We can objectively test the following moral pronouncement: 1. Killing infants is good. What happens next? People who want to do good murder infants. All infants die and society that accepts 1 ceases to exist. No more people accept 1 as true. Thus is demonstrated the evolution of morality in Humans. Our ethics have evolved over time as we have grown into larger and more complex societal structures. We have learned that cooperation in most cases is objectively better than not. We have learned that killing infants is bad in most cases. We have learned to apply tools like the “veil of ignorance” to develop better, more fair and cooperative systems. None of this is subjective.
Even in a world with a god morality is based on that god's subjectively chosen morals. This is the classic Euthyphro's dilemma: 'Does God command that which is Right/Moral/Good/True, or is Right/Moral/Good/True defined by what God commands'. The first position is to state that God commands good things because they are Right/Moral/Good/True. The major problem with this view is that it holds that there is something outside of God, over which God has no control, that is, God is not fully omnipotent. It’s also worth pointing out that taking this position denies that God is necessary for morality. The second position is to assert that what is Right/Moral/Good/True is Right/Moral/Good/True merely because God says that it is Right/Moral/Good/True. If God’s choices are arbitrary, then morality is not objective. This view holds that anything, at any time, could become good or bad. Phrases like “murder is wrong” are contingent on how God feels about any particular action. For instance, if God commands a murder, then it is a just murder. It may be that, tomorrow, God changes the rules. If God’s choices are arbitrary, then they are not rational, and there is no reason to make assumptions about what God wants. There seems to be no reason to say that it is necessary that one obey God, other than that obedience may bring reward while disobedience may bring punishment. We can have objective morality when we pick what the objective is. Like playing Chess, the rules are setup as the objective, if we agree to the rules and play the game we make moves subjectively based on the objective. Secular Humanism has "well being" as one of the Objective Moral Standards. And it is based on the classic Golden Rule (which does predate Christianity by thousands of years). You might try and come up with some extreme examples, but now is when you need to take a breath, think about it a little and see that even a purely selfish reason could still be moral when the objective is 'well being.'
Let me try to help you out - Theism & Atheism deal with belief. - Gnostic & Agnostic deal with knowledge. 4 possibilities 1 A theist that claims they know god exists is a - Gnostic theist. 2. A theist that doesn't know if god(s) exist is a - Agnostic theist. 3. A atheist that claims they know god(s) don't exists is a - Gnostic atheist. 4. A atheist that doesn't know if god(s) exist is an - Agnostic atheist
Theism and atheism themselves can be broken down, but first we need to comment on the positions of deism, pantheism, panentheism, and so forth, which should not be excluded. Proposition p, could be presented by a specific theist or could be the general concept, at least one god exists, possibly with given characteristics according to common accepted definitions of what a god is supposed to be or as provided by the theist. The theist believes the proposition as they frame it. B(p) An atheist can either not believe p, ¬B(p), or believe that it is not the case that p, B(¬p). In notation, the difference between these two is much clearer. A counterfactual can be derived to B(¬p), thus ¬B(¬p), not believing that it is not the case that at least one god, possibly with given characteristics, exists. This would be used to respond to an atheist who makes the positive claim that gods do not exist and the theist could opt to respond with the negative claim to that position rather than accepting the burden of proof. As for myself, for different propositions presented, I take both positions. Sometimes, I believe that it not the case that p. This might be because of a logical contradiction in the proposition. At other times, the theist fails to make a compelling case, and I do not believe that p. This leads into the subject of local and global atheism, where one can reject or not be convinced by specific propositions, or reject or not be convinced by the entire concept of god.
Three reasons why one (not relying on faith) should be agnostic about the claim "Jesus certainly existed". 1) The Gospels/Acts are overflowing with signs of literary fabrication. "Those who want to find a historical record in Mark face an even greater obstacle than the ambiguous evidence for Mark's literary borrowing of non-Jesus material to create Jesus stories. This obstacle is the fact that if Jesus' earthly ministry actually happened as Mark portrays it, the history of Paul's Gentile mission and the opposition it encountered would be incomprehensible. How could it be that neither Paul nor anyone who worked with him, nor his opponents, knew about Jesus' determined endorsement of a mixed community sharing table fellowship together? How is it that everyone somehow forgot that Jesus explicitly "declared all foods clean (7:19)"? In the pitched battles Paul waged against his Judaizing opponents in his epistles, any one of the many stories about Jesus' conflicts over Law observance would have been devastating evidence of the rightness of Paul's side, yet none are ever mentioned." Tom Dykstra, Mark, Canonizer of Paul, pp. 229-230 "A raft of scholars, including Randel Helms, Thomas L. Brodie, John Dominic Crossan and others, have shown again and again how this and that Gospel passage likely originated as a Christian rewrite of this or that Old Testament passage." Thomas L Thompson, Is This Not the Carpenter, pp. 113-114 "Yet, regardless of the difficulty, comparing Luke-Acts and Mark with this verifiable literary antecedent is worthwhile. A key reason is simple: in looking for a literary precedent to the Gospels there is no verifiable pre-Christian text which comes as close to any gospel as the Elijah-Elisha narrative does to Luke-Acts and Mark." Thomas Brodie, The Crucial Bridge, pp. 97 "While issues with the gospels are certainly not enough to rule out the possibility that there was a historical Jesus behind the gospel story, it also cannot be said with certainty that there must have been one. The lack of primary sources and the problems with the Gospel stories alone, would seemingly justify having some doubt." Raphael Lataster, Jesus Did Not Exist, Sources: We All Know They're Rubbish - pp. 35/73 "The use of cycles, parallels, repetitions, melodramatic characterization, stereotyped scene construction, inventing