"if evolutionary naturalism is accepted, human morality cannot be described as absolute and objective because moral statements cannot be right or wrong" - C.S LEWIS
@@nitsujismi dont think you have any clue or ground to stand on whether he wrong or right. The atheist/material/reductionist position with morality is an argument with no foundation. You have little to appeal to and your justifications are laughable.
If morality is related to evolution, wouldn't that admit that past morality is less righteous than the present but future morality with be more righteous than the present? Meaning our morality is not righteous enough now.
@@miserableman9088 Dehumanizing babies inside their mother's womb doesn't make it more acceptable. Also why exactly an absence of pain makes the killing of innocents more acceptable ? Personally, I'm not troubled by meat because that's how the animal kingdom was made, we live in ecosystems where predators exist and it turns out meat is good for us.
Am I crazy or did he say his personal morality comes from "feeling bad"? If so the obvious question is what does that mean for people that don't feel bad?
I had some lamb last night, and I didn't feel bad. In fact, I felt good. But now I'm feeling bad, that he felt bad for thinking about eating meat. He does not know what he's missing. I feel so sorry for him 😔
That is precisely what he said, and precisely why his claims are so flawed. I'm sure Hitler, Stalin, and Mao didn't feel bad about all the people they killed, which is why they kept on doing it. Steven would have to agree that they were not morally wrong, except by his subjective standard, and I doubt that would be enough for him to gather the courage to fight such monsters.
I don’t feel bad eating meat because I understand that God placed some animals on earth for humans to eat. Does he feel bad that cats eat mice? Wolves eat deer!
Did he get upset? Or was it an example of subjective morality? Well, eating rabbits requires killing them, which ought be immoral be we do it anyways. Morality is subjective. Regarding abortion, yup once again morality is subjective.
The Atheist tries to ground morality in empathy. That's flawed. Empathy doesn't tell you how to act. Empathy only makes you feel a certain way. It provides two options, to act or not to act. If I see someone who is starving, I can understand how they feel, however it's not imposed on me to help. I can choose to help or not. That's free will, and it's absent from naturalism!
This is exactly it. You trace back their reasoning and every time, they literally have no choice to stop at a “just-so-ism.” Empathy is not a prescription; it does not have a mind or a will to actually tell you “you should be empathetic.” It is as concerned with your empathy as onion rings lol
Atheist: *borrows moral standard from theism* Theist: "Where does that standard come from in your world view? You seem to be taking it for granted or borrowing it from my worldview" Atheist again: *borrows moral standard to attack theism and suggest that it is inferior to atheism*
"Christianity had a monopoly and we had slavery being kept..." dude! A papal bull was passed in the 14th century outlawing slavery in ALL Christian countries. The problem was that people ignored it! You don't judge an entire system by people that aren't even following the system!
@@downshift4503 but that still doesn’t take away from who God is but more a reminder on who we are because of sin. So someone that follows God has to be perfect and create a perfect reality? Impossible only 1 person in history was able to do that and that was Jesus Christ
@@downshift4503 One could say that at least they passed the law. How did other cultures and nations do compared to it? your comment just shows your bias towards christianity, nothing else.
@@sauliruottu5871 Remember the claim is that God is supposedly at the centre of your religion and yet he does nothing for century after century but watch people suffer. He can create billions of galaxies and billions of planets, but he can't tell a bunch of african apes not to enslave each other. Before you say "free will", he was perfectly ok with having people executed for collecting sticks on the sabbath.
He said, "No omnibenevolent entity could pivot like this..." Well how does he know that? How does an atheist justify that comment? How would he know? Against what standard is he measuring the character of an omnibenevolent God? That very statement alone reveals the fact that even atheists have to borrow from God in order to make sense of life.
Well, if we believe God is eternal and unchanging, the same today as yesterday and forever, then he wouldn’t ever pivot at all. The good thing is that Eden in Genesis is a picture of God’s ideal world, and Eve is no second class citizen. Turning women into chattel is something humans did in rebellion to God.
@@davegaskell7680 the idea of it? Absolutely! Obsessing over it? Absolutely not! Especially when the arguments are usually disagreeance, and not disbelief
My thoughts exactly. The atheist said he "feels bad" for eating meat....it keeps him up at night. Sooo, his subconsciousness makes him feel that way for the "greater good" basically...cool. Now, I just pray that the likes of Mao, Hitler, and Stalin "felt bad" for being responsible for the unjust murder of millions and millions of people. Oh wait, they didn't "feel bad". That subjective moral compass really can bite humanity in the arse.
@@downshift4503The whole point of morality is *restraining* your feelings and bad innate tendencies. We all live in a fallen world and have a fallen nature, even atheists accept that, so we can’t trust our feelings, no. True morality is discovered by reason and imposed into our animal passions
I love how God is both condemned for being an all seeing divine dictator and at the same time condemned for NOT being a divine dictator and letting us use us our free will to learn more about the morally order in our own time rather than just enforce morality on us.
That's just playing in the Christian's court. It also points out that God rarely takes action, but when he does, it is the worst possible response. It is usually some fancy way of killing or harming people as a solution.
Does God have free will? Does he ever do wrong? No. Conclusion: he could have created a universe where humans have free will, but always do the right thing. Instead he chose not to. He chose to create us imperfectly. He chose to create us as such, with full knowledge we would break the rules and be cast from the garden of Eden. He stacked the deck against us.
@@ToHellWithDawkins This has nothing to do with the point I was making but ok, I'll take up your non sequitur. God to Christians is the God of love. The reason He created everything is so He had something to love and be loved back in turn. But for that love to mean anything it must be made by a being with free will. So God purposefully made us with the ability to reject him so that when we instead chose him, it means something. This is why there is evil in the world and why God permits it. No amount of anger at God for creating us with the free will to go against Him will change the fact that it is still US who chose to go against Him.
@@ToHellWithDawkins How could you have free will if you can't decide not to do the right thing though ? The root of the issue is that we'd like to do whatever we want without any negative consequences and certainly without any accountability. God tells you that your sin condemns you and answering 'but He shouldn't have to condemn me' doesn't put the blame on Him in fact it only highlight that you'd like to sin but not deal with the consequences. However, He provided a way for us to be saved in Jesus, so clearly He hasn't set up humans for failure instead He thought of a mean of redemption because in His Mercy He prefered that we learn from the experience of sin, that we realize that there is nothing good in it and turn back to Him and His perfect love.
Its worth noting that slavery was diminished the the point of expulsion in the late Roman Empire, the pagan barbarians invaded and slavery took off again, they converted and slavery died down amongst Christians, though it was retained in relation to non-Christians until it was abolished by other Christians (British Empire leading the charge) using Christian values (not Enlightenment values). On another note, I'd say don't be afraid to confirm Christian morality and condemn modern morality. If an atheist says that Christianity tells wives to obey their husbands, say that "yes, it does. This in no way devalues a woman as less than a man, like a soldier is no less valuable as a human than his commander, but for the social command structure to work, one must take a subordinate place to the other."
You forgot the part where slavery and breeding of slaves, was defended by Christians owners and politicians (US mainly) even after other Christians along with non Christians defended abolition. If this is not an example of how morality is subjective in Christianity, tell me why. Same with the racial segregation question that plagued Christians countries until recently, with a divide among Christians to find it morally acceptable or not.
Christian countries : the United States. Funny how you broaden the scope when it's specific to a single country. Christianity doesn't promote but condemn slavery, meanwhile supposedly "Christian" countries like the United States exploited the faith for their gains. After leaving the church should I remind you, Americans are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. Meanwhile slavery and exploitation of other human beings was done perfected under secular regimes such as the Third Reich or Stallinism. Both coincidentally anti-clerical
@@deguilhemcorinne418 For part one it is easy. The desires of those who wished to enslave and unnaturally breed their slaves is contrary to Christian values. So far from their being those who were one type of Christian with their beliefs and another type of Christian with theirs, what you instead have are those who are living according to the principles of Christian doctrine, and those who are not. To condemn Christianity as a whole because people who are Christian act in unChristian ways is like condemning science as a study because some scientists who don't properly apply the scientific method, cause terrible things. As for racial segregation, there are two principles at war there. The first to do unto others as you would have them do to you, and then the protection of your own people from danger. Some Christians embraced one as primary, others the latter, until it was realized that the latter was greatly exaggerated and so, as you pointed out, its ditched and replaced entirely by the former. Remember not to base your judgement on what we know now, but rather on what people thought at the time.
@@tomosjackson4760 I agree that history and socio-politic evolution have a great influence on religion practice and understanding and at reverse, that evolution of religious ideas have a great influence on the historical and social construct. Or at least, is part of it. The fact is that there is and - throughtout history - was no unity about the moral outcomes and other understandings of Christian faith, which is perfectly understandable from a down-to-earth point of view, and requires no condemnation, other than condemning those who want to force their beliefs on you (valid for any religion).
@@deguilhemcorinne418 If you are referring to heresy, I'm not sure that counts. An incorrect interpretation of the Christian teachings cannot be used to show that Christianity is inconsistent, in just the same way as incorrect use of the scientific method cannot be used to say that science is inconsistent. If you are referring to growth of understanding in Christianity then that is no reason not to proselytize the religion amongst others. And if by "forcing your religion on others" you mean forced conversions then that is also condemned, but if you are simply referring to wishing to live as a Christian in a Christian society then I would argue that this version of "force" is applied by any society that has laws full stop.
I'm starting to think that time, randomness and the avoidance of reality are the main workhorse of atheism. Maybe it would be beneficial to delve deeper into these issues.. Thanks for the nice content.
Scientific anti-realism should have a louder position in the overall plausibility structure of scientific knowledge... but it's mostly untold in order to improperly given naturalistic knowledge unobjectionable epistemic authority in claims about reality scientific anti-realism would indicate that certain things that we can't observe well, like electrons, deserve more speculation and can't be proven to exist by empirical data, so we should treat such findings as competing theories. Naturalism is not to be assumed as a prior in the same way as moral knowledge, logic, math, etc., it's not chiefly self-evident in way that supernaturalism is completely unwarranted. Randomness / unguided development isn't a better, epistemically more authoritative answer
Yes, which is why most of atheism is fine with someone believing in whatever religion they want, so long as it accepts the claims of a universe/earth that is billions of years old. The world having accepted that divergent claim is all that allows for their other divergent claims to hold any water.
@@Feraeondnah atheist don't care if you believe the universe is 8 days old. The problem is when your actions are justified by this belief and that it has a negative effect on the atheist. If you keep your beliefs to yourself, atheist doesn't care.
Whenever people try to argue about alleged evils done within the confines of Christianity, my immediate response is why do men blame God for their own evil? If we changed these things, is it God changing his mind or is it us recognizing our own evil nature and that we’re wrong?
Sadly and ashamedly, so much has been done "in the name of Jesus" that God never told us to do. Not all 'Christians' are true, born again, followers of Christ. Thus, we should not blame Jesus for things done, contrary to His commands.
If man wages war in the name of God, the atheist doesn't blame God, since he doesn't think God is real. He blames the religion that inspired or justificated the war.
@@elvancor Hate to break it to you, but most if not all wars are economically based. People, religious or non will use rationalization to find a moral justification. So we have the following: 1. Blame God or Religion 2. Secular crimes are ignored 3. Don't say anything bad about the bankers.
The Euthyphro Argument or Divine Command Theory comes from Plato’s dialogue in which Socrates asks: Is something is right because God commands it, or does God command it because it is right? The ethical implications of this argument suggest that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as clear-cut as previously thought. What makes this question so effective is that if the interlocutor accepts either part of it he is often logically forced into conclusions that may conflict with other beliefs he has, therefore creating a logical dilemma for him. Unlike the description of morality of being a decision, it seems to me that the commands of God are not arbitrary or capricious because as a source they emanate, not from a decision, but from God's character which character never changes. The origin of morality is in the heart of God and intrinsically proceeds from God, not as a well thought out idea or decision but as a quality of his being. It is beyond God to issue commands outside of his character and subsequently any commands to his creation will reflect that character consistency and thereby be moral. Therefore God cannot give a moral command, recind and supplant it with a diametrically opposing command. This is not a failure of God but a limitation of the argument. Secondly, there is no morality or truth outside of God of which he must follow or decide to use. Again, morality emanates from his being and all his decisions and actions agree with his character. Therefore, both options of the Divine Command theory are invalid.
Exactly. It's a false dilemma. And you have identified another alternative that is the reality. God's commands are not arbitrary, nor are they sourced from a goodness separate from God. God IS the source of goodness. His commands are an expression of His character/nature.
God's commands sometimes do seem arbitrary such as when he commanded Ezekiel to bake cakes with human poo, but then settled for cow poo instead because Ezekiel protested.
It possibly seems arbitrary until one supposes that God knew Ezekiel would protest and thus incited said behavior for His particular purpose. (I don’t suppose to purport the Will of God, I’m just hypothesizing)
I see it daily on a small scale. Whole communities believe something is good because everyone has come to accept it. The Athiest made one good point but in the opposite direction of how I should be applied (paraphrased), "if there is an omnipotent God then what was acceptable yesterday wouldn't flip to be acceptable today. An omnipotent being wouldn't flip their virtues like that " True. But it isn't that these things are now acceptable and God approves of them. It is quite the opposite. Many things were wrong that are still wrong and our culture has set morality aside.
Yes, taking credit for the good in history on massively generalized terms while shifting blame for the bad is self-defeating. It is not an objective assessment to suggest that atheists of the Enlightenment are credited with the civil advances of that time while ignoring the similarly prescient timeline of the Reformation which made the Bible widely available to the masses not in power to read for themselves for the first time ever without the corrupt traditions and interpretations wrought by Roman Catholicism. Of the few correlatives which exist, one of the most obvious is the American Revolution and what it produced with its foundation on Biblical principles compared to the French Revolution and what it produced with its egalitarian/anti-religion principles. One resulted in the first unilateral banning of slavery in any governance in the world's history and the other was an imitation attempt that ended in the invention of the guillotine and a swift resurgence of totalitarian rule after anarchy descended into chaos. Atheism's attempt to make a pale imitation of theism while discarding the theism part of it remains of a similar model and aftereffect every time to this day.
So the biblical guidance on taking slaves and keeping them is still morally right today? You would feel it's morally OK for someone to possess you as a slave as long as they kept you within the guidelines set out in the bible.
I think this is a really good discussion to have. Christians shouldn’t shy away from difficult conversations and instead talk about them frankly and openly. I did, however, raise an eyebrow and the mention of the Euthyphro dilemma by Steven: I thought this was solved in philosophy already. It’s a false dilemma, meaning we’re _not_ limited to the two disclosed options. God’s commands are neither arbitrary nor external to His nature; they instead reflect His perfectly good character. Therefore what is morally good is neither independent nor arbitrarily determined by God.
Correct, and Paul mentions this also, it would be like asking "is a meter a meter because the meter stick says so or because the meter exists outside the meter stick?"
Perfectly good character? You mean the being who created a place of internal hellfire? The one who commands genocide of people? The one who is a promoter of slavery? Good grief
His (the athiest) opening statement was absolutely disingenuous. The points that were made were framed with falsehoods. The framing needs to be changed here.
@user-yo3li7tk7b An atheist is not claiming there is "no God", an atheist claims they are not convinced any god exists, and it would not be logical to blame something that we have no good reason to believe exists. The "blame" comes from the hypothetical in assuming for the sake of argument that YOUR chosen god does exist, and that if it indeed does, it is apathetic to a great many issues, so what "good" is it?
@@atheistangel007 “An atheist is not claiming there is no God” CRINGE atheism in full effect!! [Relativism, strictly reductive materialism, atheism, or philosophical naturalism, that is fatalism and epistemological nihilism]: “The belief that there was “nothing”, and nothing didn’t really mean “nothing” as there was no such thing as meaning, and then nothing much happened to nothing except nothing and then “NOTHING” or the blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless accidental arrangement of “SOMETHING” suddenly accidentally exploded for no reason whatsoever, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything suddenly, magically rearranged itself -- for no reason whatsoever -- into self replicating bits which then turned into something that meant everything. But ultimately it didn’t really mean everything or anything as everything is ultimately meaningless.” [Atheism]. And they mock other peoples beliefs!! Yeah not dogmatic at all and perfectly “sane” and makes perfect sense!! About as much “sense” as your “AN ATHEIST IS NOT CLAIMING THERE IS NO GOD” argument!! Yeah makes great sense!! Glad we cleared that one up!! You’re not fooling anyone buddy. We know that you guys aren’t agnostics lol!! By the way, I’m not claiming that atheism is false. I simply just “lack a belief” that we are all ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH BANANAS right? Your world view, your absurdity, your ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Believe it or not I’m actually an “AGNOSTIC” myself and I’ve utilised a very pragmatic and very effective scientific probability scale of 1 -7 thats very useful for getting to the truth of things!! Especially if you are an “AGNOSTIC”. (1) is total conviction that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is true. That is (1) is total conviction that fatalism and epistemological nihilism is true and coherent as a theory of reality. And (7) is total conviction that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is incoherent. That is (7 ) is total conviction that fatalism and epistemological nihilism is nothing more substantive than atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction!! I’d put the chances of atheism, that is fatalism and epistemological nihilism being true at a (6.5) on the probability scale. And I would be a (6.5) with the claim that fairies and leprechauns exist!! That is I’d put the [myth] that a cosmic accident, the [myth] that a random cosmic toss of a coin, the [myth] that [the ultimately meaningless, accidental arrangement of the magical cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea] created everything. Even accidentally creating Truth itself, that is accidentally creating value, oughts, the prescriptive laws of logic, [conscious agents/free will, that is rationality itself] at a probability score of about 6.5 and I would be a 6.5 with pink fluffy Leprechauns. Sorry but everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally fatalistic, totally nihilistic and totally and utterly self refuting!! Sorry but I’m biased against beliefs that are synonymous with the belief in MAGIC. I tend to doubt that they are rational!! Do you have actual evidence or not that MAGIC is real? I’ll wait!!
