Steps to an objective morality: Step 1 - Subjectively decide there is a god Step 2 - Subjectively decide which god to believe in Step 3 - Subjectively decide what that god does and does not want us to do Boom! I now have an objective morality!
𝗔𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗡𝗶𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺 Premise 1: Atheism disbelieves gods. Therefore gods are no basis for moral claims. Premise 2: Atheism disbelieves all a priori moral transcendentals. (e.g. Dao, Dharma, Divine Logos) Premise 3: Hume's guillotine refutes all moral claims derived from observable facts. Premise 4: Death/Entropy negates all moral claims derived from consequences. Soon, no one will care what you did. Premise 5: There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with changing or losing interest in one’s values. Value judgements are NOT actually moral claims, but mere opinions or preferences. Premise 6: Whereas no basis for moral claims remain, Moral Nihilism is the only Atheism that is sufficiently rational to reject moral claims. Conclusion: Moral Nihilism is the only rational outlook for Atheism.
I find a flaw with premise number 4. Just because one day no one will care what you did, doesn't mean that what you do now doesn't matter or affect other people. Your actions have consequences in the present moment regardless of whether or not they will have consequences when you are dead or when the universe is gone. So premise 4 is stupid. Because we as human beings actually care about other human beings in the present. Whether or not it matters an eternity from now is irrelevant
@@I12Db8U I'm not sure that I agree with Premise 3. It's not clear that Hume actually refutes all moral claims. Rather that he was pointing out a potential fallacy in moral philosophy that needs to be recognized. This doesn't refute all moral claims but seeks to clarify them. Secondly, premise 6 suggests that Moral Nihilism is a form of Atheism, which it is not. I feel that this premise adds a touch of circularity to your syllogism. (Although I'm having difficulty identifying it exactly). It's an interesting argument nonetheless but I don't think I can come along for the ride.
@@I12Db8U1.) Gods aren't dismissed as a basis for moral claims just because we don't believe in them, their character is almost always that of a total piece of shit, an absolute monster, or an uncaring dickhole. There are plenty of reasons why the gods humans have made up aren't good for building morality off of. 2.) Atheists don't all disbelieve all a priori moral trancendentals. You're making the mistake of thinking atheists inherently _have to_ reject all spiritual claims, and we don't. Not believing in any gods makes us an atheist, nothing more. Daoism and Buddhism, for example, don't include gods in their beliefs, so atheists can be a part of those religions and still be atheists. Any point you make from this point will surely be wrong since premises are built upon each other, but let's continue because you probably fucked up this logic anyways. 3.) Hume's guillotine has absolutely nothing to do with observation, it is a fallacy that arises when one claims that what ought be is dictated by what is. Like, "We don't currently have laws that make it illegal for a robot to kill a human, so we don't ever need to make those laws." or "We don't currently regulate the amount of water a person can buy in a year, so we'll never need to do so." That isn't what's happening when we use observation to inform our morality. If we look at humans starving and we think about how much we would hate to starve, we've used basic observation to add "We should feed the hungry" to our moral system. You're incorrectly applying that informal rule. 4.) This premise is just outright bullshit. Morality doesn't take time or death into account, at least not the morality of any honest person. Murdering your mother doesn't become moral just because twenty years pass or some shit. Humans live in societies and actions consequences don't magically end the second you die, so morality isn't negated by death. If you kill your entire family and then yourself, that still creates a ripple effect that continues after your death, meaning the moral implications continue as well. This premise is really just outright stupid. 5.) Sure, doesn't even need to be said, it literally can't have any bearing on the argument you're making. 6.) You've built this on a pile of totally incorrect dog shit, so if course the conclusion is completely illogical. Your premises are also supposed to build on each other, Einstein, not be a bunch of unrelated assertions. You can't declare that all other forms of creating a moral system are destroyed just because you named like three of them, but especially when your arguments fall flat immediately. Your conclusion is just your last premise, and it's still wrong. As I already stated atheists don't have to reject spiritual beliefs, at all, which is the only fact needed to dismantle your entire argument. You'd have to prove that Buddhism, Daoism, and every other atheistic religions don't and can't have moral systems to even start making your argument valid. Try harder next time.
Such is the fate of those that have made an irrational conclusion and then seek out to cherry pick or skew all arguments in an attempt to prove their conclusion rather than to examine the evidence and follow where it leads without bias.
If there is a god, the fault lies with him. He doesn't reveal himself. We were told everything we needed to know is in a book, which doesn't tell us anything. If there is a god, he is sadistic.
@ It's a work in progress, to paraphrase Hitch "we're getting closer to the truth number all the time" started with many gods and now most of us have just one(kind of a god of the gaps) and as soon as we get the" Creation" right it'll be zero.
@@mdaniel202 Hitch is a paradox. Atheism now had a phrofit; not only are we down to one God, but how often do you hear "but that's the old testament". So not only have we came down to one God but we can even drop half of that God. So it has been foretold =)
"The problem with atheistic morality is that it isn't based on anything objective." "OK, what is theistic morality based on?" "A book some people wrote a couple thousand years ago." "Awesome. Thanks for playing."
All morality is based on God. Atheists will tell you that morality is based on popularity. They have made abortion more popular than any kind of behavior that existed before their promotion of this practice. If you have an unwanted child, kill it by abortion. Then their entire philosophy otherwise is production of unwanted children through promotion of pornography, fornication, adultery, with homosexuals held up as the ideal model for the family. God never sinned. Jesus Christ never sinned. Atheists claim that God is a mass murderer who is responsible for the deaths of everyone who dies. So, as with all other accusations, there will have to be a judgment with regard to this one. John 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, so also the Son quickeneth whom he will. 22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son. So after atheists are raised from the dead, they will go to Jesus Christ and say, We do not really believe you exist, but since all judgment is committed to you, we are presenting these accusations that the Father is an imaginary mass murderer. I do not believe that accusation is going to go any further because atheists are going to be informed that all people who lived on earth , including children killed by abortion, have been resurrected, and atheists are the last to receive this free gift given through the atonement of Christ. Atheists actually do have souls, even though they spend their mortal lives trying to be like Satan, who does not have a soul. The body and the spirit are the soul of man, and the resurrection of the dead is the redemption of the soul.