or presenting stories that replicate biblical narrative, unbalanced narrative with evident symbolic import, and a balanced structure-all these raise insurmountable objections. History cannot be quite so symmetrical. In addition there are any number of historical problems." Richard Pervo, The Mystery of Acts, pp. 151 Note: Nowhere in Acts do the authorities show concern that Jesus escaped justice. "Despite scholarly efforts to detect an underlying Aramaic original for Mark or Matthew, it is probable that all the evangelists wrote in the common (koinē) Greek of their day. Further, the vast majority of Hebrew Bible citations in the New Testament are taken from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint)." "Large sections of Matthew, Mark, and Luke repeat stories about and sayings of Jesus in nearly identical words. Hence these three Gospels are referred to as the “Synoptic” Gospels. On a linguistic level, both Luke and Matthew improve on Mark’s style, smoothing out inelegant expressions and repetitions. Luke eliminates Mark’s characteristic use of parataxis (one short phrase following another without indicating how they are related) by employing balancing particles and subordinate clauses. Matthew follows Mark’s outline, though the insertion of considerable sections of discourse material may obscure that relationship for the casual reader. Luke knows most of Mark but has no parallels to Mk 6:45-8:26; whether Luke chose to omit this section or had a different version of Mark remains unclear. Detailed analysis of the traditions shared by Matthew, Mark, and Luke provides strong support for the view that Mark provided the template that Matthew and Luke revised, both correcting and smoothing out its language and expanding the Jesus material it contained." "While the Synoptic Gospels have a close literary relationship, the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel of John, presents a much greater puzzle. Its chronology of Jesus’s ministry differs from that of the Synoptics. In John, Jesus spends three years preaching, during which he journeys between Galilee and Jerusalem; in the Synoptic Gospels, he visits Jerusalem only once, at the end of a ministry that apparently lasted less than a year." The New Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV, pp. 1380-1381 2) The earliest Xtian writings (Pauline Epistles) are odd when looked at closely. Paul is adamant that his Gospel is not from humans, but from scripture, and visions/dreams (Gal. 1:11-18, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 15:3-8). A secret hidden through the ages now revealed (Rom. 16:25-26, 1 Cor. 2:6-7). Also Paul says his apostleship is by the same means as the founding Pillars (Gal. 2:6-8). Paul's preexisting being was killed for looking like a human (Phili. 2:7), and his killers would not have killed him if they knew it was God's secret plan for mankind's salvation (1 Cor. 2:6-8). This makes more sense when looking at the Joshua/Jesus in the OT who tricks Satan and is exalted by God. Note that these verses have what can be perceived as symbolisms for flesh (dirty clothes= sinful flesh & Five Kings= Five Senses that enslaves one to sin). So Zech. 3:1-9, 6:11-13, & Jos. 10:22-27 together symbolically has a Jesus in a flesh disguise getting hung in a tree, shoved into a tomb, and exalted by God to remove guilt of the land. Zechariah 3:1-9 "1 Then he showed me the high priest Joshua (Savior) standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan (Adversary) standing at his right hand to accuse him. 2 And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?" 3 Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." And to him he said, "See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel." 5 And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the LORD was standing by. 6 Then the angel of the LORD assured Joshua, saying 7 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. 8 Now listen, Joshua, high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For they are an omen of things to come: I am going to bring my servant the Branch. 9 For on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven facets, I will engrave its inscription, says the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day." Zechariah 6:11-13 11 Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak (Savior Son of the Righteous God); 12 say to him: Thus says the LORD of hosts: Here is a man whose name is Branch: for he shall branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. 13 It is he that shall build the temple of the LORD; he shall bear royal honor, and shall sit upon his throne and rule. There shall be a priest by his throne, with peaceful understanding between the two of them." Joshua 10:22-27 "22 Then Joshua (Savior) said, "Open the mouth of the cave, and bring those five kings out to me from the cave." 23 They did so, and brought the five kings out to him from the cave, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon. 24 When they brought the kings out to Joshua, Joshua summoned all the Israelites, and said to the chiefs of the warriors who had gone with him, "Come near, put your feet on the necks of these kings." Then they came near and put their feet on their necks. (see Psa. 110:1/Heb. 10:13) 25 And Joshua said to them, "Do not be afraid or dismayed; be strong and courageous; for thus the LORD will do to all the enemies against whom you fight." 26 Afterward Joshua struck them down and put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. 27 At sunset Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves; they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day. (see also Deut. 21:22-23/Gal. 3:13)" 3) Verses held up as undeniable evidences for an historical Jesus have plausible alternative explanations. The verse Gal. 4:4b "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law," looks to have Jesus born of a woman, and is Jewish. But what Paul could mean is that "woman/law" is Divine Wisdom (Greek Sophia personified feminine wisdom/see Prov. 3:13-20, 8:1-36, Baruch 3:37, 4:1) in that Jesus was made all knowing unlike Adam. The verse Gal. 1:19 "but I did not see any other apostle except James the LORD's brother." is seen as a slam dunk for historicity. But Paul's theology is of spiritual kinship (Gal. 4:5-7) and everyone in Christ are brothers/sisters. Paul makes no distinction that this James is blood related to Jesus, and maybe "Lord's brother" is a cultic title? The verse Rom. 1:3b "who was descended from David according to the flesh" (2 Sam. 7:12) is good evidence for historicity. But 2 Sam. 7:12c "who shall come forth from your body," can mean God made a flesh body from David's semen for Jesus (it was a belief that the male seed contained the whole body). This is a convenient way to fulfill messianic prophecy for a celestial event instead of on Earth.