@@atheistangel007 “The "blame" comes from the hypothetical in assuming for the sake of argument that YOUR chosen god does exist” SMOKESCREEN!! The fact is that the “atheist community” just can't seem to shut up about its “lack of belief”. I lack a golf club set and I also lack a chess set right? Do want to know why? It’s because I have absolutely no interest in golf or chess whatsoever and find the funny dress codes ridiculous and the rules of the game brain draining. But I rarely moan about it or think it's a good idea to create a whole website with thousands of followers dedicated to mocking golf players and mocking chess players in order to spoil their love if it!! That is I’v never come across anyone going out of their way to build a whole website entirely dedicated to proclaiming their “lack of a belief” in golf or their “lack of a belief” in chess, in order to mock and argue with those who absolutely love chess and absolutely love golfing and find it very fulfilling and rewarding!! Channels entirely dedicated to atheism, that is channels dedicated to mocking and ridiculing moderate religious expression are beyond ironic and absurd, that is channels purely dedicated to the so called “NON RELIGIOUS” are beyond ironic and absurd and are comedy gold!! They’re just a bit erm…too religious? Furthermore, you and your cowardly ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES can complain all you like till the cows come home that you merely “lack a belief in God”!! You’re not fooling anyone buddy!! Because fact is that an atheist, that is a fatalist and an epistemological nihilist is clearly someone who makes a truth claim about the fundamental nature of reality. Further still, why on earth would you even join a comments section, or join a forum or create a forum to discuss your so called “humble lack of belief” if you genuinely believed there was no burden of proof and that the evidence for monotheism was so flimsy right? I mean, how do the conversations go on atheist forums? They must be fascinating and riveting to behold? “I lack a belief in God", "Yeah, so do l", "Me too". “And me as well” “wizards don’t exist” “yeah sky daddy gives me the hump” “Santa didn’t bring me any presents this year” “yeah me too” right? Or do you waste your so called “finite” existence preparing a well thought out rebuttal and a reason for your so called “lack of belief”? Because if you do then its definitely more than just a “lack of belief” and if you don't, why not just go to the pub for a pint of beer and a packet of crisps or potato chips? If you truly, genuinely believed that the intrinsic sense of the transcendent and the intrinsic sense of the divine inherent in most human beings is the same as believing in Santa how come you haven’t joined a forum to discuss your “lack of belief” in Santa. ME THINKS YOU ATHEISTS DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH LOL!! It's like the old David Foster Wallace speech "water" -- you are swimming in your worldview, which you pretend doesn’t even exist & do you really think that we are gullible enough to believe this isn't a worldview that defines every aspect of how you see the world right? I rest my case!!
Excellent video! I really like how you take a broader view from the debate and direct the focus to the core of the question about morality. Also, I like how you put a great emphasis on the politeness of the discussion and how we should really listen to what the other is saying and to the points made. We need this kind of diplomacy in our debates and discussions!
“If you pay attention, when you are seeking something, you will move towards your goal. More importantly, however, you will acquire the information that allows your goal itself to transform. A totalitarian never asks, “What if my current ambition is in error?” He treats it, instead, as the Absolute. It becomes his God, for all intents and purposes. It constitutes his or her highest value. It regulates his or her emotions and motivational states, and determines his/her thoughts. All people serve their ambition. In that matter, there are no atheists. There are only people who know, and don’t know, what God they serve.”
“Evil is a departure from how things OUGHT to be. But with naturalism there is no way things OUGHT to be” Super good quote that he said that helped me understand the topic
Except that’s there also no OUGHT from theism either. Naturalists and those who reject naturalism have the same issue of determining and/or justifying an objective ought.
. "Right and wrong" are words that are relative to the actualization of a desired goal or outcome, absent said goal, the terms right and wrong become meaningless. My "goal" is the actualization of a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon our common desires with respect to wellbeing and the values it incorporates, empathy, respect, equality, altruism, reciprocity. That is why one "ought" to treat another's as you would like to be treated, One "ought not steal if you wish to live in a society were property is not stolen. One "OUGHT" not murder if they want to live in a society were people are not murdered. This is our "reference point" or standard. One "should" or "ought" do something if Its conducive with the actualisation of a situation that conforms with one's goals and values. These "values" themselves are subjective by definition however it is entirely possible to make Objective declarations or decisions 'Within a pre-agreed framework of subjective values'. Values are socially approved desires that are internalised through the process of conditioning, learning or socialisation and that become subjective preferences, standards and aspirations a shared idea about how something is ranked in terms of desirability, worth or goodness *What is your "goal" and why 'OUGHT' one do what your subjective God desires* ?? 🙄🤔
@@trumpbellend6717 If that’s true, why do we fight so hard against societies norms such as slavery in America or civil rights in America. The best explanation for that is true objective morality. (Your definition doesn’t work because it’s dependent on a changing societies viewpoint not making it true objectivity). We know that chattel slavery is wrong even if not everyone agrees. So we fight for what is objectively right.
@@arcticpangolin3090 Theists don’t merely argue that there are oughts in only a theistic worldview. OUGHTS are everyone’s reality already. You know and I know that people OUGHT to behave a certain way regardless of societal norms. Even if our society believed in torturing babies for fun was good thing, you would think they OUGHT not to do that. Naturalism has no explanation for what is our current reality. For things everybody knows.
@@justinrobinson9482He already answered your question. He said "we ought to treat others like we would like to be treated". It's mutually beneficial. I don't think you should bring up slavery at all when the Bible actively supports it. Modern day Christians simply changed their moral beliefs from what it was In the past. Biblical and religious morality isn't objective nor unchanging. Even if it were true that morality can only come from God and be objective, then you also need to explain how come that only means your God and not any of the other ones from other religions. If you don't believe me about the positive manner in which slavery is talked about in tbe Bible, you should check out Dan Mcclellan's channel, he's a Bible scholar and has a couple of videos on slavery in the Bible. And please don't bring up the verse about the Bible condemning kidnapping, it was a different crime and overall certain rules and protections didn't apply to non-israelites. Religious morality is dependent on social changes as much as any other type of morality.
Everytime I hear Steven talk I just get frustrated will how little he knows both of Christianity, history, and atheism. Why he has an audience is beyond me!
That’s what I find surprising too. Seems like a smart chap, but seems wholly disinterested in actually understanding the claims of those he’s attempting to dispute. It’s the blistering incuriosity that’s so jarring.
It's getting more common for people to watch 2 or 3 TikTok videos and consider that sufficient to inform themselves. Those are the people who follow someone who has had a cursory introduction to Christianity and don't like particularly parts because they either 1)Misunderstand them or 2) Don't like them because it grinds against particular sin(s) they cherish and have no desire to stop committing.
@@sidwhiting665- So you don't object to the parts of the Bible where god condones owning people as slaves? You think owning people as property is moral?
So, as I see it, he has a problem with the church, not the Bible or God... Most of what he condemns is mainly Catholic/Protestant beliefs and not from the Scripture itself...
He is wrong on pope allowing the same sex marriage. Pope just said priests could bless same sex couples as individuals...that's not blessing their union which is a sin but blessing the individuals. Catholic church teachings didn't change....it's the same old teaching taught again.
not even that, he has a problem with the fact no human is perfect which is a claim central to all branches of Christianity with Christ being the exception
Religion gives God a bad name. Even in Jesus day, there were two religions that had the Bible and Jesus saw they were all about the money and kicked their tables over. Not only that he said they were hypocrites and the blind leading the blind and to top it off he told those so-called Holy men that they were of their father the devil.
Can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "objective" moral standard you speak of or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed.? 🙄 🤔 If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍 The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
@@linusloth4145 I think so, we no longer think it acceptable to *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"* Nor that *"if you beat your male or female slave with a rod and they do not die for a day or two"* *"There shall be NO PUNISHMENT for they are your PROPERTY and your money"* I would say that is a step in the right direction wouldn't you ? 😜 Modern societies think that the gathering of sticks on a sabath is not nor ever was immoral and worthy of stoning to death. The same applies also to our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) . Thankfully a judge today recognizes a girl who has been raped and did not scream is actually a VICTIM and not deserving of death as the bible dictates. Again I would discribe humanity as better off in a meaningful way by disregarding these filthy hurtful religious dictates, do you disagree?? 🙄🤔
Objective morality isn't subjective to time, it's called objective because it stays true always. The bigger problem is when people hail a subjective opinion as an objective opinion not realizing that it's subjective.
“Part time Dungeon master with a mullet” That really made me laugh!! God forgive me!! Two atheist scientists, that is two fatalists/epistemological nihilists who subscribed to evolutionary psychology were making their way back to camp through the plains of the savannah in Southern Africa after getting separated from their guide. The two men both had MULLETS but decided to jog quickly back to camp to avoid being attacked by any large carnivores but followed the wrong trail and got lost!! Eventually they stopped under the shade of a tree and removed their sports trainers to enjoy the shade and cool grass on their bare-feet. Suddenly, they both noticed a rather large lioness crouched in the long grass stalking them from 100 metres away. They turned and walked slowly in the opposite direction in their bare feet, the lioness slowly followed them. They increased their pace, the lioness moved quicker as well. They both suddenly started to jog, the lioness matches their jogging pace. One of the atheistic scientists suddenly decides to stop, quickly crouches down, and starts to put his trainers back on as fast as possible!! The other scientist exclaims smugly… “What on Earth are you doing? You’re a scientist surely you know that WE can’t out-run a hungry lioness and they can actually climb trees!!” The scientist now with his trainers tightly fastened grimly replies…. “what’s this “WE” business? I don’t need to out-run a hungry lioness, I just need to out-run YOU to the next tree and your MULLET weighs more than mine!! The scientist in his bare sore feet in disgust exclaims…. “I thought that you were some kind of “MORAL” subjectivist and vegan? The scientist now with his trainers tightly fastened with a grim smile exclaims… “MORAL” and “VEGANISM” I believe in “survival of the fittestism” your ultimately nothing more substantive than an HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE and a spineless, annoying one with a MULLET at that!!!” And he sets off at high speed!! The atheist screams after the “MORAL” subjectivist as the lion quickly catches up, “Oh my God help me!!” Suddenly the light becomes more vivid and everything is still. The voice of a divine messenger speaks from the Savannah plain, “So now you need the absolute, now you need that of which nothing greater can be conceived’s help?” The divine messenger asks the atheist.. “What do you want? I’m busy cleaning up Cr…p literally everywhere, this is a FALLEN WORLD!!” The atheist surprised by the language responds……. “You’re so powerful can’t you spare a few seconds and kill that ferocious lioness for me? I’ll do anything and its about to tear me limb from limb!!” The heavenly messenger heaved an enormous numinous sigh and a deep sadness appeared on the messengers face…….. “No I can’t kill that beautiful LIONESS and I thought that you were a “MORAL” subjectivist? What do you take me for Lucifer? The absolute don’t do unfair deals it’s a free lunch!!” The atheist replied in desperation…. “Can’t you at least ask to make that Lioness a MORAL OBJECTIVIST? The divine messenger replies….. “You denied the existence of the absolute, universal, OBJECTIVE ground of truth, beauty, love and goodness your entire life and pretended that his ancient messengers were just backwards thinking, science denying, Bronze Age goat herders and that you were held to ransom with the old “fear, fire and Hell nonsense!!”? “And now you’re begging me to ask if it’s OK to either kill or frighten the Hell out of this poor lioness who has three starving lion cubs on the run from hyenas?” The atheist a little surprised by the messengers language replies…. “Oh!! Sorry, good point! Well, couldn’t you at least ask him to make the lioness a good Christian?” “I’ll do my best,” said the messenger. “But I’m really treading on dodgy territory asking that we interfere with the future and metaphysics and the whole FREEWILL thing and the delicate fabric of time and space and the character of the absolute etc!!”. In a moment the light changes back and the voice fades away. The lioness suddenly miraculously kneels down in front of the “MORAL” subjectivist/atheist, bows her head solemnly, and says, “Thank you, Lord, for what I am about to receive.” The End… 😎❤️
After years of Roman myths and Lutheran protestant bibles, an atheist enjoys seeing these religious people squirm. Also an atheist will pick up one small part of information and that becomes the entire proof against. All atheist want God to be true, we just looked in the book and religion for God. God and Jesus is true, just not from Roman myth or any book. - an ex atheist that found God and Jesus, just like Jesus asked.
@@We.are.all.human. I am an agnostic, and raised atheist, and I have never enjoyed seeing religious people 'squirm'. I actually have my respect for many Christians. We don't just pick up one part of information. There are countless topics atheists have spoken about, covering many different aspects of the Bible, religion etc
@@hydraph4843 then you are a different person than an atheist. If what you say is true, you have a Christian heart. For me and all the atheist I know, we believe all religions are myths. I was very wrong to believe Christianity is a religion. I still know religion is man made myth. I found respect for humanity and Jesus in my heart. The Roman and Lutheran religions turned me to atheism over 30 years ago. I just found Jesus this year at 44.
I do not understand why the Atheist speaks of second class of citizenry of women. It seems his personal interpretation of what women rights are is confused with the characterization of women in the religious structure of the church, for example. He is essentally using an unsubstantiated, personal standard of women's citizenry (rather a human's relativistic standard) to make a false equivalence. We need to understand first what exactly does he mean by a statement such women being second class in Christianity.
From all the conversations I have had with people presenting this criticism, it comes down to a lust for power. If one is a follower rather than a leader, they are inherently being regarded with second-class value. Since scripture articulated the husband's and father's leadership in marriage, therefore the wife or daughter is second-class. Nevermind references establishing equal value like in Galatians. Equality of value means equality of authority in the modern doctrines it seems. Galatians 3:25-28 [25] But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, [26] for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. [27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
@Feraeond thank you. I was alluding to this issue. It seems to be more of an issue of people assuming certain roles mean one is superior to another. An example in modernity would be the consideration that the role of homemaker is looked down upon by virtue of some false power dynamic. People pushing these types of views tend to errorneously assign more value and worth to the role of breadwinning while devaluing homemaking (roles that are and have been meant to be complimentary). Just because a person is a follower doesn't make one a second-class citizen. By that metric, most of society would be second-class. I appreciate the answer. You perfectly articulated the issue with this criticism. His other points have similarly flawed premises.
@downshift4503 My family recently got finished reading the New Testament chapter by chapter verse by verse. There is nothing there about "second-class" citizenry. Perhaps you have a skewed understanding of "second-class"?
The Euthyphro dilemma has been recognized as a logical fallacy for 2400 years. Even Plato, who introduced it, treated it with the distain it deserves. What is staggering to me is that anyone gives Steven the time of day. He doesn't understand the arguments or intentionally misrepresents them by building strawmen to knock down. This guy is not serious thinker and should be ignored. He lives in the realm of logical fallacy and misrepresentation and in the dozens of videos, in which he has appeared and I have seen, I have yet to see him make a single coherent argument for atheism or against theism. What he engages in is the rhetoric or a sophist. Furthermore, grounding your moral values in how you feel is not a standard, its an opinion. You may think treating people nice is good but a guy could walk up and stab you because he thinks that is good and the naturalist has no authoritative basis to say that there is any moral difference between the two.
This was so good maaaannnn 😭 Aye if y'all haven't checked out George Jankos podcast with Cliffe it came out like a day ago, seriously made me bawl my eyes out and brought me to my knees, I swear I've been skeptic for so long and it feels like just in this last couple weeks I've been seeking and finding, and I still cannot I can NOT thank you enough. but there was something about George's wifes testimony about a experience she had recently seriously hit my heart so so deeply. I seriously have an extremely hard time with believing Testimony's and seriously wish that wasn't the case but it is hahaha. But she started talking about how she finally understood what it meant, that sacrifice he made on the cross I just burst into tears. You guys through the holy spirit, are saving lives including mine and I cannot again thank you enough, im terrfied, Im very close to the edge but the spirit is so real and I dont feel as if I have much time left, thank you for helping me. And thank you God for loving me enough to give me a chance.
@ninja3687 Yet that's not biblically true. Hebrews says " It is appointed once for a man to die, and then the judgement." A person, biblically, does not go straight to hell, upon death (see Revelation).
the final part of this was brilliant - it's not because it's present in a book - God has installed morality into us as being created into his image - an interesting question might be where we see elements of morality in animals...
Romans 7:4-6 [4] Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. [5] For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. [6] But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. Hebrews 7:18-19 [18] For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness [19] (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. Galatians 3:11-14 [11] Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” [12] But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” [13] Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us-for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”-[14] so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. (Perhaps this is the emphasis Dude was referring to.)
This atheist is adorable. It's a like you put a beard on a shih tzu and named it Socrates. The Euthyphro Dilemma? Seriously? Christianity retained slavery and relegated women to second class status? It's like he's reading Bertrand Russel aloud. It's delightful, hearing such old nonsense out of such a young face. All you need to do is go visit Japan and you'll see the enlightenment has done nothing for their sexism. Atheism and Marxism do nothing to stop slavery or sexism in China. Muslims in the middle ages thought Christian men were cucks and slaved who worshipped and served their wives. And yet we are to believe they were just like Muslims with regards to women. Early modern visitors from Japan and China made the same observation that women seemed to be the dominant sex in the west. It was like living in upside down land to them, though some thought it charming. It was the catholic church that began the suppression of slavery saying no Christian could be slave to another. True they faltered in the age of discovery but for the first thousand years you really cant say anything but that Christianity was a force for abolition. This is nonsense, but I love his hair and beard and that silly accent. I want more cute atheists like thing. They're easy to listen to and look at.
It is almost like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens inspired an accent to be adopted by the general culture of intellectual atheists in much the same way as gay men in the last thirty years collectively took on a kind of valley girl persona as their chief orientation signal.
"Muslims in the middle ages thought Christian men were cucks and slaved who worshipped and served their wives (...) Early modern visitors from Japan and China made the same observation that women seemed to be the dominant sex in the west" Citation needed.
@@Feraeond , I haven't noticed many gay men taking on female persona recently. That is something I associate with drag queens, not gay men in general. You are right about the Dawkins/Hitchens "official" atheist accent, however.
@mysotiras21 You probably don't live in the SF Bay area then. Haha The most recent example I personally overheard was a certain hair stylist in SF last week when I was at the same salon with my friend and her son getting his hair cut. But yes, drag queens take it to another level of blatant for sure.
CS Lewis, in his very short book, 'The Abolition of Man', described how universal morality works and gave extensive examples from ancient civilisations in the appendix. Unfortunately, this book is too difficult for 95% of the modern populace, so another simpler version is required for less able atheists like this one.
The CS Lewis book is too difficult for 99% of Christians. But he's also plain wrong. Here's the reality of God's objective morality. It's not anywhere as complex as CS Lewis tries to fool people with ruclips.net/video/4pdYmIwxYTE/видео.html
Lifelong atheist stopping by to say hello, and offer opinions, as one is wont to do. I’ve been reading through the comments and I am quite fascinated by so many of the responses that I have read, as there is a disconnect between what I understand as moral and morality, and what is actually being focused on by commentators in regards to that. To me it is a troubling issue that a number of people seem to believe that morality/morals are inaccessible, or irrelevant to an atheist, and they scoff at the concept that ‘feeling bad’ about committing an action is something an atheist factors into moral evaluation. Really, it’s troubling to me. There are obviously several points being contested, but the one I am most interested in, is what someone thinks morality actually _is_ in reality. It’s a given I do not hold that there are objective (as in some intrinsic universal property of reality) moral standards, or deity deigned absolutes to abide by, and yet I will claim that _I_ hold certain actions to be moral, or not, and while asking Where do you… By what standard do…. Or other questions makes sense to a Christian, to me they not only are beside the point, but seem to miss it entirely. Unless someone feels that morals and the concept of morality are entirely divorced from social interaction, I think those questions can be put aside to discuss what we think regarding morals in our everyday lives. I don’t think that most Christians think about moral concepts as entirely divorced from social and emotional elements of humanity. So this is where the disconnect seems to come in, from my perspective. I do not know anyone who doesn’t have their _own_ value system regarding what they hold to be morally acceptable, as is evidenced in conversations where moral or ethical dilemmas are discussed, or in disagreements about how justified or acceptable we consider some action to be, in light of context. There are myriad issues that everyone forms opinions of ethical or moral stances about, that are very complex social issues; we could have very differing opinions about homelessness, the prison system, healthcare, education, animal welfare, children’s rights. And all of the things we agree about, or not, _will_ come down to our own value system and way of reasoning towards an ideal we hold. Guaranteed. None of those things will be according to an objective _anything_ though we might have similar values and goals about quality of life that we are using as our standard to evaluate. And so, I again, have to wonder what exactly is a moral, what is moral in your day to day life, that is somehow unobtainable, or unjustifiable, or unreasonable or whatever objection you have, to an atheist?