Buddhism is founded on the four Noble truths the last one is morals, wisdom and concentration. Buddhism is not a theology. So 2500 years with nontheist morality.
23:00 "I'm not sure about about Zeus and Thor because those are lower case g gods" Zack, if I were you I'd stay indoors a while to avoid the lightening bolts coming your way.
Love this video! I hope Zack went back and watched a few times to see exactly how many times he agreed, then immediately started his refuted objections all over again. I also love the King Crimson lyric reference at the end!
"Atheistic morality doesn't have its roots in anything objective." This may shock Zack, but neither does theistic morality. Basing your morality on imaginary gods is not objective.
I liked Matt's analogy about the game of chess because it can be applied in so many different ways. I have to admit though, I'm getting a bit jaded with the way that Matt dominates the conversation whenever he is on. It's like He's the star and everyone else are there to support him. Jen, speak up. You have as much to say as Matt and then some.
The “is/ought” dilemma is solved (or perhaps corrected) by adding an “if”, making it “is/if/ought”. E.g.: 1. Running is faster than walking 2. If your goal is to get from point A to point B as fast as possible, then running is the better option 3. Therefore, you ought to run rather than walk to achieve your goal.
I don't get why people insist that morality comes from God/religion. When I ask them for examples of what they think their particular brand of belief brings to the party - their moral USP's - they can't give one which either: - didn't already exist *before* their god popped along (especially when it comes to mono-theism which nicked a whole load of stuff from the Romans) - hasn't since been challenged, modified, overturned or otherwise reversed by 350 years of *reason*. It must be me……
I agree with you. Even if a God exists there is no reason to assume that such a being has to be good, but that brings me to another train of thought lets say the whole bible thing is true how would we as mere mortals if confronted by Satan or a demon pretending to be a God based on the power that entity would have surely we would be convinced that they were in fact God. Furthermore how can Christians determine that Jesus wasn't such a demon.
And they don't with the weakest arguments out there. It's like crappy engineers shoring up a submerged bridge support with the weakest materials, like fine grain sand, in a river with strong current, it's futile.
IF there was a god, the evidence would be over powering and undeniable. But you theists claim itty bitty threads of nothing, trying to prove your god exists.
I liked it better when Carl Sagan said it, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Or when LaPlace said it, "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness" Or when Hume said it, "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence" Or when Marcello Truzzi said it, "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof"
@@anadawaween If there were evidence, that would make everyone believe in God, it would be overpowering and undeniable. As if it were anything else, it wouldn't be very good evidence.
@Please Complete All Fields because it has nothing to do with the claimed god or worship, it has always been about money and power.... in essence, controlling people.
Great discussion of the is/ought dilemma, where Matt suggests that the selection of well being is an objective basis of morality. I like to take it a step further back, to say that our existence as individual, physical beings, with thinking minds on which we rely for our existence, is the basis for saying that our basis for morality is in well being, because it's demonstratable.
I remember when I was a Christian kid I was afraid of writing god in lower case. I now realize that I was so brainwashed. I do understand how it is extremely difficult for some Christians to come to the conclusions that Matt presents. They have erroneous rationalization about basic questions, such as the ones presented in this show.
I will sometimes go out of my way to word sentences so that I use the lower-case 'g' god instead of the proper noun because I know it bothers some people. For example, I will say "the Christian god" instead of "God". I know it bothers religious people, and I usually only bother arguing with religious people if they're being obnoxious, so they deserve to be bothered. :)
@Please Complete All Fields The reason God is capitalized in English is because it is the English name for Yahweh. Proper nouns are capitalized. That name is the same word that the English used to refer to all of their pagan gods before they Christianized, so they made that a proper noun when they adopted the new one. Any capitalization is due to grammar rules, not special respect or reverence. Of course, there are people who THINK it's because of respect and reverence, and those are the people I troll when I arrange my sentences to use the generic noun instead of the proper noun.
His issue was that he was trying to say “what do we do about the people who won’t care about a common foundation, well being or the ‘winning the chess game’; therefore becoming a conflict and threat to well being?” without saying that outright.
Sure, and that's not a problem with atheistic morality because you have the same problem with theistic morality. So it's a problem with morality, not atheistic morality. Just like every damn objection theists raise about atheistic morality.
Having listened to way too many of these episodes, I have come to the conclusion that there are a few people who call in repeatedly under different assumed names and locations. Too many of them have identical vocal and verbal patterns. Also, many of them don't remotely sound like they live in the regions from which they claim to be calling; they sound like hipster slackers affecting the verbal tics of their philosophy professors.
Sometimes I feel sorry (but not much) for folks that spend soooo much time developing a "fool proof" argument, only to be derailed in a matter of minutes with a few simple questions. Lesson to learn? Speak to people outside of your bubble first. Lesson ever learned? Not that we have seen.
It just falls down to people not understanding what empirical evidence is. They almost universally start with treating something as indisputable proof that isn't any such thing or think because X therefore Y. i.e. Theres evidence Jesus existed! Ok great, how does that prove he was the son of a God, performed miracles etc. etc. By that logic Islam is true because Mohammed existed.....
@@chartle1 why do they moderate? Aren't they suppose to be awesome? I'm losing respect for these people. I guess I'll just have to find Cthulhu as my religion. Fuck Christianity, Fuck Atheism, Cthulhu is the only God to serve... Seriously though these people suck for disabling comments
I think they've gone back to enabling comments on You Tube due to the fact that fans simply did not flock to the AXP blogs like they thought they would. I, for one, am glad the comment sections are back open again. There were some pretty good discussions to be found there. :-)
Zack, _IF_ a god actually exists, _and_ that god proclaims X, Y, or Z to be "moral", that is not objective. That is subjective, with that god being the subject. It only becomes objective for humanity once humanity *agrees to use that god's proclamation as their target goal.* But the problem is, you have the same exact formula for Secular Morality: It only becomes objective for humanity once humanity *agrees to use well-being as their target goal.* Both cases have no inherently objective foundation.
~ It is most interesting to hear in many, including this one, of these fascinating videos, supposedly intelligent people throwing around words and never actually saying anything. SMH but still I am compelled to listen... Cheers, DAVEDJ ~
Ask him if he cares about well being, for himself, for his friends. Never mind metaphysics, does he care? Yes, the foundation is subjective emotion. We care about well being, emotionally. We are programmed that way. Our social contracts are just a bunch of us that got together and hammered out rules to improve our well being. What is so hard about that? Why does it have to go deeper? The hard part is getting the rules right.
