Yes we need a massmurdering evil spirit like the God of the bible to tell us about morality. LOL!
This looney called paleocrat does not understand that atheism does not disapprove different opinions that eventually can change public opinion. But those opinions will first have to spread before society can change because otherwise every minority opinion would have to be implemented which is worse than majority rule.
This guy is just attacking straw mans and has no idea what he is talking about.
God is not the only necessity for an objective standard, God only represents a single consequence or benefit to an action when there is a lot more to consider. Think of any action you'd like (good or bad), assess consequences and benefits then ask yourself, "would I do it without god's authority?" Is that not enough to say that there is an obligation without God, with one life on this Earth? Life is learning experience and that is how we find good.
I hope I can help you see something I've observed,
You say you have moral guidance because of "God said so". The outcome of actions are either a benefit or a consequence. Eliminate God and what consequences or benefits are you left with? Enough to make good decisions? Does mankind lose the ability of understanding what is right and wrong, and retain no sense of sympathy or emotion?
The points he makes in this video are all well reasoned, but moron atheists are all honor bound to sink pro-Christian videos in ratings, and they refuse to even entertain opposing points of view. Shows exactly how "free thinking" and "open minded" they really are.
How difficult is it for people to understand the basis for morality... it's stunning.
he's clearly heard that morality has something to do with society and has made the rest of it up. It's to do with what people have to do to get on and co-exist beneficially.
Nothing to do with people coming together and deciding.
And these 'problems' you come up with, which suggest that atheism is wrong because it says people disagree about morality... people do disagree about what's right and wrong.
The evidence your belief system has presented proving its superiority and legitimacy is no more veracious than that presented by any other in human culture, past or present. You got some nerve telling anyone they're "morally bankrupt." Nothing more pathetic than an agnry, bitter Christian going on psuedo intellectual rants hoping to gain converts or worse, hoping to best some poor naive Youtube atheist. Get a life, paleocrat!! Try applying the erudition to somehting more worthwhile!
if one's moral system were only based on experiences, one's system would be constantly changing, so everybody's moral system would be different. eg your moralsystem,if you had not learned otherwise, might be that its ok to sleep with a friend's wife.The friend's moralsystem will normally be that such action is not ok. Who is right?The science world is full of absolutes. Obviouslythe more departure from absolutes in morality(not only sexual), the worse this world becomes.
If morality is relative, Hitler to as good/bad as your gran.... Stupid cunt doen't even know the meaning of the word 'relative. Ignorant fundamentalist christian shitbag.
The irony is rich. See, the video's reasoning is air-tight, but atheists reject its conclusions because they intuitively sense that they aren't true (which means the theistic world view is true). What they don't understand is that their belief/disbelief does not provide for a world view which contains morality. That atheists don't see this is why the video is dead-on in calling atheists intellectually "bankrupt." What is interesting is that Dawkins would agree with this video!
@SSLinebeck The only ones that are 'intellectually bankrupt' are the ones that require an eternal, invisible man in the sky to baby-feed them a rule at a time on how they should behave.
To the best of my knowledge, more than 51% of the people in the United States of America believe in treating other people with the same amount of respect that they want to be treated with. Before the late 1800's , more than 51% of the people in The united States of America thought that slavery was fine, were opposed to the liberation of slaves, and thought that lynching was a fine form of entertainment!
Alright. here's the thing. Atheist as i am, i have no motivations to do evil. Sure i have motivation to get laid, to eat, to do whatever is of evolutionary benefit to myself. I do not believe these things to be sinful. As a philanthropist i do the best i can for my fellow man without being threatened and bribed by heaven and hell. Therefore i am morally superior to you.
Relative doesn't mean random. It means evaluating situations against each other and finding their relative worth by any number of criteria. It's taking a thinking approach to moral dilemmas, while moral absolutism seems to give haven to statements like "lying is always wrong."
Very black and white world you live in, huh. Moral relativism does not leave us in the position of not being able to make moral distinctions between Hitler and an old granny, why would it? Quite a rant though.
@Buddythunder1 A lot of black and white, but plenty of different colors and various shades as well. We are talking about whether or not a standard or rule by which to use as a objective reference point for situational ethics exists. Admitting of such a standard's existence, giving a norm by which to reference when making ethical decision and actions, is a far cry from saying that everything demanding a reference is crystal clear, easily deemed black or white.
So the point your trying to get across is that since there isnt a standard to govern how to react to moral dilemmas with relativism or that relativism isn't as good a morals are standard?
Even if most people agree on something (is killing bad) start asking questions in different scenarios and nearly everyone will have a different response to what is ok. (never, in self defense, threatened, wartime, serial killers, euthanasia, suicide) each having innumerable situations.
@Buddythunder1 Relativism is just that, relative. Period. A relativist may admit that there is some strange and elusive norm outside of the individual, but this is horribly problematic and grossly inconsistent. What standard? Who says? How broad is its moral jurisdiction? Who says? Is it binding? Who says? And given relativist presuppositions, who in their right mind would deem their relative answers morally binding on those who disagree? Consistency is the silver bullet on this one.
They also differ based upon each individual person. Moral relativism just means that each person has a different view of what is moral (with no proof that any is correct)
Noone can say they are binding to others. They could however give reasons as to why they did something.
Killing is wrong(both society and moral reasons why) but in the case of self defense killing is OK by society. Killing is OK in terms of war by soldiers also
No one on earth justifies their own bad behavior through twisted reasoning more than the very religious. They commit some of the most heinous acts imaginable with a clear conscience. Secular thinkers such as the Founding Fathers looked to Nature for a sound moral guide based on respect for others who desire the same things they do, and with whom we must share this earth. As soon as the supernatureal begins to interfere with moral laws, compassion and justice begin to erode.
Interesting point. I see what you're saying. I believe in God, but I'm not "religious". When I see other so called Christians groveling it makes me want to puke. I think God would prefer a person to a sheep.
Evidently God, since God is the maker. Agreed that no two people can agree on the opinion of God and the bible in all matters, hence the need for a definative moral authority. Yes? If not there can be no definative morality.
The next step is to determine who that moral authority is. It is, of course, the Holy See. Why? There are plenty of books about that.
@Post... "Couldn't atheists be the real Christians?"....
Couldn't blue be the real red? Couldn't good be the real evil?...
You've created another God that created Christianity in order to deceive(weed out) those seeking him.... Christians believe in a true, good, loving and holy God... Not a God of deception. So hypothetically... If that's the case, so be it.
- Is this a joke? It seems you don't understand Moral Relativism or Christianity at all my friend.
-Do you know why none of these militant atheists are correcting your misinformed gibberish? Atheisms foundation is, "seperation from God". They don't care if you actually know anything.
The absolute truth of atheism is that, "Information exists". There's never anything right or wrong about the interactions of information!
-Christians follow Jesus Christ and his teachings.... Hence the name "CHRISTians". The word is clear on avoiding false Gods that oppose Christ and his teachings.
"atheism is a focus on evidential information"
-Wrong. Atheism is simply the disbelief in the existence of deity. Anything can be learned through the application of information and logic.. You can argue the existence of anything just the same.
It seems you are using harsh and insulting language for ratings, and to fire up those who already agree with you.
Logic, when applied correctly, can answer these questions. How do we know who's logic is more superior? As long as both views are looking at the same issue differently, then there's no measure. For neither view has comparable merits. Knowledge is all we have to judge things buy. Knowledge and logic.
The segment was from my radio show, and I spoke in a manner I believe to be quite appropriate.
For the presuppositionalist, the issue is whether your assumptions about the world, being and knowledge provide any kind of foundation for the use of knowledge and logic.
Tired of debating this most obvious and elementary point.
So you're tired of debating that application of logic and knowledge to our world?
Even if you were tired of such a non-existent debate, its unnecessary for you to include that. An intellectual exchange of ideas is no place for belittlement. Again, a trend toward the insulting language.
paleocrat "Talking slavery to a guy who studied theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism for 10 years? Wow. Name off how many forms of slavery were in the OT. What does it say of stealing and buying innocent people?"