Moral judgements are based on value and purpose, there is no atheistic grounding intellectually for value and purpose if everything was built by random acts of matter and energy. People live but inevitably die, materialistically dying and having memory annihilated returns every person’s value back to zero at some point, fulfilling no ultimate purpose or value. Naturalism promotes conquering, lying, and cheating to get ahead and assert superiority, especially if you can get away with it. There is no atheistic materialistic grounding for the way things ought to be.
IMO, the bottom line is that they are uncomfortable with the thought of taking full responsibility for their actions. Which is often understandable, no matter what you believe in or don't believe in. It's why existentialism is liberating and troubling at the same time.
Christians also do bizarre things like denounce morals as "mere" opinions if there is no God. Since when have opinions been unimportant? Individually, they are often not much, but get enough of them together and you have a set of laws, rules, and customs. They can also change or go away over time. Or reappear.
I hate to break it to you, but when fields are being made to plant crops, animals are killed in the process, to get them out of the land, and they are killed as well, to protect the crops from being eaten by them, and the fact that, in soil, meat products, like shrimp, for example, are mixed into it, because it actually helps the crops grow better, so just because you don't eat meat, doesn't mean that animals haven't died, in the process, of getting you the very things you consume.
same with atheist, and parent of a trans identified child. Except I usually notice people will announce their veganhood even sooner than vegetarians tend to.
Morality is easy .. the foundation of it is well being.. you cant chop my head off because I'll die so we cant hurt each other or we'll go extinct... No religion needed .
What comes to mind is the standard. By what standard are you measuring morality? The example of the metre was brought up. There is a standard for what a meter is. There used to be a unit of measure called the cubit. The standard length of a cubit was from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. If three people built something using the meter unit of measure, all three structures would be the same size. If they used the cubit unit, all three would be different. Same unit, different, or no, standard.
We cannot base morality on what people "feel". People's feelings can be manipulated to the point where they do not how to judge something. Just look at Stockholm Syndrome, where a person comes to feel good toward their kidnapper. Perhaps Steven's feelings about how he treats others has been corrupted from what it.... wait for it... OUGHT to be. And how do we know what our feelings OUGHT to be? Is that not a matter of personal preference? I'm pretty sure Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao didn't go to sleep and feel badly about slaughtering millions of people. That alone should tell Steven that how you feel about how you treat people is erroneous.
You cannot determine your feelings. It's not down to preference. You discover how you feel. The people you mentioned, its true, psychopaths exist.... that's why we lock them up. Read 1 Samuel 15:3 for similar behaviour from another psychopath.
This athiest is assuming a created God by suggesting that good exists outside of God. That simply isn't possible since the claim is that God is good. Goodness can't exist outside of, or apart from, God.
No that's just a word game. The claim is that God exists. It doesn't necessarily follow that a God is good. I don't call what happened in 1 Samuel 15:3 to be good.
@@LilySage-mf7uf pride is a deadly sin... also nobody is trying to portray slavery & genocide as good, that's a misinterpreted doctrine that atheists like to cling on to
I just paused at 7:36 because he says “God commands it because it is right….” That is not how it works. What should be said is: “It is right because God commands it!”
Yeah your belief it is ridiculous. Unfortunately for you, guess you’ll find out some day. We’re flawed beings, we all make mistakes and at some point in time slip up, but that does not disprove the concept/reality of a creator vs something coming from nothing.
@@bguman "Yeah your belief it is ridiculous." Because it's demonstrably so. "Unfortunately for you, guess you’ll find out some day" Not "unfortunately", I already know now. "We’re flawed beings, we all make mistakes and at some point in time slip up" Name something that isn't? "but that does not disprove the concept/reality of a creator" No, the fact that there is no good reason to believe anything has ever been "created", and the lack of evidence for any "creator" kinda does. "vs something coming from nothing." No one in their right mind claims that...theists do though. But again, we have no good reason to believe that there has ever been "nothing", so please do not try to misrepresent our position on this.
Of course it's reasonable. The hard evidence we have today amongst all the clues to offer us explanations as to how and why we are here, are in favour of the Bible. I was actually astonished how clear it is.
@@downshift4503 Global flood. Sitings of dinosaurs in the last 2000+ years. The data surrounding the kick off of Christianity. All the archeological finds that support people and places in the Bible as far back as Abraham. Intelligent design and irreducible complexity in life. Contrast this with the failures of evolution to produce a different engineered animal (beyond just species differentiation), and origin of life researchers coming to the hard conclusion that organic spontaneous life originating on earth is deemed impossible with the physics of this universe. The only plausible explanation is an intelligent designer. We can see in our daily lives, all known intelligence comes from a mind. Statistically speaking, it's implausible to say the intelligence of our bodies arose blindly. Micro evolution is of course true, life is very plastic. However the changeability behind these evolutionary processes are extremely limited in power and function. To contrast it with origin of life, the first important step to a secular naturalists world view, it is not a reasonable belief to have, nor is it rational. The only acceptable answer given the data we do have, is God. With aliens coming in a very far behind 2nd place because there's no evidence that sophisticated alien life exists, it is but assumed based off of philosophical interpretation. We have the data of the Bible, which corroborates with the data we have with the world.
@@mrhyde7600 no, I want you to make me one. But not yet. I’m not quite ready. I gotta finish overhauling my kitchen, then I’ll need one… maybe a week or so.
@@MarkPatmos Being able to think doesn't demonstrate you have free will. It's just an emergent property or process happening inside your brain. No different than saying because I am able to sweat, therefore I have free will (though Prince Andrew would argue otherwise)
@@MarkPatmos I agree we didn't design ourselves. We are able to take decisions. We have a level of awareness. Decision making is a process of taking inputs (awareness) into a processor (brain), doing calculations based on functions (experience, understanding, instincts) and producing an output. This occurs in animals with sensors and brains. It even occurs in very simple animals. Do all animals have free will? A chess machine will take decisions depending on your move. Does it have free will? A washing machine can take decisions based on what point it is during the washing cycle. Does it have free will?
@@MarkPatmos The washing machine is aware of what time it is during its cycle, what the temperature of the water is, sometimes what the weight of the load is etc. That's how it is able to take decisions. Don't take "awareness" as the need to have a mind. Very simple animals such as certain shellfish have light sensors on their shells and are able to detect light and move towards or away from a source.... but I doubt very much they have minds.
@@MarkPatmos emotions are the result of chemical signals that your brain generates. We can alter your brain chemistry and you will experience emotions. You aren't in control of them, you just experience them. Animals have them too.
Having a conscience isn't a "riddle" or a mystery. It's an evolutionary trait rooted in empathy we adapted as an intelligent social species. Other social species of animals have a this also, but being that humans are more intelligent and have a more complex social structure, our morals/conscience is more developed and more complex. No mystery here.
Where did sentient empathy, compassion and love come from? And what animal demonstrates the sentient consciousness of humans? Like do animals know they are animals of their own species kind? and we humans are sentient creative beings?
@@multihull40 Most animals are sentient. All sentient means is the ability to feel or perceive things. So for example anything that can touch, taste, see, hear or smell something in it's environment and react to that stimulus would be considered sentient. To answer your second question is more a question about intelligence than sentence. Some intelligent animals absolutely know that humans are smart creative being because they will seek out humans for help solving problems that they can't. For example, I've seen numerous examples of orca whales actively seeking out humans to ask for their help saving their friend's life. One of the times the orca would not leave boat and kept pestering it until the boat followed them to see what they wanted. The orca led the boat to a place where another orca was tangled up and stuck underwater and would have drowned if it's friend didn't seek out help from humans. The humans cut it free and the orca even brought the people a stingray after to thank them in his own way. The orcas in those cases obviously know that the humans have better problem solving skills and better knowledge/capabilities to help. They weren't seeking help from dolphins or other orcas. They knew the humans could help them solve a problem they could not. Animals are more similar to humans than most people give them credit for. Some have deep feelings and emotions that are very similar to our own.
@@marksmith2003 Same as dogs though. People interpret their behaviour as human like sentient consciousness, like empathy compassion love and hate or revengefulness vindictive malicious behaviour to satisfy human type emotions of greed or selfishness. Your other comments were all speculation based on a premise that is actually not scientifically proven, like microbe to man evolution isn't a proven fact, it's a hypothetical proposition merely assumed from facts. The premise needs to be factual otherwise everything that follows is pure speculation. Design in nature is not a premise, neither is design requires a designer is not a premise.
@@multihull40 "Where did sentient empathy, compassion and love come from?" "empathy, and compassion" are human emotions triggered by chemical and electrical reactions in your brain. Love is similar. "what animal demonstrates the sentient consciousness of humans?" Dolphins for example. "Like do animals know they are animals of their own species kind?" Yes, some of them recognize their own species. "we humans are sentient creative beings?" So is apes.. "No one can change their ape ancestry, but some can conceal it better than others" - Christopher Hitchens
@@multihull40 "Same as dogs though." Depends on the breed. I fill like you are trying to say something but nothing really comes out. "Your other comments were all speculation based on a premise that is actually not scientifically proven, like microbe to man evolution isn't a proven fact, it's a hypothetical proposition merely assumed from facts." What does it mean? "microbe to man evolution isn't a proven fact" Yeah it is. Do you know how science works?
It is clear by examining changes in culture that _all_ people treat morality as subjective. It changes with the times and the place. What is moral in the US may be considered immoral in Saudi Arabia. What is moral in 2024 may have been considered immoral in 1924. Morality changes by the accretion of individual changes in the population. Each person has their own morals, and as particular morals gain popularity, they become the new norm for that culture.
The universe does not care if his sac of chemicals eats another sac of chemicals. After all it is just chemical reactions...It is irrelevant if he cares about animals or not.
@@dulls8475 Same way that, for instance, you might look at a love interest and fancy them as compared to a different person and feel nothing. How do you know? well, you just feel a bunch of emotions that your brain informs you of via chemistry.
@@dulls8475 Yeah sure your body is controlled by your brain via a central nervous system. Your brain runs on energy that you derive from food. It takes inputs via your senses and uses experience, inherited characteristics and processing to form decisions and execute outputs. You experience some of these via your mind as thoughts, which is a emergent property of process of the brain itself.
So what about women's second class citizenship expressed in countless bible books as the model of goodness, morality that clashes with modern day values. That and others don't relly get addressed by Paul.
Jesus tells us to love our wives as he loved the church. Jesus loved the church by sacrificing his life for it. So we are to sacrifice our lives to take care of our wives. How is that a second class citizen?
@mastershake4641 jesus dis not say anything. Jesus is myth your people come up with. Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool. Mark Twain
A little bit of this discussion reminds me of the pushback that William Craig has been getting by other theists in his defense of the killing of the Canaanites. Where here, the person is stating that God has said that he cannot make any demands that were intrinsically evil yet they get into the discussion of children being slaughtered as well.
God saying something is good or will isn't might equals right.. He is the uncaused cause and the principium of the universe and He is a perfect being with perfect nature.
In theism God is an axiom In Naturalism subjective well being is the axiom. (Ex. Moral Landscape Sam Harris) They both have “objective morality” toward their axiom. And let me just add a comment to the end of his statement at the end do video. Changing vocabulary used doesn’t change the moral relativism theism has. Saying it permeates over cultures and time is the same damn thing as moral relativism . It goes against your objective morality established in the Old Testament. I don’t even see how this is an argument. Very contradicting and it’s annoying that he always does that.
"In theism God is an axiom " Prove it. “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens There is no evidence of angels, satan or gods. Do better next time. What else do you have?
@@Majorpain12345 Very true, our actions have real consequences but without the pre - agreed desired goal / outcome of wellbeing we can NOT make a determination of what we *"SHOULD"* or *"OUGHT"* do or not do we can NOT differentiate between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate If i hit someone they feel pain... means nothing without first agreeing "we don't want people to feel pain" only then can we say "I OUGHT not hit people" The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
On RUclips you can find a gazillion clips of animals behaving morally towards their own kind, different animals and us humans. Do I gather they all come together on Sunday in some underground cave to attend to bible study?
The atheist also mentioned that he uses his conscience (didn't specifically say it, but implied) and when he feels bad about doing something and feel guilty, that drives him to not do that. So, he uses that without thinking if that what he feels is truly right or wrong, but instead he just uses it as the standard that magically came to be with 'evolution. His guilt over something is what drives him to do better and that can change, so that means if someone who doesn't 'feel' like that can't be held accountable for it because they feel a different way, it's subjective.
Morality is subjective whether you think it comes from evolution or a god. The only practical difference between these explanations is that evolution is actually an explanation while god is not. We can predict things through the evolutionary model, we can’t with god.
"that means if someone who doesn't 'feel' like that can't be held accountable for it because they feel a different way" yeah that happens, sometimes they are psychopaths and need to be contained for everyone else's safety.
God allows evil because humans (Adam and Eve) told God they dont need Him. So God is allowing us to show we DO need Him. Every human government is failing…. Because man is not meant to rule over man. Now we await Gods Government, His Kingdom to come on Earth as it is in heaven.
wow, nice ot see how christians lie about what's in their bible. Curiuous how adam and eve never tell this god it doesn't need it, and this god lies to them.
Did they tell him they didn't need him? Really? Or, was it a case that they didn't know what good and evil were so even though they knew it was wrong to disobey God, they didn't know how God was actually good in the first place and worthy of listening to. Idk about you, but I would be very happy if my child asked me questions like I how I know I'm right, because then I could tell them and help guide them. Also, throughout most of history people have tried to govern themselves with religious laws and morality. These have also had issues. It doesn't make a country better being more religious
@@hydraph4843 they listened to the devil that told them they can be like God, knowing good and bad. If they ate from the tree. Meaning they can choose for themselves whats right and wrong therefore they didnt need God.
@@hydraph4843 Satan told Eve, you can be like God… their very eyes will be opened…. Knowing good and bad. Genesis 3:5 which explains why the world is the way it is and why God allows suffering.
👏you’ve done a good job here representing Stephen’s side, unlike in other videos. Keep this up please. I personally agree with Stephen because I’m an Atheist, but I can totally see your side in this case. 👍
@@FuddlyDud Yes, I'm an atheist. "if you are able, can you tell me a bit of what that means to you? " You will ask questions and I will ask questions? 🤷🤷♂🤷♀
@@FuddlyDud I’m an Atheist. I grew up with Christianity. When I was 11-12 I was very sceptical that miracles ever took place. It just didn’t make sense to me. So I never took the bible literally. In high school I decided it was very unlikely there was a God. Especially the one described in the bible. At university studying Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, God was never mentioned. Everything just seems to work just fine without God. Learning how we evolved and how much evidence there is to support it, confirmed the bible should not be taken literally. I have listened to many, many apologist. I’ve never been presented with a good argument or any evidence for Christianity to be true. I have encountered a lot of evidence supporting it is false. I do believe we can learn a lot from the bible. Being an atheist means I believe a secular society where politics and religion are separated is best for humanity. Religion does not play a role in my life which feels quite liberating. I envy my religious friends sometimes when they talk about their church and what activities they get involved in. I also think they have a way better support network than I do whenever there is a crisis. I just can’t get past the fact their faith is based on what I consider imaginary things and untrue things. My Christian friends who are 100% committed, have to ignore actual scientific facts, to allow themselves to believe. I’m incapable of fooling myself that way now I’m a bit older. Hope this helps. Happy to answer more questions.
Simply another angry-at-God atheist. Without the Lord’s direct intervention, atheists will never be convinced. Watch “Astrophysicist Ross’s how the universe is designed by God, “The Reason for Evil”.
It's a shame that the Lord has been so averse to showing himself since the advent of photography, video and social media yet was showing up all over the place when no one could prove otherwise
@@nikorn24 they will state that there is plenty of 'evidence' but all that evidence is either biblical or derived from the account of staunch believers. Whenever anybody finds god it seems to be when they're desperate and open to believing anything that gives them some hope.
@@nikorn24 I can tell you the answer - you have to submit to Jesus, have faith, believe what the Bible tells you as it is God's word. And that's basically the answer you will always get, because there isn't any evidence
Your review of Paul's view on morality is dishonest. He's not using his own moral standard when he's looking at christianity and the horrible things christians did. He's pointing to the bible, the verses, such as the multitude of verses supporting slavery and the fact that those were used to justify slavery up until just recently and the fact that the morality changed, not because of biblical morality, but due to society and the rise of secularism that dragged christianity into the modern era. While it is true that there were a lot of chrisitans for example that were abolitionists, they weren't so because of the bible, because those pro-slavery verses never disappeared or were revised. Christians don't have "objective morality", because they all pick and choose independently what they like from the bible and then say "Ah, I get my morality from the bible." But if that was actually the case, you would not have over 12,000 different denominations of chrsitianity, all with different moral interpretations of the exact same holy book. Christians have just as much subjective morality as anyone else, they just aren't as honest about it. You can't have fundamentalists churches who hate homosexuality, moderate churches and then christian friendly lgbt churches....all based upon the same religion and book and claim you have "objective morality". It's a massive hypocrisy constantly overlooked.
I watched your entire video having already seen that particular debate with rationality rules was interested in your commentary, and at the very end, your conclusion was to assert that those laws all come from a supreme law giver. In the end, I was left with the unanswered question, how do you know that and through what means do you detect that that I can’t access?