I think the real issue here is that Zack accepts that we have to agree that we care about well-being in order to use it as a basis for morality but, when it comes to god, he seems to think that god just IS the basis and there is no agreement required. Assuming that Zack's god exists, it is a fact that that god wants human beings to behave in a particular way. That doesn't tell me why I OUGHT to behave that way. If you want to say that I ought to because I'll go to hell otherwise then we're right back to well-being. Basically, they're just saying that we should do what god wants because god says so and we should care what god wants because they said so. Fuck them.
I think the reason Zack kept going in circles is because he couldn't get over the IS part. It seems he's operating from the assumption that objective morality requires an absolute or objective IS to start with otherwise it's not objective. He kept coming back to it even though he agreed with Matt that once you agree on the subjective goal, then objective assessments can be made. It doesn't seem enough for him though, he needs the foundation to be something that isn't a subjective goal or morality can't actually be, and I suspect that's the religious assumptions doing the talking. It's like if you were raised to believe that the sun went around the earth, then someone tried to explain how it's the other way around. How hard would it be to conceptualize something that is not what you've always thought to be true?
Zack is one of those people who like to keep talking long after he realizes he’s wrong and that he has nothing intelligent to say. The entire point of his call was to show off his ignorance of the Euthypro Dilemma.🙈
I'm with Matt on this one, repetition is the key, one day it'll click for him. It just won't register but if he can open up his mind enough he will understand the dilemma.
Hasn't Matt gotten familiar with "Mark from Stone Church"?!? o.O This guy has played the Poe on so many different occasions it's astounding they all don't know his regular voice and all of his bad accents.
Theistic reasoning...there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the world....but there's only one star with life on it, just so that the Hebrew war god could pull off a plan to rescue a minority of earth humans from the consequences of his own hatred.
This demonstrates yet another instance where theists equivocate and jump back and forth between definitions to suit themselves. Zack claims that "good" is synonymous with "god". That's OK if they want to do that but there are two issues. Firstly, if their god doesn't exist, that means that good, as they define it, doesn't exist. In that case, the word "good" is available for use in some other context. It's that other context that we atheists use it in. Secondly, theists use it in that other context too. For instance, I'd wager that Zack and most people he know could eat a meal that they enjoyed and say that it was a good meal. Are they saying that that meal was godly? Of course not! What they're saying is that it matched their personal preferences. That is EXACTLY the meaning of "good" that they criticise us for using in the context of morality. They are either filthy liars or brainwashed sheep.
The problem a theist has with secular morality is that is doesn’t include their god or magic. That’s the only problem. You can ignore the word salad used to defend their “position”.
This guy is basically saying: "Without a God you have no objective basis for why we should care about winning or not losing in chess. So why cant I say flipping the board over first is the goal?"
I would love to do a remix of your theme song guys, do you have a place for me to download it in high quality and full length so that I can do a thorough job of it, I will send a link to the remix to you guys so you can use it or not use it etc
I don't even understand what his objection is. This comes across to me like someone who is trying very, very hard it's very hard to make something more difficult than it really is. He's not having an issue finding the right words, he's having an issue inventing problems with the concept.
"but you have to agree on that first" No shit Zack that's the point. It's not something difficult to get on board with because it's innate for living organisms to not only want to continue living but to prosper in general. We don't need to justify that. It just is what it is because nature. This is the problem with religion in this context. It holds your mind in a trap of NEEDING to find an ultimate reason. Needing to have some external verification as to why we think how we think. It convinces us that we're not good/smart/worthy enough on our own decide our worth. Instead we need a divine being to hold our hand and tell us what to think and allow us to act. It's sad what religion does to people's minds.
Starving children! Morality "Does your god see those children starving?" "Yes." "Does he have the power to feed them?" "Let me change the subject before I realize how evil my god would be if it existed." Answer this one question.. Please.. "If god exists yet he cannot protect children from being sexually abused in his own place of worship then what good is he?"
I like this kid. He really tries, and admits his mistakes, but he needs to work on his argument, as he makes huge leaps in logic and, as Matt continually points out, he assumes too many things before actually demonstrating how he got there. Next time, kid.
Considering the intelligence level and general behavior of "believers", I'd think any deities that exists would be horribly embarrassed to put in an appearance. "God? MOI?? Oh, no, no, no. Not me! Nope, I'm not a god. Never have been, never will be. I'm an alien from another universe. No special powers, nothing to recommend m'self. Far as I know, there ARE no gods. Wherever did you people get that silly concept?"
You know that moment when you are at the airport arrivals terminal of a totalitarian country and the entry officer looks at your passport and Visa and says- " these papers are incorrect" while 5 guys with machine pistols move behind you - that's the noise you make - like this guy. The shit is hitting the fan and you are not able to tell the guys with the guns why!
Jen and Matt: The reason you have to connect the idea of goals with ought statements is: Do-gooder universities and philosophical approaches (mostly of the well-cared-for elite) either diminish goal attainment as selfish and evil (for everyone else who might need what these demagogues enjoy every day) or refuse to address goals and part of human nature at nearly any level...except for the times such ideas provide power to this elite's political and power position. Little leiutenants like Zack in their army of promoters is shut down in this area. Thus, god, or the ideologies of these elite power monger dictator-like teachers and polticians have usurped personal goals in those like Zack's mind.
Do these guys have a prank channel out or anything? Cause there are a few callers who punkin AXP over and over under different names. I bet this dude was PUMPED when he got the laughter for “lowercase G gods.”
Such an intelligent guy, I can only hope that each one of his call ins is getting him one step closer to the realization he’s been brainwashed. That being said, it’s nice that Matt isn’t handing him his ass, like he does to most other (less intelligent) callers, I think that’s going to help Zach further
We have experiences that we perceive to be beneficial or harmful to our well being. It is naturally important to us to minimize the harmful experiences and maximize the beneficial ones. We are social and can assume and infer that others perceive experiences the same way so we factor our community's well being into decisions concerning well being. Throwing in some external source that dictates actions is the definition of subjective and arbitrary morality. It's not even hard to see that. If you are convinced that such a being exists just admit that the arbitrary standards by which he judges us are subjective. There certainly would not be much we could do about it so what does it matter.
