By far, the root cause of most wars has been due to Imperialism. This means Christianity is culpable for 2.98% of all human conflict.
- Encyclopedia of Wars, Charles Phillips & Alan Axlerod. Publisher: Facts on File. 2004.
Btw - Christianity is true :)
Yes. Can atheists say the Nazis were "wrong" after all of human history? And have a basis for it?
@@Frodojack: Hat tip sir!
@@Frodojack yes. Reality (as opposed to the fiction that christians propose) is the basis for it.
@@MarcusW8 Atheism cannot account for morality nor reality, only nonsense. So you can make up a fantasy that includes morality, but as I wrote earlier, there's no basis for it.
Well, Matt couldn't really answer the "hitler argument" about society being better without disabled. If he wanted as smooth society as possible then that would be a step. And I don't think secular morality or any other morality would convince hitler not to do that. And the question is, where hitler's morality was based?
If you read why Hitler did what he did it was not at all to do with anything about atheism it was more just his simple radical hatred for Jews. That’s it simple and plain.
@@dydb he killed more than Jews
We didn't try to come to reason with Hitler. We told him if he invaded Poland there would be war. That's not to say you can dissuade a megalomaniac from his goals. A war was always going to be the outcome.
Glen tried and failed to paint Matt into a very specific corner for a blatantly specific reason. It was disingenuous and not in the good spirit of debate. It was also the unchristian thing to do.
Ole matt totally clueless. He's only talking to make it look like he know what's going on. Matt is the example of someone addicted on drugs but swears he has it under control.
You are totally clueless ,Scrivener was talking total shit .
First of all, human beings are more than just their physical abilities. So killing of disabled people is a huge waste of Human Resources!
Secondly, most of the disabilities that were used as a reason to kill of a person were not heritable! So killing off people that had them wouldn’t lower the amount of people with the same disabilities in the future!
Thirdly, there were families whose morale and loyalty were damaged due to the fact that their loved ones were killed for these reasons. And that is the most stupid thing that you could do as a dictator!
So even from the most inhuman approach it was a wrong thing to do!
It seems like a clear cut issue is being muddied for no good reason.
We must all start with the idea that civilization is a good thing. Otherwise anarchy ensues and we all eventually die.
Then how does man organize himself into a proper way to promote the ability to live together on Earth.
That starts with a man's right to his own life. Without that nothing else can exist for long.
Then man has a right to exist for his own sake, thus removing the argument that another body can take his life away for a "better world".
You can disagree with this concept, but you cannot violate it without admitting that man belongs to the state or God or to someone (or thing) other than himself. If you admit that, then you, yourself have no sovereignty and have no defense against the first person who comes along and threatens to violate it.
@Caratacus "Pre-historic humans were no doubt a lot happier wandering around than some poor slave in Ancient Egypt."
How do you know THAT!???
@Caratacus if your statement is true then we would have more than one human species, its not because pre-historic humans killed off all other human species competing for resources
@Caratacus i think he was stating this as an example, that we need a starting point to even have a discussion on why we should not just kill each other, i think he skipped way ahead to jump loving civilization, but the near fact that i fill paint and you fill pain, is enough to make want to negotiate what moral code to follow
@Caratacus what does this even mean?, then whats not an opinion, even your statement is an opinion
im nitpicking but when you say anarchy you really mean something more like chaos or havoc as anarchy doesnt technically mean the same thing
Around 8:30:
Glen: “They have to _add_ value, they don’t _have_ value?”
Matt: “Yeah.”
Horrifying.
Imagine if Hitler wasn't influenced by Christianity and had been introduced to modern humanist values.
@Fred Flintstone lol don't be so naive.
Hitler was deeply influenced by Christianity, biblical lore and a host of other things... There are not 33k different Christian denomination because they all agree...lol
Go ahead and claim he was anti-christian (evidence doesn't support this), *are you gonna say the same about everyone taking his orders?*
Imagine if the German people had been influenced by modern humanist values.
The Bible explicitly describes Yahweh's wrath through man's hands, horrible genocides dictated by Yahweh, purity sanctified through blood shed, ritual sacrafice and the slaughter of innocence....