@@raphaelfeneje486 Morality is subjective, we set the rules HOWEVER that does NOT mean we cannot set objective rules about morality. Let me give you a couple of analogies perhaps then you will understand........ Our metric reference standards for weights, distance ( kilometers, meters, centimetres ect ) was originaly a man made concept, arbitrarily concieved with no divine dictate involved. Yet once it becomes accepted and a pre- agreed consensus reached it functions perfectly. A "meter" is not some vague "about this big" concept that varies dependant on culture or God. We can OBJECTIVELY measure things "from within our pre-agreed metric reference framework" 😜 In the game of chess there are no OBJECTIVE RULES laid down by a god. They were arbitrarily concieved man made, however once we all come to an agreement about which rules we want to implement and adhere to it then becomes posible to objectively declare a move as illegal "from within the framework of agreed upon rules" ( a Bishop can only move diagonally ect ) That does not mean therefore that outside of the framework ( rules ) that its objectively impossible to move a Bishop straight forward 😁 Precisely the same applies to our moral reference standard, it too requires only an agreed upon reference standard in order to function. Can you think of a better standard to aspire and adhere to than one based upon human well-being, empathy, equality and respect ??? 🤔
@@trumpbellend6717 "Morality is subjective, we set the rules but that doesn't mean we can't set objective rules about morality." That's all I have to see. You've already contradicted yourself. There's no point reading further. Consensus can also agree that what one society deems immoral is moral to them. You have no authority to force your morality upon them. From your own logic, Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Mao actions were all valid. They came to a consensus as well. You've exposed yourself to not even understand basic stuff. Have a good one ✌️
@@raphaelfeneje486 // "that all I have to see" // Run along dear, your inability to address the remainder of the comment more than adequately demonstrates both your dishonesty and the fragility of your position for all to see 🤫
@@raphaelfeneje486 Attrocities and wars are caried out for a variety of reasons, power , greed, race, politics, religion, or even love if the Troy narrative was correct. However I struggle to recall of the last "holy" war caused by atheism 🙄🤔 You attempted to conflate the acts of individuals with them being "atheists" please demonstrate the truth of this ?? Both Stalin & Moa Zedong were males with black hair do we then get to ascribe black hair as indicative of sadistic killers .?? Why was it not their individual greed, politics or sociopathic tendencies or even the colour of their eyes that explains their actions ? How did you conclude it was atheism that was responsible ?? If I were to claim that the systematic abuse of children caried out by priests that was covered up and enabled by the church moving them from congregation to congregation, was the direct result of those men being Christians or wearing the robes of a priest and not the actions of sick individuals would I be correct ?? Or would that merely be me attempting to erroneously conflate them so as to discredit their theological beliefs as you just attempted to do with regards to atheism ??? 🤔🤔🤔
So again... where was the "lesson" and where was the "strawman"... You have a large following Brendan and I imagine you're an honest person whenever the topic isn't your religion. Do better.
“Do better” How patronising!! CRINGE atheism in full effect!! Sorry but “DO BETTER” according to who? Or what absolute, universal, objective standard of measure exactly? “DO BETTER” according to the standard of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur? Or “DO BETTER” according to nothing more substantive than the delusions of AN ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE who shares half their DNA with bananas right? Your world view, your absurdity, your ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! There’s still a tiny glimmer of hope though because perhaps Brenden ought to “DO BETTER ” according to the “NOTHING”? That is “DO BETTER” according to the standard of nothing more substantive than [DETERMINED BRAIN FIZZ] creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities? That is nothing more substantive than the science project of vinegar and baking soda accidentally bubbling over right? Sorry but the fact is that under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism your very ironic absolute truth claims about doing “BETTER” are nothing more substantive than the delusions of a determined machine, that is nothing more substantive than the delusions of a chemical and biological robot - right? That is nothing more substantive than the blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless accidental arrangement of POND SLIME evolved to an allegedly “HIGHER” order - right? Your world view, your absurdity, your “BETTER”, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Sorry but everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally fatalistic, totally nihilistic, and totally and utterly self refuting!! Sorry but you need to “DO BETTER” Prove me “WRONG”? I’ll wait!! CHECKMATE NIHILIST!!
“Smuggest man alive” Exactly!! It’s CRINGE atheism in full effect!! And smuggest MULLET ALIVE in full effect!! Nevertheless, according to the literary genius and forefather of psychology Fyodor Dostoyevsky…. “Even those who have renounced Christianity and attack it, in their inmost being still follow the Christian ideal, for hitherto neither their subtlety nor the ardour of their hearts has been able to create a higher ideal of man and of virtue than the ideal given by Christ of old” (Dostoyevsky). “There is in the world only one figure of absolute beauty: Christ. That infinitely lovely figure is, as a matter of course, an infinite marvel.” (Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Letter to niece Sofia Alexandrovna) (Time magazine ) is one of the most authoritative and informative guides to what is happening in politics, business, health and science. In a cover story (Time magazine) pointed out that Robert Coles was “the most influential living psychiatrist in the U.S.” that day!! According to the award winning psychiatrist Robert Coles… “All writings on ethics over the last 2000 years are simply footnotes to the sermon on the mount” (Robert Coles, psychiatrist, award winning author and professor emeritus at Harvard University.) In contrast fatalism and epistemological nihilism, that is atheism is comparable to a fish in a deep vast ocean bursting with life looking EVERYWHERE for evidence of water and life. A poet once pointed out that [Paraphrased]: “You are not just an ultimately meaningless droplet in the ocean, you are the whole of the ocean in the form of droplet!!” All the best and keep safe ❤️
I understand that Steven was just making a personal example, but if we were to extrapolate that to a larger society, it would make laws themselves immoral because they violate personal morality, or, rather, the majority or other lawmaking entities would be violating the personal morality of the minority, and/or those without a voice in lawmaking. Personal morality is not functional on a societal level and is, therefore in my opinion in no way a functional standard for “good”.
Human morality emerges from a complex interplay of innate traits, cultural influences, and evolutionary processes. It's literally just that simple. Some of us then use a framework based in reality to determine wrong from right, while others invoke magic.
From which culture did the enlightenment come? Did it grow out of a culture based in Buddhism for a thousand years? Islam? Shinto? Taoism? It was born and influenced by a culture dominated by Christianity. It was founded upon the morals of the LORD, Jesus Christ. What was born out of atheist culture, only after a couple hundred years? Totalitarian states that mass murdered their own populations by the millions. Jesus is Lord of lords and King of kings. Follow Him and be blessed, reject Him at peril.
@@harsha6937 yes, the Enlightenment that was referenced by the person in the video refers to Europe, mostly France, England, and Germany between the 1680s and 1810s.
A "straw man" is a purposeful misrepresentation of your opponent's position, so as to try and make it easier to attack. Could anyone please point out exactly where you heard Rationality Rules do that?
@@LGpi314 Yes, I know...I have attempted to engage with him on several occasions, and am in active debate on some of his vids. Crickets...but no shortage of minion.
Ok, then out of curiosity, how do you view us in the 21st century relying on presuppositions involving morality, such as slavery being more presumed as wrong? :)
@FuddlyDud I think moral language is obfuscation. If you don't like slavery, find it repugnant, think it harms social progress, isn't in your best interests, and have empathy for slaves, then that's all emotion, reason and preference. Morality not required.
In regards to morality, the theist simply asserts what they would prefer to be the case, not actually what IS the case. Ideally morality would be objective. But it just isn’t. It’s that simple.
If you believe in a materialistic world that has the capacity for morals it would have to be objective. It would be a property of the universe. If you believe all is random then there are no morals, just subjective self-centered approximations of our individual desires meshing with others. At best this is a mob based morality. If you can convince enough of a population to do something like say cannibalize people from other groups then it's deemed morally sound. Looking at the world we find ourselves, it's hard to argue there is no intelligence behind it and that all is random and ignorant. Therefore there has to be a ruleset and the ruleset is put in place before we arrived and if we move away from that ruleset we achieve immorality. Moving away from light leads to darkness. Moving away from God leads to ungodly behavior in ungodly places.
Brandon again - 'Steven's accusation itself implies an objective moral standard". No. This is the Frank Turek dodge. When you point out the many moral problems with the religion...the problem is dodged and a serious of assertions are made about god and objective morality that are never supported. Dodge ...make assertions... don't support them... hope no one notices. "so in this way his argument is self refuting" - No, you just don't understand morality.
“The Frank Turek Dodge” SMOKESCREEN!! This is hilarious and is comedy gold!! The only thing “DODGING” a “rational” hair cut here is “RATIONALITY RULES” MULLET!! At least be a consistent strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist, that is at least be a consistent fatalist and epistemological nihilist because according to the greatest atheist thinkers who ever lived with possibly the highest IQs… Logic is an illusion (Nietzsche) “Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions.” - (Nietzsche, Reference from: On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense). “Should I kill myself?” is the essential philosophical question.” (Albert Camus). Merry chap but at least he’s “logically” consistent with his atheism!! “Suppose we want truth: why not rather untruth? and uncertainty? even ignorance?” - (Nietzsche). “You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume) “Storytellers continue their narratives late into the night to forestall death and to delay the inevitable moment when everyone must fall silent.” (Foucault). Life is an “horror” and “truth” is “illusory”. (Nietzsche) Imagine telling all of these little stories to someone as a Christmas bed time story!! And you mock our beliefs!! And a very cheerful group of people I bet they were a blast at Christenings, birthday parties, and especially at golden wedding anniversaries and especially at funerals!! Cheerful group of people but at least they are intellectually honest and “logically” consistent with their atheism!! Sorry but atheism or existentialism as you guys presuppose is basically just its own religion, stealing from the belief in the fundamental nature of [MIND/FREEWILL/CONSCIOUSNESS/THE ACTUAL/THE ONE/MONOTHEISM]!! I actually respect the nihilism and absurdism of Nietzsche and Camus etc. I respect fatalism and epistemological nihilism. The claim that ultimately there is absolutely NOTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE beyond the immediate. Logic is an illusion. Truth is an “ILLUSION” as it’s all ultimately purposeless and ultimately meaningless word games. I respect that!! It's intellectually HONEST atheism!! And it is “logically” consistent with this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction!! Sorry but everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally fatalistic, totally nihilistic and totally and utterly self refuting!! Prove me “WRONG”? I’ll wait!!
Intriguingly, what modern philosophers think of as the Euthyphro Dilemma is not actually the Dilemma from Plato's _Euthyphro._ That was not about moral good, but about piety. Under that formulation, the question "Is roasting perfect lambs loved by God because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by God?" is an example of the Dilemma.
The Christian wants to suggest non-moral situations are from God. He’s not addressing moral situations but calling it moral anyway. Obeying parents isn’t moral, for example. When the atheist shows fluid morality the Christian just doesn’t address it. Then quotes the Bible as a proof. It’s absurd and can be dismissed as absurd .
I wouldn‘t say morality changed. God allowed divorce to avoid men killing their wives. After some time he changed this because the situation allowed it. Doesn’t mean though that divorce is right. Another simpler way to articulate the point: Things were just unavoidable back then, there was no other option. I am not defending the horrible injustice that was practiced throughout history there were terrible views on anyone.
"God allowed divorce to avoid men killing their wives" So why didn't he allow it from the beginning? Why did he wait for thousand of years, while men were busy killing their wives, since that was apparently a thing? What about "thou shalt not murder"? Why not simply offer a "hedge of protection" like so many Christians claim he does now? And why is he allowing things that "aren't right"? Isn't he the arbiter of morality? How could there be"no other option" when he literally created the universe and the laws by which it functions, and is able to alter them in a whim?
@@josephtattum6365 Basically all of it. His wording could have perhaps been a little better and more explanation needed but I don't really know how the whole conversation went since presumably Aly it was edited for this video
The "metre bar" comment describes how theists are wrong to tie their religion to morality. No one decided "this is a metre". A metre was calculated as one 10 millionth of the distance between the north pole and the equator. The bar was made to the best calculation of that length. It always existed. Similarly, it makes far more sense that morality existed, and when gods were made up, that existing quality was ascribed to them.
@@MarkH-cu9zi extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. You claimed that there are no gods although more than 85% of the world population believes they exist.
@@linusloth4145 So you're evading..... what a s surprise. _"You claimed that there are no gods"_ Show where I claimed this. Support at least one of your claims... 🤦♂
@@MarkH-cu9zi there are several different kinds of evidences. However, you are biased and you will dismiss them out of hand. It would be in vain to present them to you.
The theists argument can be summed up to a person who shoots an arrow at a tree and then drawing a circle around it. Morality has been developed over millions of years and in the last 10 thousand years people have attributed this morality to a deity and wrote it down. Now humans point to those writings and say "see, it's from our god." Ignoring the millions of years of collective social evolution that came before and influenced the writers of those holy books. That's also not taking into the account that holy books condone or encourage slavery, rape, infanticide, murder, incest etc. And not acknowledging the fact that believers today don't follow the moral rules of their books. Like stoning people who don't believe in your religion/who are homosexuals/nonvirgins on their wedding day/children that curse their parents, punishing those that work on the sabbath...etc It just illustrates the morality is subjective and malleable.
I've never been clear on what's being "borrowed" in these discussions. But more to the point: does anyone here believe that standards of collective behavior didn't exist before anyone had ever heard of the Christian religion? Do non-Christian societies not have their own moral frameworks, going back millennia? What about pack/herd animals, who have developed similar constraints, including punishment & reward in their groups, based on their behaviors?
"if evolutionary naturalism is accepted, human morality cannot be described as absolute and objective because moral statements cannot be right or wrong" - C.S LEWIS
C.S.Lewis was wrong. He should have stuck to children's books. He was a terrible philosopher.
@@nitsujismi dont think you have any clue or ground to stand on whether he wrong or right. The atheist/material/reductionist position with morality is an argument with no foundation. You have little to appeal to and your justifications are laughable.
If morality is related to evolution, wouldn't that admit that past morality is less righteous than the present but future morality with be more righteous than the present?
Meaning our morality is not righteous enough now.
@@nitsujism Reading his books, he was fairly knowledgeable, but I don’t think atheists would agree with you saying “wrong”.
Do you agree with that position? That quote is an argument supporting moral relativism.
Presumably then, if he loses sleep over meat eating, he must be deeply troubled by abortion.
Why?
@miserableman9088 abortion is cruel and painful when the limbs are being torn off the living little human being
Get ready for the mental gymnastics team 😂😂😂
@@miserableman9088
Dehumanizing babies inside their mother's womb doesn't make it more acceptable. Also why exactly an absence of pain makes the killing of innocents more acceptable ?
Personally, I'm not troubled by meat because that's how the animal kingdom was made, we live in ecosystems where predators exist and it turns out meat is good for us.
@miserableman9088 My farm, my choice. No farm no opinion.
Thats how it goes....right?
Steven: “the Bible says women are 2nd class citizens!”
Also Steven: “I don’t know what a woman is”
😂
😂😢
@@Mrguy-ds9lr Yeah I have a laugh/cry reaction to this too.
The trans movement is an atheist movement indeed! No truth exists.
Hmmm....can you provide the TIMESTAMP where Steven SAID THAT?
Am I crazy or did he say his personal morality comes from "feeling bad"? If so the obvious question is what does that mean for people that don't feel bad?
I had some lamb last night, and I didn't feel bad. In fact, I felt good. But now I'm feeling bad, that he felt bad for thinking about eating meat. He does not know what he's missing. I feel so sorry for him 😔
That is precisely what he said, and precisely why his claims are so flawed. I'm sure Hitler, Stalin, and Mao didn't feel bad about all the people they killed, which is why they kept on doing it. Steven would have to agree that they were not morally wrong, except by his subjective standard, and I doubt that would be enough for him to gather the courage to fight such monsters.
I don’t feel bad eating meat because I understand that God placed some animals on earth for humans to eat. Does he feel bad that cats eat mice? Wolves eat deer!
@@kaptaink1959
Cats cannot cook french fries, that's what vegetarians mean
@@SuperMrAndersentell the Inuit to not eat the marine animals they do. Tell them to go to the grocery store and pickup some veggies😂
Dude gets upset about people eating a rabbit but is totally cool with 60 million dead babies since RvW.
I don't buy it at all.
Exactly!
And then calls that morality.
Did he get upset? Or was it an example of subjective morality? Well, eating rabbits requires killing them, which ought be immoral be we do it anyways.
Morality is subjective.
Regarding abortion, yup once again morality is subjective.
What reasons do Christians have to be upset about abortion? After all, aren't aborted babies just getting a free pass to heaven?
With reference to your post about roe v wade Are you a Christian that's against killing innocent babies?
I like this mediator. She asked hard questions to both sides. Very well done.
The Atheist tries to ground morality in empathy. That's flawed. Empathy doesn't tell you how to act. Empathy only makes you feel a certain way. It provides two options, to act or not to act. If I see someone who is starving, I can understand how they feel, however it's not imposed on me to help. I can choose to help or not. That's free will, and it's absent from naturalism!
This is exactly it. You trace back their reasoning and every time, they literally have no choice to stop at a “just-so-ism.” Empathy is not a prescription; it does not have a mind or a will to actually tell you “you should be empathetic.” It is as concerned with your empathy as onion rings lol
How do they even account for empathy?
personally I feel better when I maximize utility and resources for myself at the expense of others.. Time to go be a good atheist :)
Yeah bruv I see it.
@@Papa-dopoulos Exactly!
Atheist: *borrows moral standard from theism*
Theist: "Where does that standard come from in your world view? You seem to be taking it for granted or borrowing it from my worldview"
Atheist again: *borrows moral standard to attack theism and suggest that it is inferior to atheism*
Yep, they steal from God, then spit in his face.
All morals come from man’s mind, not the baby-foreskin munching storm demon.
Atheists use a God they don't believe in as a moral standard?
Right?
Except he's not doing that and you're misrepresenting his position.
"Christianity had a monopoly and we had slavery being kept..." dude! A papal bull was passed in the 14th century outlawing slavery in ALL Christian countries. The problem was that people ignored it! You don't judge an entire system by people that aren't even following the system!
It only took them 14 centuries then to pass a law.
@@downshift4503 but that still doesn’t take away from who God is but more a reminder on who we are because of sin. So someone that follows God has to be perfect and create a perfect reality? Impossible only 1 person in history was able to do that and that was Jesus Christ
@@downshift4503 One could say that at least they passed the law. How did other cultures and nations do compared to it? your comment just shows your bias towards christianity, nothing else.
@@sauliruottu5871 Remember the claim is that God is supposedly at the centre of your religion and yet he does nothing for century after century but watch people suffer. He can create billions of galaxies and billions of planets, but he can't tell a bunch of african apes not to enslave each other. Before you say "free will", he was perfectly ok with having people executed for collecting sticks on the sabbath.
@@NathanNiederer You are describing a weak God that doesn't care about people.
He said, "No omnibenevolent entity could pivot like this..." Well how does he know that? How does an atheist justify that comment? How would he know? Against what standard is he measuring the character of an omnibenevolent God? That very statement alone reveals the fact that even atheists have to borrow from God in order to make sense of life.
Well, if we believe God is eternal and unchanging, the same today as yesterday and forever, then he wouldn’t ever pivot at all. The good thing is that Eden in Genesis is a picture of God’s ideal world, and Eve is no second class citizen. Turning women into chattel is something humans did in rebellion to God.
If God pivots then its not objective, it's subjective, it depends on Gods mood.
Come on, they hate the God they don't believe in, and only they have the attributes of what God can and can't be. Completely rational and logical
@@Thelast1leftNOW Do you think it's possible to hate something that you don't believe actually exists?
@@davegaskell7680 the idea of it? Absolutely! Obsessing over it? Absolutely not! Especially when the arguments are usually disagreeance, and not disbelief
Yikes. Grounding morality in “feeling bad” is an incredibly slippery slope.
Morality is grounded in how you feel about things. Your feelings inform you of your innate tendencies.
My thoughts exactly. The atheist said he "feels bad" for eating meat....it keeps him up at night. Sooo, his subconsciousness makes him feel that way for the "greater good" basically...cool. Now, I just pray that the likes of Mao, Hitler, and Stalin "felt bad" for being responsible for the unjust murder of millions and millions of people. Oh wait, they didn't "feel bad". That subjective moral compass really can bite humanity in the arse.