Who cares what you studied? Big deal. You might as well have studied Bigfoot.
There are plenty of people who HAVE also studied those subjects and agree that the bible does endorse slavery. So you're "I'm an expert and you don't know what you're talking about" rebuttal doesn't wash
Morality IS relative. Nothing is ever set in stone. There are culturally unacceptable or completely conterproductive things (e.g. being homosexual and murdering) are generally accepted as moral. You really need a better understanding of things.
Paleocrat, I'm wondering if you really understand what morality is and how moral systems work in a society. Recognizing that morality by its very nature has to be relative does not mean that you therefore have no moral system.
I am an attheist and consider morals to be relative, but I do live by a very strict moral system.
You believe morality is relative AND you live by a very strict moral system? I don't think that makes sense. If its relative, you cannot condemn anyone else for breaking your own moral code as long as they are living by their strict moral code; at which point, morality becomes useless.
Jdcremin, it does make sense. My personal moral system is based on making personal moral choices. That is true morality. And because of that I can judge others based on my morals. But I am human just like the ones I judge and we can disagree. Morality is not fixed and is not a given. And that is why a society is always debating about moral choices. That is one of the means by which societies generate a common moral foundation.
It makes sense if you're refering to intercultural morals. when you're taking about one culture, like a nation, the morals then cannot be relative - being "relative" is not the same as being debated. Relative, to me, means that there is more than one right or wrong for the same decision depending on the person's viewpoint. In that philosophy, there could be no laws - I may beleive stoning is an immoral punishment for promiscuity, a strict muslim does not.
There is also the question of where your morals come from. For instance, people aren't born with the idea that having children out of wedlock is wrong.
"being "relative" is not the same as being debated. "
No, but there is debate because there is disagreement about what exactly is right or wrong in certain situations. This disagreement exists because evidently morals are relative. In many situations we can agree on certain morals because we are social primates with the same interests.
Relative does not mean that you have to accept all moral decisions made by anyone. It does not mean that to you personally all moral decisions are equally right.
Relative means that your opinion about what is right or wrong differs from what someone else thinks. You can not place yourself outside the debate about your own morals. You are a part of that debate and therefore your own morals are relative to those of someone else. But nevertheless you can think about your own morals as being right and those of the other as being wrong. In a society consensus rules and we have laws that represent this consensus.
True moral bancruptcy is typically seen among those who submissively obey the dictates of a master. This can be a god-like or a human dictator. These dictates can be very immoral like many that are given by the bible god. If the bible god orders you to murder homosexual men or unbelievers and you do this because he says so, then you are indeed morally bankrupt. Morality is not about slavishly obeing orders, but about making personal moral choices.
"darwin out" is a very risky proposition because his theories filter into all aspects of modern science, not just the origin of mankind. you put yourself on a very slippery slope with such flippancy.
Moron. Democracy, by your definition of majority rule being 'mob' rule, is immoral. GOD has the best answers??? I am an atheist. I did not need god to tell me that slavery and racism, murder and thievery, were/are wrong. Good thing too since god advocates for them all in that fairytale bible written by people who lived in huts. Just what 'best answers' can you be referring to? What is WRONG with you that you need imaginary characters to create a sense of morality in your dark, shriveled souls?
My very existence destroys this idea that atheists are morally compromised. I'm an atheists who has no criminal record, advocates for freedom, rights and equality. I have never cheated on my girlfriend. I don't hate people just because they are different. I will defend a stranger if they are being wronged. I have put my own life in danger to save others. Yet my morals did not come from religion. you can't determined if someone is moral based on if they're religious.
Hence 70% of people in jail being Christian, so you're saying a christian would be morally rich, yet for this to be true, they wouldn't be in jail. Explain the relevance of that situation
even if we were to dwell on this false dichotomy (morality derrived from god or evil/chaos/danger) the reasoning is inherently flawed. it essentially means that god decides what the good is. even if, from the christian perspective, god advocates universal love, there is no reason why he shouldn't advocate the opposite. if he did, it would be the good as well.
Why is it that the religious are so self demeaning as to deny that humans are capable and indeed worthy of deriving our own morality? They insist that we are all sin spawn that are dirty and worthless until they kneel prostrate and submit to an unaccountable, undetectable celestial dictatorship. It is sado masochism at it's most vitriolic.
I think this video is a walking (talking?) fallacy.
Morality based on the views of the individual don't just magically appear. It takes consensus over long periods of time. The groundwork was set millenia ago, and we're still refining it. Yes, the minority can shift and affect the majority, but it takes time, hard work, and perseverance. You say that trying to change suggests a universal morality, yet even "God's Word" changed over time. Remember biblicly condoned rape and slavery?
Oh lemme guess why. Because we dare to form our own morals that are based on our expiriences with life instead of relying on a book? Yeah...we really "immoral".
Uh, yes. When one is left with no more than relativism and situation ethics without an ethical system that is both universal and normative, then it is a free-for-all. Different strokes for different folks, and many folks prefer immorality. You have no safeguard against such unethical behavior, save for their own personal distaste. But who cares? Surely not the relativist.
And I believe many of you are moral. But this is in blatant contradiction with espoused ethical presuppositions.
paleocrat : There is NO ethical sytem that is both universal and normative. Simply have a look at what was ethical in different past and p resent cultures . For the Mayans, and other cultures human sacrifice was ethical. For those survivors of the plane crash in the Andes, years ago, eating human flesh was moral. Necessity is one of the factors that establishes morality. Abortion is not acceptable. If the population explosion continues, abortion will be completely acceptable.
So you are saying that unless some all powerful entity watches our every move and monitors our every thought that we should and would simply not hold ourselves accountable for our actions? Give humanity some credit, and try to see past your nose. We don't need a dictator to force us to be compassionate, fair, just. There is no need for a safeguard when people are civil and humane, it's called progress and we don't need a god to do it.
But you've missed the point of the video. Without some objective absolute, who decides what is "just"? How many more children have to die of starvation, HIV, war, and torture before you are willing to admit you've given humanity too much credit?
If you have a middle school education or higher, your moral actions are justified through historic stories, where person A does this and B happens, with B obviouslly being a negative effect, without the inclusion on a "higher being" or religion.
Upon what basis do you account an effect negative or positive status? Negative for who? Positive for who? That's like someone saying that a 2by4 cut in two randomly is too short. Shorter than what? Without a "third thing", something to judge between two alternatives, there is no way to make that determination. And the third thing couldn't be another alternative itself or else you will be back where you started. What allows humans to judge right and wrong is non-material, abstract, and universal.
Religion says "respect human dignity" = no torture
So, yes, if only there had been more religion in the world. If the hard of heart followed these principles (among others) children wouldn't suffer. It is selfishness and ungodliness that causes these things.
You suck at guessing. Seriously, don't quit your day job.
For one, I admitted outright that an atheist can be "moral." But relativism, based on individual experiences, would make all actions "moral" in this regard, for one is merely doing what they want on account of their believing themselves to have learned from experiences in their life. Relativism doesn't merely blur the moral-immoral line. Rather, it obliterates it.
Hitler could be argued to be no less moral than the grandma baking cookies for her grandchildren. It just depends on how you view it. From those of us that were raised in an environment that didn't promote antisemitism, what he did was awful. In the eyes of those that dealt with hardships, while "a lesser people" were prospering, it was the perfectly rational choice to rid the land of the "lesser people." It's all about the relativism. There are no absolute morals.
The contradiction here is that your already placed a preconcived notion of morality upon an action that is no more or less offensive to anything else. "Awful" by what definition? Yours mine? And on what grounds were we justified to stop him?
"From those of us that were raised in an environment that didn't promote antisemitism"
Did you see that? I didn't say it was objectively wrong. I stated that it was based on a specific viewpoint. It was awful because of the sorrow and senseless loss of life for one man's lust for power.
We didn't go over there because of the Jews. We went over there to help our allies, the UK and France. Finding the camps was a coincidence.
