I quite like Ravi Zacharias' explanation for this issue. In one of his Q&A sessions, he said, "In some countries people love their neighbors and in other countries, they eat them. Which do you prefer?"
The trouble is that the way he quotes this may involve misinterpretation! How do you define "neighbour" would the Israelite definition include Midianites? Philistines? No love lost there. Cannibalism does occur in some societies as one aspect of their cultural belief system, involving respect and reverence for the deceased who may be a close relative. Much love involved there.
@@mikealcock4034 Either way, God says that people are NOT food and that you shall NOT eat your neighbor (referring to others; in or out of Christ). I'd say that's simple enough. It's not relative. Rather, some are ignorant and some are informed to the source of righteousness; that is, what God says. Period. The end-all-be-all is simply that most don't care or obey their GOD-given conscious about what God says because they'd rather be in their pride/sin doing it THEIR OWN way and they will learn that there's severe consequence to that kind of ignorance and poor choice. They'll either learn here OR after their flesh drops, because the wages of sin IS DEATH and they (we ALL) have earned wages for it (those born again, in Christ become evidently transformed to live in obedient righteousness by the INDWELLING POWER of the Holy Spirit). REPENTANT SURRENDER to Jesus to become born again; transformed, a new creation in Christ! ...or ETERNAL Hell fire. There's NOTHING else. Blessings in Jesus!🙋 💔👣👣💝💖
Exactly. Because people make up right and wrong so slavery WAS not wrong, tho he considers it wrong now. He essentially admits, he would have owned slaves. Lol Scum bag thinks the Bible supports slavery. No. Christianity started the abolition movement. Christians only owned indentured servitudes or capturees in nations war times. Never slavery that Mikey boy thinks is ok as long as people say so.
@@TheLuckyShepherd Yeah! The original Torah and other hebrew scriptures of the OT used the word "ebod" and it means "hired servant"! It does NOT mean slave! Most of the mdern translations are wrong!
He's one of the most prominent atheists of our time because every prominent atheist is a lightweight whose reasons for disbelief are emotional, not intellectual. They claim intellectuality is their reason for disbelief, and this forces them into pretending that their emotional objections are actually intellectual; this is why they can't answer such questions, because they struggle to present their emotional reasons as intellectual ones, and their pride prevents them from admitting that their disbelief is just emotional.
i believe its the other way around, if you listen. when Shermer starts giving a good example, turek cuts him off to try and stop him from making a good point.
As social primates evolving over millions of years we would not have survived this long without empathy and cooperation. Turek's choice of God is not moral and seems particularly selfish and narcissistic.
It's not. :) Even if I agree that without a God there is no basis for morality (just for argument's sake: I don't believe you need God), that's no proof that God exists. Just because it would be nice if God existed (because we'd have a basis for morality), doesn't mean he does. If you need God as the basis of your morality, you must first prove that he exists. So you can't use the moral argument as proof of God.
@@manafro2714Call God whatever you want. There must be a moral law giver in order for there to be a moral law. "A common objection to the existence of God goes something like this: "There cannot be a God, because there is too much evil in this world." Here's the problem with that objection. When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. What then is your question? Your next question would be; Why does there have to be a moral law giver to have a moral law? The question of evil is always brought up by a person, or about a person. Personhood is intrinsic to the question.
@@aboutmyfathersbusiness8324 Thanks for the response, but you didn't address my argument at all. :) Just because in your mind you'd need a moral lawgiver for morality, doesn't mean that there MUST exist a moral lawgiver. Who knows, perhaps morality is a nonsensical concept and we're just not smart enough to see where the mistake is in assuming the opposite. > There must be a moral law giver in order for there to be a moral law. False, but even if it's right: that doesn't prove that there actually exists a moral lawgiver. > When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. False if you define evil as suffering.
@@manafro2714 You have to be honest with yourself. To a "true" Atheist. There is no right or wrong. Eating ham is equal to murdering someone. As Dawkins put it, "we are just dancing to our DNA". But there is a right and wrong. Regarding personhood. A dog is incapable of murder. He/she can kill. When we speak of evil, it is always about someone, not something. A rock cannot do evil. A person with a rock can.
@@aboutmyfathersbusiness8324 Atheist just means someone who is not a Theist. You don't have to believe in consequences in the afterlife to worry about ones in this life (that's basically what religious morality boils down to: do X and Y in order to get into Heaven (=moral things), or do A and B in order to get into Hell (=immoral things)). I'm not a materialist (see the hard problem of consciousness), but that's no reason to believe in any divine creator or moral law. Buddhism doesn't have a divine creator, yet they have morality. Perhaps when you speak of evil, you mean someone and not something. The person who happens to walk by the spot where a rock falls accidentally on his head experiences suffering, for him subjectively there is evil.
Free Indeed "Dude, I love F. Turek... str8 genius of apologetics " that is an oxymoron, but I would admit that Turek is skilled at using apologetic.... oh and making money, the two always seem to be closely linked.
He's good at making money? Is that true? How do you know? Did people pay to attend? Are his books overpriced? I'm very curious to know how you're aware of his finances. Please help me understand.
@@bagnasbayabas usually when one makes such an outlandish statement like that they would have at least one point to back it up, but no not you... you can just say something totally ignorant and expect us all to just believe it because well... because you said so... lol.... that's dogmatic....
@@KVNGFreeIndeedNetwork don't be trapped by dogma...do not limit your information on the pages of the bible. There are lots of possibilities and a lot of questions to ask. Our universe is so vast and you settle to a book that is written by ancient men who don't know the earth is not flat?
Yes, what we consider to be wrong or right, does change over time. The referendum over abortion laws in Ireland earlier this year is a good example for that. You seem to make the assumption that something like objective morality exsists. It doesn't. There are no moral absolutes. There are factual absolutes, but no moral absolutes
No. Abortion is a moral evil and is wrong no matter how the Irish people voted on it. Legality doesn't make it right. If everyone voted that Jews should be round up and executed even if every last person voted for that it still would be wrong.
2005wsoxfan No it wouldn't. It is neither Good or Evil. Objective morality doesn't exsist. There are no moral absolutes. I would consider it to be wrong, yes, but it isn't Good or Evil on it's own. Good and Evil are classifications on a scale of Subjective Morality.
@@WilliamsWorldView dude, no offence, but read your last comment. Digest it. You deeming ANYTHING good means there's an absolute standard of good otherwise good doesn't exist! A nazi murdering a jew may not see that as wrong but a jew murdering a nazi, well the nazis will see that as wrong... Therefore where does the objectivity of right and wrong originate? It is objective otherwise your interpretation of morality is filled with illogical gibberish. The Irish could have voted post birth abortion to be right (morally ok) but it makes no sense to say anything is better, good or bad if an absolute standard of good doesn't exist. You guys (atheists) are very illogical in your reasoning.
@@WilliamsWorldView What people consider right and wrong may change but God is the same from the beginning to end. If you dont have a moral law giver, your foundation of right and wrong will be like shifting sand, influenced by society and the world around you. Gay marriage was wrong. Now it's right.
It is so upsetting to see these so called highly educated guys go on ranting without answering the actual question. Every time they get cornered they resort to sarcasm.