...So get real.
@@Fastlan3 Hitler was a materialist. He proclaimed Christian faith to the public, but privately thought it was a foolish religion that weakened the German people.
@@emmagrace6396 sorry to inform you guys but Hitler was motivated primarily by his religious views...that of the abrahamic God.
He despised the Jewish people and homosexuals primarily for this reason. Furthermore he entrusted a great deal of his force, including his personal guards who were Christian. On top of that, the insignia worn on his person and other Nazi uniforms contained the phrase "gott mit uns" meaning God is with us.
He may not have been a devout Christian...at least not by the standards of most modern sects of Christianity...but his actions were in fact influenced by his religious beliefs and values.
@Fred Flintstone humanist valued would be values which promote the prosperity of humanity. It's kinda in the name. There is no prewritten list that I'm aware of, unfortunately there is SOME thought to go into this though minimal as it may be.
Does the Bible contain a list of everything that one ought do or not do? If so, how do you know the list is correct?
@Fred Flintstone I think there are more than 2 major rules depending on your definition of "major" but does it include EVERYTHING that one ought and ought not do?
Did Jesus not say "I am not here to abolish the old laws but to fulfill them"?
No dietary or clothing rules? I think you should read Leviticus.
There are something like 168± commandments actually.
Love God and your neighbor? Is this the same God that is going to burn me for eternity for not accepting that Jesus Christ is my savior? And which neighbor? Next door? Is this metaphor for everyone? Neighbor in a foreign country? Neighbor on the evolutionary tree?
I agree with the golden rule...but are you aware that this teaching predates Christianity by thousands of years. Even if it wasn't a part of some ancient society is there any reason why we can't behave this way without also teaching people that homosexuality is wrong or that women are lesser to men or any of the thousand other immoral and demonstrably false teachings within the Bible?
Typical book burning theists. Censor that knowledge. Thomas Paine was so right when he said modern religions just put a human face on the sun.
The editing is "godly" ..
I would like to see Dillahunty debate with Tom Holland on this issue. Dillahunty has the idea that human beings can always sit down and have a chat about their differences and be persuaded that killing others is against their self-interest and that they should obey some sort of higher morality that has nothing to do with God. That's every bit as pie-in-the-sky as any belief in God.
I guess you missed the part where he says that if talking didn't work, he would kill him. Meaning: you try diplomacy and if it fails you go to war. What is "pie-in-the-sky" with that?
Matt has a Debate with Hitler... Hitler Disagrees with Matt on one point
Matt: Well... I tried *pulls out gun*
6:31
Even the apologists laughed at that 😂😂😂
Uhm...are you serious? Matt never said only disagree on one point and i kill you?
"If somebody sat around and did nothing but consume, I don't know how you can consider that as adding value" - dillahunty. Why not kill the lazy?
Oooooh. Good point!
Adding value to society is not the same as a human life having value.
I have a doodle done my my child, it has zero value to society, it's pretty much just garbage that can't be used for anything, but I value it greatly.
Jumping from they don't add value so let's kill them is crazy, which is why hardly anyone both religious or not agrees that the Nazis were justified.
@@steelybojangles - Well, if you have a society that does not value certain human lives because they believe that those lives do not add to the "wellbeing" of their society, you could have an immoral (as we would define it) action such as killing the mentally disabled. This society would be maximizing wellbeing as they saw it (as defined by their learned experts or majority vote). Hence you get moral relativism as well as the possibility of a "moral" society regressing to being less moral.
@@MrRhomas913 Yeah you are correct. Society creates its own set of morals depending on the shared values of the people, and I can create negative examples from a religious viewpoint. Say a society looks at Numbers 15:32, where God comdems a man to death by stoning for picking sticks on the Sabbath. The society may see it moral and in everyone's wellbeing to kill anyone caught working on the sabbath. But our modern society doesn't view that as moral or in anyones wellbeing.
Morals change over the years, and the ancient book of the Bible with its misogyny, geneside, slavery, death sentences for minor offences, rules on eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics, are totally at odds with our modern values of freedom and equality.