Google "CatholicNaziLeaders" (one word) and read my LiberalsLikeChrist site which shows that Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Josef Goebbels, Reinhard Heydrich, Rudolf Hoess, Julius Streicher, Fritz Thyssen (who bankrolled the Nazi rise to power), Klaus Barbie, and Franz Von Papen and many other LEADERS of Nazism were the products of Roman Catholicism, NOT atheism.
( And by the way, chances are that the Vietnamese gunman in the video was a Catholic, executing a Hindu.
The Abrahamic god is as portrayed in "holy books" is not moral.
So many stories about wrath, plaques, retributions, genocide, and of course hell... all from god if you piss him off. What is so moral about that?
Fact is god and all these stories were FABRICATED by men and used as fear tactics to solicit cooperation and obedience in order to dominate and control the masses. That is not so moral either.
Nope, but the bible says what it says and there's lots of nasty stuff in there. But ignore it if you like and pretend Christians have a monopoly on morality.
How do you not know everything? You seem to already know what kind of attitude i take on the issue, after i leave a comment having nothing to do with it. It takes a genius to what you have done here. Thank you for allowing me to witness this. Thank you.
true, that does happen in many cases (and vice versa) but these statistics were taken before they were put in prison. so my argument still remains valid.
Wait, wat? How were these statistics taken before they were put in prison? Have they been tracking individuals for a period of time, and some of them ended in prison?
another thing I want to add is this. Telling me I have no morals, or ethics, or I don't understand where ethics or morals come from, then to say "it comes from god" is a logical fallacy, called APPEAL TO IGNORANCE. There, I have debunked this video within 2 seconds, why???? Because logical fallacies invalidate arguments. 2 seconds. Isnt that funny?????
"Is might right?" The hypocrisy here is amazing. The very reason they think that objective morality comes from God is BECAUSE God is powerful. Otherwise, they wouldn't follow him. And slavery was abolished BECAUSE of moral relativism. If there weren't different views on Earth... if EVERYONE believed slavery was ok, then there wouldn't be anyone to stand up against it.
I've really been wanting a christian to answer me this one SIMPLE question. If god said, its okay to rape little children, does that make it moral?
nazi: Hitler said killing jews is okay.
me: so if Hitler said raping kids it okay, its okay?
nazi: Hitler would never say that.
ITS IRREVELENT, its IF, IF he said it.
Also want to point out that saying it comes from god, is APPEAL TO AUTHORITY "god said so" Its a logical fallacy, since it is, your argument is invalid.
and if you say "no, raping children is wrong regardless if god DID say it." then youv shown that your argument is invalid, and the mere fact that you go against slavery, even though its never EVER said to be wrong, and is even endorsed in the old and new testament shows for a FACT your argument is invalid. Regardless if its a logical fallacy. So your argument is flawed in 3 different ways.
its a logical fallacy, its also contradictory, and picking and choosing. See 3 different ways.
Talking slavery to a guy who studied theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism for 10 years? Wow. Name off how many forms of slavery were in the OT. What does it say of stealing and buying innocent people? What does it say about marriage, mistreatment, or indentured servitude? The fact that you compare chattel slavery to the kind of slavery in the OT displays a great deal of ignorance on the issue.
"The fact that you compare chattel slavery to the kind of slavery in the OT displays a great deal of ignorance on the issue. " so theres a good slavery [god's slavery] and OUR style of slavery.....thank you so much for clearing this up.
As for references, i am sure you'll do what the slave owners did and say "manservant" or "maid" Kinda like how prostitutes call them selves "hobbies" So whats the point in talking????????????????????????????
I also LOVE how you skipped my question of "if god said raping your child is moral, does that make it moral" and in the same comment, I already explained how "he would never say that." is a logical fallacy, red herring. And a avoidance of the question. Don't be like a nazi and say "Hitler would never say that." its completely irrelevant if he did or did not say it.
Your question is rather silly. It would be like asking me what I would do if I was an African American. If you want to redefine our position of God and his nature, ask some off the wall hypothetical, and then do a victory dance when Christians don't take the question seriously, go for it.
For the record: We do not attribute obedience to his commands to fear of his omnipotence. Normative ethics are derived from the revelation of his nature and will to man.
How did human beings come to the realization that slavery is bad? How about why it would be wrong to stone a woman to death on her wedding day if she wasn't a virgin. Or not to kill someone if they are working on Sunday, or not to kill your children if they talk back to you. Come on, if the bible is the word of god, and god is where we get our morals, all of these things are justified, god has all the answers remember. This is ridiculous.
The woman was stoned because she would be guilty of adultery if she was not a virgin. Because of our obsession with sexual "freedom" these days, we don't see adultery as even bad. As for killing your children, I think that the text means more than talking back to you-it is rebellion of a very serious order and it was to be judged by the elders of the city, not the parents. Read all of the text, not just some of it please.
I'm sorry I was just under the impression that if some statements in the bible can be taken literally all should. But yes I should read the whole bible. I did read gensis for a class once and other parts less closely, I don't know if it is common that believers take it as literal truth.
Exodus 35:2
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
"Because of our obsession with sexual "freedom" these days"
Some would argue that there has been much more of an obsession with prohibiting sexual freedom in our history than anything. Religion seems very afraid of sex. I don't really know why.
As it is a fact that there is no god, then god is clearly not the source of anything.
You don't need to bother with any argument more complex than that.
You can dress up your stinky medaevil predjudices in a swanky carnival of fancy lingustics and decorate it with all the gold leaf in the world.
But you'll still be left with the fact that no god exists, and that therefore the truth about anything and everything that human beings have ascribed to the hand of god must lie elsewhere.
"morality is a human conception reflected on a particular aspect of reality"
That doesn't cover those who act outside of such the standard. What if a specific area of humanity opposes your presupposition of morality. By what authority can you say who is wrong or right? What seperates our morality than that of the chemical imbalaces of an animal acting upon nature and its reality?
Yeah, my kids think the tooth fairy's real and santa comes down the chimney.
I disagree with them, but I don't tell them about it because there's no harm in their believing it.
But when they grow up a bit, I'll be very disappointed if they're so dumb as to tell me they have an invisible friend living in the sky who's all-powerful and full of love who sits up there watching as his wonderous creations are tortured, ravaged by war and disaster and disease and does nothing to fix it.
I'm glad to see you have become sure of something that is very hard to be sure of. In order to say there is no God, you have to be God Himself. All you can say is that you are not sure. Anything more is arrogance.
""In order to say there is no god you have to be god himself"
That's a neat piece of circular godbotherer thinking that's a new one on me.
But it's pure hokum, and utterly moronic.
When I'm watching a lousy ventriloquist act, or even a good one, I don't need to be the dummy before I understand that the guy controlling everything is the ventriloquist.
To perfectly understand that there is no god, all that's required is to investigate the motivation of his pupeteers.
One more thing. It's a godbotherer standard to accuse anyone who says there is no god with being arrogant.
Yet what could be more arrogant than claiming that there is a god and that you understand him so well you can explain any confusion someone else might have as a result of reading his disgusting iron age slave trader;s manual?
Surely arrogance doesn't come any more smug and repulsive than that?
It is not arrogance to dismiss something that has no evidence. Do fairies exist or unicorns. How about manbearpig, a creature that is half man half bear and half pig. Really anything we can think up could exist, as long as it followed rules of logic(a square circle does not exist for example). What is much more arrogant is for people to say one of these things exist, and not just keep this belief to themselves but to create laws based on these beliefs.
Fairies and unicorns do not make moral demands on us; God does. Manbearpigs do not make certain things right or wrong; if they exist, they exist, if not it is of no matter to this discussion. God has made requirements of us and that's why we make laws based on "these beliefs". Besides, what you believe determines how you live - and if you get a lot of God-believers together, their laws will reflect their faith.