@@ContemporaryCompendium Correct. But because we're all human beings, and we're a product of evolution, we'll generally agree on basics like treating others how we want to be treated. Generally, we all wanna survive. So once we have those subjective morality agreed upon, we can create objective rules to live by. Yeah it's scary to think what would have happen if Hitler took over the world and majority adopted his morals. But I don't know why theists are so hung up on having true objective morality.
The atheist just proved himself wrong lol. He said centuries ago we would have been ok with slavery and burning witches.....and now we aren’t ok with it. He just stated that there is no objective morality.....if it purely subjective then there can be no right or wrong. Because what’s wrong for one person might be right for the other. I’m surprised turek never mentions the 3 moral cultures in which a world Can exist. Regardless, he does a great job.
Okay, I'm going off your comment. If he said that we were okay with slavery and burning witches, he likely was talking about how society as a whole just accepted it. Take spanking for example, seems like everyone did it to their kids for awhile, now, they are making laws against it. We learn the effects our our actions, whether we like it or not, and then we change. Some fight for the old ways, some fight for more change more often. Morality is subjective. If it was objective, it would be like Asimov's Laws for robots. We wouldn't be able to do them, and we would automatically be aware of them before we could even think or speak. In the case of free will, there can be no objective morality, it would have to account for what we are, and what we can do, and wouldnhave to have some power over us, otherwise no one is stopped from doing it. It you don’t follow up right away with consequences, people don't learn. You can't wait until they die.
Also, he says in a society where something is accepted, it would be morally fine to do it. That is a logical fallacy. You must have one person who advocates something before an entire society accepts it. So one person isn't enough but an entire society, even though one person is required to propose the idea?
@@BornOnThursday So if a person decides to go outside and murder the nearest person with a machete, that’s completely ok with you because they didn’t think there was anything wrong with going outside and brutally murdering a person with a machete?
@@nateboy123 I was born into a society that believed that was wrong, and I was able to build upon that by thinking freely without any indoctrination. Personally, I tried to avoid physically harming anyone as I understand pain, and I have no justification for causing it; no cultural or religious beliefs. If a person decides to commit murder for "no reason", then that person should be questioned, and analyzed for mental illness as I don't believe anyone would do it for "no reason"; doesn't have to be a deep feeling, but if you can go through every step of the act as described, something was going on in your brain. Without context, I couldn't say much else about this act. With severely limited information, I would say that person is dangerous and unpredictable, but that doesn't mean much without a name, a life, and an examination.
i’ve looked for the creator, and found him to be missing. care to point me in the right direction? if the god of the bible is real he’s sure one heck of a deceiver. like describing the earth being similar in shape as a giant circular table with 4 legs and a dome over the part we live in and floating in water.
@@littleredpony6868 well anyone with a lick of common sense knows the way water is observed to behave proves the Earth must be flat. If you can't grasp the earthly things, how will you ever understand the heavenly things?
@@davidgood7621 well done you just understand the Bible...God build this world for us man...and exercise dominion...and God will is to spread the culture of heaven on earth true us...
No let him continue, it's highly amusing and just makes us believers look that much better. I mean cmon God promises us perfect bodies that will never die, never suffer that one reason among countless others isn't something to look forward to?
Many ATheists MEAN to be educated, actually they are clueless about causality The question "what is the nature of existence (the "REALM") of morality" is effectively solved. Namely, its position, its REALM is unambiguously determined in the SEMIOTIC TRIANGLE. Morality is an effect, a brainmade **REFERENCE** to the cosmos, in other words it is a THOUGHT about-, = PROPERTY of-, = OPINION on the cosmos, the **REFERENT** = causal agency. Any THOUGHT does not exist on its own, not outside the brain that is. It is BUT momentarily (during a flux of matter aka metabolism) and temporarily (aka wake state) fabricated/elicited. Any THOUGHT does exist physically BUT! as a written word, a **SYMBOL** on the paper or graven into the stone. I challenge any other Scientist, whether believer or not, to provide their statement about the COHAERENCE between mass and matter. Anybody who means that this question 1)be unrelated to a Theo-logical discourse 2)might suggest or require the consultation of a science-book, I declare them for clueless about CAUSALITY. Kind regards from GERMANY
@@kleenex3000 again these are merely claims. How do you know that god exists or that morality and gods have a common source? I hope you aren't just going to tell me that its because an old book told you so.
Shermer didn't directly answer the question. I wasn't really surprised though; given his worldview, there's REALLY NO objective moral standard to know "good" and "evil" :-)
Stick man Sam Morality isn't objective. Not even the laws written in the bible are based upon objective morality, those are also subjective. They are merely "God's opinion".
If morality isnt objective then you have no basis on which to say something like rape is wrong. In fact if someone steals from you.. you have no basis by which to say for certain it was wrong for them to steal from you.. its only your opinion... in which case the bigger stronger person wins,.. So hitler in your view wasnt wrong in what he was doing. its just your opinion. You would have no way of justify your opinion and say Hitler was wrong....If God is the creator and he is the standard of good... Then he is the objective standard by which to measure all things. Therefore it is no opinion... but fact. .., and your comment that "even the laws written in the bible are subjective." ....first, You are making a moral judgment claim... and you are also using the statement as fact... So, is your comment that the Bible is subjective, an absolute truth? or is your statement subjective? Based on your logic you cant have any absolutes.. so your moral statement that the laws in the bible are subjective is merely "your opinion"..... as you said... in the beginning of your own comment..."Morality isnt objective"
Its the classic argument from ignorance fallacy. Morality is a mystery therefore god did it. God of the gaps. Morality is a complex issue. Frank is just taking a short cut to a moral high ground. Yet the bible is full of genocide and slavery
Stephen Cooke meaning he has to abandon certain aspects of reality in order to make his arguments. then frames his argument in such a way that he expects the listener to do the same. being that he is intellectual he would be aware of this and is most likely is using this as a debate tactic and not for the sake of finding the truth.
@@zxx5 What do you mean? Isnt god the strongest? The irony is that with your first comment, you just explained why morality can't be objective with god.
silence, Humans here on earth can control humans, God can't, but surely will judge us. God is not human, He's like our image but isn't physical, He has power outside time, space n' matter but not over our free-will.
God, through scripture, says that rape and slavery are morally okay. The only rules are about who you can do them to. That's Christian morality. It's disgusting.
It appears the illogical methodology Shremer abides by would cause him to go along with society if murder/rape was deemed as being being good/right/okay if society said so.
I'm an atheist, but I agree with you; Shermer is simply drawing morality from accidents of history and popularity. We have to wonder what Shermer's "The Moral Arc" book would have said, had he authored it back in the days of Columbus. He would say it is clear that enslaving the weak is clearly the consistent rule of nature.
@@barryjones9362 "He would say it is clear that enslaving the weak is clearly the consistent rule of nature" Turek would have argued the same and pointed to the Bible for this. Which obviously then disproves Tureks approach ...
That's like arguing that if God says it's ok to rape or murder then you, a theist, would go along with it. Which I'm guessing you would actually. Theists are so thick when it come to moral analysis because they just can't get out of their infantile view of morality as that which "Daddy-God" says is moral. Your objection would obviously be that that's not God's nature and so it's something like an irrelevant or impossible question. That's fine and good but then why are you bringing up this idea about rape and murder when society, in fact, does NOT say that? It's the exact same kind of irrelevance. Theism doesn't solve the moral dilemmas from an analytical standpoint; all it does is throw agents capable of moral analysis into a structure in which reward and punishment exists, treating people like animals in an operant conditioning experiment by an all-powerful experimenter. That's low-level moral thought, the way children think. High-level moral thought is about psychology, moral principles, theories of mind, distribution of resources and rights, what's practical vs. what's possible, cost-benefit analysis, hierarchy of values, etc. Turek calling morality "objective" and insisting there can be no cogent moral statements outside of a God framework just clearly betrays his inability to reconcile his emotional aversion to some behaviors with the fact that morality is necessarily subjective because it is meaningless outside of the presence of minds that interact, and not all minds have the same values. It's lazy.