@@steelybojangles True- you are preaching to the choir. That said, I am confronted with the Christian argument that to love your neighbor is the foundation of Christian morality (it says in the bible that this is the greatest law) which seems like a pretty good foundation for objective morality. We are taking in the world of ideas and not in the world of reality. We can all find violence in the actions of the religious and the non-religious through history with varying justifications.
Haha "we can often delude ourselves" was the perfect line from a guy that just said he could sit down with Hitler and convince him not to be evil
Jared Pontious don’t lose track, at 4:49 he explicitly said he didn’t know he could convince hitler, and he was accessing the possibility of convincing him based on the foundation of how moral conversations go.
@@masongalioth4110 which is also a delusional proposition. Dillahunty has crazy blindspots and I think it's because he's busy cherry picking. How he came to the conclusion the bible advocates for slavery is a good example. He reads things saying "treat slaves good" as implying that slavery is good and then asserting the bible endorses it. That's a really low level read. He should study some hermeneutics and then revisit some of these ideas. Otherwise he comes off as a close minded college student whose concept of religion is frozen in his childhood. Hes not a serious person.
Jared Pontious lets stay focused before getting into our opinions on slavery. Matt’s making a good point here, one christians and Non-christians can agree on. He’s only talking about how opinions and moralities are based on shared foundational suppositions; and by using them, he or any of us can logically demonstrate (which is different than convincing) how hitler or a nazi have contradicted their own goals.
This is crucial because if we address this directly, we can objectively address how a person who shares our foundational beliefs becomes a nazi or some future evil group.
@@masongalioth4110 or how they become an atheist who has no moral values.
@@drycleanernick7603 You’re going to find it surprising when you read into philosophy how only with Atheism does Morality become sensible.
Try comparing
“I do good things for Goodness sake.”
To
“I do good because I believe a deity exists that is telling me to, so I can be rewarded with paradise.”
I like how the Christian admits that we should go to war rather than trying to reason with one another. It's very eye opening to what the Christian view is.
@@deVeresd.Kfz.1515 no he literally said that Hitler was not worth talking down. When Matt suggested that we try reasoning he disagreed.
Either way you're just simply wrong, kid...pick up a history book.
Very unconvinced that’s the view of Christs teachings
@@thenero9493 Jeremiah 51:20, Joel 3:9, 2 Corinthians 10:4 Zechariah 14:2. The Bible totally doesnt preach about god's violence....
Answer to “i don’t value human life” is “you are evil. You not valuing human life does not change your positions morality.”
That's presuming that absolute morality exists
You can't ask someone: how would you have dealt with Hitler? and then use the knowledge we have now, after the fact, to try and refute someone's answer. That's dishonest.
Wait a second wasn't Hitler a Catholic though? Why lump this question onto Matt first?
Glen is excellent at interrogating Matt’s reconstructionism and it makes Matt look lost. And he later gets frustrated for it.
Your perception is severely flawed.
This much be the weirdest subject for arguments 🤔
If there is no God morality is a subjective concept. You may be able to convince Hitler that he became less successful but it still doesn’t explain why his behavior is wrong if there is no standard beyond ourselves. It is just a matter of opinion. When talking about the term success everyone has a different idea of what success looks like.
Well said brother. Matt is a clown he says it's better for humans to not kill yeah better for you cause your fat, weak, and slow so survival of the fittest is not to high on your agenda. You think Godless people care about advancing human race lol come to Afghanistan with me buddy or lets go to Colombia better yet I will bring you to the hood here in the states tell them its not beneficial to rob and kill you lol. No they will kill you without a thought and they will laugh you to scorn to say your way is better. It's all subjective it's better their way. But luckily for people like Matt this country has instilled some Christian values. It must really pain this guy to sing the Pledge of Allegiance one nation under God wow he must dread that part.
@@evanramos6665 I agree man. Wise words
why would morality be objective with a God then it would just be a deity's opinion instead of 8 billion human opinions
@@S.D.323 cause god is the standard of morality. He’s the reason we have morality. As if there is no standard it’s people and not all people agree.