"Lower case G gods" And Zack is not even kidding. Zack does not even begin to comprehend the enormity of the failure of theistic morality schemes. He does not get it even after the very poignant responses by Matt. I hope by now he has listened a few times to this conversation to let it sink in.
This whole where does secular morality come from argument is also IMO, a religious construct. The claims that religion is the basis of morality if the very source of doubt in secular morality. If people just accepted that morality is a simple case and nature and nurture and the issue is resolved.
4 года назад
If you have to be told by Goober to be moral, then you are NOT moral, you are being coerced.
If your goal in Chess is to win then your motivation can be pride, or a reward being given to the winner/punishment for the loser (religious carrot and stick rephrased), or to prove that you can, or anything else. The goal remains the same.
OK.he admitted that he didn't understand his position... but he might ruin right at the end... using the phrase "atheistic morality" ruined any comeback he might have made.
Exciting revelation: Theists assert that morality is objective, most likely because God is an objective (one who knows everything) thinker, so he is most likely the most reliable source for morality being good. However, if x is moral, given that he knows everything, and because God perceives x to be good based on what good is to God in his own all knowing mind, then morality is not mind-independent and is subjective not objective. God could have the most "accurate" perception of morality, but because morality is not mind-independent then it is a byproduct of God's psychological state not from an objective place where morality exists outside of any minds. In short, Theists are moral relativists. They could argue that God is the most reliable source of morality, and assert that he knows knows the mind-independent morality, but he is now required to demonstrate this knowledge he claims to possess because he has to show that he knows everything outside of his own mind, which seems a bit awkward. He is also subject to this mind-independent morality as well, but that means God doesn't define morality and his divine commands are subject to scrutiny, because he has to justify that he is not violating mind-independent morality and its rules. Theists could defend a divine command morality, but now they are free to scrutinize it to make sure it is in line with mind-independent morality. In this case, morality is above God. His divine command morality is beneath mind-independent morality.
The way "God" (Jehovah) got to be anything other than "just one of those bunch of small g gods"... is cuz, amongst the sneaky games early Christians played with words...deciding to take the label of the category...and just decree that that's THEIR god's "name".
The government decides on the law. They decide what behaviour deserves punishment by the state. Where do they get those laws ? Do they just make them up or is there some higher source ? The solution to this apparent problem is democracy. If we don't approve, they lose power. In religion, God never loses power. It doesn't matter what he commands. You don't get a vote.
10:00 this is what bugs me about this high falutin theoretical cerebral namby pamby debate crap, jordan peterson is the master, just say it like it is "does god dictate morals, or are morals independent of god" it. couldn't. be. simpler.
Steps to an objective morality:
Step 1 - Subjectively decide there is a god
Step 2 - Subjectively decide which god to believe in
Step 3 - Subjectively decide what that god does and does not want us to do
Boom! I now have an objective morality!
𝗔𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗡𝗶𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺
Premise 1: Atheism disbelieves gods. Therefore gods are no basis for moral claims.
Premise 2: Atheism disbelieves all a priori moral transcendentals. (e.g. Dao, Dharma, Divine Logos)
Premise 3: Hume's guillotine refutes all moral claims derived from observable facts.
Premise 4: Death/Entropy negates all moral claims derived from consequences. Soon, no one will care what you did.
Premise 5: There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with changing or losing interest in one’s values. Value judgements are NOT actually moral claims, but mere opinions or preferences.
Premise 6: Whereas no basis for moral claims remain, Moral Nihilism is the only Atheism that is sufficiently rational to reject moral claims.
Conclusion: Moral Nihilism is the only rational outlook for Atheism.
I find a flaw with premise number 4. Just because one day no one will care what you did, doesn't mean that what you do now doesn't matter or affect other people. Your actions have consequences in the present moment regardless of whether or not they will have consequences when you are dead or when the universe is gone. So premise 4 is stupid. Because we as human beings actually care about other human beings in the present. Whether or not it matters an eternity from now is irrelevant
@@I12Db8U I'm not sure that I agree with Premise 3. It's not clear that Hume actually refutes all moral claims. Rather that he was pointing out a potential fallacy in moral philosophy that needs to be recognized. This doesn't refute all moral claims but seeks to clarify them.
Secondly, premise 6 suggests that Moral Nihilism is a form of Atheism, which it is not. I feel that this premise adds a touch of circularity to your syllogism. (Although I'm having difficulty identifying it exactly).
It's an interesting argument nonetheless but I don't think I can come along for the ride.
@@I12Db8U Can you explain Premise 3?
@@I12Db8U1.) Gods aren't dismissed as a basis for moral claims just because we don't believe in them, their character is almost always that of a total piece of shit, an absolute monster, or an uncaring dickhole. There are plenty of reasons why the gods humans have made up aren't good for building morality off of.
2.) Atheists don't all disbelieve all a priori moral trancendentals. You're making the mistake of thinking atheists inherently _have to_ reject all spiritual claims, and we don't. Not believing in any gods makes us an atheist, nothing more. Daoism and Buddhism, for example, don't include gods in their beliefs, so atheists can be a part of those religions and still be atheists.
Any point you make from this point will surely be wrong since premises are built upon each other, but let's continue because you probably fucked up this logic anyways.
3.) Hume's guillotine has absolutely nothing to do with observation, it is a fallacy that arises when one claims that what ought be is dictated by what is. Like, "We don't currently have laws that make it illegal for a robot to kill a human, so we don't ever need to make those laws." or "We don't currently regulate the amount of water a person can buy in a year, so we'll never need to do so." That isn't what's happening when we use observation to inform our morality. If we look at humans starving and we think about how much we would hate to starve, we've used basic observation to add "We should feed the hungry" to our moral system. You're incorrectly applying that informal rule.
4.) This premise is just outright bullshit. Morality doesn't take time or death into account, at least not the morality of any honest person. Murdering your mother doesn't become moral just because twenty years pass or some shit. Humans live in societies and actions consequences don't magically end the second you die, so morality isn't negated by death. If you kill your entire family and then yourself, that still creates a ripple effect that continues after your death, meaning the moral implications continue as well. This premise is really just outright stupid.