@@superdog797you're missing the point; the point is that Shermer's methodology is based on majority opinion which is inconsistent or fluctuates. Meaning not only would he be exhausted keeping up with society, but he would allow his logic to be compromised, along with his morals and ethics. If God is real (which I believe God exists) then morals and ethics would not fluctuate but remain constant/fixed, unlike the methodology Shermer rests on. Care to discuss more? Check out @evilution_is_dead on IG..
@@upwardmovement There are at least two or three problems with what you're saying. The first is that you're assuming the only alternative secular moral system to a God-morality is majority opinion, which is of course not the case. Many alternative moral systems exist, including value structured-hierarchy, morality based on human happiness, morality based on goals and purpose, morality based on minimizing suffering, morality based on altruism and empathy, morality based on family, morality based on survival and self-preservation, morality based on equal rights, morality based on consent and social contract, morality based on categorical imperative, arbitrary morality, to name just a few. Most people in one form or another subscribe to morality based on avoiding or minimizing human suffering but the reality is that flexibility is needed in any cogent moral analysis, which is one of the many weaknesses of theistic morality. The second problem would be that a theistic morality that rests on the existence of a God would of course be deficient because the lack of any common verifiable evidence for God's existence, the total lack of clarity about almost all religious claims in general, and no consensus about virtually anything relating to God's supposed attributes, exists, so from a practical and objective standpoint, theistic morality has always been nothing but a whole bunch of different cultural (or even individual really) practices with their own respective theistic moral systems that are different from each other. Put another way, the reality on the ground is that theistic morality has never achieved what you want it to in the sense of providing humanity with a comprehensive moral system; it hardly even works within theistic traditions because you won't get people to agree on almost any moral statement even within a religion. The third problem is that a theistic morality still does not solve the fundamental moral philosophical conundrums we are capable of grasping. Theistic morality does one thing and one thing only: it provides what Shelly Kagan calls a "Cosmic Enforcer" who will mete out reward and punishment for behavior, and that's it. It doesn't solve the question of "how to get an ought from an is", which secular moralists are constantly challenged with as if it were some silver bullet to their werewolf, by people who don't realize that theistic morality has the same inability to answer that question. If it IS the case that God says "You shall not rape, or you will burn", that doesn't imply that "You OUGHT not rape"; it only implies that IF you rape, you will burn. Conflating these ideas is one of the most common moral fallacies theists commit because they are so entrenched in their own moral thinking they can't even break out of their mind-controlling perspective to try to entertain other points of view on morality. Above all else, the fact of the matter is that Turek is just spewing nonsense when he talks about "absolute" objective morality because anybody with a brain can see that there is a difference between moral statements and any of the other systems of statements we ordinarily would consider to be "objective", i.e mathematics, empirical science, engineering, logic, etc. It is true that a philosophical analysis can question virtually anything and thus render even those areas "subjective" in some extremely abstract sense, and there is a time and a place for such analysis, but this constant theistic reversion to classifying morality as "objective" is just evidence for how weak a case there is overall for theistic claims in general, and how closely theistic beliefs are tied to emotional aversions to behaviors instead of sound analysis about the world.
@Stephen Cooke because it is very easy to postulate a third alternative, which shows that it is a false dilemma. It's a bad argument because the third alternative doesnt even need to be true, as long as a third alternative is possible then it's a false dilemma. It sucks
Barry Jones From the apologist Matt Slick: "This is simply a prophecy about what will occur. It is a proclamation about the coming judgment of how Babylon will fall to the Medes. If someone comments about a coming war and then states that there will be children who will be destroyed, houses plundered, and wives raped, does it mean that the one who is saying it is approving of it? It just means that the unfortunate reality of war and its horrible consequences are easily known and even predicted."
It's like a man saying "I don't need oxygen to breathe! I just do it. I can obviously breathe with no need for oxygen." Yet he can only say that because oxygen exists....
Totally MikeyThey hate God because he actually exists and that means they are not their own god and must answer to something higher. If they were convinced of Gods non existence they wouldn't bother to hate or debate
We don't hate God. That's silly. That'd be like hating the Easter bunny. No, we hate believers. People who make it their life's mission to impose their beliefs on others. People who make life hell for their LGBT children. People who insist on stripping women of their right to bodily autonomy. People who cloak themselves in racism because, "God separated the races for a reason" or some such drivel. People who defend biblical rape and slavery and genocide as somehow "righteous." That's who we hate.
This guy is only concerned with the superficial, plain view aspects of life. Frank is trying to get him think deeper but he's too concerned about his own thoughts and conclusions to worry about what someone may see or feel on a spiritual level. Everyone with any kind of basic understanding of life believes we are more than mind and body.
This man needs to get out and live in other cultures...murder can be justified in many cultures in our world...not to mention the animal kingdom, if we are just evovled animals.
I just had this exact conversation with my dad and he doesn't even understand what I'm saying. This is the main response I get when I ask people to ground their views. I just started defending my faith but most times people don't even understand the point I'm making.
He may not "get" what you're saying because it's not a philosophically coherent idea to say that a God is *necessary* to "ground morality". Turek calling morality objective is just classic fallacy of equivocation. He's trying to say there is morality independent of human thought, which is obviously a meaningless notion. No humans, no morality.
@@superdog797 principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior......this is the definition of morality .....where does it say its exclusive to humans?
@@thisiscontent2264 Morality is exclusive to humans. Or at least, it is exclusive to any group that consists of more than one sentient creature capable of having significant control of its actions with a moral interest at heart. Without these creatures there is no morality and so that is where it is grounded. The idea of trying to ground it in God is just wrong because morality is an emergent phenomenon that occurs when multiple beings interact, not something that is some objective feature of the world like the number of rocks on the Earth or the rate of gravitational acceleration in a vacuum.
@@superdog797 your second explanation literally said why it isnt just exclusive to humans.... literally every cartoon character has morality(human or not)
@@thisiscontent2264 Like we talked about in the other post, this may have been a miscommunication about the use of the word "human" vs. "agent". But the point is that the OP thinks morality has to be "grounded" in God and expressed bewilderment that her father didn't understand her view on this. I'm only pointing out that this bewilderment is actually her being intransigent to the fact that morality is inherently subjective and thus the idea that morality is universally grounded in a single agent - or in some sense is universally objective due to a single agent - is incoherent.
"If there was no God, there would be no atheists" C.K. Chesterton.... And he admitted it written on our hearts, which is what God says... that's why we know wrong from right... but deflect best they can...
I think that what Shermer really means is, *"Fool stop!"* Because that's what he's doing. He's being a fool and stopping rather than reasoning in a rational and consistent manner. Feelings ≠ Facts. And assuming the very thing you deny is not a good way to argue.