God does not have higher standing than fairies or unicorns. Both come from books or else people who say they can speak to or see them while nobody else can. You know what they do to people who say they hear voices now? They put them in mental hospitals. You know there are many different gods that have been created throughout human history. They all make different demands and have different morals. Multiple faiths cannot be right, but all of them could be wrong.
The question here is whether or not atheists can account from within their network of related presuppositions (worldview) the necessary preconditions for what we refer to as evidence. Just because evidence exists does not mean that atheists can account for it. They treat it almost as axiomatic... forgetting that axioms also rely upon a set of necessary preconditions that cannot be in conflict with their espoused worldview.
"the necessary preconditions for what we refer to as evidence"
"Just because evidence exists does not mean that atheists can account for it"
Yep atheists cannot account for the origin of all the evidence they use to develop their world view. Unlike a theist they are not completely certain about any truth of the universe. Atheists use reason, logic and experimentation to form their beliefs of how the universe actually is.
There is no more zeus throwing lightning or poseiden controlling the sea. We have scientific explanations for these things now. Science has yet to explain how the universe began(the details at least), and cannot explain certain experiences we have, or how morals evolve in civilizations. But that doesnt mean it never can. If the best we have on morality is the bible, we are taking our morals from a book that is incompatible with the theory of evolution and the age of the universe.
One more thing, if that comment on slavery was for me sorry for my ignorance on the subject. I definitely have not studied Christianity any more than reading Gensis and a few books written by atheists on the subject. I am forgetting which of Sam Harris' books it was where he commented about slavery, maybe both, but thats where that was coming from.I had hoped he had done some research on the topic,I guess it's never safe to assume.I'll ask Christians how I should interpret the bible from now on.
Ha ha. Check out your ratings for this peice of nonsense. Top tip - when posting zealoty nonsense, disable ratings and comments, otherwise rational people will come by the truckload and point out to you that you're a god-bothering dipwit.
No, the reason people have rated it low is because it's clearly rubbish. Another tip for you - cut and paste your posts into a spell checker before you finally post them. That way people will take longer to realise you're an under-educated bigot with no interest in discovering what is rational whatsoever.
Here's an idea. Why don't you call him and tell him yourself what you think of his videos. You said yourself that it's a peice of nonsence. I would assume then you would quickly refute the argument of Jeremiah in a one on one encounter. Unless someone is to "busy" to care. I.E. Cowerdice.
frankly, paleocrat, you haven't managed to adress atheism, you've only adressed certain atheists.
you also seem to imply that moral standards are merely a logical conclusion derrived from a preconcieved existance of some diety. that's not nearly enough to have any bearing in reality.
morality is a human conception reflected on a particular aspect of reality (human behavior). it is by this definition as relevant as math or science and demands, as such, objective standards.
by what authority? reason. if objective behavioral standards were so removed from our basic understanding, as you suggest, i would have no choice but to be a nihilist.
I love it when people want to sound intelligent and important but their spelling lets them down and reveals them for the uneducated fake FAKE FAKES they are!
Theists do not have a monopoly on morality. A proper code of human morality is determined by reason. Not by inexplicable commandment by some some supernatural entity in the sky. That is not morality, that is obedience.
There are countless religious faiths across the globe each with unique and often conflicting moral codes.
Some of the bloodiest atrocities, murder and suffering in man kinds history came from religious conflict, and intolerance towards those who did not share a particular faith.
What a person believe morally is irrelevant to their atheism. Atheism means a lack of a belief in gods. Nothing else. It doesn't even mean no objective morality. It doesn't mean a damn thing besides a person's position on god.
You don't understand moral relativism at all. It is not majority rules. Moral relativism is the position that acts must be judged individually and objectively by their circumstances and, more importantly, by their consequences. Moral absolutism judges acts in a vacuum, with no regard to consequences. It's LAZY morality, not perfect morality. Moral absolutism is for people who don't want to think before they act.
Your argument does not hold true:Those who supported slavery turned to the BIBLE to support their views.The Spanish inquisition?Where did they get their inspiration?Where did the 911 hijackers get their inspiration?Belief in god only reinforces our own belief structure, and it is easy for a "holy man" to warp those beliefs for their own uses, as in Jonestown.The only reason why a lot of moral concepts ended up in the bible, (and koran and torah) is because PEOPLE put them there.
Great job Paleo. Evidence of a God and of a loving one is all around us - except for the willingly ignorant. Einstein, Newton, Hawking, etc. all concluded that there had to have been an intelligent, prime mover, and it wasn't them despite their efforts to prove otherwise. I suppose all these hacks attempting to debate the side of no God are more intelligent than these fellows.
I hate the "where do you draw the line?" argument! Close minded thinking like that counts as a loss. It always comes down to being afraid of change and uncertainty of what the future holds. Not like people in power like the church hasn't done enough damage. How much money does the vatican get from people every year and what is it spent on? People in third world countries like africa could thrive with pocketmoney that the Vatican has!
lol, does the Pumpkin Pie Baking Granny use Hitler's ovens?
Alright. Then let's play without lines. No lines drawn. Let the murderers, rapists, thieves, and child molesters free. If we can't draw a line, then there is no line. If there is no line, then there is no crossing it. No rights, no violation of rights, no tyranny or freedom.
"Open minded" people like you can talk all day long. But it would be hell on earth if you got your way. Thank God we have enough "closed minded" people smart enough not to fall for your nonsense.
I see you want to win this by using a term to it's extremes. You don't need a bible or any religous text to know what is right and what is wrong. This includes murderers, rapist, thieves, and child molesters being bad. Exploitation is also bad (like religous figures).
Take it that if an old lady is crossing a street and it looks like she needs help. Naturally you would think "She needs to be helped" and you would help her out for her not because the bible says so.
On the one hand you aren't a fan over debating where (if anywhere) a line may be drawn. On the other hand you say that my examples are extremes. Furthermore, you admit to there being a line dividing right and wrong! You even list some rights and wrongs. Then comes the bare assertion, begging the question.
I'm talking about this on my radio show tonight. Feel free to listen. Calling in would be classic. Most atheists chicken out... with lame excuses. Unfortunate, but predictable.
Anyone is welcome to comment on my channel. I deny no one, and I only block those who flood my site with nonsense. To date, I have only done this to two or three people, all but one being permitted back on after promising to discontinue flooding.
Deists are a rare breed, so your take will be insightful.
Well, my own take on morals is that if something harms someone and it can be avoided, then it is immoral. I guess my morals spring from empathy, which is a trait necessary to human society. Granted, it's not really a Deist take on morality (I'm not even sure there is one), but there it is.
I'm not seeing the connection between Atheism and morality though. Take an Atheist Buddhist for example, I know one, and he doesn't buy into moral relativism any more than you do.
But isn't it funny that this video isn't even dealing with whether people consistently live out their espoused ethical presuppositions? Nobody here is saying that Christians or atheists consistently live out their espoused worldview. The issue under discussion was with how we come to ethical conclusions and how these findings are in any way binding.
In short, your point here is worthless... at least for this video. It may work (not likely) on another, but not here.
hello, i am the nicest human being to have ever existed on the face of the earth, and i dont believe in neither god nor allah, nor do i believe any teaching should nor could really tell anyone how to live, for it is already in each and everyone of us to understand that the way we ourselves like to be treated is the same way we should strive to treat others that surround us to acheive the maximal amount of happiness for all - religion and such aside, just be nice and that's all there is to it ;)
Yes we need a massmurdering evil spirit like the God of the bible to tell us about morality. LOL!
This looney called paleocrat does not understand that atheism does not disapprove different opinions that eventually can change public opinion. But those opinions will first have to spread before society can change because otherwise every minority opinion would have to be implemented which is worse than majority rule.
This guy is just attacking straw mans and has no idea what he is talking about.
killer4hire 1 month ago
You must be confusing Atheism with nihilism.
God is not the only necessity for an objective standard, God only represents a single consequence or benefit to an action when there is a lot more to consider. Think of any action you'd like (good or bad), assess consequences and benefits then ask yourself, "would I do it without god's authority?" Is that not enough to say that there is an obligation without God, with one life on this Earth? Life is learning experience and that is how we find good.