What did the christian say to the atheist that asked "why didn't Jesus condemn slavery?"
He said "Are you crazy? Jesus would have been crucified!"
The funny thing about this conversation is that Hitler claimed he was doing “Gods work”, and the Catholic Church worked closely with the Nazis...
You should read what your fellow Aussie Tim O'Neill has to say about this in his blog, "History for Atheists." He's an atheist, by the way.
@@siennamargeaux8413
Its actually a very complicated topic as there wasn't just one stance within the Church, but many, varying from country to country and even town to town, but that besides the point, becasue as far as I know, nothing Tim says has any relevance on the fact that the Nazis clearly stated that they were Christians doing "Gods work", with the support of several key Archdiocese, which was the point of my comment.
And yes I have watched some of Tims videos on YT, and sadly he sounds like a Nazi apologist, but I'm not sure that was his intent, at least I hope it wasn't.
@@AussieNaturalistatheists will believe whatever they want to believe. The fact is that "thou shall not murder" is a commandment which literally will take you to hell if you commit this act! that is our belief, so you must never ever murder anyone! How can one believe Hitler saying he is doing "God's work' is true, if he literally is going against God's teachings?
He was manipulating people so his murders would be justified, Hitler was a smart evil individual and he knew what he had to say to control his people..
@@dtgb7
What do you mean when you say "atheists will believe whatever they want to believe"?
Laws governing murder, etc, were around long before the Bible was conceived and canonised, and if you dont kill people due to a fear of going to "hell", then you're morals are well below that of the average atheist.
"that is our belief, so you must never ever murder anyone!"
- Except of course when your supposed "god" tells you that its okay, right, like stoning an unruly child Deut 21:18-21 or a homosexual Lev 20:13, or how about non-believers Luke 19:27 (and many, many more quotes), "witches & necromancers" Lev 20:27, adulterers Lev 20:10.... So its okay to murder them but no one else, is that what you're saying?
The list of laws from your supposed "god" that are considered murder by modern standards is very, very long, so your god is either evil, OR those laws were simply a reflection of the men that wrote them in that time period....
"How can one believe Hitler saying he is doing "God's work' is true, if he literally is going against God's teachings?"
- Thats the thing, it doesnt go against "gods teachings", does it... And history is littered with religious figures, church leaders, cult leaders, etc... claiming to be doing "gods work" while committing mass genocide.
Religious leaders, Kings, etc.. have been manipulating people for as long as the god concept has existed, its all about control and power, freedom comes when you finally realise that and shed the yoke of religious dogma.
@@AussieNaturalist Yes, atheists believe whatever they want to believe, meaning that you guys tend to say that you don't believe in the Bible yet you do believe in the things you can use to attack the Bible! So in the end you do believe in some parts, the convenient parts..
I would say most christians don't commit murder not because of fear of hell, but because it is a morally deplorable action, although if one had the tendency to want to commit murders but does not act on it because he subscribes to the Bible's teachings, how is that not a good thing? in fact that is a great example of how the bible has a positive effect on society by restraining people with bad tendencies..
Now lets turn the situation around, what if that same person had the same tendency of wanting to commit murder but was an atheist, nothing would stop that person from committing murder, he would go on and commit the atrocity because there is no objective moral code in atheism, there is only subjective opinions..
Deut 21 18, not a child, a son which is different! a child can be controlled by his father a grown adult son can't! and of course context is important, it is saying that the son is evil, rebellious and cant be controlled, in other words he is a threat to society.. No parent wants to kill their children, so for a parent to take his son to be stone to death his son would have to be pretty evil indeed! So for example if the son was a serial killer, rapist etc...
Lev 20 13, sadly today homosexuality has been accepted which is proof that moral standards are decaying in society, but back then homosexuality was looked as an abomination, it was a detestable act.. Some pedophiles are sentenced to death in some countries look at it like that..
so context is very important..
Today laws also exist, in which depending on the actions you commit you might receive a death penalty, if humans can do this in the name of justice, God has more the reasons...