Hebrew word for sin is KHATA. which simply means to fail a goal. In the bible the goal is to love one another. Example: one half of the 10 commandments represent at how you can fail/succeed at loving God and the other half is how you can either fail or succeed at loving others. Depending if you obey. The law is written in our hearts. I do not disagree with the law of human nature. But the law of human nature tells us how we ought to behave and that it's the only law we are able to disobey. (Free will) when you rape a baby you have defiled and hurt the baby. You have failed to love the baby. And at the same time defiled the image of God.
“In 10yrs we won’t be talking about gay marriage.” Um, 1530ad King Henry Vlll said divorce and re marriage was legal. 2019 Catholics dogma says no. 1530-2019 is more than 10yrs
Shermer just contradicted himself. On the one hand he says we have innate understanding of right and wrong then goes on to say that our standard for right and wrong changes over time. I.e. interracial marriage. So what is it shermer? It can't be both. Lol
Right and wrong does not change ever, just because people change there views on a certain subject or issue over time doesn’t change the fact that right is right and wrong is wrong.
@@dodibenabba1378 Any action without consent and especially the intentional brutally murder of people is harmful and something we dont want to inflict on others. Unless we talk about psychopaths who cant tell the difference between right and wrong and lack empathy. Generally we dont want to be murdered and society is built around that concept. Which explains why we outlawed murder thousands of years ago (before christianity was conceived). Ironically it was the abrahamic religions that made exceptions for this rule.
Unnecessary pain is a guide to right and wrong. If it’s unnecessary and it hurts the individual or the community, then generally the concensus is it’s wrong. Humans have largely twigged this and collectively hold to this notion of right and wrong.
Morality simply depends on your culture and how you were raised. There’s no way of objectively measuring it. What we consider wrong for us can be right for others and vice versa. Doesn’t mean we have to support or fight against what other people do. It’s just a fight over subjective values, after all, and you can’t prove a value to be better than another.
To deny God is to deny yourself in many if not all ways. Frank is asking the same question here as he has asked many times before. All of those he debates, answers in a way that still leaves the question truly un-answered. If right and wrong changes over time, I personally dont see how there can be a concrete form of it at all times from beginning to end. if it changes, its because humans change their opinion of what is acceptable and what is not. government has its role in that dilemma as well. but God tells us through our soul, our not science based, non human nature based, being. Its very easy to misinterpret the Bible, but it is extremely difficult to negate its truth once you DO understand it. Frank is a good man!
I remember the past debates with Hitchens and I must admit he got the upperhand. . . Only because Hitchens didn't really come to "fight" but to use his wit to evade, parry and misdirect to survive! Kind of like how Mayweather "won" his fight against Pacquiao! Shermer exposes himself because at least he's willing to get to the nitty gritty.
I quite like Ravi Zacharias' explanation for this issue. In one of his Q&A sessions, he said, "In some countries people love their neighbors and in other countries, they eat them. Which do you prefer?"
Source please. I translate apologetics videos to portuguese and I want to use that source. Please.
Yes, me too..please..I want to watch that video too.
Love that quote. I remember Ravi Zacharias saying that 👍
The trouble is that the way he quotes this may involve misinterpretation! How do you define "neighbour" would the Israelite definition include Midianites? Philistines? No love lost there. Cannibalism does occur in some societies as one aspect of their cultural belief system, involving respect and reverence for the deceased who may be a close relative. Much love involved there.
@@mikealcock4034
Either way, God says that people are NOT food and that you shall NOT eat your neighbor (referring to others; in or out of Christ). I'd say that's simple enough. It's not relative. Rather, some are ignorant and some are informed to the source of righteousness; that is, what God says. Period. The end-all-be-all is simply that most don't care or obey their GOD-given conscious about what God says because they'd rather be in their pride/sin doing it THEIR OWN way and they will learn that there's severe consequence to that kind of ignorance and poor choice. They'll either learn here OR after their flesh drops, because the wages of sin IS DEATH and they (we ALL) have earned wages for it (those born again, in Christ become evidently transformed to live in obedient righteousness by the INDWELLING POWER of the Holy Spirit). REPENTANT
SURRENDER to Jesus to become born again; transformed, a new creation in Christ! ...or ETERNAL Hell fire. There's NOTHING else. Blessings in Jesus!🙋
💔👣👣💝💖
Shermer trying his best to avoid frank's question because he knew where frank was going with that question
That's what they do best...
Happens in debates all the time
He says it's innate and upbringing
jaraved r no he didn’t even know what he was saying cuz he also said we know it since we were born from his kids and puppet show example
Exactly
Wow! Shermer is saying that racism is right as long as you live during a time when it is considered right.
Exactly. Because people make up right and wrong so slavery WAS not wrong, tho he considers it wrong now. He essentially admits, he would have owned slaves. Lol
Scum bag thinks the Bible supports slavery. No. Christianity started the abolition movement. Christians only owned indentured servitudes or capturees in nations war times. Never slavery that Mikey boy thinks is ok as long as people say so.
Thought that’s what I heard too.
LOL sad!
@@TheLuckyShepherd Yeah! The original Torah and other hebrew scriptures of the OT used the word "ebod" and it means "hired servant"! It does NOT mean slave! Most of the mdern translations are wrong!
@@kimbanton4398 the problems is Bible is not written with Hebrew, but in greek
Shermer is such a lightweight. He should be arguing with me on Yahoo comments and not on TV.
Oh man...😂😂😂
Lol, well played
👍🏽. He can never answer any question straightforward
Haha stated perfectly.
He's one of the most prominent atheists of our time because every prominent atheist is a lightweight whose reasons for disbelief are emotional, not intellectual. They claim intellectuality is their reason for disbelief, and this forces them into pretending that their emotional objections are actually intellectual; this is why they can't answer such questions, because they struggle to present their emotional reasons as intellectual ones, and their pride prevents them from admitting that their disbelief is just emotional.
This atheist guy should be a politician he dodges questions so well.
This atheist argument is just horrible, Turkey just out classes him at every level.
Hahah well put, Timothy! :-)
i believe its the other way around, if you listen. when Shermer starts giving a good example, turek cuts him off to try and stop him from making a good point.
Or because Shermer keeps dodging the question. (:
As social primates evolving over millions of years we would not have survived this long without empathy and cooperation.
Turek's choice of God is not moral and seems particularly selfish and narcissistic.
The moral law is the end of atheism. "The moral law; a law which none of us made but we find pressing on us"- C.S. Lewis.
It's not. :) Even if I agree that without a God there is no basis for morality (just for argument's sake: I don't believe you need God), that's no proof that God exists. Just because it would be nice if God existed (because we'd have a basis for morality), doesn't mean he does. If you need God as the basis of your morality, you must first prove that he exists. So you can't use the moral argument as proof of God.
@@manafro2714Call God whatever you want. There must be a moral law giver in order for there to be a moral law.
"A common objection to the existence of God goes something like this: "There cannot be a God, because there is too much evil in this world."
Here's the problem with that objection. When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. What then is your question?
Your next question would be; Why does there have to be a moral law giver to have a moral law?
The question of evil is always brought up by a person, or about a person. Personhood is intrinsic to the question.
@@aboutmyfathersbusiness8324 Thanks for the response, but you didn't address my argument at all. :) Just because in your mind you'd need a moral lawgiver for morality, doesn't mean that there MUST exist a moral lawgiver. Who knows, perhaps morality is a nonsensical concept and we're just not smart enough to see where the mistake is in assuming the opposite.