Bourtini 4 months ago
I hope I can help you see something I've observed,
You say you have moral guidance because of "God said so". The outcome of actions are either a benefit or a consequence. Eliminate God and what consequences or benefits are you left with? Enough to make good decisions? Does mankind lose the ability of understanding what is right and wrong, and retain no sense of sympathy or emotion?
Bourtini 4 months ago
The points he makes in this video are all well reasoned, but moron atheists are all honor bound to sink pro-Christian videos in ratings, and they refuse to even entertain opposing points of view. Shows exactly how "free thinking" and "open minded" they really are.
stallion4life 5 months ago
How difficult is it for people to understand the basis for morality... it's stunning.
he's clearly heard that morality has something to do with society and has made the rest of it up. It's to do with what people have to do to get on and co-exist beneficially.
Nothing to do with people coming together and deciding.
And these 'problems' you come up with, which suggest that atheism is wrong because it says people disagree about morality... people do disagree about what's right and wrong.
goonerh1 6 months ago
Choose a damn side already, stop asking "if" and "how". You sound like a little philosophy student bickering about your uncertainty.
This wasn't a discussion. It provoked no thought whatsoever. You failed.
redshark618 7 months ago
Wow this is fucking dumb
toThe9thPower 9 months ago
retards believe in god
kavimander 1 year ago
The evidence your belief system has presented proving its superiority and legitimacy is no more veracious than that presented by any other in human culture, past or present. You got some nerve telling anyone they're "morally bankrupt." Nothing more pathetic than an agnry, bitter Christian going on psuedo intellectual rants hoping to gain converts or worse, hoping to best some poor naive Youtube atheist. Get a life, paleocrat!! Try applying the erudition to somehting more worthwhile!
nosajj12345 1 year ago
if one's moral system were only based on experiences, one's system would be constantly changing, so everybody's moral system would be different. eg your moralsystem,if you had not learned otherwise, might be that its ok to sleep with a friend's wife.The friend's moralsystem will normally be that such action is not ok. Who is right?The science world is full of absolutes. Obviouslythe more departure from absolutes in morality(not only sexual), the worse this world becomes.
steventhr 1 year ago
Good to hear, I'm glad morality does not come from the bible then, cause then the world would be the most disgusting place.
kimflie 1 year ago
If morality is relative, Hitler to as good/bad as your gran.... Stupid cunt doen't even know the meaning of the word 'relative. Ignorant fundamentalist christian shitbag.
ilkinond 1 year ago
The title of this video is misleading. It should be "Moral Relativism = Moral Bankruptcy". Atheism by definition is simply the disbelief in god/gods.
jollyradical 1 year ago
The irony is rich. See, the video's reasoning is air-tight, but atheists reject its conclusions because they intuitively sense that they aren't true (which means the theistic world view is true). What they don't understand is that their belief/disbelief does not provide for a world view which contains morality. That atheists don't see this is why the video is dead-on in calling atheists intellectually "bankrupt." What is interesting is that Dawkins would agree with this video!
SSLinebeck 1 year ago
@SSLinebeck The only ones that are 'intellectually bankrupt' are the ones that require an eternal, invisible man in the sky to baby-feed them a rule at a time on how they should behave.
trecool9992 1 year ago
Typical apologist; inventing problems that only his god can answer.
Moral relativism is not atheism. And you speak of atheist running around; I've never heard an argument so schizophrenic as yours.
kuroshashu 1 year ago
To the best of my knowledge, more than 51% of the people in the United States of America believe in treating other people with the same amount of respect that they want to be treated with. Before the late 1800's , more than 51% of the people in The united States of America thought that slavery was fine, were opposed to the liberation of slaves, and thought that lynching was a fine form of entertainment!
superfalcon123 1 year ago
Sorry but why does bronze age mumbo-jumbo interprited by credulous bigots deserve to be called an objective standard?
ma049 1 year ago
Alright. here's the thing. Atheist as i am, i have no motivations to do evil. Sure i have motivation to get laid, to eat, to do whatever is of evolutionary benefit to myself. I do not believe these things to be sinful. As a philanthropist i do the best i can for my fellow man without being threatened and bribed by heaven and hell. Therefore i am morally superior to you.
fullmetalcock666 1 year ago
Religions are inherited or accepted emotionally. Both are erroneous paths in the search for truth. Google Doe’s Account.
Copachick 1 year ago
Why do you need someone or thing to rule you? why cant you think on your own?
gotzJazzhandz 1 year ago
Relative doesn't mean random. It means evaluating situations against each other and finding their relative worth by any number of criteria. It's taking a thinking approach to moral dilemmas, while moral absolutism seems to give haven to statements like "lying is always wrong."
Buddythunder1 1 year ago
Very black and white world you live in, huh. Moral relativism does not leave us in the position of not being able to make moral distinctions between Hitler and an old granny, why would it? Quite a rant though.
Buddythunder1 1 year ago
@Buddythunder1 A lot of black and white, but plenty of different colors and various shades as well. We are talking about whether or not a standard or rule by which to use as a objective reference point for situational ethics exists. Admitting of such a standard's existence, giving a norm by which to reference when making ethical decision and actions, is a far cry from saying that everything demanding a reference is crystal clear, easily deemed black or white.
paleocrat 1 year ago
@paleocrat
So the point your trying to get across is that since there isnt a standard to govern how to react to moral dilemmas with relativism or that relativism isn't as good a morals are standard?
Even if most people agree on something (is killing bad) start asking questions in different scenarios and nearly everyone will have a different response to what is ok. (never, in self defense, threatened, wartime, serial killers, euthanasia, suicide) each having innumerable situations.
dablue1 1 year ago
@Buddythunder1 Relativism is just that, relative. Period. A relativist may admit that there is some strange and elusive norm outside of the individual, but this is horribly problematic and grossly inconsistent. What standard? Who says? How broad is its moral jurisdiction? Who says? Is it binding? Who says? And given relativist presuppositions, who in their right mind would deem their relative answers morally binding on those who disagree? Consistency is the silver bullet on this one.
paleocrat 1 year ago
@paleocrat
Morals are relative and completely subjective.
They also differ based upon each individual person. Moral relativism just means that each person has a different view of what is moral (with no proof that any is correct)
Noone can say they are binding to others. They could however give reasons as to why they did something.
Killing is wrong(both society and moral reasons why) but in the case of self defense killing is OK by society. Killing is OK in terms of war by soldiers also
dablue1 1 year ago
No one on earth justifies their own bad behavior through twisted reasoning more than the very religious. They commit some of the most heinous acts imaginable with a clear conscience. Secular thinkers such as the Founding Fathers looked to Nature for a sound moral guide based on respect for others who desire the same things they do, and with whom we must share this earth. As soon as the supernatureal begins to interfere with moral laws, compassion and justice begin to erode.
luvdomus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution supplies all that is needed for the development
of codes of conduct that preserve and facilitate
survival and co-operation,
which is precisely what these "laws" do.
Such sensitivities in no way support any particular god.
In fact, as Christians believe that their most heinous acts
will be magically vanished and forgotten via human sacrifice,
they actually have very little incentive to act in a moral manner.
Hmmm..
That just might explain a hell of a lot.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Interesting point. I see what you're saying. I believe in God, but I'm not "religious". When I see other so called Christians groveling it makes me want to puke. I think God would prefer a person to a sheep.
Soixante366 2 years ago
Evidently God, since God is the maker. Agreed that no two people can agree on the opinion of God and the bible in all matters, hence the need for a definative moral authority. Yes? If not there can be no definative morality.
The next step is to determine who that moral authority is. It is, of course, the Holy See. Why? There are plenty of books about that.
Drasai 2 years ago
@Post... "Couldn't atheists be the real Christians?"....
Couldn't blue be the real red? Couldn't good be the real evil?...
You've created another God that created Christianity in order to deceive(weed out) those seeking him.... Christians believe in a true, good, loving and holy God... Not a God of deception. So hypothetically... If that's the case, so be it.