And apparently so is thinking you're competent at interpreting the word of god. You guys don't have a great tract record with that.
@@downshift4503 Your feelings and innate tendencies may influence how you choose to act, but they cannot lay any claim to what is right/wrong.
@@downshift4503The whole point of morality is *restraining* your feelings and bad innate tendencies. We all live in a fallen world and have a fallen nature, even atheists accept that, so we can’t trust our feelings, no. True morality is discovered by reason and imposed into our animal passions
I love how God is both condemned for being an all seeing divine dictator and at the same time condemned for NOT being a divine dictator and letting us use us our free will to learn more about the morally order in our own time rather than just enforce morality on us.
That's just playing in the Christian's court. It also points out that God rarely takes action, but when he does, it is the worst possible response. It is usually some fancy way of killing or harming people as a solution.
Does God have free will? Does he ever do wrong? No. Conclusion: he could have created a universe where humans have free will, but always do the right thing. Instead he chose not to. He chose to create us imperfectly. He chose to create us as such, with full knowledge we would break the rules and be cast from the garden of Eden. He stacked the deck against us.
@@ToHellWithDawkinsof course he could’ve. So you should ask the question, why?
@@ToHellWithDawkins This has nothing to do with the point I was making but ok, I'll take up your non sequitur.
God to Christians is the God of love. The reason He created everything is so He had something to love and be loved back in turn. But for that love to mean anything it must be made by a being with free will. So God purposefully made us with the ability to reject him so that when we instead chose him, it means something.
This is why there is evil in the world and why God permits it.
No amount of anger at God for creating us with the free will to go against Him will change the fact that it is still US who chose to go against Him.
@@ToHellWithDawkins
How could you have free will if you can't decide not to do the right thing though ? The root of the issue is that we'd like to do whatever we want without any negative consequences and certainly without any accountability. God tells you that your sin condemns you and answering 'but He shouldn't have to condemn me' doesn't put the blame on Him in fact it only highlight that you'd like to sin but not deal with the consequences.
However, He provided a way for us to be saved in Jesus, so clearly He hasn't set up humans for failure instead He thought of a mean of redemption because in His Mercy He prefered that we learn from the experience of sin, that we realize that there is nothing good in it and turn back to Him and His perfect love.
Its worth noting that slavery was diminished the the point of expulsion in the late Roman Empire, the pagan barbarians invaded and slavery took off again, they converted and slavery died down amongst Christians, though it was retained in relation to non-Christians until it was abolished by other Christians (British Empire leading the charge) using Christian values (not Enlightenment values).
On another note, I'd say don't be afraid to confirm Christian morality and condemn modern morality. If an atheist says that Christianity tells wives to obey their husbands, say that "yes, it does. This in no way devalues a woman as less than a man, like a soldier is no less valuable as a human than his commander, but for the social command structure to work, one must take a subordinate place to the other."
You forgot the part where slavery and breeding of slaves, was defended by Christians owners and politicians (US mainly) even after other Christians along with non Christians defended abolition. If this is not an example of how morality is subjective in Christianity, tell me why. Same with the racial segregation question that plagued Christians countries until recently, with a divide among Christians to find it morally acceptable or not.
Christian countries : the United States. Funny how you broaden the scope when it's specific to a single country. Christianity doesn't promote but condemn slavery, meanwhile supposedly "Christian" countries like the United States exploited the faith for their gains. After leaving the church should I remind you, Americans are neither Catholic nor Orthodox.
Meanwhile slavery and exploitation of other human beings was done perfected under secular regimes such as the Third Reich or Stallinism. Both coincidentally anti-clerical
@@deguilhemcorinne418 For part one it is easy. The desires of those who wished to enslave and unnaturally breed their slaves is contrary to Christian values. So far from their being those who were one type of Christian with their beliefs and another type of Christian with theirs, what you instead have are those who are living according to the principles of Christian doctrine, and those who are not.
To condemn Christianity as a whole because people who are Christian act in unChristian ways is like condemning science as a study because some scientists who don't properly apply the scientific method, cause terrible things.
As for racial segregation, there are two principles at war there. The first to do unto others as you would have them do to you, and then the protection of your own people from danger. Some Christians embraced one as primary, others the latter, until it was realized that the latter was greatly exaggerated and so, as you pointed out, its ditched and replaced entirely by the former.
Remember not to base your judgement on what we know now, but rather on what people thought at the time.
@@tomosjackson4760 I agree that history and socio-politic evolution have a great influence on religion practice and understanding and at reverse, that evolution of religious ideas have a great influence on the historical and social construct. Or at least, is part of it. The fact is that there is and - throughtout history - was no unity about the moral outcomes and other understandings of Christian faith, which is perfectly understandable from a down-to-earth point of view, and requires no condemnation, other than condemning those who want to force their beliefs on you (valid for any religion).
@@deguilhemcorinne418 If you are referring to heresy, I'm not sure that counts. An incorrect interpretation of the Christian teachings cannot be used to show that Christianity is inconsistent, in just the same way as incorrect use of the scientific method cannot be used to say that science is inconsistent.
If you are referring to growth of understanding in Christianity then that is no reason not to proselytize the religion amongst others. And if by "forcing your religion on others" you mean forced conversions then that is also condemned, but if you are simply referring to wishing to live as a Christian in a Christian society then I would argue that this version of "force" is applied by any society that has laws full stop.
I'm starting to think that time, randomness and the avoidance of reality are the main workhorse of atheism. Maybe it would be beneficial to delve deeper into these issues..
Thanks for the nice content.
I agree. They base reality upon their theories. Our theories need to be proven or disproven by observing reality.
No, the workhorse of atheism is the lack of evidence for Theism.
Scientific anti-realism should have a louder position in the overall plausibility structure of scientific knowledge...
but it's mostly untold in order to improperly given naturalistic knowledge unobjectionable epistemic authority in claims about reality
scientific anti-realism would indicate that certain things that we can't observe well, like electrons, deserve more speculation and can't be proven to exist by empirical data, so we should treat such findings as competing theories.
Naturalism is not to be assumed as a prior in the same way as moral knowledge, logic, math, etc., it's not chiefly self-evident in way that supernaturalism is completely unwarranted. Randomness / unguided development isn't a better, epistemically more authoritative answer
Yes, which is why most of atheism is fine with someone believing in whatever religion they want, so long as it accepts the claims of a universe/earth that is billions of years old. The world having accepted that divergent claim is all that allows for their other divergent claims to hold any water.
@@Feraeondnah atheist don't care if you believe the universe is 8 days old. The problem is when your actions are justified by this belief and that it has a negative effect on the atheist.
If you keep your beliefs to yourself, atheist doesn't care.
Whenever people try to argue about alleged evils done within the confines of Christianity, my immediate response is why do men blame God for their own evil? If we changed these things, is it God changing his mind or is it us recognizing our own evil nature and that we’re wrong?
1 Samuel 15:3
@@downshift4503 1 Samuel 15:2
Genesis 6:4-11
Numbers 13:26-32
better luck next time
Sadly and ashamedly, so much has been done "in the name of Jesus" that God never told us to do. Not all 'Christians' are true, born again, followers of Christ.
Thus, we should not blame Jesus for things done, contrary to His commands.
If man wages war in the name of God, the atheist doesn't blame God, since he doesn't think God is real. He blames the religion that inspired or justificated the war.
@@elvancor Hate to break it to you, but most if not all wars are economically based.
People, religious or non will use rationalization to find a moral justification.
So we have the following:
1. Blame God or Religion
2. Secular crimes are ignored
3. Don't say anything bad about the bankers.
The Euthyphro Argument or Divine Command Theory comes from Plato’s dialogue in which Socrates asks:
Is something is right because God commands it, or does God command it because it is right?
The ethical implications of this argument suggest that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as clear-cut as previously thought. What makes this question so effective is that if the interlocutor accepts either part of it he is often logically forced into conclusions that may conflict with other beliefs he has, therefore creating a logical dilemma for him.
Unlike the description of morality of being a decision, it seems to me that the commands of God are not arbitrary or capricious because as a source they emanate, not from a decision, but from God's character which character never changes.
The origin of morality is in the heart of God and intrinsically proceeds from God, not as a well thought out idea or decision but as a quality of his being.
It is beyond God to issue commands outside of his character and subsequently any commands to his creation will reflect that character consistency and thereby be moral.
Therefore God cannot give a moral command, recind and supplant it with a diametrically opposing command.
This is not a failure of God but a limitation of the argument. Secondly, there is no morality or truth outside of God of which he must follow or decide to use.
Again, morality emanates from his being and all his decisions and actions agree with his character. Therefore, both options of the Divine Command theory are invalid.
Exactly. It's a false dilemma. And you have identified another alternative that is the reality. God's commands are not arbitrary, nor are they sourced from a goodness separate from God. God IS the source of goodness. His commands are an expression of His character/nature.
God's commands sometimes do seem arbitrary such as when he commanded Ezekiel to bake cakes with human poo, but then settled for cow poo instead because Ezekiel protested.
It possibly seems arbitrary until one supposes that God knew Ezekiel would protest and thus incited said behavior for His particular purpose. (I don’t suppose to purport the Will of God, I’m just hypothesizing)
@@jeremybridges6015 I am not sure what the purpose of that episode is either.
@@jeremybridges6015 incited or allowed?
The atheist starts of assuming that the current state of society is the best moral standard...
What's the timestamp where he said that?
@@mrhyde7600 gays women and slaves
That’s not what I think as an atheist, tho we can disagree amongst each other.
It's a lot better now than it was in biblical times.
@@DM-dk7js The atheist in the video....
Us changing our UNDERSTANDING is not the same as the MORALITY changing. And "moral progress" is often moral corruption.
I see it daily on a small scale. Whole communities believe something is good because everyone has come to accept it.
The Athiest made one good point but in the opposite direction of how I should be applied (paraphrased), "if there is an omnipotent God then what was acceptable yesterday wouldn't flip to be acceptable today. An omnipotent being wouldn't flip their virtues like that "
True. But it isn't that these things are now acceptable and God approves of them. It is quite the opposite. Many things were wrong that are still wrong and our culture has set morality aside.
Yes, taking credit for the good in history on massively generalized terms while shifting blame for the bad is self-defeating. It is not an objective assessment to suggest that atheists of the Enlightenment are credited with the civil advances of that time while ignoring the similarly prescient timeline of the Reformation which made the Bible widely available to the masses not in power to read for themselves for the first time ever without the corrupt traditions and interpretations wrought by Roman Catholicism. Of the few correlatives which exist, one of the most obvious is the American Revolution and what it produced with its foundation on Biblical principles compared to the French Revolution and what it produced with its egalitarian/anti-religion principles. One resulted in the first unilateral banning of slavery in any governance in the world's history and the other was an imitation attempt that ended in the invention of the guillotine and a swift resurgence of totalitarian rule after anarchy descended into chaos. Atheism's attempt to make a pale imitation of theism while discarding the theism part of it remains of a similar model and aftereffect every time to this day.
So you admit to subjective morality!
@@mrhyde7600 How on earth did you come to that conclusion from his statement??
So the biblical guidance on taking slaves and keeping them is still morally right today? You would feel it's morally OK for someone to possess you as a slave as long as they kept you within the guidelines set out in the bible.
I think this is a really good discussion to have. Christians shouldn’t shy away from difficult conversations and instead talk about them frankly and openly. I did, however, raise an eyebrow and the mention of the Euthyphro dilemma by Steven: I thought this was solved in philosophy already. It’s a false dilemma, meaning we’re _not_ limited to the two disclosed options. God’s commands are neither arbitrary nor external to His nature; they instead reflect His perfectly good character. Therefore what is morally good is neither independent nor arbitrarily determined by God.
Correct, and Paul mentions this also, it would be like asking "is a meter a meter because the meter stick says so or because the meter exists outside the meter stick?"
Almost there
Perfectly good character? You mean the being who created a place of internal hellfire? The one who commands genocide of people? The one who is a promoter of slavery? Good grief
Joshua, why don't you have your own content? I would definitely sub if you were giving the same insight I see you give in the comment section.
It still sounds like one of the horns, just said in a different way.
His (the athiest) opening statement was absolutely disingenuous. The points that were made were framed with falsehoods. The framing needs to be changed here.
For example...?
The athiest cannot change the narrative ; while contending there is no God, he blames Him for failures.
@user-yo3li7tk7b An atheist is not claiming there is "no God", an atheist claims they are not convinced any god exists, and it would not be logical to blame something that we have no good reason to believe exists.
The "blame" comes from the hypothetical in assuming for the sake of argument that YOUR chosen god does exist, and that if it indeed does, it is apathetic to a great many issues, so what "good" is it?
@@atheistangel007
“An atheist is not claiming there is no God”
CRINGE atheism in full effect!!
[Relativism, strictly reductive materialism, atheism, or philosophical naturalism, that is fatalism and epistemological nihilism]:
“The belief that there was “nothing”, and nothing didn’t really mean “nothing” as there was no such thing as meaning, and then nothing much happened to nothing except nothing and then “NOTHING” or the blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless accidental arrangement of “SOMETHING” suddenly accidentally exploded for no reason whatsoever, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything suddenly, magically rearranged itself -- for no reason whatsoever -- into self replicating bits which then turned into something that meant everything. But ultimately it didn’t really mean everything or anything as everything is ultimately meaningless.” [Atheism].
And they mock other peoples beliefs!!
Yeah not dogmatic at all and perfectly “sane” and makes perfect sense!!
About as much “sense” as your “AN ATHEIST IS NOT CLAIMING THERE IS NO GOD” argument!!
Yeah makes great sense!!
Glad we cleared that one up!!
You’re not fooling anyone buddy. We know that you guys aren’t agnostics lol!!
By the way, I’m not claiming that atheism is false. I simply just “lack a belief” that we are all ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH BANANAS right?
Your world view, your absurdity, your ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
Believe it or not I’m actually an “AGNOSTIC” myself and I’ve utilised a very pragmatic and very effective scientific probability scale of 1 -7 thats very useful for getting to the truth of things!! Especially if you are an “AGNOSTIC”.
(1) is total conviction that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is true. That is (1) is total conviction that fatalism and epistemological nihilism is true and coherent as a theory of reality. And (7) is total conviction that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is incoherent. That is (7 ) is total conviction that fatalism and epistemological nihilism is nothing more substantive than atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction!!
I’d put the chances of atheism, that is fatalism and epistemological nihilism being true at a (6.5) on the probability scale. And I would be a (6.5) with the claim that fairies and leprechauns exist!!
That is I’d put the [myth] that a cosmic accident, the [myth] that a random cosmic toss of a coin, the [myth] that [the ultimately meaningless, accidental arrangement of the magical cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea] created everything. Even accidentally creating Truth itself, that is accidentally creating value, oughts, the prescriptive laws of logic, [conscious agents/free will, that is rationality itself] at a probability score of about 6.5 and I would be a 6.5 with pink fluffy Leprechauns.
Sorry but everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally fatalistic, totally nihilistic and totally and utterly self refuting!!
Sorry but I’m biased against beliefs that are synonymous with the belief in MAGIC. I tend to doubt that they are rational!!
Do you have actual evidence or not that MAGIC is real? I’ll wait!!
@@atheistangel007
“The "blame" comes from the hypothetical in assuming for the sake of argument that YOUR chosen god does exist”
SMOKESCREEN!! The fact is that the “atheist community” just can't seem to shut up about its “lack of belief”. I lack a golf club set and I also lack a chess set right? Do want to know why?
It’s because I have absolutely no interest in golf or chess whatsoever and find the funny dress codes ridiculous and the rules of the game brain draining. But I rarely moan about it or think it's a good idea to create a whole website with thousands of followers dedicated to mocking golf players and mocking chess players in order to spoil their love if it!!
That is I’v never come across anyone going out of their way to build a whole website entirely dedicated to proclaiming their “lack of a belief” in golf or their “lack of a belief” in chess, in order to mock and argue with those who absolutely love chess and absolutely love golfing and find it very fulfilling and rewarding!!
Channels entirely dedicated to atheism, that is channels dedicated to mocking and ridiculing moderate religious expression are beyond ironic and absurd, that is channels purely dedicated to the so called “NON RELIGIOUS” are beyond ironic and absurd and are comedy gold!! They’re just a bit erm…too religious?
Furthermore, you and your cowardly ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES can complain all you like till the cows come home that you merely “lack a belief in God”!! You’re not fooling anyone buddy!!
Because fact is that an atheist, that is a fatalist and an epistemological nihilist is clearly someone who makes a truth claim about the fundamental nature of reality.
Further still, why on earth would you even join a comments section, or join a forum or create a forum to discuss your so called “humble lack of belief” if you genuinely believed there was no burden of proof and that the evidence for monotheism was so flimsy right?
I mean, how do the conversations go on atheist forums? They must be fascinating and riveting to behold? “I lack a belief in God", "Yeah, so do l", "Me too". “And me as well” “wizards don’t exist” “yeah sky daddy gives me the hump” “Santa didn’t bring me any presents this year” “yeah me too” right?
Or do you waste your so called “finite” existence preparing a well thought out rebuttal and a reason for your so called “lack of belief”? Because if you do then its definitely more than just a “lack of belief” and if you don't, why not just go to the pub for a pint of beer and a packet of crisps or potato chips?
If you truly, genuinely believed that the intrinsic sense of the transcendent and the intrinsic sense of the divine inherent in most human beings is the same as believing in Santa how come you haven’t joined a forum to discuss your “lack of belief” in Santa. ME THINKS YOU ATHEISTS DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH LOL!!
It's like the old David Foster
Wallace speech "water" -- you are swimming in your worldview, which you pretend doesn’t even exist & do you really think that we are gullible enough to believe this isn't a worldview that defines every aspect of how you see the world right?
I rest my case!!
Excellent video! I really like how you take a broader view from the debate and direct the focus to the core of the question about morality. Also, I like how you put a great emphasis on the politeness of the discussion and how we should really listen to what the other is saying and to the points made. We need this kind of diplomacy in our debates and discussions!
“If you pay attention, when you are seeking something, you will move towards your goal. More importantly, however, you will acquire the information that allows your goal itself to transform. A totalitarian never asks, “What if my current ambition is in error?” He treats it, instead, as the Absolute. It becomes his God, for all intents and purposes. It constitutes his or her highest value. It regulates his or her emotions and motivational states, and determines his/her thoughts. All people serve their ambition. In that matter, there are no atheists. There are only people who know, and don’t know, what God they serve.”
“Evil is a departure from how things OUGHT to be. But with naturalism there is no way things OUGHT to be”
Super good quote that he said that helped me understand the topic
Except that’s there also no OUGHT from theism either. Naturalists and those who reject naturalism have the same issue of determining and/or justifying an objective ought.
.
"Right and wrong" are words that are relative to the actualization of a desired goal or outcome, absent said goal, the terms right and wrong become meaningless.