5.) Sure, doesn't even need to be said, it literally can't have any bearing on the argument you're making.
6.) You've built this on a pile of totally incorrect dog shit, so if course the conclusion is completely illogical. Your premises are also supposed to build on each other, Einstein, not be a bunch of unrelated assertions. You can't declare that all other forms of creating a moral system are destroyed just because you named like three of them, but especially when your arguments fall flat immediately.
Your conclusion is just your last premise, and it's still wrong. As I already stated atheists don't have to reject spiritual beliefs, at all, which is the only fact needed to dismantle your entire argument. You'd have to prove that Buddhism, Daoism, and every other atheistic religions don't and can't have moral systems to even start making your argument valid. Try harder next time.
Poor Zack. He is an intelligent guy imprisoned in a cage built a couple of thousand years ago.
Such is the fate of those that have made an irrational conclusion and then seek out to cherry pick or skew all arguments in an attempt to prove their conclusion rather than to examine the evidence and follow where it leads without bias.
Good listener...
Christian indoctrination makes young ppl do mental gymnastics to defend their unreasonable positions.
If there is a god, the fault lies with him. He doesn't reveal himself. We were told everything we needed to know is in a book, which doesn't tell us anything. If there is a god, he is sadistic.
Why does it need to be a "he" ?
I'm a Creationist - I believe man created God.
And you are 100% correct!
God is created everyday in photoshop!
@ It's a work in progress, to paraphrase Hitch "we're getting closer to the truth number all the time" started with many gods and now most of us have just one(kind of a god of the gaps) and as soon as we get the" Creation" right it'll be zero.
Amen
@@mdaniel202 Hitch is a paradox. Atheism now had a phrofit; not only are we down to one God, but how often do you hear "but that's the old testament". So not only have we came down to one God but we can even drop half of that God. So it has been foretold =)
"The problem with atheistic morality is that it isn't based on anything objective."
"OK, what is theistic morality based on?"
"A book some people wrote a couple thousand years ago."
"Awesome. Thanks for playing."
All morality is based on God. Atheists will tell you that morality is based on popularity. They have made abortion more popular than any kind of behavior that existed before their promotion of this practice. If you have an unwanted child, kill it by abortion. Then their entire philosophy otherwise is production of unwanted children through promotion of pornography, fornication, adultery, with homosexuals held up as the ideal model for the family.
God never sinned. Jesus Christ never sinned. Atheists claim that God is a mass murderer who is responsible for the deaths of everyone who dies. So, as with all other accusations, there will have to be a judgment with regard to this one. John 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, so also the Son quickeneth whom he will.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.
So after atheists are raised from the dead, they will go to Jesus Christ and say, We do not really believe you exist, but since all judgment is committed to you, we are presenting these accusations that the Father is an imaginary mass murderer. I do not believe that accusation is going to go any further because atheists are going to be informed that all people who lived on earth , including children killed by abortion, have been resurrected, and atheists are the last to receive this free gift given through the atonement of Christ. Atheists actually do have souls, even though they spend their mortal lives trying to be like Satan, who does not have a soul.
The body and the spirit are the soul of man, and the resurrection of the dead is the redemption of the soul.
Buddhism is founded on the four Noble truths the last one is morals, wisdom and concentration. Buddhism is not a theology. So 2500 years with nontheist morality.
23:00 "I'm not sure about about Zeus and Thor because those are lower case g gods" Zack, if I were you I'd stay indoors a while to avoid the lightening bolts coming your way.
😳😳😳😳
As an Italian Greek Person I take great offense to Zeus/Jupiter being a lesser god!! Heracles could totally beat up Jesus! HAHAHA...
Kenton Baird thanks!!!! This is beautiful!!!
But so could hercules ;)
Spider-Man could beat Jesus, he has no webbing.
The Nordic gods set out to kill all the giants. Do you see any giants around? This proves that the Nordic gods managed their task. Hail Odin.
Pah! The Flampoon of Flimp would CRUSH Heracles with his Mighty Protruberance as He did the Humetic Glimptons during The Great Arousing of Nimp.
"If frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their ass a hoppin' ".
A catapillar was laughing in the background .
I will tell god about your ldea
@@jimwade2045
:D
That should not be necessary. Isn't god supposed to know everything?
@@jimwade2045
I should also mention that the frog comment was a quote which I took from Matt in this particular video. I can't claim the credit.
@@BrianMcGuirkBMG ok...I will send Matt his million bucks for the ldea
Matt is dropping so much pure gold on this one clip
The root of morality is empathy
Love this video!
I hope Zack went back and watched a few times to see exactly how many times he agreed, then immediately started his refuted objections all over again.
I also love the King Crimson lyric reference at the end!
"Atheistic morality doesn't have its roots in anything objective."
This may shock Zack, but neither does theistic morality. Basing your morality on imaginary gods is not objective.
It's the best thing when Jen laughs. It always makes me join in.
I liked Matt's analogy about the game of chess because it can be applied in so many different ways.
I have to admit though, I'm getting a bit jaded with the way that Matt dominates the conversation whenever he is on. It's like He's the star and everyone else are there to support him.
Jen, speak up. You have as much to say as Matt and then some.
+Martin Zeichner I think its mainly because Matt pretty much covers all bases when he talks. There just isnt much to add [usually].
@@eragon78 He's a bigger personality too and people call in specifically because he's on so they can talk to him.
The “is/ought” dilemma is solved (or perhaps corrected) by adding an “if”, making it “is/if/ought”. E.g.:
1. Running is faster than walking
2. If your goal is to get from point A to point B as fast as possible, then running is the better option
3. Therefore, you ought to run rather than walk to achieve your goal.
I have watched this discussion several times now. I think it is a fundamental and very useful discussion.
I don't get why people insist that morality comes from God/religion.
When I ask them for examples of what they think their particular brand of belief brings to the party - their moral USP's - they can't give one which either:
- didn't already exist *before* their god popped along (especially when it comes to mono-theism which nicked a whole load of stuff from the Romans)
- hasn't since been challenged, modified, overturned or otherwise reversed by 350 years of *reason*.
It must be me……
I agree with you. Even if a God exists there is no reason to assume that such a being has to be good, but that brings me to another train of thought lets say the whole bible thing is true how would we as mere mortals if confronted by Satan or a demon pretending to be a God based on the power that entity would have surely we would be convinced that they were in fact God.