On Worship - (See: Matt. 22:37)
On Fear - (See: 1John 4:18)
(Also See: Prov. 1:7)
SavedTru8 2 years ago
@saved
Sorry for the multi-comment
To address your second point.
I for the most part agree, atheism is a focus on evidential information.
And I argue that morals can be learned through the application of information and logic.
I even argue that how they exist even today.
NoahIV 2 years ago
@ Post.... I'm not sure I understand what you mean or where you might be going with this...
Sounds like you're asking something along the lines of... "What if good were actually evil?". No offense.
How can self-willed seperation from God get you eternity with Him? That sounds like punishment to me! :)
SavedTru8 2 years ago
Christianity is morally bankrupt.
Christianity encourages obedience to replace a moral code.
Its immoral to rape a room full of innocent people. In every way.
Except for a Christian.
How? What if God told you to do it?
God works in mysterious ways, so you can not argue to know that God never would ask that of you.
And that's not the point. IF God asked you to rape multiple people, then kill them, would you?
To say yes is to prove there are nor morals.
To say no, is to disobey your God.
NoahIV 2 years ago
@Noah
"Christianity is morally bankrupt......" Etc.
- Is this a joke? It seems you don't understand Moral Relativism or Christianity at all my friend.
-Do you know why none of these militant atheists are correcting your misinformed gibberish? Atheisms foundation is, "seperation from God". They don't care if you actually know anything.
The absolute truth of atheism is that, "Information exists". There's never anything right or wrong about the interactions of information!
SavedTru8 2 years ago
@saved
I appreciate your mild approach. (In regards to your lack of hostility.)
Im not saying Christians are morally bankrupt. And im not saying its evil either.
Would murdering your kids be immoral?
Any christian would agree it is.
But any christian would do this if God commanded it.
So its not ultimately morals that is the goal, but obedience.
If my logic is flawed, do correct me. Im always open for a new perspective.
NoahIV 2 years ago
@Noah...
-Christians follow Jesus Christ and his teachings.... Hence the name "CHRISTians". The word is clear on avoiding false Gods that oppose Christ and his teachings.
"atheism is a focus on evidential information"
-Wrong. Atheism is simply the disbelief in the existence of deity. Anything can be learned through the application of information and logic.. You can argue the existence of anything just the same.
SavedTru8 2 years ago
It seems you are using harsh and insulting language for ratings, and to fire up those who already agree with you.
Logic, when applied correctly, can answer these questions. How do we know who's logic is more superior? As long as both views are looking at the same issue differently, then there's no measure. For neither view has comparable merits. Knowledge is all we have to judge things buy. Knowledge and logic.
NoahIV 2 years ago
The segment was from my radio show, and I spoke in a manner I believe to be quite appropriate.
For the presuppositionalist, the issue is whether your assumptions about the world, being and knowledge provide any kind of foundation for the use of knowledge and logic.
Tired of debating this most obvious and elementary point.
paleocrat 2 years ago
So you're tired of debating that application of logic and knowledge to our world?
Even if you were tired of such a non-existent debate, its unnecessary for you to include that. An intellectual exchange of ideas is no place for belittlement. Again, a trend toward the insulting language.
NoahIV 2 years ago
paleocrat "Talking slavery to a guy who studied theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism for 10 years? Wow. Name off how many forms of slavery were in the OT. What does it say of stealing and buying innocent people?"
Who cares what you studied? Big deal. You might as well have studied Bigfoot.
There are plenty of people who HAVE also studied those subjects and agree that the bible does endorse slavery. So you're "I'm an expert and you don't know what you're talking about" rebuttal doesn't wash
shlockofgod 1 year ago
Morality IS relative. Nothing is ever set in stone. There are culturally unacceptable or completely conterproductive things (e.g. being homosexual and murdering) are generally accepted as moral. You really need a better understanding of things.
Tsiehtalol 2 years ago
You people simply don't get it.
Childinfaith 2 years ago
Paleocrat, I'm wondering if you really understand what morality is and how moral systems work in a society. Recognizing that morality by its very nature has to be relative does not mean that you therefore have no moral system.
I am an attheist and consider morals to be relative, but I do live by a very strict moral system.
AndreaZ64 2 years ago
You believe morality is relative AND you live by a very strict moral system? I don't think that makes sense. If its relative, you cannot condemn anyone else for breaking your own moral code as long as they are living by their strict moral code; at which point, morality becomes useless.
jdcremin 2 years ago
Jdcremin, it does make sense. My personal moral system is based on making personal moral choices. That is true morality. And because of that I can judge others based on my morals. But I am human just like the ones I judge and we can disagree. Morality is not fixed and is not a given. And that is why a society is always debating about moral choices. That is one of the means by which societies generate a common moral foundation.
AndreaZ64 2 years ago
It makes sense if you're refering to intercultural morals. when you're taking about one culture, like a nation, the morals then cannot be relative - being "relative" is not the same as being debated. Relative, to me, means that there is more than one right or wrong for the same decision depending on the person's viewpoint. In that philosophy, there could be no laws - I may beleive stoning is an immoral punishment for promiscuity, a strict muslim does not.
jdcremin 2 years ago
There is also the question of where your morals come from. For instance, people aren't born with the idea that having children out of wedlock is wrong.
jdcremin 2 years ago
"being "relative" is not the same as being debated. "
No, but there is debate because there is disagreement about what exactly is right or wrong in certain situations. This disagreement exists because evidently morals are relative. In many situations we can agree on certain morals because we are social primates with the same interests.
Relative does not mean that you have to accept all moral decisions made by anyone. It does not mean that to you personally all moral decisions are equally right.
AndreaZ64 2 years ago 2
continued:
Relative means that your opinion about what is right or wrong differs from what someone else thinks. You can not place yourself outside the debate about your own morals. You are a part of that debate and therefore your own morals are relative to those of someone else. But nevertheless you can think about your own morals as being right and those of the other as being wrong. In a society consensus rules and we have laws that represent this consensus.
AndreaZ64 2 years ago
True moral bancruptcy is typically seen among those who submissively obey the dictates of a master. This can be a god-like or a human dictator. These dictates can be very immoral like many that are given by the bible god. If the bible god orders you to murder homosexual men or unbelievers and you do this because he says so, then you are indeed morally bankrupt. Morality is not about slavishly obeing orders, but about making personal moral choices.
AndreaZ64 2 years ago 2
Very well stated, AndreaZ64. Thanks for being the voice of reason.
Skullpudding 2 years ago
Name an action performed by believers that could not be performed by non-believers? You can't, but we're still morally bankrupt?
Actions should be judged according to their consequences, based on the well being of society and individuals.
Also, not all atheists are statists.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
all my comments turned up at the front of the page instead of as replies.
I suck.
maximuslaurius 2 years ago
i believe that people who cant spell divine shouldnt believe in it.
evolution is NOT unproven and scientists get fed up of reminding people of it.
maximuslaurius 2 years ago
this is where things get dangerous.
"darwin out" is a very risky proposition because his theories filter into all aspects of modern science, not just the origin of mankind. you put yourself on a very slippery slope with such flippancy.
maximuslaurius 2 years ago
the catholic church persecuted jews.
hitler persecuted jews.
why then is hitlers catholisism or lack therof relevant?
maximuslaurius 2 years ago
Moron. Democracy, by your definition of majority rule being 'mob' rule, is immoral. GOD has the best answers??? I am an atheist. I did not need god to tell me that slavery and racism, murder and thievery, were/are wrong. Good thing too since god advocates for them all in that fairytale bible written by people who lived in huts. Just what 'best answers' can you be referring to? What is WRONG with you that you need imaginary characters to create a sense of morality in your dark, shriveled souls?
gregsto 2 years ago
My very existence destroys this idea that atheists are morally compromised. I'm an atheists who has no criminal record, advocates for freedom, rights and equality. I have never cheated on my girlfriend. I don't hate people just because they are different. I will defend a stranger if they are being wronged. I have put my own life in danger to save others. Yet my morals did not come from religion. you can't determined if someone is moral based on if they're religious.
systematic101 2 years ago
Hence 70% of people in jail being Christian, so you're saying a christian would be morally rich, yet for this to be true, they wouldn't be in jail. Explain the relevance of that situation
MLGV3ngeance 2 years ago 7
even if we were to dwell on this false dichotomy (morality derrived from god or evil/chaos/danger) the reasoning is inherently flawed. it essentially means that god decides what the good is. even if, from the christian perspective, god advocates universal love, there is no reason why he shouldn't advocate the opposite. if he did, it would be the good as well.
fede2 2 years ago
I do not like the label 'atheist', I simply choose not to believe in a god - obviously that is my choice.