@@thedude0000 The anonymous author of Mark hints to the reader that it's entirely a parable in which the meaning is an inside secret (Mar 4:10-12) while referencing Isa. 6:9-10. This echoes Romans 11:7-12 (Deut. 29:4 & Psa. 69:22-23), :25-27 (Isa. 59:20, 27:9a). Some examples of the Gospels/Acts literary assemblages: Mark 1:16-17= Jer. 16:16a, Eze. 47:10a, :10c, 1 Kings 19:19-21 Mark 1:40-42= Exodus 4:6-7 Mark 2:3-5, :11= 2 Kings 1:2-4 Mark 4:37-41= Jon. 1:6, :11-17, Psa. 107:23-29 Mark 5:1-20= Isa. 65:1, :4a, Psa. 107:4-7 :10-14, 1 Kings 17:18, Psa. 78:49, Exo 14:28a Philo: In Flaccum "VI There was a certain madman named Carabbas,... this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat,..." "Mark's imitation also retains some of the distinctive traits of Odyssey, insofar as both stories place monsters in caves, grazing animals on the mountains, and neighbors at the scene. ...Finally, just as Odysseus told Polyphemus to tell others who it was who blinded him, Jesus tells the Gerasene to tell others who it was who healed him." Dennis R MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, pp. 73 Mark 6:48= Gen. 1:2c, Exo. 33:22, Job 9:8 Mark 7:28-29= 2 Kings 8:13-14 Mark 10:13-14= 2 Kings 4:26-27 Mark 11:12c-21= Hos. 9:1-17, 10:1-2, :8-10, Psa. 37:35-36a, Job 5:3, Zec. 11:2, Prov. 12:12, Eze. 19:11-14, Sira. 6:2-3, Zec. 14:21c, Isa. 56:6-8, Jere. 7:11, 8:13, 26:4-6, :8-9 "In other words, the beginning and end of the fig tree story is wrapped around (and contains within its center) the clearing of the temple. We saw Mark do this before, when he took the tale of the raising of Jairus's twelve-year-old daughter and wrapped that around a symbolically related story of the woman who had bled for twelve years. The purpose of this structure (called intercalation) is to communicate that the one story illuminates the meaning of the other. Mark uses this device repeatedly. In this case, 'the tree is a symbol of the sacrificial system whose time is now passed, hence 'it was not the season for figs' any more; therefore 'may no one eat fruit of you again'. Which finally, and perfectly, explains this strange story." Richard Carrier, OHJ, pp. 434 Mark 15:14-15 (Yom Kippur Scapegoat)= Lev. 16:7-10 (16:8=1 Cor. 5:5/Gal. 4:3, :9) Some examples of Mark being influenced by the Pauline epistles: Mark 14:51-52, 16:5= 1 Corinthians 15:47 Note: Historicists point to Mark 14:51 as an historical detail, but it's symbolism of mortal/immortal flesh. 2 Cor. 8:9= Mark 10:17-22; 1 Cor. 13:2= Mark 11:23; 1 Cor. 3:10-11= Mark 12:10-11; Rom. 13:7= Mark 12:17; Rom. 6:12-14= Mark 9:42-47; 2 Cor. 9:6-15= Mark 12:41-44; 2 Cor. 11:13-15= Mark 13:21-23; Gal. 5:13-15= Mark 12:28-34; 1 Thes. 5:4-11= Mark 13:32-37; Phil. 3:21= Mark 12:25; 1 Thes. 4:16= Mark 14:62; Gal. 2:11= Mark 8:33; Gal. 4:6= Mark 14:36; 1 Cor. 5:6-8= Mark 8:15. "They are the literary invention of the evangelists drawing on scripture and popular myth and literature." Earl Doherty, Neither God Nor Man, pp. 428 Mark has Jesus riding on a single colt/foal (young donkey). Matthew using the Septuagint (LXX) takes the prophecy in Zechariah as translated literally in that Jesus rides both a donkey and it's foal at the same time. Mark 11:7 "7 Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it; and he sat on it." Matthew 21:7 "7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them." Zechariah 9:9 "9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey." Zechariah LXX "Rejoice exceedingly, O daughter of Sion! Make proclamation, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold thy king is coming for thee. He is righteous and a saviour. He is meek and mounted on an ass, even a young colt." Jesus reads from the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew/Aramaic in Luke. Luke 4:18-19 "18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”" Isaiah 61:1-2 "The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; 2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn;" Isaiah 61:1-2 (LXX) "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; 2 to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompence; to comfort all that mourn;" John takes a parable in Luke and reverses the Lazarus theme from "neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead" in Luke to "Many... had seen what Jesus did, believed in him" in John. Also in Luke there's no mention of the sisters having a brother named Lazarus, nor does Mark, or Matthew mention him. Compare Luke 10:38-39, 16:19-23, :27-3 to John 11:1-4. :17, :38-45. The conversion of Saul of Tarsus is very fishy. Acts 9:3-8, :17-19= 2 Mac. 3:23-28, Tob. 11:7-8, :11-15a, 2 Mac. 3:34-36 Plato: Theaetetus "SOCRATES: In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, "his Truth" (a book by Protagoras) in secret to his own disciples." Philo: On the Confusion of Tongues "XXXVIII ...but to proceed onward to look at the passage in a figurative way, considering that the mere words of the scriptures are, as it were, but shadows of bodies, and that the meanings which are apparent to investigation beneath them, are the real things to be pondered upon." Plutarch: Isis & Osiris "11 Therefore, Clea, whenever you hear the traditional tales which the Egyptians tell about the gods, their wanderings, dismemberments, and many experiences of this sort, you must remember what has been already said, and you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related." "...Socrates says that the myth “would save us, if we were persuaded by it”. Myth represents a sort of back-up: if one fails to be persuaded by arguments to change one’s life, one may still be persuaded by a good myth. Myth, as it is claimed in the Laws, may be needed to “charm” one “into agreement” when philosophy fails to do so." plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-myths/ "In Paul's letters essential Christian doctrines are routinely called mysteries. The NT evinces other common vocabulary of mystery cults used with the same peculiar connotations, not just mysterion (divine secret), but teleios (mature [as higher ranking initiates]), nepios (immature [as lower ranking initiates]), skene (body [as discardable and unneeded for salvation]), epoptes (witness [to the mysteries]), etc." Richard Carrier, OHJ, pp. 97