> There must be a moral law giver in order for there to be a moral law.
False, but even if it's right: that doesn't prove that there actually exists a moral lawgiver.
> When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil.
False if you define evil as suffering.
@@manafro2714 You have to be honest with yourself. To a "true" Atheist. There is no right or wrong. Eating ham is equal to murdering someone. As Dawkins put it, "we are just dancing to our DNA". But there is a right and wrong.
Regarding personhood. A dog is incapable of murder. He/she can kill. When we speak of evil, it is always about someone, not something. A rock cannot do evil. A person with a rock can.
@@aboutmyfathersbusiness8324 Atheist just means someone who is not a Theist. You don't have to believe in consequences in the afterlife to worry about ones in this life (that's basically what religious morality boils down to: do X and Y in order to get into Heaven (=moral things), or do A and B in order to get into Hell (=immoral things)).
I'm not a materialist (see the hard problem of consciousness), but that's no reason to believe in any divine creator or moral law. Buddhism doesn't have a divine creator, yet they have morality.
Perhaps when you speak of evil, you mean someone and not something. The person who happens to walk by the spot where a rock falls accidentally on his head experiences suffering, for him subjectively there is evil.
Dude, I love F. Turek... str8 genius of apologetics
Free Indeed
"Dude, I love F. Turek... str8 genius of apologetics "
that is an oxymoron, but I would admit that Turek is skilled at using apologetic.... oh and making money, the two always seem to be closely linked.
He's good at making money? Is that true? How do you know? Did people pay to attend? Are his books overpriced? I'm very curious to know how you're aware of his finances. Please help me understand.
Apologetic is dogmatic.
@@bagnasbayabas usually when one makes such an outlandish statement like that they would have at least one point to back it up, but no not you... you can just say something totally ignorant and expect us all to just believe it because well... because you said so... lol.... that's dogmatic....
@@KVNGFreeIndeedNetwork don't be trapped by dogma...do not limit your information on the pages of the bible. There are lots of possibilities and a lot of questions to ask. Our universe is so vast and you settle to a book that is written by ancient men who don't know the earth is not flat?
What's right and wrong changes overtime? I don't think so Michael. . . The way we interpret right and wrong my change, but the standard doesn't.
Yes, what we consider to be wrong or right, does change over time. The referendum over abortion laws in Ireland earlier this year is a good example for that. You seem to make the assumption that something like objective morality exsists. It doesn't. There are no moral absolutes. There are factual absolutes, but no moral absolutes
No. Abortion is a moral evil and is wrong no matter how the Irish people voted on it. Legality doesn't make it right. If everyone voted that Jews should be round up and executed even if every last person voted for that it still would be wrong.
2005wsoxfan No it wouldn't. It is neither Good or Evil. Objective morality doesn't exsist. There are no moral absolutes. I would consider it to be wrong, yes, but it isn't Good or Evil on it's own. Good and Evil are classifications on a scale of Subjective Morality.
@@WilliamsWorldView dude, no offence, but read your last comment. Digest it. You deeming ANYTHING good means there's an absolute standard of good otherwise good doesn't exist!
A nazi murdering a jew may not see that as wrong but a jew murdering a nazi, well the nazis will see that as wrong... Therefore where does the objectivity of right and wrong originate? It is objective otherwise your interpretation of morality is filled with illogical gibberish. The Irish could have voted post birth abortion to be right (morally ok) but it makes no sense to say anything is better, good or bad if an absolute standard of good doesn't exist.
You guys (atheists) are very illogical in your reasoning.
@@WilliamsWorldView
What people consider right and wrong may change but God is the same from the beginning to end. If you dont have a moral law giver, your foundation of right and wrong will be like shifting sand, influenced by society and the world around you. Gay marriage was wrong. Now it's right.
It is so upsetting to see these so called highly educated guys go on ranting without answering the actual question. Every time they get cornered they resort to sarcasm.
Yup. It’s pseudo intellectualism
They cannot answer a question whose answer does not exist.
Yup these atheists are gullible fools
Shermer STILL does not answer the question
Yes he did. He said it's a combination of our innate nature and social up bringing
@@PositivelyBrainwashed So basically it's still subjective opinion and no ones morality is better than any others.
@@ContemporaryCompendium Correct. But because we're all human beings, and we're a product of evolution, we'll generally agree on basics like treating others how we want to be treated. Generally, we all wanna survive. So once we have those subjective morality agreed upon, we can create objective rules to live by.
Yeah it's scary to think what would have happen if Hitler took over the world and majority adopted his morals. But I don't know why theists are so hung up on having true objective morality.
@@PositivelyBrainwashed because truth is absolute.
He did at the end by saying “ourselves” and Frank got him🤝
The atheist just proved himself wrong lol. He said centuries ago we would have been ok with slavery and burning witches.....and now we aren’t ok with it. He just stated that there is no objective morality.....if it purely subjective then there can be no right or wrong. Because what’s wrong for one person might be right for the other.
I’m surprised turek never mentions the 3 moral cultures in which a world
Can exist. Regardless, he does a great job.
Just shared same thoughts about his racism claims. Btw his call was that it all was Christians fault
Okay, I'm going off your comment.
If he said that we were okay with slavery and burning witches, he likely was talking about how society as a whole just accepted it. Take spanking for example, seems like everyone did it to their kids for awhile, now, they are making laws against it. We learn the effects our our actions, whether we like it or not, and then we change. Some fight for the old ways, some fight for more change more often.
Morality is subjective.
If it was objective, it would be like Asimov's Laws for robots. We wouldn't be able to do them, and we would automatically be aware of them before we could even think or speak.
In the case of free will, there can be no objective morality, it would have to account for what we are, and what we can do, and wouldnhave to have some power over us, otherwise no one is stopped from doing it.
It you don’t follow up right away with consequences, people don't learn. You can't wait until they die.
Also, he says in a society where something is accepted, it would be morally fine to do it. That is a logical fallacy. You must have one person who advocates something before an entire society accepts it. So one person isn't enough but an entire society, even though one person is required to propose the idea?
@@BornOnThursday
So if a person decides to go outside and murder the nearest person with a machete, that’s completely ok with you because they didn’t think there was anything wrong with going outside and brutally murdering a person with a machete?
@@nateboy123
I was born into a society that believed that was wrong, and I was able to build upon that by thinking freely without any indoctrination.
Personally, I tried to avoid physically harming anyone as I understand pain, and I have no justification for causing it; no cultural or religious beliefs.
If a person decides to commit murder for "no reason", then that person should be questioned, and analyzed for mental illness as I don't believe anyone would do it for "no reason"; doesn't have to be a deep feeling, but if you can go through every step of the act as described, something was going on in your brain.
Without context, I couldn't say much else about this act. With severely limited information, I would say that person is dangerous and unpredictable, but that doesn't mean much without a name, a life, and an examination.
when you don't want to find the Creator, He will oblige you.
i’ve looked for the creator, and found him to be missing. care to point me in the right direction? if the god of the bible is real he’s sure one heck of a deceiver. like describing the earth being similar in shape as a giant circular table with 4 legs and a dome over the part we live in and floating in water.
@@littleredpony6868 well anyone with a lick of common sense knows the way water is observed to behave proves the Earth must be flat. If you can't grasp the earthly things, how will you ever understand the heavenly things?