That I am morally bankrupt because of this? Hehe - paleocrat - what a plonker you really are...
DontLoseTheLesson 2 years ago
So just because atheism can't account for a moral objective truth means it's false, and also verifies Christianity? Laughable.
So what if there isn't a moral objective truth?
Even if moral objective truth exists, does it necessitate the Christian God?
If it does, is it moral simply because of what God says, or God says it because it is moral?
ohmandamp 2 years ago
*Laughs Out Loud* at "Is it Moral? Take a pole?"
The majority need the minority, not the other way around!
93
Y
galen106 2 years ago
Why is it that the religious are so self demeaning as to deny that humans are capable and indeed worthy of deriving our own morality? They insist that we are all sin spawn that are dirty and worthless until they kneel prostrate and submit to an unaccountable, undetectable celestial dictatorship. It is sado masochism at it's most vitriolic.
81geek 2 years ago 2
I think this video is a walking (talking?) fallacy.
Morality based on the views of the individual don't just magically appear. It takes consensus over long periods of time. The groundwork was set millenia ago, and we're still refining it. Yes, the minority can shift and affect the majority, but it takes time, hard work, and perseverance. You say that trying to change suggests a universal morality, yet even "God's Word" changed over time. Remember biblicly condoned rape and slavery?
ReverendLondo 2 years ago
Moral relativity doesn't mean that no one can be more moral than anyone else.
It means that everyone gets a say, we have democracy rather than a dictator.
samalamlam 2 years ago
"Moral Bankruptcy"
Oh lemme guess why. Because we dare to form our own morals that are based on our expiriences with life instead of relying on a book? Yeah...we really "immoral".
Prodigyexam12 2 years ago
Uh, yes. When one is left with no more than relativism and situation ethics without an ethical system that is both universal and normative, then it is a free-for-all. Different strokes for different folks, and many folks prefer immorality. You have no safeguard against such unethical behavior, save for their own personal distaste. But who cares? Surely not the relativist.
And I believe many of you are moral. But this is in blatant contradiction with espoused ethical presuppositions.
paleocrat 2 years ago
Lemme guess again, by forming your own morals threw what you expirience in life means you are immoral.
Prodigyexam12 2 years ago
paleocrat : There is NO ethical sytem that is both universal and normative. Simply have a look at what was ethical in different past and p resent cultures . For the Mayans, and other cultures human sacrifice was ethical. For those survivors of the plane crash in the Andes, years ago, eating human flesh was moral. Necessity is one of the factors that establishes morality. Abortion is not acceptable. If the population explosion continues, abortion will be completely acceptable.
Philos2006 2 years ago
So you are saying that unless some all powerful entity watches our every move and monitors our every thought that we should and would simply not hold ourselves accountable for our actions? Give humanity some credit, and try to see past your nose. We don't need a dictator to force us to be compassionate, fair, just. There is no need for a safeguard when people are civil and humane, it's called progress and we don't need a god to do it.
81geek 2 years ago
But you've missed the point of the video. Without some objective absolute, who decides what is "just"? How many more children have to die of starvation, HIV, war, and torture before you are willing to admit you've given humanity too much credit?
Drasai 2 years ago
If you have a middle school education or higher, your moral actions are justified through historic stories, where person A does this and B happens, with B obviouslly being a negative effect, without the inclusion on a "higher being" or religion.
MLGV3ngeance 2 years ago
Upon what basis do you account an effect negative or positive status? Negative for who? Positive for who? That's like someone saying that a 2by4 cut in two randomly is too short. Shorter than what? Without a "third thing", something to judge between two alternatives, there is no way to make that determination. And the third thing couldn't be another alternative itself or else you will be back where you started. What allows humans to judge right and wrong is non-material, abstract, and universal.
frmoses4 2 years ago
Comment removed
frmoses4 2 years ago
@Drasai "But you've missed the point of the video. Without some objective absolute, who decides what is "just"?"
Okay, where are these moral absolutes?
"How many more children have to die of starvation, HIV, war, and torture before you are willing to admit you've given humanity too much credit?"
Yep, if only there had been more religion in the world.
shlockofgod 1 year ago
@shlockofgod Well, frankly, yes.
Religion says "feed the poor" = no starvation
Religion says "don't fornicate" = no HIV
Religion says "don't provicate or kill" = no war
Religion says "respect human dignity" = no torture
So, yes, if only there had been more religion in the world. If the hard of heart followed these principles (among others) children wouldn't suffer. It is selfishness and ungodliness that causes these things.
Drasai 1 year ago
@Drasai Those four things were also said by the Nazis.
You miss the point anyway. I was being sarcastic. The world has been almost completely full of religion for most of it's history.
Also, where are these moral absolutes?
shlockofgod 1 year ago
You suck at guessing. Seriously, don't quit your day job.
For one, I admitted outright that an atheist can be "moral." But relativism, based on individual experiences, would make all actions "moral" in this regard, for one is merely doing what they want on account of their believing themselves to have learned from experiences in their life. Relativism doesn't merely blur the moral-immoral line. Rather, it obliterates it.
Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura.
Catch up! You're behind.
paleocrat 2 years ago
You have no idea what you are saying. It's like listening to the most oblique non statements, rhetorical and worthless.
81geek 2 years ago
Hitler could be argued to be no less moral than the grandma baking cookies for her grandchildren. It just depends on how you view it. From those of us that were raised in an environment that didn't promote antisemitism, what he did was awful. In the eyes of those that dealt with hardships, while "a lesser people" were prospering, it was the perfectly rational choice to rid the land of the "lesser people." It's all about the relativism. There are no absolute morals.
xlanciferionx 2 years ago
"what he did was awful."
The contradiction here is that your already placed a preconcived notion of morality upon an action that is no more or less offensive to anything else. "Awful" by what definition? Yours mine? And on what grounds were we justified to stop him?
Childinfaith 2 years ago
"`Awful' by what definition?"
Answered in the preceding sentence:
"From those of us that were raised in an environment that didn't promote antisemitism"
Did you see that? I didn't say it was objectively wrong. I stated that it was based on a specific viewpoint. It was awful because of the sorrow and senseless loss of life for one man's lust for power.
We didn't go over there because of the Jews. We went over there to help our allies, the UK and France. Finding the camps was a coincidence.
xlanciferionx 2 years ago
Google "CatholicNaziLeaders" (one word) and read my LiberalsLikeChrist site which shows that Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Josef Goebbels, Reinhard Heydrich, Rudolf Hoess, Julius Streicher, Fritz Thyssen (who bankrolled the Nazi rise to power), Klaus Barbie, and Franz Von Papen and many other LEADERS of Nazism were the products of Roman Catholicism, NOT atheism.
( And by the way, chances are that the Vietnamese gunman in the video was a Catholic, executing a Hindu.
Rayosun 2 years ago
lol @ 6:23
seinfan9 2 years ago
The Abrahamic god is as portrayed in "holy books" is not moral.
So many stories about wrath, plaques, retributions, genocide, and of course hell... all from god if you piss him off. What is so moral about that?
Fact is god and all these stories were FABRICATED by men and used as fear tactics to solicit cooperation and obedience in order to dominate and control the masses. That is not so moral either.
sweetsweatyfeet 2 years ago 2
Wow, you know everything.