First, if you want to talk about morality, drop the idea that it can be objective or subjective, those are not categories moral philosophy deals in. Use moral realism instead, and know that divine command theory is just on possible approach, and thus atheism can also be moral realism. Also moral relativism is just as much a valid approach just like moral anti-realism would be. And finally, moral realism doesn't need a source, and worse if you want to use a deity as a source then you have first to address the Euthyphro dilemma. Deities cannot be falsified in science, that is true, and that is exactly why they also cannot be proven to exist either, at least with science. Thus your methodology to prove a deity has to lie outside of science, and that well then it is as reasonable to prove or disprove any other fictional character. I stick with science, since I am interested in reality. But if you want to have your deities, then have fun, but don't tell me that deities are a reasonable foundation for science.
You label the video as how to discuss the topic with an atheist. Well, here I am - want to talk on my channel about it? Or I can come onto your channel. Let me know.
I can't speak for others...but for me as an atheist...morality does not have to be objective for me to follow it. Its an opinion...well...why isn't that enough? That my kid is the greatest kid ever, that my partner is the right one, that my sports team deserves to win, that my political ideas are the solution for problems, that it is a good thing if I surivive that day...all those things are objective ...but that doesn't mean that I can't put a lot of energy in them and believe them very strongly. The problem with religious morality (especially in Islam) is that it is very flexible. So fore example...If I gave you a situation and you had to judge it morally...you couldn't do that without knowing who in that situation is a muslim and who isn't. So...in general...in most religions...if the people who have religion X do it...it is considered good and righteous and gods will...if people of religion Y (which isn't yours) do it its wrong and despicable. Those moral double standards become obvious if we look at how religions treated religious freedom. It is BAD if someone restricts your freedoms. I agree. Everyone should execute and promote and spread his religion (unless it breaks serious laws). But do YOU agree with that? If yes...than you could show how moral you are and protest every single muslim government who does not grant religious freedom to all religions...the same way you want to have religious freedoms in countries were muslims are not the majority. THAT would be a clear demonstration of superior morals...fighting for it...even if you do not benefit. But I see that not very often..so excuse me if I have my doubts that religion (no matter which one) are a good moral guideline or a path to create a better society in the long run.
Well, I don't think you know many Atheist if you actually believe we determine our morals from cultural norms. My morals are based on subjective principles, which I have many, but due to limited space on comments I will give you an example of one of my core principals for forming my morals. I use the golden rule- do unto others as you would want others to do unto you. Please note this is not my only principal, but it is an important one. Now using this principal let me demonstrate how I can determine if my actions are objectively moral or immoral. You mentioned segregation, which I would not be OK with and would be objectively immoral based on my core principals of the golden rule. I wouldn't want to be segregated so it would be objectively immoral for me to segregate others. This really isn't hard, no god required, just logic and reasoning here. So, yeah, the law isn't always moral and neither are social constructs, but using subjective principals for determining our morals, and logic and reasoning we can all be more moral persons. Peace.
If "god" is a thinking agent and morality comes from this god, that morality is subjected to the opinions of said god. Therefore, religious morality is not any more objective than secular morality
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
We can objectively test the following moral pronouncement:
1. Killing infants is good.
What happens next? People who want to do good murder infants. All infants die and society that accepts 1 ceases to exist. No more people accept 1 as true.
Thus is demonstrated the evolution of morality in Humans. Our ethics have evolved over time as we have grown into larger and more complex societal structures. We have learned that cooperation in most cases is objectively better than not. We have learned that killing infants is bad in most cases. We have learned to apply tools like the “veil of ignorance” to develop better, more fair and cooperative systems.