Your problem is that you are equating human actions to God's actions when we are in a completely different level of existence! For example, lets say you create robots with artificial intelligence, lets say you instructed them to follow your orders but some robots are "killing" other robots for no reason, are you as the creator of those robots entitled to "kill" those rebellious robots?
I'm using the word kill but we know by definition that killing can only happen when one human takes another humans life, so a robot cant kill another robot just like a human cant kill a robot either, we are in different levels of existence! and God is in a completely different level of existence to us..
But it does goes against God's teachings, doing justice is not the same as murdering! Context is important..
Now there is some truth in this "history is littered with religious figures, church leaders, cult leaders etc .. claiming to be doing "gods work" while committing mass genocide"
Yes, but those people clearly can say they are "x" but that does not make them "x"! Those people are just manipulators and evil individuals they are not really christians, their is a reason for the saying, actions speak louder than words..
If we were to compare the atrocities with what society has gain with religion, the atrocities would be summed in a tiny percentage! And the percentage would be even more miniscule if we were to compare what atheism has provided which is good...
Christians all share the same birthday : yesterday.
Matt said he might agree with Hitler. He is lost.
Why was Hitler objectively wrong?
He said he might agree with Hitler on some things. Hitler knew smoking was unhealthy long before people started the anti-smoking campaign. Matt's point is that if your actions and justifications are in conflict with a foundation you agree with then there is a problem.
1999 : it is wrong to murder people. If u don’t understand that, you are lost.
Hi, my name is John Wumsh I believe it’s wrong to kill people. I just don’t think my moral beliefs are objective. They just reflect my own preferences.
Choo Jun Wyng : they weren’t talking about smoking. They were talking about exterminating the Jews. Go to 4:50.
Can atheists say the Nazis were 'wrong'? Yes. Although the Nazis could say they weren't. It becomes irrelevant if you can't impose the final judgment on it. The one who could impose authority is the one who dictates the terms.
people seems to forget that WW2 started when Germany invaded Poland. It was nothing to do with what was happening with the German Jews.
Glad that Glen’s bad ideas are being exposed.
It’s vice versa. Matt was floundering in establishing a moral ground for his beliefs based on vague notions of well-being, health and pleasure that is easily justified by those that want to harm the disables, for example. There were many times where Glen should have stepped in to directly pinpoint Matt’s arguments.
@@JoshJ12 I don't see it that way. Morality is a body of standards. What those standard are based on is a huge part of the question. It's easy to base morality on an unseen unproven entity, like a god. Or you can base morality on human principles like Matt proposes, human flourishing and well-being. God being the basis of morality is easy if you don't think about it. But once you do, you realize that you need to make exceptions all the time, and then justify those exceptions. But since you can't go to the source (have a Zoom meeting with god, for instance), then people just tend to interpret and even make up their own justifications based on their personal situation. That's basically what Hitler did - he had a Catholic foundation, and he justified the Jews and others to be exterminated. However, if you go with Matt's basis and realize that all morality is subjective, and it's based on accepted principles within the group or society that you are talking about, then you can actually discuss the issues. You can actually reach a point of agreement, or at least a standard, where that group or society can live with. And then continue to have the conversation and improve it.
If you start and top with, "God said it", it leaves no room for growth, no room for improvement, and no room for improving that standard. Unless of course you change the interpretation of what your god said, which is exactly what we've seen over the ages. And how does that work? Did god change his mind? Did we actually discover that even though this ancient text permits one thing, and this newer but important text says something else, that we should go with the one we prefer? Does it make sense to cherry-pick what god says? And if so, how is that a foundation for anything?
If we would actually have more conversations about important principles instead of standing on the, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" standard, we could do more good in the world. I believe that. And you don't have to, but that's up to you. I think Matt is right on with his assessment.
Another cut and paste job wtf..
@Caratacus No shit Sherlock..obviously I know the full video is up otherwise it couldn't be a cut and paste job could it?
@Caratacus Not everyone who lands here will know that..
@Caratacus Is it okay for people to quote the Bible out of context, misleadingly, since the full Bible is out there available for free?