My "goal" is the actualization of a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon our common desires with respect to wellbeing and the values it incorporates, empathy, respect, equality, altruism, reciprocity. That is why one "ought" to treat another's as you would like to be treated, One "ought not steal if you wish to live in a society were property is not stolen. One "OUGHT" not murder if they want to live in a society were people are not murdered. This is our "reference point" or standard.
One "should" or "ought" do something if Its conducive with the actualisation of a situation that conforms with one's goals and values. These "values" themselves are subjective by definition however it is entirely possible to make Objective declarations or decisions 'Within a pre-agreed framework of subjective values'.
Values are socially approved desires that are internalised through the process of conditioning, learning or socialisation and that become subjective preferences, standards and aspirations a shared idea about how something is ranked in terms of desirability, worth or goodness
*What is your "goal" and why 'OUGHT' one do what your subjective God desires* ?? 🙄🤔
@@trumpbellend6717 If that’s true, why do we fight so hard against societies norms such as slavery in America or civil rights in America. The best explanation for that is true objective morality. (Your definition doesn’t work because it’s dependent on a changing societies viewpoint not making it true objectivity). We know that chattel slavery is wrong even if not everyone agrees. So we fight for what is objectively right.
@@arcticpangolin3090 Theists don’t merely argue that there are oughts in only a theistic worldview. OUGHTS are everyone’s reality already. You know and I know that people OUGHT to behave a certain way regardless of societal norms. Even if our society believed in torturing babies for fun was good thing, you would think they OUGHT not to do that. Naturalism has no explanation for what is our current reality. For things everybody knows.
@@justinrobinson9482He already answered your question. He said "we ought to treat others like we would like to be treated".
It's mutually beneficial.
I don't think you should bring up slavery at all when the Bible actively supports it. Modern day Christians simply changed their moral beliefs from what it was In the past. Biblical and religious morality isn't objective nor unchanging. Even if it were true that morality can only come from God and be objective, then you also need to explain how come that only means your God and not any of the other ones from other religions. If you don't believe me about the positive manner in which slavery is talked about in tbe Bible, you should check out Dan Mcclellan's channel, he's a Bible scholar and has a couple of videos on slavery in the Bible. And please don't bring up the verse about the Bible condemning kidnapping, it was a different crime and overall certain rules and protections didn't apply to non-israelites.
Religious morality is dependent on social changes as much as any other type of morality.
Everytime I hear Steven talk I just get frustrated will how little he knows both of Christianity, history, and atheism. Why he has an audience is beyond me!
That’s what I find surprising too. Seems like a smart chap, but seems wholly disinterested in actually understanding the claims of those he’s attempting to dispute. It’s the blistering incuriosity that’s so jarring.
It's getting more common for people to watch 2 or 3 TikTok videos and consider that sufficient to inform themselves. Those are the people who follow someone who has had a cursory introduction to Christianity and don't like particularly parts because they either 1)Misunderstand them or 2) Don't like them because it grinds against particular sin(s) they cherish and have no desire to stop committing.
He's not lacking knowledge about xianity - he just doesn't share your interpretation.
Yes he's the quintessential vehemently against things he knows nothing about.
@@sidwhiting665- So you don't object to the parts of the Bible where god condones owning people as slaves? You think owning people as property is moral?
So, as I see it, he has a problem with the church, not the Bible or God... Most of what he condemns is mainly Catholic/Protestant beliefs and not from the Scripture itself...
He is wrong on pope allowing the same sex marriage. Pope just said priests could bless same sex couples as individuals...that's not blessing their union which is a sin but blessing the individuals. Catholic church teachings didn't change....it's the same old teaching taught again.
The Catholic Church compiled and canonized the Bible and precedes it. All Catholic beliefs are in the Bible and vice versa.
not even that, he has a problem with the fact no human is perfect which is a claim central to all branches of Christianity with Christ being the exception
Religion gives God a bad name. Even in Jesus day, there were two religions that had the Bible and Jesus saw they were all about the money and kicked their tables over. Not only that he said they were hypocrites and the blind leading the blind and to top it off he told those so-called Holy men that they were of their father the devil.
Typical internet atheist
“Everyone decides their own morality.”
Becomes morally indignant when someone acts in accordance with their own morality.
Can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "objective" moral standard you speak of or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed.? 🙄 🤔
If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍
The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
@@trumpbellend6717 Has there been moral progress to this day in your view?
@@linusloth4145
I think so, we no longer think it acceptable to *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"*
Nor that
*"if you beat your male or female slave with a rod and they do not die for a day or two"*
*"There shall be NO PUNISHMENT for they are your PROPERTY and your money"*
I would say that is a step in the right direction wouldn't you ? 😜
Modern societies think that the gathering of sticks on a sabath is not nor ever was immoral and worthy of stoning to death. The same applies also to our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) .
Thankfully a judge today recognizes a girl who has been raped and did not scream is actually a VICTIM and not deserving of death as the bible dictates.
Again I would discribe humanity as better off in a meaningful way by disregarding these filthy hurtful religious dictates, do you disagree?? 🙄🤔
@@linusloth4145
"Hello Mcfly" 🤭
He says everyone decides their own morality, that doesn't mean that one is not allowed to critique that morality.
Objective morality isn't subjective to time, it's called objective because it stays true always. The bigger problem is when people hail a subjective opinion as an objective opinion not realizing that it's subjective.
Objective morality is just an idea and nobody proved it's existence
@@SuperMrAndersen Is that an objective statement? 🤔
Or is it just your opinion?
@@Mark-zo1hs It's the definition of objective morality
Do you have evidence that an "objective morality" exists?
Who and how determines the objectivity?
If the choice is between God and a part time dungeon master with a mullet I choose God
I’ll choose the guy with the mullet. He’s probably less petty, doesn’t have ego issues.
@@DM-dk7js Yes he does. He thinks he is his own law. That's pretty arrogant.
@@holdingonforlife1there’s only one law. And it’s the law man creates.
“Part time Dungeon master with a mullet”
That really made me laugh!! God forgive me!!
Two atheist scientists, that is two fatalists/epistemological nihilists who subscribed to evolutionary psychology were making their way back to camp through the plains of the savannah in Southern Africa after getting separated from their guide. The two men both had MULLETS but decided to jog quickly back to camp to avoid being attacked by any large carnivores but followed the wrong trail and got lost!!
Eventually they stopped under the shade of a tree and removed their sports trainers to enjoy the shade and cool grass on their bare-feet. Suddenly, they both noticed a rather large lioness crouched in the long grass stalking them from 100 metres away.
They turned and walked slowly in the opposite direction in their bare feet, the lioness slowly followed them. They increased their pace, the lioness moved quicker as well. They both suddenly started to jog, the lioness matches their jogging pace.
One of the atheistic scientists suddenly decides to stop, quickly crouches down, and starts to put his trainers back on as fast as possible!! The other scientist exclaims smugly… “What on Earth are you doing? You’re a scientist surely you know that WE can’t out-run a hungry lioness and they can actually climb trees!!”
The scientist now with his trainers tightly fastened grimly replies….
“what’s this “WE” business? I don’t need to out-run a hungry lioness, I just need to out-run YOU to the next tree and your MULLET weighs more than mine!!
The scientist in his bare sore feet in disgust exclaims….
“I thought that you were some kind of “MORAL” subjectivist and vegan?
The scientist now with his trainers tightly fastened with a grim smile exclaims…
“MORAL” and “VEGANISM” I believe in “survival of the fittestism” your ultimately nothing more substantive than an HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE and a spineless, annoying one with a MULLET at that!!!” And he sets off at high speed!!
The atheist screams after the “MORAL” subjectivist as the lion quickly catches up, “Oh my God help me!!”
Suddenly the light becomes more vivid and everything is still. The voice of a divine messenger speaks from the Savannah plain, “So now you need the absolute, now you need that of which nothing greater can be conceived’s help?”
The divine messenger asks the atheist.. “What do you want? I’m busy cleaning up Cr…p literally everywhere, this is a FALLEN WORLD!!” The atheist surprised by the language responds…….
“You’re so powerful can’t you spare a few seconds and kill that ferocious lioness for me? I’ll do anything and its about to tear me limb from limb!!”
The heavenly messenger heaved an enormous numinous sigh and a deep sadness appeared on the messengers
face……..
“No I can’t kill that beautiful LIONESS and I thought that you were a “MORAL” subjectivist? What do you take me for Lucifer? The absolute don’t do unfair deals it’s a free lunch!!”
The atheist replied in desperation….
“Can’t you at least ask to make that Lioness a MORAL OBJECTIVIST?
The divine messenger replies…..
“You denied the existence of the absolute, universal, OBJECTIVE ground of truth, beauty, love and goodness your entire life and pretended that his ancient messengers were just backwards thinking, science denying, Bronze Age goat herders and that you were held to ransom with the old “fear, fire and Hell nonsense!!”?
“And now you’re begging me to ask if it’s OK to either kill or frighten the Hell out of this poor lioness who has three starving lion cubs on the run from hyenas?”
The atheist a little surprised by the messengers language replies….
“Oh!! Sorry, good point! Well, couldn’t you at least ask him to make the lioness a good Christian?”
“I’ll do my best,” said the messenger. “But I’m really treading on dodgy territory asking that we interfere with the future and metaphysics and the whole FREEWILL thing and the delicate fabric of time and space and the character of the absolute etc!!”.
In a moment the light changes back and the voice fades away. The lioness suddenly miraculously kneels down in front of the “MORAL” subjectivist/atheist, bows her head solemnly, and says, “Thank you, Lord, for what I am about to receive.”
The End…
😎❤️
@@DM-dk7js But if man creates it, we don't know which man does. "The majority" isn't correct, and isn't even clearly defined.
I do try to be fair to athiests and understand their point of view but do they have to be so smug. 😕
Idk he seemed very polite and cordial. Such as finishing with thanking everyone and looking forward to the conversation
After years of Roman myths and Lutheran protestant bibles, an atheist enjoys seeing these religious people squirm.
Also an atheist will pick up one small part of information and that becomes the entire proof against.
All atheist want God to be true, we just looked in the book and religion for God.
God and Jesus is true, just not from Roman myth or any book.
- an ex atheist that found God and Jesus, just like Jesus asked.
@@We.are.all.human. I am an agnostic, and raised atheist, and I have never enjoyed seeing religious people 'squirm'. I actually have my respect for many Christians.
We don't just pick up one part of information. There are countless topics atheists have spoken about, covering many different aspects of the Bible, religion etc
@@hydraph4843 then you are a different person than an atheist. If what you say is true, you have a Christian heart. For me and all the atheist I know, we believe all religions are myths. I was very wrong to believe Christianity is a religion. I still know religion is man made myth.
I found respect for humanity and Jesus in my heart. The Roman and Lutheran religions turned me to atheism over 30 years ago. I just found Jesus this year at 44.
@@We.are.all.human. Either way I don't think the God of the Bible as depicted in the Bible is true
“Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools”
So so so many misunderstandings by Steven. He represented Christianity so incredibly poorly it's wild he was on that panel.
I do not understand why the Atheist speaks of second class of citizenry of women. It seems his personal interpretation of what women rights are is confused with the characterization of women in the religious structure of the church, for example. He is essentally using an unsubstantiated, personal standard of women's citizenry (rather a human's relativistic standard) to make a false equivalence. We need to understand first what exactly does he mean by a statement such women being second class in Christianity.
Go and read the epistles and instructions to women.
Are woman not excluded from the same roles as men?
From all the conversations I have had with people presenting this criticism, it comes down to a lust for power. If one is a follower rather than a leader, they are inherently being regarded with second-class value. Since scripture articulated the husband's and father's leadership in marriage, therefore the wife or daughter is second-class. Nevermind references establishing equal value like in Galatians. Equality of value means equality of authority in the modern doctrines it seems.
Galatians 3:25-28
[25] But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, [26] for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. [27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
@Feraeond thank you. I was alluding to this issue. It seems to be more of an issue of people assuming certain roles mean one is superior to another. An example in modernity would be the consideration that the role of homemaker is looked down upon by virtue of some false power dynamic. People pushing these types of views tend to errorneously assign more value and worth to the role of breadwinning while devaluing homemaking (roles that are and have been meant to be complimentary). Just because a person is a follower doesn't make one a second-class citizen. By that metric, most of society would be second-class. I appreciate the answer. You perfectly articulated the issue with this criticism. His other points have similarly flawed premises.
@downshift4503 My family recently got finished reading the New Testament chapter by chapter verse by verse. There is nothing there about "second-class" citizenry. Perhaps you have a skewed understanding of "second-class"?
The Euthyphro dilemma has been recognized as a logical fallacy for 2400 years. Even Plato, who introduced it, treated it with the distain it deserves. What is staggering to me is that anyone gives Steven the time of day. He doesn't understand the arguments or intentionally misrepresents them by building strawmen to knock down. This guy is not serious thinker and should be ignored. He lives in the realm of logical fallacy and misrepresentation and in the dozens of videos, in which he has appeared and I have seen, I have yet to see him make a single coherent argument for atheism or against theism. What he engages in is the rhetoric or a sophist. Furthermore, grounding your moral values in how you feel is not a standard, its an opinion. You may think treating people nice is good but a guy could walk up and stab you because he thinks that is good and the naturalist has no authoritative basis to say that there is any moral difference between the two.
Exactly!!
to be fair the euthyphro dilemma is actually a valuable tool against islam. Because it shows their god cant be trusted.
For someone who calls his channel rationality rules, being rational is not his strongest suit.
Then perhaps you could provide some EXAMPLES of that accusation. I'm curious.
@@mrhyde7600...alphabet mafia...
@@mrhyde7600 self importance rules
@@shanahendricks9831 Was that an example, or just random words?
@@mrhyde7600 an example lol 🤣
This was so good maaaannnn 😭 Aye if y'all haven't checked out George Jankos podcast with Cliffe it came out like a day ago, seriously made me bawl my eyes out and brought me to my knees, I swear I've been skeptic for so long and it feels like just in this last couple weeks I've been seeking and finding, and I still cannot I can NOT thank you enough. but there was something about George's wifes testimony about a experience she had recently seriously hit my heart so so deeply. I seriously have an extremely hard time with believing Testimony's and seriously wish that wasn't the case but it is hahaha. But she started talking about how she finally understood what it meant, that sacrifice he made on the cross I just burst into tears. You guys through the holy spirit, are saving lives including mine and I cannot again thank you enough, im terrfied, Im very close to the edge but the spirit is so real and I dont feel as if I have much time left, thank you for helping me. And thank you God for loving me enough to give me a chance.
❤️🙏
Happy to see our event sparking discussion!👍
I often wonder what an atheist does when he dies and comes face to face with Jesus
Ask Howard Storm. Jesus pulled him out of Hell. He quit his lucrative professorship and became a pastor.
@ninja3687 Yet that's not biblically true. Hebrews says " It is appointed once for a man to die, and then the judgement." A person, biblically, does not go straight to hell, upon death (see Revelation).
@@museofire That doesn't mean God can't make exceptions.
@@MrEkzotic He could, but it goes against his word. Why make an exception for one, when millions could have the same choice, if God so wanted it?
I guess people who believe in Lord Shiva think the same about Christians.
the final part of this was brilliant - it's not because it's present in a book - God has installed morality into us as being created into his image - an interesting question might be where we see elements of morality in animals...
You'll find empathy and (moral) rules in social animals. Chimps, guerillas, whales, dolphins, dogs etc.
"The Law never made anyone good." Dude confuses the rules and laws we set for ourselves and the unchanging Law that accuses us.
Romans 7:4-6
[4] Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. [5] For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. [6] But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
Hebrews 7:18-19
[18] For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness [19] (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
Galatians 3:11-14
[11] Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” [12] But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” [13] Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us-for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”-[14] so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
(Perhaps this is the emphasis Dude was referring to.)
The law is based on the 10 commandments, again stealing from Christians.
I think he means low about slavery and killing gays in bible etc
@@SuperMrAndersen I think you don't understand what I wrote.
@@johndoh795
Ok, maybe
I appreciate the polite behaviour of both debaters. This is how a debate/conversation like this should be.
This atheist is adorable. It's a like you put a beard on a shih tzu and named it Socrates. The Euthyphro Dilemma? Seriously? Christianity retained slavery and relegated women to second class status? It's like he's reading Bertrand Russel aloud. It's delightful, hearing such old nonsense out of such a young face.
All you need to do is go visit Japan and you'll see the enlightenment has done nothing for their sexism. Atheism and Marxism do nothing to stop slavery or sexism in China. Muslims in the middle ages thought Christian men were cucks and slaved who worshipped and served their wives. And yet we are to believe they were just like Muslims with regards to women. Early modern visitors from Japan and China made the same observation that women seemed to be the dominant sex in the west. It was like living in upside down land to them, though some thought it charming.
It was the catholic church that began the suppression of slavery saying no Christian could be slave to another. True they faltered in the age of discovery but for the first thousand years you really cant say anything but that Christianity was a force for abolition. This is nonsense, but I love his hair and beard and that silly accent. I want more cute atheists like thing. They're easy to listen to and look at.
LOL!!! Great post!
It is almost like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens inspired an accent to be adopted by the general culture of intellectual atheists in much the same way as gay men in the last thirty years collectively took on a kind of valley girl persona as their chief orientation signal.
"Muslims in the middle ages thought Christian men were cucks and slaved who worshipped and served their wives (...) Early modern visitors from Japan and China made the same observation that women seemed to be the dominant sex in the west" Citation needed.
@@Feraeond , I haven't noticed many gay men taking on female persona recently. That is something I associate with drag queens, not gay men in general. You are right about the Dawkins/Hitchens "official" atheist accent, however.
@mysotiras21 You probably don't live in the SF Bay area then. Haha
The most recent example I personally overheard was a certain hair stylist in SF last week when I was at the same salon with my friend and her son getting his hair cut. But yes, drag queens take it to another level of blatant for sure.
CS Lewis, in his very short book, 'The Abolition of Man', described how universal morality works and gave extensive examples from ancient civilisations in the appendix. Unfortunately, this book is too difficult for 95% of the modern populace, so another simpler version is required for less able atheists like this one.
Are you an atheist? If yes, why?
The CS Lewis book is too difficult for 99% of Christians. But he's also plain wrong. Here's the reality of God's objective morality. It's not anywhere as complex as CS Lewis tries to fool people with ruclips.net/video/4pdYmIwxYTE/видео.html
CS Lewis is a dumbdumb without any evidence. LMAO.
Lifelong atheist stopping by to say hello, and offer opinions, as one is wont to do.
I’ve been reading through the comments and I am quite fascinated by so many of the responses that I have read, as there is a disconnect between what I understand as moral and morality, and what is actually being focused on by commentators in regards to that. To me it is a troubling issue that a number of people seem to believe that morality/morals are inaccessible, or irrelevant to an atheist, and they scoff at the concept that ‘feeling bad’ about committing an action is something an atheist factors into moral evaluation. Really, it’s troubling to me.