Isaiah40:22 wow seriously? You really think that the earth is flat?
Absolutely right. Shermer is a reprobate
@@davidgood7621 well done you just understand the Bible...God build this world for us man...and exercise dominion...and God will is to spread the culture of heaven on earth true us...
Shermer stop...just please....stop...
No let him continue, it's highly amusing and just makes us believers look that much better.
I mean cmon God promises us perfect bodies that will never die, never suffer that one reason among countless others isn't something to look forward to?
Many ATheists MEAN to be educated, actually they are clueless about causality
The question "what is the nature of existence (the "REALM") of morality" is effectively solved. Namely, its position, its REALM is unambiguously determined in the SEMIOTIC TRIANGLE.
Morality is an effect, a brainmade **REFERENCE** to the cosmos, in other words it is a THOUGHT about-, = PROPERTY of-, = OPINION on the cosmos, the **REFERENT** = causal agency.
Any THOUGHT does not exist on its own, not outside the brain that is. It is BUT momentarily (during a flux of matter aka metabolism) and temporarily (aka wake state) fabricated/elicited.
Any THOUGHT does exist physically BUT! as a written word, a **SYMBOL** on the paper or graven into the stone.
I challenge any other Scientist, whether believer or not, to provide their statement about the COHAERENCE between mass and matter. Anybody who means that this question
1)be unrelated to a Theo-logical discourse
2)might suggest or require the consultation of a science-book, I declare them for clueless about CAUSALITY.
Kind regards from GERMANY
Turek claims that objective morality exists and that his god is the source thereof. He can prove neither
@@xaindsleena8090 Known Morality and known G-Ds share the same source. They are causally related but, surprise, not to another.
@@kleenex3000 again these are merely claims. How do you know that god exists or that morality and gods have a common source? I hope you aren't just going to tell me that its because an old book told you so.
Shermer didn't directly answer the question. I wasn't really surprised though; given his worldview, there's REALLY NO objective moral standard to know "good" and "evil" :-)
There's not in yours either.
Good and Evil don't exsist as entities on their own. They are classifications on a moral scale. Nothing more, nothing less
*@Williams World View* Based on your worldview, that "moral scale" isn't objective, rather, just depends on a person's subjective opinion :-)
Stick man Sam Morality isn't objective. Not even the laws written in the bible are based upon objective morality, those are also subjective. They are merely "God's opinion".
If morality isnt objective then you have no basis on which to say something like rape is wrong. In fact if someone steals from you.. you have no basis by which to say for certain it was wrong for them to steal from you.. its only your opinion... in which case the bigger stronger person wins,.. So hitler in your view wasnt wrong in what he was doing. its just your opinion. You would have no way of justify your opinion and say Hitler was wrong....If God is the creator and he is the standard of good... Then he is the objective standard by which to measure all things. Therefore it is no opinion... but fact. .., and your comment that "even the laws written in the bible are subjective." ....first, You are making a moral judgment claim... and you are also using the statement as fact... So, is your comment that the Bible is subjective, an absolute truth? or is your statement subjective? Based on your logic you cant have any absolutes.. so your moral statement that the laws in the bible are subjective is merely "your opinion"..... as you said... in the beginning of your own comment..."Morality isnt objective"
I love how shermer just rambles on in order to avoid frank's questions
Its the classic argument from ignorance fallacy. Morality is a mystery therefore god did it. God of the gaps. Morality is a complex issue. Frank is just taking a short cut to a moral high ground. Yet the bible is full of genocide and slavery
I was so pumped to watch this debate 3 years ago. Turek's q&a and debates really helped me during my undergrad. God bless you and your ministry 🙏
Shermer has always been intellectually dishonest
@Stephen Cooke He tried too hard to be a troll.
Stephen Cooke meaning he has to abandon certain aspects of reality in order to make his arguments. then frames his argument in such a way that he expects the listener to do the same. being that he is intellectual he would be aware of this and is most likely is using this as a debate tactic and not for the sake of finding the truth.
Justify is the *KEY,* to God.
If there is no God:
The strongest makes the rules &
Might makes right
And in this scenario, God is the strongest.
The utmost strongest ever, YET UTMOST JUST!
@@zxx5 What do you mean? Isnt god the strongest?
The irony is that with your first comment, you just explained why morality can't be objective with god.
silence,
Humans here on earth can control humans,
God can't, but surely will judge us.
God is not human, He's like our image but isn't physical, He has power outside time, space n' matter but not over our free-will.
@@zxx5 How is that relevant?
Without God, there could be no objective morality.
God, through scripture, says that rape and slavery are morally okay. The only rules are about who you can do them to.
That's Christian morality.
It's disgusting.
I hate it when people confuse moral epistemology with moral ontology.
Sherlock he didn’t confuse it. He dodged it on purpose to avoid answering the question.
@@gentibiraciso is then worse?
It appears the illogical methodology Shremer abides by would cause him to go along with society if murder/rape was deemed as being being good/right/okay if society said so.
I'm an atheist, but I agree with you; Shermer is simply drawing morality from accidents of history and popularity. We have to wonder what Shermer's "The Moral Arc" book would have said, had he authored it back in the days of Columbus. He would say it is clear that enslaving the weak is clearly the consistent rule of nature.
@@barryjones9362 "He would say it is clear that enslaving the weak is clearly the consistent rule of nature"
Turek would have argued the same and pointed to the Bible for this.
Which obviously then disproves Tureks approach ...
That's like arguing that if God says it's ok to rape or murder then you, a theist, would go along with it. Which I'm guessing you would actually. Theists are so thick when it come to moral analysis because they just can't get out of their infantile view of morality as that which "Daddy-God" says is moral. Your objection would obviously be that that's not God's nature and so it's something like an irrelevant or impossible question. That's fine and good but then why are you bringing up this idea about rape and murder when society, in fact, does NOT say that? It's the exact same kind of irrelevance. Theism doesn't solve the moral dilemmas from an analytical standpoint; all it does is throw agents capable of moral analysis into a structure in which reward and punishment exists, treating people like animals in an operant conditioning experiment by an all-powerful experimenter. That's low-level moral thought, the way children think. High-level moral thought is about psychology, moral principles, theories of mind, distribution of resources and rights, what's practical vs. what's possible, cost-benefit analysis, hierarchy of values, etc. Turek calling morality "objective" and insisting there can be no cogent moral statements outside of a God framework just clearly betrays his inability to reconcile his emotional aversion to some behaviors with the fact that morality is necessarily subjective because it is meaningless outside of the presence of minds that interact, and not all minds have the same values. It's lazy.
@@superdog797you're missing the point; the point is that Shermer's methodology is based on majority opinion which is inconsistent or fluctuates. Meaning not only would he be exhausted keeping up with society, but he would allow his logic to be compromised, along with his morals and ethics. If God is real (which I believe God exists) then morals and ethics would not fluctuate but remain constant/fixed, unlike the methodology Shermer rests on. Care to discuss more? Check out @evilution_is_dead on IG..
@@upwardmovement There are at least two or three problems with what you're saying.
The first is that you're assuming the only alternative secular moral system to a God-morality is majority opinion, which is of course not the case. Many alternative moral systems exist, including value structured-hierarchy, morality based on human happiness, morality based on goals and purpose, morality based on minimizing suffering, morality based on altruism and empathy, morality based on family, morality based on survival and self-preservation, morality based on equal rights, morality based on consent and social contract, morality based on categorical imperative, arbitrary morality, to name just a few. Most people in one form or another subscribe to morality based on avoiding or minimizing human suffering but the reality is that flexibility is needed in any cogent moral analysis, which is one of the many weaknesses of theistic morality.