@Caratacus Yet it is fine to quote MD in snippets and possibly out of context?
@Caratacus So it's fine to repeatedly edit the full video which MIGHT show MD in an unfavourable light given the undoubted bias of the site?
“How do you know you haven’t lost art...?” When we value people based on what they contribute, we don’t value them at all. It’s a terribly selfish lens by which to view the world and robs us all of our dignity. Matt’s worldview is utterly depressing and unlivable.
Does Matt not disprove his point with his little thought experiment? He says “we must change Hitler’s mind with data” then he asks Glen to change his mind and essentially says no matter what Glen comes up with he won’t. So this demonstrates Matt’s “holding a conference with Hitler” fails. Objective value for life is necessary, and Hitler was objectively wrong.
And did this "objective wrongness" help any of the millions of people that were murdered by the Nazis? It's hard to see why we care about objective wrongness when it's subjective morality that has the power to influence behavior. Is "objective value" helpful in any way? If we didn't subjectively value human life, what difference would it make whether or not humans were "objectively valuable?"
The key problem with Matt's view, and one of the key problems with the atheistic worldview, is that there is no uniformly-accepted, ultimate moral authority. It's the pluralistic realm of "I do what 'I feel" is right" where anything is morally o.k. There is no moral standard. Anything is "moral" if the atheist deems it so.
And who decides which 'truths' are *_objective?_*
@@jamesgossweiler1349 The problem with your criticism of secular morality is this: Unless you have reliable and accurate access to this supposed divine moral standard, you are in the same boat as the atheists. Whether or not there is a god or an objective moral standard, we are left to our own moral intuitions to guide us and we certainly don't all agree on the specifics. An objective standard can only help us if we have access to it.
@@BrooklynRagtag Clear, reliable, non-contestable access that we can't poke holes in with a little logic and common sense and say, "Wait a minute..."
To those complaining about the editing then why not watch the whole thing which is available. This is a bite size version of the whole thing which a lot of you tubers do.
In an "Uber society", any 'flaws' are seen as detrimental, and need to be 'corrected'. This means that those engaged in what are determined to aberrant, or by physical flaws, or infirmities, would POSSIBLY hold back the advancement of that uber society. This was argued as "for the benefit of all" (of the uber society). The uber society NEEDS sons and daughters, so those engaging in otherwise "nonproductive manners" would be 'corrected'. The uber society NEEDS everybody's labor, therefore, those who could not labor, either mentally or physically, would be 'corrected'. Lastly, those who were not of the uber society, were less, and therefore, not attributed the same rights, privileges, and faovr that the uber society held to its own, including their existence.
There is no dissent in an uber society, either, for they are all working as one unit towards a common goal.
Very interesting back and forth on this one. As a Christian I tend to agree more with Glen, but Matt made several good points. Thanks for posting this!
I'm a believer too. Am interested to know what points Matt made were good?
@@isanna6075 he pointed out you don't need God to reason what are good actions. You are a thinking agent capable of being reasoned with on what is right or wrong.
@J w false. The Nazis like Christians followed a doctrine. This meant everything was subjective to their doctrine. Anyone who disagreed was eliminated in their country. Just like the Inquisition, crusades and Salem witch trials. The Us government was founded on freedom from religion where we the people decide what is morally good for the people. Not some diety. It's unfortunate that many have forgotten this.
@@MidlifeCrisis82 that's true, an atheist doesn't need God to know what's wright or wrong. But what they can't do is ground that wright or wrong in anything but themselves.
@@isanna6075 you can provide reasons. If you told me that my eating two mangoes instead of one will cause mangoes to go extinct....I'd start eating just one. In the case with Hitler, pointing out Jesus was Jewish and several Bible passages from the original gospel of Mark MAY convince him that God didn't want the Jews to be killed. But this is all hypothetical. Like most theists, once you have a belief, it's very hard to let go of that. Trust me, I know.
The inquisition was a good example of the Christian love this Australian dude is talking about? Quite daring to talk about all the years Christians have learnt about love for humanity.