None of this is subjective.
Even in a world with a god morality is based on that god's subjectively chosen morals. This is the classic Euthyphro's dilemma: 'Does God command that which is Right/Moral/Good/True, or is Right/Moral/Good/True defined by what God commands'.
The first position is to state that God commands good things because they are Right/Moral/Good/True. The major problem with this view is that it holds that there is something outside of God, over which God has no control, that is, God is not fully omnipotent. It’s also worth pointing out that taking this position denies that God is necessary for morality.
The second position is to assert that what is Right/Moral/Good/True is Right/Moral/Good/True merely because God says that it is Right/Moral/Good/True. If God’s choices are arbitrary, then morality is not objective. This view holds that anything, at any time, could become good or bad. Phrases like “murder is wrong” are contingent on how God feels about any particular action. For instance, if God commands a murder, then it is a just murder. It may be that, tomorrow, God changes the rules. If God’s choices are arbitrary, then they are not rational, and there is no reason to make assumptions about what God wants. There seems to be no reason to say that it is necessary that one obey God, other than that obedience may bring reward while disobedience may bring punishment.
We can have objective morality when we pick what the objective is. Like playing Chess, the rules are setup as the objective, if we agree to the rules and play the game we make moves subjectively based on the objective.
Secular Humanism has "well being" as one of the Objective Moral Standards. And it is based on the classic Golden Rule (which does predate Christianity by thousands of years). You might try and come up with some extreme examples, but now is when you need to take a breath, think about it a little and see that even a purely selfish reason could still be moral when the objective is 'well being.'
Let me try to help you out
- Theism & Atheism deal with belief.
- Gnostic & Agnostic deal with knowledge.
4 possibilities
1 A theist that claims they know god exists is a - Gnostic theist.
2. A theist that doesn't know if god(s) exist is a - Agnostic theist.
3. A atheist that claims they know god(s) don't exists is a - Gnostic atheist.
4. A atheist that doesn't know if god(s) exist is an - Agnostic atheist
Theism and atheism themselves can be broken down, but first we need to comment on the positions of deism, pantheism, panentheism, and so forth, which should not be excluded.
Proposition p, could be presented by a specific theist or could be the general concept, at least one god exists, possibly with given characteristics according to common accepted definitions of what a god is supposed to be or as provided by the theist. The theist believes the proposition as they frame it.
B(p)
An atheist can either not believe p, ¬B(p), or believe that it is not the case that p, B(¬p). In notation, the difference between these two is much clearer.
A counterfactual can be derived to B(¬p), thus ¬B(¬p), not believing that it is not the case that at least one god, possibly with given characteristics, exists. This would be used to respond to an atheist who makes the positive claim that gods do not exist and the theist could opt to respond with the negative claim to that position rather than accepting the burden of proof.
As for myself, for different propositions presented, I take both positions. Sometimes, I believe that it not the case that p. This might be because of a logical contradiction in the proposition. At other times, the theist fails to make a compelling case, and I do not believe that p. This leads into the subject of local and global atheism, where one can reject or not be convinced by specific propositions, or reject or not be convinced by the entire concept of god.
Is owning another human being objectively immoral?
Three reasons why one (not relying on faith) should be agnostic about the claim "Jesus certainly existed".
1) The Gospels/Acts are overflowing with signs of literary fabrication.
"Those who want to find a historical record in Mark face an even greater obstacle than the ambiguous evidence for Mark's literary borrowing of non-Jesus material to create Jesus stories. This obstacle is the fact that if Jesus' earthly ministry actually happened as Mark portrays it, the history of Paul's Gentile mission and the opposition it encountered would be incomprehensible. How could it be that neither Paul nor anyone who worked with him, nor his opponents, knew about Jesus' determined endorsement of a mixed community sharing table fellowship together? How is it that everyone somehow forgot that Jesus explicitly "declared all foods clean (7:19)"? In the pitched battles Paul waged against his Judaizing opponents in his epistles, any one of the many stories about Jesus' conflicts over Law observance would have been devastating evidence of the rightness of Paul's side, yet none are ever mentioned."
Tom Dykstra, Mark, Canonizer of Paul, pp. 229-230
"A raft of scholars, including Randel Helms, Thomas L. Brodie, John Dominic Crossan and others, have shown again and again how this and that Gospel passage likely originated as a Christian rewrite of this or that Old Testament passage."
Thomas L Thompson, Is This Not the Carpenter, pp. 113-114
"Yet, regardless of the difficulty, comparing Luke-Acts and Mark with this verifiable literary antecedent is worthwhile. A key reason is simple: in looking for a literary precedent to the Gospels there is no verifiable pre-Christian text which comes as close to any gospel as the Elijah-Elisha narrative does to Luke-Acts and Mark."
Thomas Brodie, The Crucial Bridge, pp. 97
"While issues with the gospels are certainly not enough to rule out the possibility that there was a historical Jesus behind the gospel story, it also cannot be said with certainty that there must have been one. The lack of primary sources and the problems with the Gospel stories alone, would seemingly justify having some doubt."