The second problem would be that a theistic morality that rests on the existence of a God would of course be deficient because the lack of any common verifiable evidence for God's existence, the total lack of clarity about almost all religious claims in general, and no consensus about virtually anything relating to God's supposed attributes, exists, so from a practical and objective standpoint, theistic morality has always been nothing but a whole bunch of different cultural (or even individual really) practices with their own respective theistic moral systems that are different from each other. Put another way, the reality on the ground is that theistic morality has never achieved what you want it to in the sense of providing humanity with a comprehensive moral system; it hardly even works within theistic traditions because you won't get people to agree on almost any moral statement even within a religion.
The third problem is that a theistic morality still does not solve the fundamental moral philosophical conundrums we are capable of grasping. Theistic morality does one thing and one thing only: it provides what Shelly Kagan calls a "Cosmic Enforcer" who will mete out reward and punishment for behavior, and that's it. It doesn't solve the question of "how to get an ought from an is", which secular moralists are constantly challenged with as if it were some silver bullet to their werewolf, by people who don't realize that theistic morality has the same inability to answer that question. If it IS the case that God says "You shall not rape, or you will burn", that doesn't imply that "You OUGHT not rape"; it only implies that IF you rape, you will burn. Conflating these ideas is one of the most common moral fallacies theists commit because they are so entrenched in their own moral thinking they can't even break out of their mind-controlling perspective to try to entertain other points of view on morality.
Above all else, the fact of the matter is that Turek is just spewing nonsense when he talks about "absolute" objective morality because anybody with a brain can see that there is a difference between moral statements and any of the other systems of statements we ordinarily would consider to be "objective", i.e mathematics, empirical science, engineering, logic, etc. It is true that a philosophical analysis can question virtually anything and thus render even those areas "subjective" in some extremely abstract sense, and there is a time and a place for such analysis, but this constant theistic reversion to classifying morality as "objective" is just evidence for how weak a case there is overall for theistic claims in general, and how closely theistic beliefs are tied to emotional aversions to behaviors instead of sound analysis about the world.
Shermer always evades the hard-hitting theistic questions. I think he probably imstructed Lawrence Kraus.
shermer was just going in circles, he just didn't know how to answer such question. lol
When an atheist uses the Euthyphro dilemma...SMH. It's the bad argument that just won't die.
@Stephen Cooke because it is very easy to postulate a third alternative, which shows that it is a false dilemma. It's a bad argument because the third alternative doesnt even need to be true, as long as a third alternative is possible then it's a false dilemma. It sucks
I agree, God admitting to causing men to rape women in Isaiah 13:16-17 damages Christians more explosively than Euthyphro ever did.
Barry Jones From the apologist Matt Slick: "This is simply a prophecy about what will occur. It is a proclamation about the coming judgment of how Babylon will fall to the Medes. If someone comments about a coming war and then states that there will be children who will be destroyed, houses plundered, and wives raped, does it mean that the one who is saying it is approving of it? It just means that the unfortunate reality of war and its horrible consequences are easily known and even predicted."
Barry Jones Furthermore, do you know who the Babylonians were? Do you know what they did to the Jews?
@Bru Master
What is a third alternative that is easy to postulate?
"Morality changes over time" is no answer to where morality comes from in the first place my guy
Frank Turek: Asks a question Michael Shermer: *Teaches How to dodge from answering the real question*
he didn't answer the question lool
It's the common theme amongst those who aren't after the truth. Btw.. The girl in your pic is beautiful.
@@jovanpando5407 true, and thanks
jjblueconverse Exactly I was waiting for an answer that sufficed the question!!! Lol
Yea he didn't. Anyone can tell he's trying to avoid answering.
yes he did.... He said that we set the moral standard. It comes from us.
When Shermer talks about how morals have changed over time, I would have said, I think I have won because he is now making my case for me.
I've never seen someone dig themselves into a hole faster than this. lol
The atheist NEVER EVER JUST ANSWER THE EFFEN QUESTION
He knows he doesn't have an answer that will be accepted as logical and acceptable, he is purely emotional in this, not thinking it through logically.
“ full stop”.
Lol I hate those words now that I hear it every debate
To find out a good morality you already have to have a morality to judge that morality you are looking for.
It's like a man saying "I don't need oxygen to breathe! I just do it. I can obviously breathe with no need for oxygen." Yet he can only say that because oxygen exists....
Theists taking the high ground when it comes to morality is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
Why is that so
Cuz atheist can't refute it.
Shemer keeps getting proven wrong and never realizes it. He’s clearly so full of hatred for a God he claims he doesn’t even believe in.
Totally MikeyThey hate God because he actually exists and that means they are not their own god and must answer to something higher. If they were convinced of Gods non existence they wouldn't bother to hate or debate
Can’t hate something which only exists in your mind.
We don't hate God. That's silly. That'd be like hating the Easter bunny.
No, we hate believers. People who make it their life's mission to impose their beliefs on others. People who make life hell for their LGBT children. People who insist on stripping women of their right to bodily autonomy. People who cloak themselves in racism because, "God separated the races for a reason" or some such drivel. People who defend biblical rape and slavery and genocide as somehow "righteous."
That's who we hate.
Shermer was saying” I think”. That is his own opinion.
same thing every time. on morality he`ll never answer the question
Every law we have is drawn up not from itself but from a standard to begin with
Even atheists in the audience must be face-palming themselves over Shermer!
Some say Shermer is still explaining the puppet exeriment while Frank asks him the question...
Lol!!!! He got so excited about “the puppet experiment!!” 😝
This is the main reason why I lean towards the belief of God, morality.
I'd like to see the rest of that exchange.
Michael “Full Stop” Shermer.
If he is a skeptic, he has hope. If he is a cynic, all hope is lost.
This guy is only concerned with the superficial, plain view aspects of life. Frank is trying to get him think deeper but he's too concerned about his own thoughts and conclusions to worry about what someone may see or feel on a spiritual level. Everyone with any kind of
basic understanding of life believes we are more than mind and body.
😂😂😂😂 the title of the video 🤣 Frank is so awesome!!!
This man needs to get out and live in other cultures...murder can be justified in many cultures in our world...not to mention the animal kingdom, if we are just evovled animals.
Shermer: "right and wrong shift overtime". Shermer throws out a lot of bright shinny objects to distract, but that is the core of his position.
Frank layed the smackdown
I just had this exact conversation with my dad and he doesn't even understand what I'm saying. This is the main response I get when I ask people to ground their views. I just started defending my faith but most times people don't even understand the point I'm making.
He may not "get" what you're saying because it's not a philosophically coherent idea to say that a God is *necessary* to "ground morality". Turek calling morality objective is just classic fallacy of equivocation. He's trying to say there is morality independent of human thought, which is obviously a meaningless notion. No humans, no morality.
@@superdog797 principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior......this is the definition of morality .....where does it say its exclusive to humans?