Andres Alejandro Ramirez you can’t get Spanish Inquisition from the New Testament
Liam is moist you can’t get the 10 commandments in NT either. Should we toss to the garbage the OT?
Andres Alejandro Ramirez Ok where is it justifiable in the Bible without taking things out of context?
Sure, good luck trying to create a context where it is moral to stone unruly children, homosexuals, to allow slaves, not to suffer witches to live, etc. You let me know under what context those things can be seen as moral and then maybe we could have a discussion.
Andres Alejandro Ramirez oh you’re shifting the argument from the Spanish Inquisition to the acts in the Old Testament.
The fact that humans have a conscience and can think and reason should make people consider the possibility of the existence of a creator that has a mind. Science has no answers as to how or where our consciousness came from.
How is that proof exactly? You have given exactly ZERO proof, ZERO evidence. You've simply made a statement.
Also, consciousness is currently being mapped and studied and to say "science" has no answers just goes to show how completely ignorant you are in your little world.
Actually, fairness and morality is visible in plenty of animals, not just humans. Fairness is *innate* in us.
Are you sure you can think. Your statement is pretty dumb.
L Morter - God of the Gaps fallacy. There is no answer for X therefore god exists.
@@IanD-ut4dy It's not proof you're right. But there is no scientific explanation for it.
I love the old, "how do you know Hitler was wrong without god telling you so" argument. Morality is subjective. However we collectively argue on moral norms. There are outliers of course. But if some one steps far outside enough of our norms we can say they are universally perceived to be wrong. That perception can and has changed. Child marriage was great in biblical times. Now, not so much. How did we decide on this?
Why should anyone look at any picture that does not benefit them Matt? And how or where do you do you derive a "should" statement from?
I want to see the "scientific studies" that this Glen guy is claiming concludes that the jesus story is the best example of bringing worth to society for 19 hundred and some odd years.
I'm waiting "Glen"!!!!
That host was far from fair and impartial.
Yes, just like anyone else
@J w No, the question is literally can atheist say the Nazis were wrong. And the answer is yes
@J w And the Catholics supported and condoned that insane evil.
Don't forget that.
Caratacus No it isn’t. As the Nazis were practising Christians.
Caratacus Give me an example of a moral fact and tell me how you know it’s true.
Caratacus I think our moral beliefs are just a reflection of our preferences. I think we have certain moral intuitions as a product of our evolution and the cultures/societies we are raised in. Which is why when you look around the world there is such a stark difference in moral practices. I think moral subjectivism explains the fact that societies differ so much in their moral views better than moral realism would explain it.
I think descriptively we all subjectively value our own well-being, and that of our loved ones. We have the capacity for empathy and cooperation, so we have formed societies with moral rules because these rules ultimately fulfill our own base preferences.
Now if you want to say no that’s not actually what’s happening. And that there are moral truths that are independent of human subjectivity, the burden is on you. I’m not claiming moral facts don’t exist. I’m claiming that there are no good reasons to believe that we as humans can know whether or not they exist. But given what we know about our history it seems subjectivism better accounts for the data than realism.
Matt is national treasure.
No hes not! Hes a dumbass!
Creation is proven a great intelligence of natures Design though. Yet the Creater would not be on Matt's Ass just because he see's things happening and the truth of so many fallacious works in Christian history's of the year 1500 with a Feminists Bottom king Empire Constantine and paranoid King James who killed any one who went against his new law.
I didnt know wokists have their own nation ?
5:47 The point isn't why shouldn't we be using reason. The point is, Hitler was using his reason, what makes hitlers better than Matt's? And more importantly, what in evolution, or biology, would show that reason even exists? reason is an immaterial substance, it cannot be produced from biology. Infact according to Dawkins, in His book "River out of Eden: A Darwinian view of life", He writes, " In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
What we need to know from Matt is why we ought to trust his reason over Hitlers for a moral compass, he needs to show this from biology or science.
If Hitler asked God for forgiveness, I am told that he would have been forgiven. That is not a god that I would ever worship.
But still where is god for the medicine of COVID-19.... Does anybody pray anymore?