Raphael Lataster, Jesus Did Not Exist, Sources: We All Know They're Rubbish - pp. 35/73
"The use of cycles, parallels, repetitions, melodramatic characterization, stereotyped scene construction, inventing or presenting stories that replicate biblical narrative, unbalanced narrative with evident symbolic import, and a balanced structure-all these raise insurmountable objections. History cannot be quite so symmetrical. In addition there are any number of historical problems."
Richard Pervo, The Mystery of Acts, pp. 151
Note: Nowhere in Acts do the authorities show concern that Jesus escaped justice.
"Despite scholarly efforts to detect an underlying Aramaic original for Mark or Matthew, it is probable that all the evangelists wrote in the common (koinē) Greek of their day. Further, the vast majority of Hebrew Bible citations in the New Testament are taken from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint)."
"Large sections of Matthew, Mark, and Luke repeat stories about and sayings of Jesus in nearly identical words. Hence these three Gospels are referred to as the “Synoptic” Gospels. On a linguistic level, both Luke and Matthew improve on Mark’s style, smoothing out inelegant expressions and repetitions. Luke eliminates Mark’s characteristic use of parataxis (one short phrase following another without indicating how they are related) by employing balancing particles and subordinate clauses. Matthew follows Mark’s outline, though the insertion of considerable sections of discourse material may obscure that relationship for the casual reader. Luke knows most of Mark but has no parallels to Mk 6:45-8:26; whether Luke chose to omit this section or had a different version of Mark remains unclear. Detailed analysis of the traditions shared by Matthew, Mark, and Luke provides strong support for the view that Mark provided the template that Matthew and Luke revised, both correcting and smoothing out its language and expanding the Jesus material it contained."
"While the Synoptic Gospels have a close literary relationship, the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel of John, presents a much greater puzzle. Its chronology of Jesus’s ministry differs from that of the Synoptics. In John, Jesus spends three years preaching, during which he journeys between Galilee and Jerusalem; in the Synoptic Gospels, he visits Jerusalem only once, at the end of a ministry that apparently lasted less than a year."
The New Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV, pp. 1380-1381
2) The earliest Xtian writings (Pauline Epistles) are odd when looked at closely. Paul is adamant that his Gospel is not from humans, but from scripture, and visions/dreams (Gal. 1:11-18, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 15:3-8). A secret hidden through the ages now revealed (Rom. 16:25-26, 1 Cor. 2:6-7). Also Paul says his apostleship is by the same means as the founding Pillars (Gal. 2:6-8). Paul's preexisting being was killed for looking like a human (Phili. 2:7), and his killers would not have killed him if they knew it was God's secret plan for mankind's salvation (1 Cor. 2:6-8). This makes more sense when looking at the Joshua/Jesus in the OT who tricks Satan and is exalted by God. Note that these verses have what can be perceived as symbolisms for flesh (dirty clothes= sinful flesh & Five Kings= Five Senses that enslaves one to sin). So Zech. 3:1-9, 6:11-13, & Jos. 10:22-27 together symbolically has a Jesus in a flesh disguise getting hung in a tree, shoved into a tomb, and exalted by God to remove guilt of the land.
Zechariah 3:1-9
"1 Then he showed me the high priest Joshua (Savior) standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan (Adversary) standing at his right hand to accuse him. 2 And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?" 3 Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." And to him he said, "See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel." 5 And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the LORD was standing by.
6 Then the angel of the LORD assured Joshua, saying 7 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. 8 Now listen, Joshua, high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For they are an omen of things to come: I am going to bring my servant the Branch. 9 For on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven facets, I will engrave its inscription, says the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day."
Zechariah 6:11-13
11 Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak (Savior Son of the Righteous God); 12 say to him: Thus says the LORD of hosts: Here is a man whose name is Branch: for he shall branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. 13 It is he that shall build the temple of the LORD; he shall bear royal honor, and shall sit upon his throne and rule. There shall be a priest by his throne, with peaceful understanding between the two of them."
Joshua 10:22-27
"22 Then Joshua (Savior) said, "Open the mouth of the cave, and bring those five kings out to me from the cave." 23 They did so, and brought the five kings out to him from the cave, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon. 24 When they brought the kings out to Joshua, Joshua summoned all the Israelites, and said to the chiefs of the warriors who had gone with him, "Come near, put your feet on the necks of these kings." Then they came near and put their feet on their necks. (see Psa. 110:1/Heb. 10:13) 25 And Joshua said to them, "Do not be afraid or dismayed; be strong and courageous; for thus the LORD will do to all the enemies against whom you fight." 26 Afterward Joshua struck them down and put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. 27 At sunset Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves; they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day. (see also Deut. 21:22-23/Gal. 3:13)"
3) Verses held up as undeniable evidences for an historical Jesus have plausible alternative explanations. The verse Gal. 4:4b "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law," looks to have Jesus born of a woman, and is Jewish. But what Paul could mean is that "woman/law" is Divine Wisdom (Greek Sophia personified feminine wisdom/see Prov. 3:13-20, 8:1-36, Baruch 3:37, 4:1) in that Jesus was made all knowing unlike Adam. The verse Gal. 1:19 "but I did not see any other apostle except James the LORD's brother." is seen as a slam dunk for historicity. But Paul's theology is of spiritual kinship (Gal. 4:5-7) and everyone in Christ are brothers/sisters. Paul makes no distinction that this James is blood related to Jesus, and maybe "Lord's brother" is a cultic title? The verse Rom. 1:3b "who was descended from David according to the flesh" (2 Sam. 7:12) is good evidence for historicity. But 2 Sam. 7:12c "who shall come forth from your body," can mean God made a flesh body from David's semen for Jesus (it was a belief that the male seed contained the whole body). This is a convenient way to fulfill messianic prophecy for a celestial event instead of on Earth.