Furthermore how can Christians determine that Jesus wasn't such a demon.
These people have way more patience than me. I could only handle so much changing the subject, moving the goalposts and beating around the bush.
Is interesting that so many callers sound so very desperate to shore up their belief in a god
They shore do.
And they don't with the weakest arguments out there. It's like crappy engineers shoring up a submerged bridge support with the weakest materials, like fine grain sand, in a river with strong current, it's futile.
@@martinze11 Greg used correct grammar ie shore up you mi-spelt shure
@@paulstewart7529 Are you shoor about the spelling?
@@timmonapier8832 sure your right Jack Daniels night dust cause t to err and speeh to slur But I was shure sure shoor sher wrong
IF there was a god, the evidence would be over powering and undeniable. But you theists claim itty bitty threads of nothing, trying to prove your god exists.
Well said.
I liked it better when Carl Sagan said it, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
Or when LaPlace said it, "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness"
Or when Hume said it, "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence"
Or when Marcello Truzzi said it, "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof"
why would you assume that the evidence would be overpowering and undeniable?
@@anadawaween If there were evidence, that would make everyone believe in God, it would be overpowering and undeniable. As if it were anything else, it wouldn't be very good evidence.
@Please Complete All Fields because it has nothing to do with the claimed god or worship, it has always been about money and power.... in essence, controlling people.
Great discussion of the is/ought dilemma, where Matt suggests that the selection of well being is an objective basis of morality. I like to take it a step further back, to say that our existence as individual, physical beings, with thinking minds on which we rely for our existence, is the basis for saying that our basis for morality is in well being, because it's demonstratable.
“Mark” from stone church.
"Those 'Little "G" god's' don't count." I used to be the exact same way when I was religious. ;-)
I've never been religious and I always type god in lower case.
I remember when I was a Christian kid I was afraid of writing god in lower case. I now realize that I was so brainwashed. I do understand how it is extremely difficult for some Christians to come to the conclusions that Matt presents. They have erroneous rationalization about basic questions, such as the ones presented in this show.
I will sometimes go out of my way to word sentences so that I use the lower-case 'g' god instead of the proper noun because I know it bothers some people. For example, I will say "the Christian god" instead of "God". I know it bothers religious people, and I usually only bother arguing with religious people if they're being obnoxious, so they deserve to be bothered. :)
The only real Gods are the grecs ones... Zeus power!!
@Please Complete All Fields The reason God is capitalized in English is because it is the English name for Yahweh. Proper nouns are capitalized. That name is the same word that the English used to refer to all of their pagan gods before they Christianized, so they made that a proper noun when they adopted the new one. Any capitalization is due to grammar rules, not special respect or reverence.
Of course, there are people who THINK it's because of respect and reverence, and those are the people I troll when I arrange my sentences to use the generic noun instead of the proper noun.
His issue was that he was trying to say “what do we do about the people who won’t care about a common foundation, well being or the ‘winning the chess game’; therefore becoming a conflict and threat to well being?” without saying that outright.
Sure, and that's not a problem with atheistic morality because you have the same problem with theistic morality. So it's a problem with morality, not atheistic morality. Just like every damn objection theists raise about atheistic morality.
It's just me or this guy sounds a lot like Mark from Stone Church?
It does lol
That's for sure. 🤔
Having listened to way too many of these episodes, I have come to the conclusion that there are a few people who call in repeatedly under different assumed names and locations. Too many of them have identical vocal and verbal patterns. Also, many of them don't remotely sound like they live in the regions from which they claim to be calling; they sound like hipster slackers affecting the verbal tics of their philosophy professors.
This guy is quicker on his feet. Do they make Xtian tap dancing shoes?
Mark was generally reckoned to be a Poe, the comedian Dane Cook. This guy is much less sure in his answers.
Once I learned “mark” was pranker, I often hear callers that sound like him. This one is one of them.
I don’t agree.
Voice is very different.
@@powbobs good for you
Keep up the good work, guys.
Sometimes I feel sorry (but not much) for folks that spend soooo much time developing a "fool proof" argument, only to be derailed in a matter of minutes with a few simple questions. Lesson to learn? Speak to people outside of your bubble first. Lesson ever learned? Not that we have seen.
It just falls down to people not understanding what empirical evidence is. They almost universally start with treating something as indisputable proof that isn't any such thing or think because X therefore Y. i.e. Theres evidence Jesus existed! Ok great, how does that prove he was the son of a God, performed miracles etc. etc. By that logic Islam is true because Mohammed existed.....
Wow, comments enabled, I must be in a parallel universe.
I too was surprised 😊
~
Why do they block comments?
They want you to comment on the blog. It's easier to moderate.
@@chartle1 why do they moderate? Aren't they suppose to be awesome? I'm losing respect for these people. I guess I'll just have to find Cthulhu as my religion. Fuck Christianity, Fuck Atheism, Cthulhu is the only God to serve... Seriously though these people suck for disabling comments
I think they've gone back to enabling comments on You Tube due to the fact that fans simply did not flock to the AXP blogs like they thought they would. I, for one, am glad the comment sections are back open again. There were some pretty good discussions to be found there. :-)
Matt Dillahunty = Masculinity
I didn't catch her name, but Matt's female co-host certainly found that funny.
reeks of desperation as he realizes that his biblical prison he is locked in was built by himself.
Read the description and this is the most unique disabled RUclips chat I have ever seen.
Zack, _IF_ a god actually exists, _and_ that god proclaims X, Y, or Z to be "moral", that is not objective. That is subjective, with that god being the subject.
It only becomes objective for humanity once humanity *agrees to use that god's proclamation as their target goal.* But the problem is, you have the same exact formula for Secular Morality:
It only becomes objective for humanity once humanity *agrees to use well-being as their target goal.*
Both cases have no inherently objective foundation.
I like this caller. He’s respectful and pretty intelligent
I actually agree. I think that he underestimated Matt's intelligence and Matt's possession of the "home field advantage".
How do the call screeners not recognize Andrew/Mark from the Austin Stone Church?