@Caratacus to the Christian this life is merely the waiting room...this life has no purpose for them...in fact if they truly believe in heaven then this life is infinitismal by definition. It's meaningless.
The secular worldview appreciates life much more because it is precious. It is the one and only one we have.
No offense but the Christian belief system is an immoral one.
Wow, Matt’s quasi-foundationalism is really weak.
This was poorly edited and was a dumb fucking hypothetical that was wholly unproductive. He has a ton of videos on youtube on morality and everything else if you were so inclined to actually listen to his arguments.
Ok Im convinced Dillahunty is a troll. Well played sir lmao you had me going lmao
@John Daedalus matt is that you?
Hitler was raised a Christian and invoked it as part of his principles, so it is clear that Christian morality did nothing to prevent his actions. Which is hardly surprising as the god of the bible demanded that genocide be carried out and endorsed slavery, which in itself would engender the belief that some humans are less than others. That this isn't self-evident to theists just shows how muddy their thinking is.
As a disabled person, I'd say, please don't kill me. This debate might be subjective.
You know, the Nazis weren't atheists. They did all those atrocities while still believing in God.
Tal Moore not the same god. Adolf Hitler denied the Old Testament and so they were not Christians. Also it’s incredibly hard to determine one religious view on any topic unless it’s foundational (and the Old Testament is). Muslims claim they worship the same god but they do not either since they don’t follow the same Scripture (they see the Bible as not the final and perfect revelation which makes them distinctly different from us). There were most definitely atheists in the army as well, this is far too general of a statement.
@@IsaacsCOOLwhenitsHOT "not the same god" And who gets to decide whether it was the "same" God or not? You?
@@IsaacsCOOLwhenitsHOT
Funny how in every argument Christians say "no the old testament does not count because Jesus brought a new law" ... now you come along and say this is not real Christianity?
@Caratacus Öhm, sorry I didn't get that. Can you please explain to a non-believer like me which version is the supposedly mainstream one?
Also, don't pin the strawmen on me, I am pretty sure some of those Christians must have left them here.
Tal Moore thousands of years of Christian history.
Matt just revealed himself to be no different than Hitler.
Yes, Matt is no different from a man responsible for the deaths of 6 million people. Nice one.
Pull your head out of your ass!
@@1999_reborn glad you got it👍
Way to go Matt. Put him in the spotlight and he flails about.
lol, you must have your blinders on.
"I wouldn't have a conversation with Hitler, because he's dead" that doesn't make any sense.
Have you ever talked with the dead?
Watching Matt try answer was cringe worthy. These aren’t abstract examples as he claims. There are precise moral decisions that need to be made everyday and people aren’t going to sit and talk out every decision to see if it aligns with his supposed “foundational truths”
That blokes a joke
It's very simple.
We can objectively verify whether something is moral once we define morality.
If we define morality as the preservation of sentient life then we can objectively say that what the Nazis did was immoral.
Now here's the thing. You could define morality differently. You could define morality as that which promotes nazi ideals but the question becomes WHY you are defining morality in this way?
For instance I would define morality as the preservation of sentient life because in doing so we guarantee our preservation and a higher quality of life.
If you prefer to have a lower quality of life or if you prefer to live in a society run by a dictator then that's your prerogative...but I think you'll find survival to be quite difficult and your beliefs will not last very long one way or the other.
Man....you really need Dr. James White or Jeff Durbin when you are having a discussion with Matt.
@Papa Smurf After listening to many debates with different types of approaches from Christians, I would say the presuppositional approach is by far the best biblical approach. Glen had difficulty answering Matt at the end. I can guarantee you neither James or Jeff would have stumbled.
@Papa Smurf I'm not trying to diminish what Glen did by no means. I'm just saying the approach from the two Christians I mentioned earlier would have been able to give a more adequate answer. That's all. But yes, it's always employable when you see the atheistic worldview collapse upon itself.
I hope this doesn't offend you, but if you think Presuppositional apologetics is good, you're an idiot.
@@biggregg5 Riiight. Starting with God first is just idiotic. Whatever you say buddy.
@@ronnied1172
It is.