@@bleirdo_dude No clue whatsoever as to why you responded to my question with that wall of text.
@@thedude0000 The anonymous author of Mark hints to the reader that it's entirely a parable in which the meaning is an inside secret (Mar 4:10-12) while referencing Isa. 6:9-10. This echoes Romans 11:7-12 (Deut. 29:4 & Psa. 69:22-23), :25-27 (Isa. 59:20, 27:9a).
Some examples of the Gospels/Acts literary assemblages:
Mark 1:16-17= Jer. 16:16a, Eze. 47:10a, :10c, 1 Kings 19:19-21
Mark 1:40-42= Exodus 4:6-7
Mark 2:3-5, :11= 2 Kings 1:2-4
Mark 4:37-41= Jon. 1:6, :11-17, Psa. 107:23-29
Mark 5:1-20= Isa. 65:1, :4a, Psa. 107:4-7 :10-14, 1 Kings 17:18, Psa. 78:49, Exo 14:28a
Philo: In Flaccum
"VI There was a certain madman named Carabbas,... this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat,..."
"Mark's imitation also retains some of the distinctive traits of Odyssey, insofar as both stories place monsters in caves, grazing animals on the mountains, and neighbors at the scene. ...Finally, just as Odysseus told Polyphemus to tell others who it was who blinded him, Jesus tells the Gerasene to tell others who it was who healed him."
Dennis R MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, pp. 73
Mark 6:48= Gen. 1:2c, Exo. 33:22, Job 9:8
Mark 7:28-29= 2 Kings 8:13-14
Mark 10:13-14= 2 Kings 4:26-27
Mark 11:12c-21= Hos. 9:1-17, 10:1-2, :8-10, Psa. 37:35-36a, Job 5:3, Zec. 11:2, Prov. 12:12, Eze. 19:11-14, Sira. 6:2-3, Zec. 14:21c, Isa. 56:6-8, Jere. 7:11, 8:13, 26:4-6, :8-9
"In other words, the beginning and end of the fig tree story is wrapped around (and contains within its center) the clearing of the temple. We saw Mark do this before, when he took the tale of the raising of Jairus's twelve-year-old daughter and wrapped that around a symbolically related story of the woman who had bled for twelve years. The purpose of this structure (called intercalation) is to communicate that the one story illuminates the meaning of the other. Mark uses this device repeatedly. In this case, 'the tree is a symbol of the sacrificial system whose time is now passed, hence 'it was not the season for figs' any more; therefore 'may no one eat fruit of you again'. Which finally, and perfectly, explains this strange story."
Richard Carrier, OHJ, pp. 434
Mark 15:14-15 (Yom Kippur Scapegoat)= Lev. 16:7-10 (16:8=1 Cor. 5:5/Gal. 4:3, :9)
Some examples of Mark being influenced by the Pauline epistles:
Mark 14:51-52, 16:5= 1 Corinthians 15:47 Note: Historicists point to Mark 14:51 as an historical detail, but it's symbolism of mortal/immortal flesh.
2 Cor. 8:9= Mark 10:17-22; 1 Cor. 13:2= Mark 11:23; 1 Cor. 3:10-11= Mark 12:10-11; Rom. 13:7= Mark 12:17; Rom. 6:12-14= Mark 9:42-47; 2 Cor. 9:6-15= Mark 12:41-44; 2 Cor. 11:13-15= Mark 13:21-23; Gal. 5:13-15= Mark 12:28-34; 1 Thes. 5:4-11= Mark 13:32-37; Phil. 3:21= Mark 12:25; 1 Thes. 4:16= Mark 14:62; Gal. 2:11= Mark 8:33; Gal. 4:6= Mark 14:36; 1 Cor. 5:6-8= Mark 8:15.
"They are the literary invention of the evangelists drawing on scripture and popular myth and literature."
Earl Doherty, Neither God Nor Man, pp. 428
Mark has Jesus riding on a single colt/foal (young donkey). Matthew using the Septuagint (LXX) takes the prophecy in Zechariah as translated literally in that Jesus rides both a donkey and it's foal at the same time.
Mark 11:7 "7 Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it; and he sat on it."
Matthew 21:7 "7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them."
Zechariah 9:9
"9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey."
Zechariah LXX
"Rejoice exceedingly, O daughter of Sion! Make proclamation, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold thy king is coming for thee. He is righteous and a saviour. He is meek and mounted on an ass, even a young colt."
Jesus reads from the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew/Aramaic in Luke.
Luke 4:18-19
"18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”"
Isaiah 61:1-2
"The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; 2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn;"
Isaiah 61:1-2 (LXX)
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; 2 to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompence; to comfort all that mourn;"
John takes a parable in Luke and reverses the Lazarus theme from "neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead" in Luke to "Many... had seen what Jesus did, believed in him" in John. Also in Luke there's no mention of the sisters having a brother named Lazarus, nor does Mark, or Matthew mention him. Compare Luke 10:38-39, 16:19-23, :27-3 to John 11:1-4. :17, :38-45.