Exactly
~ It is most interesting to hear in many, including this one, of these fascinating videos, supposedly intelligent people throwing around words and never actually saying anything. SMH but still I am compelled to listen... Cheers, DAVEDJ ~
Ask him if he cares about well being, for himself, for his friends. Never mind metaphysics, does he care? Yes, the foundation is subjective emotion. We care about well being, emotionally. We are programmed that way. Our social contracts are just a bunch of us that got together and hammered out rules to improve our well being. What is so hard about that? Why does it have to go deeper? The hard part is getting the rules right.
I think the real issue here is that Zack accepts that we have to agree that we care about well-being in order to use it as a basis for morality but, when it comes to god, he seems to think that god just IS the basis and there is no agreement required. Assuming that Zack's god exists, it is a fact that that god wants human beings to behave in a particular way. That doesn't tell me why I OUGHT to behave that way. If you want to say that I ought to because I'll go to hell otherwise then we're right back to well-being. Basically, they're just saying that we should do what god wants because god says so and we should care what god wants because they said so. Fuck them.
The way I heard it thirty something years ago was...
Is it good because the gods say it is good or
Do the gods say it is good because it's good?
~
'The dead know only 1 thing, it is better to be alive'
Not all of them
I think the reason Zack kept going in circles is because he couldn't get over the IS part. It seems he's operating from the assumption that objective morality requires an absolute or objective IS to start with otherwise it's not objective. He kept coming back to it even though he agreed with Matt that once you agree on the subjective goal, then objective assessments can be made. It doesn't seem enough for him though, he needs the foundation to be something that isn't a subjective goal or morality can't actually be, and I suspect that's the religious assumptions doing the talking. It's like if you were raised to believe that the sun went around the earth, then someone tried to explain how it's the other way around. How hard would it be to conceptualize something that is not what you've always thought to be true?
Zack is one of those people who like to keep talking long after he realizes he’s wrong and that he has nothing intelligent to say.
The entire point of his call was to show off his ignorance of the Euthypro Dilemma.🙈
I'm with Matt on this one, repetition is the key, one day it'll click for him. It just won't register but if he can open up his mind enough he will understand the dilemma.
Hasn't Matt gotten familiar with "Mark from Stone Church"?!? o.O
This guy has played the Poe on so many different occasions it's astounding they all don't know his regular voice and all of his bad accents.
Theistic reasoning...there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the world....but there's only one star with life on it, just so that the Hebrew war god could pull off a plan to rescue a minority of earth humans from the consequences of his own hatred.
I'm looking for other formats to view this program, RUclips has saturated this show with too many goddamn ADs
This demonstrates yet another instance where theists equivocate and jump back and forth between definitions to suit themselves. Zack claims that "good" is synonymous with "god". That's OK if they want to do that but there are two issues.
Firstly, if their god doesn't exist, that means that good, as they define it, doesn't exist. In that case, the word "good" is available for use in some other context. It's that other context that we atheists use it in.
Secondly, theists use it in that other context too. For instance, I'd wager that Zack and most people he know could eat a meal that they enjoyed and say that it was a good meal. Are they saying that that meal was godly? Of course not! What they're saying is that it matched their personal preferences. That is EXACTLY the meaning of "good" that they criticise us for using in the context of morality.
They are either filthy liars or brainwashed sheep.
The problem a theist has with secular morality is that is doesn’t include their god or magic. That’s the only problem. You can ignore the word salad used to defend their “position”.
i pity these callers
Matt Dillahunty is the god of masculinity.
This guy is basically saying: "Without a God you have no objective basis for why we should care about winning or not losing in chess. So why cant I say flipping the board over first is the goal?"
The trap is only so large albeit Zach can't get out...
Thinking for yourself is not for everyone. Some need/want someone else (religion/god) to think for them.
Ilove Jen. She was so patient
she had some good shade too..."People learn through repetition"...lost it
Don't worry Matt, I associate you with masculinity. YOU ARE ALL THAT IS MAN!!!
Love ya man, hope you get a smile if you see this.
there seems to be at least one chick out there who disagrees lol
I wonder how many more aliases Mark from Stone Church has?
I would love to do a remix of your theme song guys, do you have a place for me to download it in high quality and full length so that I can do a thorough job of it, I will send a link to the remix to you guys so you can use it or not use it etc
Zack is desperate to make sense of his beliefs. It is not easy if you can not follow a logical flow of your thoughts.
matty great job with the pencil
I don't even understand what his objection is. This comes across to me like someone who is trying very, very hard it's very hard to make something more difficult than it really is. He's not having an issue finding the right words, he's having an issue inventing problems with the concept.
7:14 best
22:52
"but you have to agree on that first"
No shit Zack that's the point. It's not something difficult to get on board with because it's innate for living organisms to not only want to continue living but to prosper in general. We don't need to justify that. It just is what it is because nature.
This is the problem with religion in this context. It holds your mind in a trap of NEEDING to find an ultimate reason. Needing to have some external verification as to why we think how we think. It convinces us that we're not good/smart/worthy enough on our own decide our worth. Instead we need a divine being to hold our hand and tell us what to think and allow us to act.
It's sad what religion does to people's minds.
Starving children!
Morality "Does your god see those children starving?" "Yes." "Does he have the power to feed them?" "Let me change the subject before I realize how evil my god would be if it existed." Answer this one question.. Please.. "If god exists yet he cannot protect children from being sexually abused in his own place of worship then what good is he?"
Very great clip
I like this kid. He really tries, and admits his mistakes, but he needs to work on his argument, as he makes huge leaps in logic and, as Matt continually points out, he assumes too many things before actually demonstrating how he got there. Next time, kid.
You showed a lot of Discipline in this one, Matt.
With his Discussion, Declaration, Declamation...?
Banter...Bicker...Brouhaha...Balderdash...Ballyhoo.
Considering the intelligence level and general behavior of "believers", I'd think any deities that exists would be horribly embarrassed to put in an appearance.
"God? MOI?? Oh, no, no, no. Not me! Nope, I'm not a god. Never have been, never will be. I'm an alien from another universe. No special powers, nothing to recommend m'self. Far as I know, there ARE no gods. Wherever did you people get that silly concept?"
So many theist callers seem to inhabit an Alice in Wonderland World. It must be a curious experience to live alongside them.
I don't think that curious is the word I'd chose to use . Frustrated or dumbfounded is more like it .
@@richdandanell2911
I was trying to stay within old fashioned family audience convention, rather than just apeshit crazy-experience.