There are obviously several points being contested, but the one I am most interested in, is what someone thinks morality actually _is_ in reality. It’s a given I do not hold that there are objective (as in some intrinsic universal property of reality) moral standards, or deity deigned absolutes to abide by, and yet I will claim that _I_ hold certain actions to be moral, or not, and while asking
Where do you… By what standard do….
Or other questions makes sense to a Christian, to me they not only are beside the point, but seem to miss it entirely. Unless someone feels that morals and the concept of morality are entirely divorced from social interaction, I think those questions can be put aside to discuss what we think regarding morals in our everyday lives.
I don’t think that most Christians think about moral concepts as entirely divorced from social and emotional elements of humanity. So this is where the disconnect seems to come in, from my perspective.
I do not know anyone who doesn’t have their _own_ value system regarding what they hold to be morally acceptable, as is evidenced in conversations where moral or ethical dilemmas are discussed, or in disagreements about how justified or acceptable we consider some action to be, in light of context.
There are myriad issues that everyone forms opinions of ethical or moral stances about, that are very complex social issues; we could have very differing opinions about homelessness, the prison system, healthcare, education, animal welfare, children’s rights. And all of the things we agree about, or not, _will_ come down to our own value system and way of reasoning towards an ideal we hold. Guaranteed.
None of those things will be according to an objective _anything_ though we might have similar values and goals about quality of life that we are using as our standard to evaluate.
And so, I again, have to wonder what exactly is a moral, what is moral in your day to day life, that is somehow unobtainable, or unjustifiable, or unreasonable or whatever objection you have, to an atheist?
Moral judgements are based on value and purpose, there is no atheistic grounding intellectually for value and purpose if everything was built by random acts of matter and energy. People live but inevitably die, materialistically dying and having memory annihilated returns every person’s value back to zero at some point, fulfilling no ultimate purpose or value. Naturalism promotes conquering, lying, and cheating to get ahead and assert superiority, especially if you can get away with it. There is no atheistic materialistic grounding for the way things ought to be.
IMO, the bottom line is that they are uncomfortable with the thought of taking full responsibility for their actions. Which is often understandable, no matter what you believe in or don't believe in. It's why existentialism is liberating and troubling at the same time.
Christians also do bizarre things like denounce morals as "mere" opinions if there is no God. Since when have opinions been unimportant? Individually, they are often not much, but get enough of them together and you have a set of laws, rules, and customs. They can also change or go away over time. Or reappear.
There are so many presuppositions in your thought process it's scary. No wonder atheism exists only in the affluent West.
@@mitchwatson6787 That's not true. People have been discovered living in primitive conditions that had no concept of God.
I hate to break it to you, but when fields are being made to plant crops, animals are killed in the process, to get them out of the land, and they are killed as well, to protect the crops from being eaten by them, and the fact that, in soil, meat products, like shrimp, for example, are mixed into it, because it actually helps the crops grow better, so just because you don't eat meat, doesn't mean that animals haven't died, in the process, of getting you the very things you consume.
How do you know someone is a vegetarian?
Don’t worry, they’ll soon tell you.
Q.E.D
same with atheist, and parent of a trans identified child. Except I usually notice people will announce their veganhood even sooner than vegetarians tend to.
Just that you'll have guys like Tommy Tallarico claiming to be vegan, but... Nope.
Was anyone else not surprised the dude with the douchehawk hairdo the one playing the arrogant atheist? Just me? 😅
Morality is easy .. the foundation of it is well being.. you cant chop my head off because I'll die so we cant hurt each other or we'll go extinct... No religion needed .
What comes to mind is the standard. By what standard are you measuring morality?
The example of the metre was brought up. There is a standard for what a meter is. There used to be a unit of measure called the cubit. The standard length of a cubit was from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. If three people built something using the meter unit of measure, all three structures would be the same size. If they used the cubit unit, all three would be different. Same unit, different, or no, standard.
We cannot base morality on what people "feel". People's feelings can be manipulated to the point where they do not how to judge something. Just look at Stockholm Syndrome, where a person comes to feel good toward their kidnapper. Perhaps Steven's feelings about how he treats others has been corrupted from what it.... wait for it... OUGHT to be.
And how do we know what our feelings OUGHT to be? Is that not a matter of personal preference?
I'm pretty sure Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao didn't go to sleep and feel badly about slaughtering millions of people. That alone should tell Steven that how you feel about how you treat people is erroneous.
You cannot determine your feelings. It's not down to preference. You discover how you feel.
The people you mentioned, its true, psychopaths exist.... that's why we lock them up. Read 1 Samuel 15:3 for similar behaviour from another psychopath.
This athiest is assuming a created God by suggesting that good exists outside of God. That simply isn't possible since the claim is that God is good. Goodness can't exist outside of, or apart from, God.
No that's just a word game. The claim is that God exists. It doesn't necessarily follow that a God is good. I don't call what happened in 1 Samuel 15:3 to be good.
Thanks once again, Brandon! Glad you could draw on this debate and offer your own commentary and insights. Keep up the good work!
@@LilySage-mf7uf pride is a deadly sin... also nobody is trying to portray slavery & genocide as good, that's a misinterpreted doctrine that atheists like to cling on to
I just paused at 7:36 because he says “God commands it because it is right….” That is not how it works. What should be said is: “It is right because God commands it!”
They're quick to say nonsense like "morality is subjective", but start crying when someone says homosexuality is a sin
No we don't, we just think that sin is a ridiculous concept and that Christians that harp on that are hypocrites and cherry pickers.
Yeah your belief it is ridiculous. Unfortunately for you, guess you’ll find out some day. We’re flawed beings, we all make mistakes and at some point in time slip up, but that does not disprove the concept/reality of a creator vs something coming from nothing.
@@bguman "Yeah your belief it is ridiculous."
Because it's demonstrably so.
"Unfortunately for you, guess you’ll find out some day"
Not "unfortunately", I already know now.
"We’re flawed beings, we all make mistakes and at some point in time slip up"
Name something that isn't?
"but that does not disprove the concept/reality of a creator"
No, the fact that there is no good reason to believe anything has ever been "created", and the lack of evidence for any "creator" kinda does.
"vs something coming from nothing."
No one in their right mind claims that...theists do though. But again, we have no good reason to believe that there has ever been "nothing", so please do not try to misrepresent our position on this.
Morality is not subjective, it is historically contingent
@@HahaDamn How do you figure?
And if this is the case, then how did we come up with the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"?
Of course it's reasonable. The hard evidence we have today amongst all the clues to offer us explanations as to how and why we are here, are in favour of the Bible.
I was actually astonished how clear it is.
really? what is your favourite "hard evidence"
@@downshift4503 Global flood. Sitings of dinosaurs in the last 2000+ years. The data surrounding the kick off of Christianity. All the archeological finds that support people and places in the Bible as far back as Abraham. Intelligent design and irreducible complexity in life.
Contrast this with the failures of evolution to produce a different engineered animal (beyond just species differentiation), and origin of life researchers coming to the hard conclusion that organic spontaneous life originating on earth is deemed impossible with the physics of this universe.
The only plausible explanation is an intelligent designer. We can see in our daily lives, all known intelligence comes from a mind. Statistically speaking, it's implausible to say the intelligence of our bodies arose blindly. Micro evolution is of course true, life is very plastic. However the changeability behind these evolutionary processes are extremely limited in power and function.
To contrast it with origin of life, the first important step to a secular naturalists world view, it is not a reasonable belief to have, nor is it rational.
The only acceptable answer given the data we do have, is God. With aliens coming in a very far behind 2nd place because there's no evidence that sophisticated alien life exists, it is but assumed based off of philosophical interpretation. We have the data of the Bible, which corroborates with the data we have with the world.
Next time I’m growing my garden, I’m gonna find myself an atheist.
I hear they’re the best at building stawman and I need one to keep the birds away.
They're often full of crap, so they probably make good fertilizer :D
🤭
Hi. I'm an atheist. Wanna expose my strawmen?
What straw men does he build?
@@mrhyde7600 no, I want you to make me one. But not yet. I’m not quite ready.
I gotta finish overhauling my kitchen, then I’ll need one… maybe a week or so.
Praise God and thank you for your hard work delivering this content
Theists use their own subjective morality. Since it is based on a subjective reading and personal interpretation of the text.
@@MarkPatmos Prove freewill exists. Demonstrate it.
You are lying.
@@MarkPatmos Being able to think doesn't demonstrate you have free will. It's just an emergent property or process happening inside your brain. No different than saying because I am able to sweat, therefore I have free will (though Prince Andrew would argue otherwise)
@@MarkPatmos I agree we didn't design ourselves. We are able to take decisions. We have a level of awareness.
Decision making is a process of taking inputs (awareness) into a processor (brain), doing calculations based on functions (experience, understanding, instincts) and producing an output. This occurs in animals with sensors and brains. It even occurs in very simple animals. Do all animals have free will?
A chess machine will take decisions depending on your move. Does it have free will?
A washing machine can take decisions based on what point it is during the washing cycle. Does it have free will?
@@MarkPatmos The washing machine is aware of what time it is during its cycle, what the temperature of the water is, sometimes what the weight of the load is etc. That's how it is able to take decisions.
Don't take "awareness" as the need to have a mind. Very simple animals such as certain shellfish have light sensors on their shells and are able to detect light and move towards or away from a source.... but I doubt very much they have minds.
@@MarkPatmos emotions are the result of chemical signals that your brain generates. We can alter your brain chemistry and you will experience emotions. You aren't in control of them, you just experience them. Animals have them too.
That is an interesting Mohawk/Mullet combo.
Having a conscience isn't a "riddle" or a mystery. It's an evolutionary trait rooted in empathy we adapted as an intelligent social species. Other social species of animals have a this also, but being that humans are more intelligent and have a more complex social structure, our morals/conscience is more developed and more complex. No mystery here.
Where did sentient empathy, compassion and love come from? And what animal demonstrates the sentient consciousness of humans? Like do animals know they are animals of their own species kind? and we humans are sentient creative beings?
@@multihull40 Most animals are sentient. All sentient means is the ability to feel or perceive things. So for example anything that can touch, taste, see, hear or smell something in it's environment and react to that stimulus would be considered sentient. To answer your second question is more a question about intelligence than sentence. Some intelligent animals absolutely know that humans are smart creative being because they will seek out humans for help solving problems that they can't. For example, I've seen numerous examples of orca whales actively seeking out humans to ask for their help saving their friend's life. One of the times the orca would not leave boat and kept pestering it until the boat followed them to see what they wanted. The orca led the boat to a place where another orca was tangled up and stuck underwater and would have drowned if it's friend didn't seek out help from humans. The humans cut it free and the orca even brought the people a stingray after to thank them in his own way. The orcas in those cases obviously know that the humans have better problem solving skills and better knowledge/capabilities to help. They weren't seeking help from dolphins or other orcas. They knew the humans could help them solve a problem they could not. Animals are more similar to humans than most people give them credit for. Some have deep feelings and emotions that are very similar to our own.
@@marksmith2003 Same as dogs though. People interpret their behaviour as human like sentient consciousness, like empathy compassion love and hate or revengefulness vindictive malicious behaviour to satisfy human type emotions of greed or selfishness. Your other comments were all speculation based on a premise that is actually not scientifically proven, like microbe to man evolution isn't a proven fact, it's a hypothetical proposition merely assumed from facts. The premise needs to be factual otherwise everything that follows is pure speculation. Design in nature is not a premise, neither is design requires a designer is not a premise.
@@multihull40 "Where did sentient empathy, compassion and love come from?" "empathy, and compassion" are human emotions triggered by chemical and electrical reactions in your brain. Love is similar.
"what animal demonstrates the sentient consciousness of humans?" Dolphins for example.
"Like do animals know they are animals of their own species kind?" Yes, some of them recognize their own species.
"we humans are sentient creative beings?" So is apes..
"No one can change their ape ancestry, but some can conceal it better than others" - Christopher Hitchens
@@multihull40 "Same as dogs though." Depends on the breed.
I fill like you are trying to say something but nothing really comes out.
"Your other comments were all speculation based on a premise that is actually not scientifically proven, like microbe to man evolution isn't a proven fact, it's a hypothetical proposition merely assumed from facts." What does it mean?
"microbe to man evolution isn't a proven fact" Yeah it is. Do you know how science works?
It is clear by examining changes in culture that _all_ people treat morality as subjective. It changes with the times and the place. What is moral in the US may be considered immoral in Saudi Arabia. What is moral in 2024 may have been considered immoral in 1924.
Morality changes by the accretion of individual changes in the population. Each person has their own morals, and as particular morals gain popularity, they become the new norm for that culture.
The universe does not care if his sac of chemicals eats another sac of chemicals. After all it is just chemical reactions...It is irrelevant if he cares about animals or not.
You might think it's irrelevant but it's his feelings that are informing him, so its relevant to him.
@@downshift4503 How does he know what they are?
@@dulls8475 Same way that, for instance, you might look at a love interest and fancy them as compared to a different person and feel nothing. How do you know? well, you just feel a bunch of emotions that your brain informs you of via chemistry.
@@downshift4503 What runs the brain, we know our hands are operated by the brain but what controls the brain?
@@dulls8475 Yeah sure your body is controlled by your brain via a central nervous system. Your brain runs on energy that you derive from food.
It takes inputs via your senses and uses experience, inherited characteristics and processing to form decisions and execute outputs. You experience some of these via your mind as thoughts, which is a emergent property of process of the brain itself.
So what about women's second class citizenship expressed in countless bible books as the model of goodness, morality that clashes with modern day values. That and others don't relly get addressed by Paul.
theists cherry-pick things from bible. They quote what they like and ignore what they don't like.
Jesus tells us to love our wives as he loved the church. Jesus loved the church by sacrificing his life for it. So we are to sacrifice our lives to take care of our wives. How is that a second class citizen?
@mastershake4641 jesus dis not say anything. Jesus is myth your people come up with. Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.
Mark Twain
@@mastershake4641 your bible says otherwise and does claim women to be 2nd class.
@@mastershake4641 you can't decide what to love, love is an emotion. Your wife does not have to submit to you. This is not the ancient world.
A little bit of this discussion reminds me of the pushback that William Craig has been getting by other theists in his defense of the killing of the Canaanites. Where here, the person is stating that God has said that he cannot make any demands that were intrinsically evil yet they get into the discussion of children being slaughtered as well.
God saying something is good or will isn't might equals right.. He is the uncaused cause and the principium of the universe and He is a perfect being with perfect nature.
This video is meant to show the atheist being bested in this debate?? That’s a laughable misrepresentation. The exact opposite
This channel has been engaged in dishonesty for a long time. I thought that lying is a sin but I guess if yu do it for a god then not so much. LMAO
This man’s hair says it all… Lord have mercy on us all..
What does his hair say?
If you can't refute facts then you start attacking the person. Nice.
Typical theist's approach.
I'm unconvinced by your "argument from hairstyle"
😂
Seems as though none of you can take a joke. 🥲 plus his hair comes off a little bit liberal pagan. 🤣
I love your work Sir. Godspeed
In theism God is an axiom
In Naturalism subjective well being is the axiom. (Ex. Moral Landscape Sam Harris)
They both have “objective morality” toward their axiom.
And let me just add a comment to the end of his statement at the end do video. Changing vocabulary used doesn’t change the moral relativism theism has. Saying it permeates over cultures and time is the same damn thing as moral relativism . It goes against your objective morality established in the Old Testament. I don’t even see how this is an argument. Very contradicting and it’s annoying that he always does that.
"In theism God is an axiom " Prove it.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
There is no evidence of angels, satan or gods.
Do better next time. What else do you have?
@@MarkPatmos You would not know what axiom is if it hit you in your head. LMAO
@@LGpi314 I am on your side of the podium. I think you missed my point on the topic of discussion. God being an axiom is not good for Thiesm.
@@MarkPatmos as far as morality goes I would say secular humanism does have an axiom which is human well being.
@@Majorpain12345
Very true, our actions have real consequences but without the pre - agreed desired goal / outcome of wellbeing we can NOT make a determination of what we *"SHOULD"* or *"OUGHT"* do or not do we can NOT differentiate between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate
If i hit someone they feel pain... means nothing without first agreeing "we don't want people to feel pain" only then can we say "I OUGHT not hit people"
The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
On RUclips you can find a gazillion clips of animals behaving morally towards their own kind, different animals and us humans. Do I gather they all come together on Sunday in some underground cave to attend to bible study?
So, according to Atheism, morality comes from rocks.
Not at all. Morality arises from your own tendencies.
@@downshift4503
What do you mean?
More like, rocks and water. 😅😂
The atheist also mentioned that he uses his conscience (didn't specifically say it, but implied) and when he feels bad about doing something and feel guilty, that drives him to not do that. So, he uses that without thinking if that what he feels is truly right or wrong, but instead he just uses it as the standard that magically came to be with 'evolution. His guilt over something is what drives him to do better and that can change, so that means if someone who doesn't 'feel' like that can't be held accountable for it because they feel a different way, it's subjective.
Morality is subjective whether you think it comes from evolution or a god. The only practical difference between these explanations is that evolution is actually an explanation while god is not. We can predict things through the evolutionary model, we can’t with god.
"that means if someone who doesn't 'feel' like that can't be held accountable for it because they feel a different way" yeah that happens, sometimes they are psychopaths and need to be contained for everyone else's safety.
God allows evil because humans (Adam and Eve) told God they dont need Him. So God is allowing us to show we DO need Him. Every human government is failing…. Because man is not meant to rule over man. Now we await Gods Government, His Kingdom to come on Earth as it is in heaven.
wow, nice ot see how christians lie about what's in their bible. Curiuous how adam and eve never tell this god it doesn't need it, and this god lies to them.
Did they tell him they didn't need him? Really? Or, was it a case that they didn't know what good and evil were so even though they knew it was wrong to disobey God, they didn't know how God was actually good in the first place and worthy of listening to.
Idk about you, but I would be very happy if my child asked me questions like I how I know I'm right, because then I could tell them and help guide them.
Also, throughout most of history people have tried to govern themselves with religious laws and morality. These have also had issues. It doesn't make a country better being more religious
@@hydraph4843 they listened to the devil that told them they can be like God, knowing good and bad. If they ate from the tree. Meaning they can choose for themselves whats right and wrong therefore they didnt need God.
@@hydraph4843 Satan told Eve, you can be like God… their very eyes will be opened…. Knowing good and bad. Genesis 3:5 which explains why the world is the way it is and why God allows suffering.
@@hydraph4843 when you pray for God’s kingdom to come “ the model prayer” you are praying for God’s kingdom to come back to earth. You should read it.
In regards to that Pope Francis thing: no, he didn’t.
Another clickbait title. Where was the gotcha moment?
There is none. This channel is cowardly and dishonest as many religious people people are for their religions.
👏you’ve done a good job here representing Stephen’s side, unlike in other videos. Keep this up please.
I personally agree with Stephen because I’m an Atheist, but I can totally see your side in this case. 👍
I’m trying to understand atheists better, so could i ask you a few questions? :)
@@FuddlyDudgo. And we will ask.