The conversion of Saul of Tarsus is very fishy.
Acts 9:3-8, :17-19= 2 Mac. 3:23-28, Tob. 11:7-8, :11-15a, 2 Mac. 3:34-36
Plato: Theaetetus
"SOCRATES: In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, "his Truth" (a book by Protagoras) in secret to his own disciples."
Philo: On the Confusion of Tongues
"XXXVIII ...but to proceed onward to look at the passage in a figurative way, considering that the mere words of the scriptures are, as it were, but shadows of bodies, and that the meanings which are apparent to investigation beneath them, are the real things to be pondered upon."
Plutarch: Isis & Osiris
"11 Therefore, Clea, whenever you hear the traditional tales which the Egyptians tell about the gods, their wanderings, dismemberments, and many experiences of this sort, you must remember what has been already said, and you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related."
"...Socrates says that the myth “would save us, if we were persuaded by it”. Myth represents a sort of back-up: if one fails to be persuaded by arguments to change one’s life, one may still be persuaded by a good myth. Myth, as it is claimed in the Laws, may be needed to “charm” one “into agreement” when philosophy fails to do so."
plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-myths/
"In Paul's letters essential Christian doctrines are routinely called mysteries. The NT evinces other common vocabulary of mystery cults used with the same peculiar connotations, not just mysterion (divine secret), but teleios (mature [as higher ranking initiates]), nepios (immature [as lower ranking initiates]), skene (body [as discardable and unneeded for salvation]), epoptes (witness [to the mysteries]), etc."
Richard Carrier, OHJ, pp. 97
@@bleirdo_dude Again, that has nothing to do with my question.
1. Establish morality is objective
2. ...
3. Profit.
First, if you want to talk about morality, drop the idea that it can be objective or subjective, those are not categories moral philosophy deals in. Use moral realism instead, and know that divine command theory is just on possible approach, and thus atheism can also be moral realism. Also moral relativism is just as much a valid approach just like moral anti-realism would be. And finally, moral realism doesn't need a source, and worse if you want to use a deity as a source then you have first to address the Euthyphro dilemma.
Deities cannot be falsified in science, that is true, and that is exactly why they also cannot be proven to exist either, at least with science. Thus your methodology to prove a deity has to lie outside of science, and that well then it is as reasonable to prove or disprove any other fictional character. I stick with science, since I am interested in reality. But if you want to have your deities, then have fun, but don't tell me that deities are a reasonable foundation for science.
You label the video as how to discuss the topic with an atheist. Well, here I am - want to talk on my channel about it? Or I can come onto your channel. Let me know.
Add english subtitles please
I can't speak for others...but for me as an atheist...morality does not have to be objective for me to follow it.
Its an opinion...well...why isn't that enough?
That my kid is the greatest kid ever, that my partner is the right one, that my sports team deserves to win, that my political ideas are the solution for problems, that it is a good thing if I surivive that day...all those things are objective ...but that doesn't mean that I can't put a lot of energy in them and believe them very strongly.
The problem with religious morality (especially in Islam) is that it is very flexible.
So fore example...If I gave you a situation and you had to judge it morally...you couldn't do that without knowing who in that situation is a muslim and who isn't. So...in general...in most religions...if the people who have religion X do it...it is considered good and righteous and gods will...if people of religion Y (which isn't yours) do it its wrong and despicable.
Those moral double standards become obvious if we look at how religions treated religious freedom.
It is BAD if someone restricts your freedoms. I agree. Everyone should execute and promote and spread his religion (unless it breaks serious laws). But do YOU agree with that?
If yes...than you could show how moral you are and protest every single muslim government who does not grant religious freedom to all religions...the same way you want to have religious freedoms in countries were muslims are not the majority. THAT would be a clear demonstration of superior morals...fighting for it...even if you do not benefit. But I see that not very often..so excuse me if I have my doubts that religion (no matter which one) are a good moral guideline or a path to create a better society in the long run.
Well, I don't think you know many Atheist if you actually believe we determine our morals from cultural norms. My morals are based on subjective principles, which I have many, but due to limited space on comments I will give you an example of one of my core principals for forming my morals. I use the golden rule- do unto others as you would want others to do unto you. Please note this is not my only principal, but it is an important one. Now using this principal let me demonstrate how I can determine if my actions are objectively moral or immoral.
You mentioned segregation, which I would not be OK with and would be objectively immoral based on my core principals of the golden rule. I wouldn't want to be segregated so it would be objectively immoral for me to segregate others. This really isn't hard, no god required, just logic and reasoning here. So, yeah, the law isn't always moral and neither are social constructs, but using subjective principals for determining our morals, and logic and reasoning we can all be more moral persons.
Peace.
If "god" is a thinking agent and morality comes from this god, that morality is subjected to the opinions of said god. Therefore, religious morality is not any more objective than secular morality
I love self-righteous know it alls. You don't get to decide what atheists think.
Neither do atheists, apparently
@@DawahDigital whats that mean?
@@goozfrabah579 exactly.
@@DawahDigital are you Athiest?
@@goozfrabah579 nope!
Of course I can't prove god doesn't exist. But I'm not the one one making a claim, so I'm not the one with a burden of proof.