I can’t quite catch what they’re saying, what is the name of the dilemma?
euthyphro dilemma
Matt talks to the wind at the end of this one.
i wanna see what happened in the call before this one.
Are there any biblical passages wherein there are examples of God's benevolence?
Euthyphro dilemma: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
My moral code contains 8 words - Don't be a dick to anyone or anything !
You know that moment when you are at the airport arrivals terminal of a totalitarian country and the entry officer looks at your passport and Visa and says- " these papers are incorrect" while 5 guys with machine pistols move behind you - that's the noise you make - like this guy. The shit is hitting the fan and you are not able to tell the guys with the guns why!
Jen and Matt: The reason you have to connect the idea of goals with ought statements is: Do-gooder universities and philosophical approaches (mostly of the well-cared-for elite) either diminish goal attainment as selfish and evil (for everyone else who might need what these demagogues enjoy every day) or refuse to address goals and part of human nature at nearly any level...except for the times such ideas provide power to this elite's political and power position. Little leiutenants like Zack in their army of promoters is shut down in this area. Thus, god, or the ideologies of these elite power monger dictator-like teachers and polticians have usurped personal goals in those like Zack's mind.
The ‘what’ dilemma? I can’t hear what it is.
Euthyphro dilemma
Do these guys have a prank channel out or anything? Cause there are a few callers who punkin AXP over and over under different names. I bet this dude was PUMPED when he got the laughter for “lowercase G gods.”
Wow... it looks like I was doing some weird, vaguely racist Ebonics. It was honestly a typo.
Such an intelligent guy, I can only hope that each one of his call ins is getting him one step closer to the realization he’s been brainwashed.
That being said, it’s nice that Matt isn’t handing him his ass, like he does to most other (less intelligent) callers, I think that’s going to help Zach further
We have experiences that we perceive to be beneficial or harmful to our well being. It is naturally important to us to minimize the harmful experiences and maximize the beneficial ones. We are social and can assume and infer that others perceive experiences the same way so we factor our community's well being into decisions concerning well being.
Throwing in some external source that dictates actions is the definition of subjective and arbitrary morality. It's not even hard to see that. If you are convinced that such a being exists just admit that the arbitrary standards by which he judges us are subjective. There certainly would not be much we could do about it so what does it matter.
Bravo! This god that is appealed to is itself is as subjective as any of it's advocates.
"Lower case G gods" And Zack is not even kidding.
Zack does not even begin to comprehend the enormity of the failure of theistic morality schemes. He does not get it even after the very poignant responses by Matt.
I hope by now he has listened a few times to this conversation to let it sink in.
Zack is obviously an intelligent person, but just can’t let his religious beliefs go. Matt did a wonderful job with his words here
This whole where does secular morality come from argument is also IMO, a religious construct. The claims that religion is the basis of morality if the very source of doubt in secular morality.
If people just accepted that morality is a simple case and nature and nurture and the issue is resolved.
If you have to be told by Goober to be moral, then you are NOT moral, you are being coerced.
A 2 minute google search would show that this caller has no idea what the Euthyphro dillema is!
If your goal in Chess is to win then your motivation can be pride, or a reward being given to the winner/punishment for the loser (religious carrot and stick rephrased), or to prove that you can, or anything else. The goal remains the same.
Or...lose...but then say the game was rigged, flip over the board and attack anyone who disagrees with you.
Sometimes a cucumber tastes better pickled.
OK.he admitted that he didn't understand his position... but he might ruin right at the end... using the phrase "atheistic morality" ruined any comeback he might have made.
I'm on an athiest video, and i keep getting christian ads. I'm like "dude this is literally the worst demographic to market this to".
What was the previous content that was mentioned at the start? Are those clips
Perfect Matt. Caller was dodging.
Exciting revelation: Theists assert that morality is objective, most likely because God is an objective (one who knows everything) thinker, so he is most likely the most reliable source for morality being good.
However, if x is moral, given that he knows everything, and because God perceives x to be good based on what good is to God in his own all knowing mind, then morality is not mind-independent and is subjective not objective. God could have the most "accurate" perception of morality, but because morality is not mind-independent then it is a byproduct of God's psychological state not from an objective place where morality exists outside of any minds. In short, Theists are moral relativists.
They could argue that God is the most reliable source of morality, and assert that he knows knows the mind-independent morality, but he is now required to demonstrate this knowledge he claims to possess because he has to show that he knows everything outside of his own mind, which seems a bit awkward. He is also subject to this mind-independent morality as well, but that means God doesn't define morality and his divine commands are subject to scrutiny, because he has to justify that he is not violating mind-independent morality and its rules. Theists could defend a divine command morality, but now they are free to scrutinize it to make sure it is in line with mind-independent morality. In this case, morality is above God. His divine command morality is beneath mind-independent morality.
The way "God" (Jehovah) got to be anything other than "just one of those bunch of small g gods"... is cuz, amongst the sneaky games early Christians played with words...deciding to take the label of the category...and just decree that that's THEIR god's "name".
Lock your doors if you live near Zack.
Did Matt bring up King Crimson at the end?
YEP!
"Indiscipline"
Matt's even cooler than I knew!
If god is the source of morality, genocide, rape, slavery, etc., are all morals as that's clearly god's biblical history.
Good point John
@@tedgrant2
Naturally.
ALL my points are good or wouldn't be mine.
22:55 Lower case G gods .... this guy should go into standup or the fertilizer business.
If Matt Dillahunty is synonymous with good, then anything like Matt Dillahunty is good, by definition. :p
Checkmate. Or maybe a stalemate.
How a god can provide an objective morality if it would be the subjective morality of said god?
The government decides on the law. They decide what behaviour deserves punishment by the state.
Where do they get those laws ? Do they just make them up or is there some higher source ?
The solution to this apparent problem is democracy. If we don't approve, they lose power.
In religion, God never loses power. It doesn't matter what he commands. You don't get a vote.
ted
The only god is wealth and the abuse of power it bestows.
Re: editorial failure; >>CONCENTRATED wealth.
10:00 this is what bugs me about this high falutin theoretical cerebral namby pamby debate crap, jordan peterson is the master, just say it like it is "does god dictate morals, or are morals independent of god" it. couldn't. be. simpler.