@@LGpi314
"go. And we will ask."
Uhhh, well, to clarify, are you an atheist? And, if you are able, can you tell me a bit of what that means to you? :)
@@FuddlyDud Yes, I'm an atheist.
"if you are able, can you tell me a bit of what that means to you? " You will ask questions and I will ask questions? 🤷🤷♂🤷♀
@@FuddlyDud I’m an Atheist. I grew up with Christianity. When I was 11-12 I was very sceptical that miracles ever took place. It just didn’t make sense to me. So I never took the bible literally. In high school I decided it was very unlikely there was a God. Especially the one described in the bible. At university studying Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, God was never mentioned. Everything just seems to work just fine without God. Learning how we evolved and how much evidence there is to support it, confirmed the bible should not be taken literally. I have listened to many, many apologist. I’ve never been presented with a good argument or any evidence for Christianity to be true. I have encountered a lot of evidence supporting it is false. I do believe we can learn a lot from the bible.
Being an atheist means I believe a secular society where politics and religion are separated is best for humanity. Religion does not play a role in my life which feels quite liberating. I envy my religious friends sometimes when they talk about their church and what activities they get involved in. I also think they have a way better support network than I do whenever there is a crisis.
I just can’t get past the fact their faith is based on what I consider imaginary things and untrue things. My Christian friends who are 100% committed, have to ignore actual scientific facts, to allow themselves to believe. I’m incapable of fooling myself that way now I’m a bit older. Hope this helps. Happy to answer more questions.
Simply another angry-at-God atheist. Without the Lord’s direct intervention, atheists will never be convinced. Watch “Astrophysicist Ross’s how the universe is designed by God, “The Reason for Evil”.
It's a shame that the Lord has been so averse to showing himself since the advent of photography, video and social media yet was showing up all over the place when no one could prove otherwise
To be honest, it's the total lack of evidence for the existence of god that leaves them unconvinced.
@@nikorn24 they will state that there is plenty of 'evidence' but all that evidence is either biblical or derived from the account of staunch believers. Whenever anybody finds god it seems to be when they're desperate and open to believing anything that gives them some hope.
@@PotatoPirate123 Yep, I've been asking for that evidence for years. No sign of it yet
@@nikorn24 I can tell you the answer - you have to submit to Jesus, have faith, believe what the Bible tells you as it is God's word. And that's basically the answer you will always get, because there isn't any evidence
Your review of Paul's view on morality is dishonest. He's not using his own moral standard when he's looking at christianity and the horrible things christians did. He's pointing to the bible, the verses, such as the multitude of verses supporting slavery and the fact that those were used to justify slavery up until just recently and the fact that the morality changed, not because of biblical morality, but due to society and the rise of secularism that dragged christianity into the modern era. While it is true that there were a lot of chrisitans for example that were abolitionists, they weren't so because of the bible, because those pro-slavery verses never disappeared or were revised. Christians don't have "objective morality", because they all pick and choose independently what they like from the bible and then say "Ah, I get my morality from the bible." But if that was actually the case, you would not have over 12,000 different denominations of chrsitianity, all with different moral interpretations of the exact same holy book. Christians have just as much subjective morality as anyone else, they just aren't as honest about it. You can't have fundamentalists churches who hate homosexuality, moderate churches and then christian friendly lgbt churches....all based upon the same religion and book and claim you have "objective morality". It's a massive hypocrisy constantly overlooked.
Beautifully put.
The euthyphro dilemna has been solved along time ago, God is the good, and all moral duties and obligation come from God who is goodness himself.
well stated
I watched your entire video having already seen that particular debate with rationality rules was interested in your commentary, and at the very end, your conclusion was to assert that those laws all come from a supreme law giver. In the end, I was left with the unanswered question, how do you know that and through what means do you detect that that I can’t access?
“Objective Morality” is an oxymoron.
But you act as though there's one 🥱
@@raphaelfeneje486
Morality is subjective, we set the rules HOWEVER that does NOT mean we cannot set objective rules about morality. Let me give you a couple of analogies perhaps then you will understand........
Our metric reference standards for weights, distance ( kilometers, meters, centimetres ect ) was originaly a man made concept, arbitrarily concieved with no divine dictate involved. Yet once it becomes accepted and a pre- agreed consensus reached it functions perfectly. A "meter" is not some vague "about this big" concept that varies dependant on culture or God. We can OBJECTIVELY measure things "from within our pre-agreed metric reference framework" 😜
In the game of chess there are no OBJECTIVE RULES laid down by a god. They were arbitrarily concieved man made, however once we all come to an agreement about which rules we want to implement and adhere to it then becomes posible to objectively declare a move as illegal "from within the framework of agreed upon rules" ( a Bishop can only move diagonally ect ) That does not mean therefore that outside of the framework ( rules ) that its objectively impossible to move a Bishop straight forward 😁
Precisely the same applies to our moral reference standard, it too requires only an agreed upon reference standard in order to function. Can you think of a better standard to aspire and adhere to than one based upon human well-being, empathy, equality and respect ??? 🤔
@@trumpbellend6717 "Morality is subjective, we set the rules but that doesn't mean we can't set objective rules about morality." That's all I have to see. You've already contradicted yourself. There's no point reading further. Consensus can also agree that what one society deems immoral is moral to them. You have no authority to force your morality upon them. From your own logic, Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Mao actions were all valid. They came to a consensus as well. You've exposed yourself to not even understand basic stuff. Have a good one ✌️
@@raphaelfeneje486
// "that all I have to see" //
Run along dear, your inability to address the remainder of the comment more than adequately demonstrates both your dishonesty and the fragility of your position for all to see 🤫
@@raphaelfeneje486
Attrocities and wars are caried out for a variety of reasons, power , greed, race, politics, religion, or even love if the Troy narrative was correct. However I struggle to recall of the last "holy" war caused by atheism 🙄🤔 You attempted to conflate the acts of individuals with them being "atheists" please demonstrate the truth of this ??
Both Stalin & Moa Zedong were males with black hair do we then get to ascribe black hair as indicative of sadistic killers .?? Why was it not their individual greed, politics or sociopathic tendencies or even the colour of their eyes that explains their actions ? How did you conclude it was atheism that was responsible ??
If I were to claim that the systematic abuse of children caried out by priests that was covered up and enabled by the church moving them from congregation to congregation, was the direct result of those men being Christians or wearing the robes of a priest and not the actions of sick individuals would I be correct ??
Or would that merely be me attempting to erroneously conflate them so as to discredit their theological beliefs as you just attempted to do with regards to atheism ??? 🤔🤔🤔
So again... where was the "lesson" and where was the "strawman"... You have a large following Brendan and I imagine you're an honest person whenever the topic isn't your religion. Do better.
“Do better”
How patronising!! CRINGE atheism in full effect!!
Sorry but “DO BETTER” according to who? Or what absolute, universal, objective standard of measure exactly?
“DO BETTER” according to the standard of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur? Or “DO BETTER” according to nothing more substantive than the delusions of AN ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE who shares half their DNA with bananas right?
Your world view, your absurdity, your ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
There’s still a tiny glimmer of hope though because perhaps Brenden ought to “DO BETTER ” according to the “NOTHING”? That is “DO BETTER” according to the standard of nothing more substantive than [DETERMINED BRAIN FIZZ] creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities? That is nothing more substantive than the science project of vinegar and baking soda accidentally bubbling over right?
Sorry but the fact is that under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism your very ironic absolute truth claims about doing “BETTER” are nothing more substantive than the delusions of a determined machine, that is nothing more substantive than the delusions of a chemical and biological robot - right? That is nothing more substantive than the blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless accidental arrangement of POND SLIME evolved to an allegedly “HIGHER” order - right?
Your world view, your absurdity, your “BETTER”, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
Sorry but everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally fatalistic, totally nihilistic, and totally and utterly self refuting!! Sorry but you need to “DO BETTER” Prove me “WRONG”? I’ll wait!!
CHECKMATE NIHILIST!!
This atheist might just be the smuggest man alive.
Alive being the key word there. Nobody is smug before God. It's not worth it Atheists!
“Smuggest man alive”
Exactly!! It’s CRINGE atheism in full effect!! And smuggest MULLET ALIVE in full effect!!
Nevertheless, according to the literary genius and forefather of psychology Fyodor Dostoyevsky….
“Even those who have renounced Christianity and attack it, in their inmost being still follow the Christian ideal, for hitherto neither their subtlety nor the ardour of their hearts has been able to create a higher ideal of man and of virtue than the ideal given by Christ of old” (Dostoyevsky).
“There is in the world only one figure of absolute beauty: Christ. That infinitely lovely figure is, as a matter of course, an infinite marvel.” (Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Letter to niece Sofia Alexandrovna)
(Time magazine ) is one of the most authoritative and informative guides to what is happening in politics, business, health and science.
In a cover story (Time magazine) pointed out that Robert Coles was “the most influential living psychiatrist in the U.S.” that day!! According to the award winning psychiatrist Robert Coles…
“All writings on ethics over the last 2000 years are simply footnotes to the sermon on the mount” (Robert Coles, psychiatrist, award winning author and professor emeritus at Harvard University.)
In contrast fatalism and epistemological nihilism, that is atheism is comparable to a fish in a deep vast ocean bursting with life looking EVERYWHERE for evidence of water and life.
A poet once pointed out that [Paraphrased]: “You are not just an ultimately meaningless droplet in the ocean, you are the whole of the ocean in the form of droplet!!”
All the best and keep safe ❤️
That would be Mike Winger
I understand that Steven was just making a personal example, but if we were to extrapolate that to a larger society, it would make laws themselves immoral because they violate personal morality, or, rather, the majority or other lawmaking entities would be violating the personal morality of the minority, and/or those without a voice in lawmaking. Personal morality is not functional on a societal level and is, therefore in my opinion in no way a functional standard for “good”.
His haircut is a moral atrocity.
Human morality emerges from a complex interplay of innate traits, cultural influences, and evolutionary processes. It's literally just that simple. Some of us then use a framework based in reality to determine wrong from right, while others invoke magic.
A lone drop of water in a desert.
Have an upvote, Sir.
From which culture did the enlightenment come?
Did it grow out of a culture based in Buddhism for a thousand years? Islam? Shinto? Taoism?
It was born and influenced by a culture dominated by Christianity. It was founded upon the morals of the LORD, Jesus Christ.
What was born out of atheist culture, only after a couple hundred years? Totalitarian states that mass murdered their own populations by the millions.
Jesus is Lord of lords and King of kings. Follow Him and be blessed, reject Him at peril.
Dude enlightenment is an old concept from easter religions
even 1000 years older than Christ
@@harsha6937 I am talking about the enlightenment that the speaker referenced, which is a period of time in history, not a concept.
@@jasons5904 Oh
There are enlightenment in Eastern Cultures too
For example Buddha was considered an enlightened being
And so did other people
@@harsha6937 yes, the Enlightenment that was referenced by the person in the video refers to Europe, mostly France, England, and Germany between the 1680s and 1810s.
@@jasons5904 hmm yes
Then that maybe the case
A "straw man" is a purposeful misrepresentation of your opponent's position, so as to try and make it easier to attack.
Could anyone please point out exactly where you heard Rationality Rules do that?
You will not get it here. This channel is run by a coward who would not debate anyone and hide behind.
@@LGpi314 Yes, I know...I have attempted to engage with him on several occasions, and am in active debate on some of his vids.
Crickets...but no shortage of minion.
No one decides any morality because neither freewill nor morality exist.
Ok, then out of curiosity, how do you view us in the 21st century relying on presuppositions involving morality, such as slavery being more presumed as wrong? :)
@FuddlyDud I think moral language is obfuscation. If you don't like slavery, find it repugnant, think it harms social progress, isn't in your best interests, and have empathy for slaves, then that's all emotion, reason and preference. Morality not required.
@@someonesomeone25Would you want to live in a society where people adopted that philosophy in mass?
@user-fo8ey1ix6f Yes. Nihilism is much better than Christianity, Islam, and so on.
@@TheLetterJ-c8n Yes. That would be best.
In regards to morality, the theist simply asserts what they would prefer to be the case, not actually what IS the case.
Ideally morality would be objective. But it just isn’t. It’s that simple.
If you believe in a materialistic world that has the capacity for morals it would have to be objective. It would be a property of the universe.
If you believe all is random then there are no morals, just subjective self-centered approximations of our individual desires meshing with others. At best this is a mob based morality. If you can convince enough of a population to do something like say cannibalize people from other groups then it's deemed morally sound.
Looking at the world we find ourselves, it's hard to argue there is no intelligence behind it and that all is random and ignorant. Therefore there has to be a ruleset and the ruleset is put in place before we arrived and if we move away from that ruleset we achieve immorality.
Moving away from light leads to darkness. Moving away from God leads to ungodly behavior in ungodly places.
Brandon again - 'Steven's accusation itself implies an objective moral standard".
No. This is the Frank Turek dodge.
When you point out the many moral problems with the religion...the problem is dodged and a serious of assertions are made about god and objective morality that are never supported. Dodge ...make assertions... don't support them... hope no one notices.
"so in this way his argument is self refuting" - No, you just don't understand morality.
It is Brandon's cowardness showing. He would not debate Steven one-on-one. Brandon is like a jackal behind someone else.
“The Frank Turek Dodge”
SMOKESCREEN!! This is hilarious and is comedy gold!! The only thing “DODGING” a “rational” hair cut here is “RATIONALITY RULES” MULLET!!
At least be a consistent strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist, that is at least be a consistent fatalist and epistemological nihilist because according to the greatest atheist thinkers who ever lived with possibly the highest IQs…
Logic is an illusion (Nietzsche)
“Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions.”
- (Nietzsche, Reference from: On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense).
“Should I kill myself?” is the essential philosophical question.” (Albert Camus). Merry chap but at least he’s “logically” consistent with his atheism!!
“Suppose we want truth: why not rather untruth? and uncertainty? even ignorance?” - (Nietzsche).
“You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume)
“Storytellers continue their narratives late into the night to forestall death and to delay the inevitable moment when everyone must fall silent.” (Foucault).
Life is an “horror” and “truth” is “illusory”. (Nietzsche)
Imagine telling all of these little stories to someone as a Christmas bed time story!! And you mock our beliefs!!
And a very cheerful group of people I bet they were a blast at Christenings, birthday parties, and especially at golden wedding anniversaries and especially at funerals!! Cheerful group of people but at least they are intellectually honest and “logically” consistent with their atheism!!
Sorry but atheism or existentialism as you guys presuppose is basically just its own religion, stealing from the belief in the fundamental nature of [MIND/FREEWILL/CONSCIOUSNESS/THE ACTUAL/THE ONE/MONOTHEISM]!!
I actually respect the nihilism and absurdism of Nietzsche and Camus etc. I respect fatalism and epistemological nihilism. The claim that ultimately there is absolutely NOTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE beyond the immediate. Logic is an illusion. Truth is an “ILLUSION” as it’s all ultimately purposeless and ultimately meaningless word games. I respect that!! It's intellectually HONEST atheism!! And it is “logically” consistent with this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction!!
Sorry but everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally fatalistic, totally nihilistic and totally and utterly self refuting!! Prove me “WRONG”? I’ll wait!!
Intriguingly, what modern philosophers think of as the Euthyphro Dilemma is not actually the Dilemma from Plato's _Euthyphro._ That was not about moral good, but about piety. Under that formulation, the question "Is roasting perfect lambs loved by God because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by God?" is an example of the Dilemma.
The Christian wants to suggest non-moral situations are from God. He’s not addressing moral situations but calling it moral anyway. Obeying parents isn’t moral, for example.
When the atheist shows fluid morality the Christian just doesn’t address it. Then quotes the Bible as a proof. It’s absurd and can be dismissed as absurd .
I wouldn‘t say morality changed. God allowed divorce to avoid men killing their wives. After some time he changed this because the situation allowed it. Doesn’t mean though that divorce is right. Another simpler way to articulate the point: Things were just unavoidable back then, there was no other option. I am not defending the horrible injustice that was practiced throughout history there were terrible views on anyone.
"God allowed divorce to avoid men killing their wives"
So why didn't he allow it from the beginning?
Why did he wait for thousand of years, while men were busy killing their wives, since that was apparently a thing?
What about "thou shalt not murder"?
Why not simply offer a "hedge of protection" like so many Christians claim he does now?
And why is he allowing things that "aren't right"? Isn't he the arbiter of morality?
How could there be"no other option" when he literally created the universe and the laws by which it functions, and is able to alter them in a whim?
For a channel called “Rationality Rules” he doesn’t have a lot of rationality in his thinking.
I mean my goodness he trotted out the tired and flawed Euthyphro dilemma, come on
I thought his argumentation was solid
@@hydraph4843In a thread above, you already revealed you're a secularist, you don't need to go prowling every thread now being a contrarian lol.
@@hydraph4843 it is one thing to say that, but can you back up which part of what he said was “solid”?
@@josephtattum6365 Basically all of it. His wording could have perhaps been a little better and more explanation needed but I don't really know how the whole conversation went since presumably Aly it was edited for this video
The "metre bar" comment describes how theists are wrong to tie their religion to morality.
No one decided "this is a metre". A metre was calculated as one 10 millionth of the distance between the north pole and the equator. The bar was made to the best calculation of that length. It always existed.
Similarly, it makes far more sense that morality existed, and when gods were made up, that existing quality was ascribed to them.
There are no gods. Sorry.
Provide evidence for it.
@@linusloth4145 Provide evidence for whatever god you happen to think is real...
@@MarkH-cu9zi extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. You claimed that there are no gods although more than 85% of the world population believes they exist.
@@linusloth4145
So you're evading..... what a s surprise.
_"You claimed that there are no gods"_
Show where I claimed this.
Support at least one of your claims... 🤦♂
@@MarkH-cu9zi there are several different kinds of evidences. However, you are biased and you will dismiss them out of hand. It would be in vain to present them to you.
Good work mate, thanks.
"I'll give you an example: I don't eat meat..."
Suddenly everything makes sense....
The theists argument can be summed up to a person who shoots an arrow at a tree and then drawing a circle around it.
Morality has been developed over millions of years and in the last 10 thousand years people have attributed this morality to a deity and wrote it down. Now humans point to those writings and say "see, it's from our god." Ignoring the millions of years of collective social evolution that came before and influenced the writers of those holy books.
That's also not taking into the account that holy books condone or encourage slavery, rape, infanticide, murder, incest etc.
And not acknowledging the fact that believers today don't follow the moral rules of their books. Like stoning people who don't believe in your religion/who are homosexuals/nonvirgins on their wedding day/children that curse their parents, punishing those that work on the sabbath...etc It just illustrates the morality is subjective and malleable.
I've never been clear on what's being "borrowed" in these discussions. But more to the point: does anyone here believe that standards of collective behavior didn't exist before anyone had ever heard of the Christian religion? Do non-Christian societies not have their own moral frameworks, going back millennia? What about pack/herd animals, who have developed similar constraints, including punishment & reward in their groups, based on their behaviors?