@@thisiscontent2264 Morality is exclusive to humans. Or at least, it is exclusive to any group that consists of more than one sentient creature capable of having significant control of its actions with a moral interest at heart. Without these creatures there is no morality and so that is where it is grounded. The idea of trying to ground it in God is just wrong because morality is an emergent phenomenon that occurs when multiple beings interact, not something that is some objective feature of the world like the number of rocks on the Earth or the rate of gravitational acceleration in a vacuum.
@@superdog797 your second explanation literally said why it isnt just exclusive to humans.... literally every cartoon character has morality(human or not)
@@thisiscontent2264 Like we talked about in the other post, this may have been a miscommunication about the use of the word "human" vs. "agent". But the point is that the OP thinks morality has to be "grounded" in God and expressed bewilderment that her father didn't understand her view on this. I'm only pointing out that this bewilderment is actually her being intransigent to the fact that morality is inherently subjective and thus the idea that morality is universally grounded in a single agent - or in some sense is universally objective due to a single agent - is incoherent.
Its kinda sad how sherman tries to slowly change the question😂😂whenever frank asks him a question
"If there was no God, there would be no atheists" C.K. Chesterton....
And he admitted it written on our hearts, which is what God says... that's why we know wrong from right... but deflect best they can...
Frank made him sit on a frying pan 😂
The lengths to which Shermer went in order to avoid the question is insane and sad at the same time.
Shermer seems to recognize he's out of his depth and tries everything to avoid the central points that Turek keeps coming back to.
Lol It's like a software program denying the existence of a programmer by saying it naturally through nature knows rebooting
I think that what Shermer really means is, *"Fool stop!"* Because that's what he's doing. He's being a fool and stopping rather than reasoning in a rational and consistent manner. Feelings ≠ Facts. And assuming the very thing you deny is not a good way to argue.
If morals evolve, then is any action ever truly right or wrong?
Hebrew word for sin is KHATA. which simply means to fail a goal. In the bible the goal is to love one another. Example: one half of the 10 commandments represent at how you can fail/succeed at loving God and the other half is how you can either fail or succeed at loving others. Depending if you obey. The law is written in our hearts. I do not disagree with the law of human nature. But the law of human nature tells us how we ought to behave and that it's the only law we are able to disobey. (Free will) when you rape a baby you have defiled and hurt the baby. You have failed to love the baby. And at the same time defiled the image of God.
Oh at last, a brother!
Frank:where does morality came from?
Shermer:it all started when I was a child...
“In 10yrs we won’t be talking about gay marriage.”
Um, 1530ad King Henry Vlll said divorce and re marriage was legal.
2019 Catholics dogma says no. 1530-2019 is more than 10yrs
Shermer was trying to run away from Frank's question...
Shermer just contradicted himself. On the one hand he says we have innate understanding of right and wrong then goes on to say that our standard for right and wrong changes over time. I.e. interracial marriage. So what is it shermer? It can't be both. Lol
standards is like filling in the details, it's not meaning murdering is suddenly good.. I see your bias is blocking you from what is said here.
Damn! Someone went back home after that debate and ate a tall bucket of ice cream!
watch frank and michaels other debate on the subject of morality. Shermer got destroyed
And don’t forget to watch Turek vs Hitchens, too.
Frank Turek is a beast, knows how to go about this. Shermer never really answered Frank'a question,
I keep telling you guys. A lot of debates will be over once you realize the earth is flat!
The Earth being flat wouldn't change a damn thing.
Darth Bane obviously you haven’t researched it. And that’s we’re you’re wrong sir.
Right and wrong does not change ever, just because people change there views on a certain subject or issue over time doesn’t change the fact that right is right and wrong is wrong.
WLC and Lennox best sherm so bad he should have retired years ago - smirking and whining is Lawerence krausses schtick-
The same WLC who justified the slaughter of children?
@@Z4r4sz Is the slaughter of children wrong? Why? Morals?
@@dodibenabba1378 Any action without consent and especially the intentional brutally murder of people is harmful and something we dont want to inflict on others. Unless we talk about psychopaths who cant tell the difference between right and wrong and lack empathy.
Generally we dont want to be murdered and society is built around that concept. Which explains why we outlawed murder thousands of years ago (before christianity was conceived). Ironically it was the abrahamic religions that made exceptions for this rule.
"Full stop!" Shermer's wild card! ROTFL
@god slayer
And yet declaring "full stop" is NOT an argument. _So perhaps you can present an actual argument to support your claim?_
@god slayer
I'll take that as a 'no'! LOL
@god slayer
Hey, you're giving it absolutely everything you've got... which is no more than nothing. LOL
@god slayer
Do you have a good reason for saying that or are you simply unable to refute the obvious? (That's rhetorical.)
God slayer has left the building! LOL
Question dodging atheist.
Unnecessary pain is a guide to right and wrong. If it’s unnecessary and it hurts the individual or the community, then generally the concensus is it’s wrong. Humans have largely twigged this and collectively hold to this notion of right and wrong.
Shermer had no idea what to do!! What a joy to watch him fumble lol
Morality simply depends on your culture and how you were raised. There’s no way of objectively measuring it. What we consider wrong for us can be right for others and vice versa. Doesn’t mean we have to support or fight against what other people do. It’s just a fight over subjective values, after all, and you can’t prove a value to be better than another.
Error: morality has a standard, and it's objective, not subjective.
Lmaoo the guy was trying to run out the clock. He knew exactly where it was going.
Shermer couldn't answer tureks questions so he decided to start debating the audience.
If morality was grounded it wouldn’t change over time.
"full stop." such a cop out
Do you have the full video boss?
Frank needs to hear this guy and shows him where he’s wrong. In this little clip it’s like we are watching chest thumping.
FRANK THE TANK! HE CAN'T BE STOPPED
"How can you justify your view of morality?" Let me tell you guys about this cool puppet show...
Where is the full video of this debate?
Shermer is so confused about morality that he doesn’t even understand the question.
"you guys would've" ima stop you right there cause you about to make a fool of yourself
Is there a full length version?
Yup.
Why does the video cut out by the time i get into what their saying the video ends
the only people who can't justify evil are people with spiritual principles, the will say its 'wrong on principle' otherwise anything can be justified
Based on what we want? Well, that explains why he is who he is.
3:00 so Shermer agrees that his morals are nothing more than changing fashions and socially determined
You can think of reasons, but it begs why is the reason in such way that is consistent to be obligated on.
Where is the full debate
Morality comes from within the darkness
Empathy is not subjective. Corruption of morality comes from people and experience
Wow what a deflector Michael is. Answer the question
Full video?
Frank doesnt trust molecules but uses molecules to form reasoning...
Wow that last statement by Frank must have stumped the atheist guy.
To deny God is to deny yourself in many if not all ways. Frank is asking the same question here as he has asked many times before. All of those he debates, answers in a way that still leaves the question truly un-answered. If right and wrong changes over time, I personally dont see how there can be a concrete form of it at all times from beginning to end. if it changes, its because humans change their opinion of what is acceptable and what is not. government has its role in that dilemma as well. but God tells us through our soul, our not science based, non human nature based, being. Its very easy to misinterpret the Bible, but it is extremely difficult to negate its truth once you DO understand it. Frank is a good man!
I remember the past debates with Hitchens and I must admit he got the upperhand. . . Only because Hitchens didn't really come to "fight" but to use his wit to evade, parry and misdirect to survive! Kind of like how Mayweather "won" his fight against Pacquiao! Shermer exposes himself because at least he's willing to get to the nitty gritty.