SimpleFigment14 2 years ago
Nope, but the bible says what it says and there's lots of nasty stuff in there. But ignore it if you like and pretend Christians have a monopoly on morality.
sweetsweatyfeet 2 years ago 3
How do you not know everything? You seem to already know what kind of attitude i take on the issue, after i leave a comment having nothing to do with it. It takes a genius to what you have done here. Thank you for allowing me to witness this. Thank you.
SimpleFigment14 2 years ago
Well if you have an attitude why not just state it instead of playing little games of obvious sarcasm.
sweetsweatyfeet 2 years ago 6
LOL. atheists have way more morals than theists. just look at the crime rates comparison in between the two.
CrossHeart79 2 years ago
care to show them?
Josh42222 2 years ago
Look into religious belief and prison population statistics.
CrossHeart79 2 years ago
Not really a strong argument as people in prison tend to turn to religion, not necessarily being religious before.
Hastur83 2 years ago
true, that does happen in many cases (and vice versa) but these statistics were taken before they were put in prison. so my argument still remains valid.
CrossHeart79 2 years ago
Wait, wat? How were these statistics taken before they were put in prison? Have they been tracking individuals for a period of time, and some of them ended in prison?
Hastur83 2 years ago
another thing I want to add is this. Telling me I have no morals, or ethics, or I don't understand where ethics or morals come from, then to say "it comes from god" is a logical fallacy, called APPEAL TO IGNORANCE. There, I have debunked this video within 2 seconds, why???? Because logical fallacies invalidate arguments. 2 seconds. Isnt that funny?????
jay666KJ 2 years ago
"Is might right?" The hypocrisy here is amazing. The very reason they think that objective morality comes from God is BECAUSE God is powerful. Otherwise, they wouldn't follow him. And slavery was abolished BECAUSE of moral relativism. If there weren't different views on Earth... if EVERYONE believed slavery was ok, then there wouldn't be anyone to stand up against it.
tigga3x 2 years ago
I've really been wanting a christian to answer me this one SIMPLE question. If god said, its okay to rape little children, does that make it moral?
nazi: Hitler said killing jews is okay.
me: so if Hitler said raping kids it okay, its okay?
nazi: Hitler would never say that.
ITS IRREVELENT, its IF, IF he said it.
Also want to point out that saying it comes from god, is APPEAL TO AUTHORITY "god said so" Its a logical fallacy, since it is, your argument is invalid.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
and if you say "no, raping children is wrong regardless if god DID say it." then youv shown that your argument is invalid, and the mere fact that you go against slavery, even though its never EVER said to be wrong, and is even endorsed in the old and new testament shows for a FACT your argument is invalid. Regardless if its a logical fallacy. So your argument is flawed in 3 different ways.
its a logical fallacy, its also contradictory, and picking and choosing. See 3 different ways.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
Talking slavery to a guy who studied theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism for 10 years? Wow. Name off how many forms of slavery were in the OT. What does it say of stealing and buying innocent people? What does it say about marriage, mistreatment, or indentured servitude? The fact that you compare chattel slavery to the kind of slavery in the OT displays a great deal of ignorance on the issue.
paleocrat 2 years ago
"The fact that you compare chattel slavery to the kind of slavery in the OT displays a great deal of ignorance on the issue. " so theres a good slavery [god's slavery] and OUR style of slavery.....thank you so much for clearing this up.
As for references, i am sure you'll do what the slave owners did and say "manservant" or "maid" Kinda like how prostitutes call them selves "hobbies" So whats the point in talking????????????????????????????
jay666KJ 2 years ago
I also LOVE how you skipped my question of "if god said raping your child is moral, does that make it moral" and in the same comment, I already explained how "he would never say that." is a logical fallacy, red herring. And a avoidance of the question. Don't be like a nazi and say "Hitler would never say that." its completely irrelevant if he did or did not say it.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
Your question is rather silly. It would be like asking me what I would do if I was an African American. If you want to redefine our position of God and his nature, ask some off the wall hypothetical, and then do a victory dance when Christians don't take the question seriously, go for it.
For the record: We do not attribute obedience to his commands to fear of his omnipotence. Normative ethics are derived from the revelation of his nature and will to man.
Try again.
paleocrat 2 years ago
@paleocrat "For the record: We do not attribute obedience to his commands to fear of his omnipotence."
Why follow them then? Normative ethics are derived from the revelation of his nature and will to man.
Try again."
There's no evidence to support that. However there's plenty of evidence to support the idea that "morality" is an evolved trait.
Appealing to the supernatural is unnecessary .
shlockofgod 1 year ago
How did human beings come to the realization that slavery is bad? How about why it would be wrong to stone a woman to death on her wedding day if she wasn't a virgin. Or not to kill someone if they are working on Sunday, or not to kill your children if they talk back to you. Come on, if the bible is the word of god, and god is where we get our morals, all of these things are justified, god has all the answers remember. This is ridiculous.
senorfletch 2 years ago
The woman was stoned because she would be guilty of adultery if she was not a virgin. Because of our obsession with sexual "freedom" these days, we don't see adultery as even bad. As for killing your children, I think that the text means more than talking back to you-it is rebellion of a very serious order and it was to be judged by the elders of the city, not the parents. Read all of the text, not just some of it please.
bfyau 2 years ago
I'm sorry I was just under the impression that if some statements in the bible can be taken literally all should. But yes I should read the whole bible. I did read gensis for a class once and other parts less closely, I don't know if it is common that believers take it as literal truth.
Exodus 35:2
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
Seems pretty clear to me.
senorfletch 2 years ago
"Because of our obsession with sexual "freedom" these days"
Some would argue that there has been much more of an obsession with prohibiting sexual freedom in our history than anything. Religion seems very afraid of sex. I don't really know why.
senorfletch 2 years ago
Comment removed
Oceanus57 2 years ago
As it is a fact that there is no god, then god is clearly not the source of anything.
You don't need to bother with any argument more complex than that.
You can dress up your stinky medaevil predjudices in a swanky carnival of fancy lingustics and decorate it with all the gold leaf in the world.
But you'll still be left with the fact that no god exists, and that therefore the truth about anything and everything that human beings have ascribed to the hand of god must lie elsewhere.
Oceanus57 2 years ago
"morality is a human conception reflected on a particular aspect of reality"
That doesn't cover those who act outside of such the standard. What if a specific area of humanity opposes your presupposition of morality. By what authority can you say who is wrong or right? What seperates our morality than that of the chemical imbalaces of an animal acting upon nature and its reality?
Childinfaith 2 years ago
Which part of the sentence "There is no God." are you struggling to understand?
Oceanus57 2 years ago
I understand perfectly what your saying. I just think you're wrong. Thats what you can't understand. People have disagreements. Get over yourself.
Childinfaith 2 years ago
Yeah, my kids think the tooth fairy's real and santa comes down the chimney.
I disagree with them, but I don't tell them about it because there's no harm in their believing it.
But when they grow up a bit, I'll be very disappointed if they're so dumb as to tell me they have an invisible friend living in the sky who's all-powerful and full of love who sits up there watching as his wonderous creations are tortured, ravaged by war and disaster and disease and does nothing to fix it.
Oceanus57 2 years ago
I'm glad to see you have become sure of something that is very hard to be sure of. In order to say there is no God, you have to be God Himself. All you can say is that you are not sure. Anything more is arrogance.
bfyau 2 years ago
Comment removed
Oceanus57 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
""In order to say there is no god you have to be god himself"
That's a neat piece of circular godbotherer thinking that's a new one on me.
But it's pure hokum, and utterly moronic.
When I'm watching a lousy ventriloquist act, or even a good one, I don't need to be the dummy before I understand that the guy controlling everything is the ventriloquist.
To perfectly understand that there is no god, all that's required is to investigate the motivation of his pupeteers.
Oceanus57 2 years ago
One more thing. It's a godbotherer standard to accuse anyone who says there is no god with being arrogant.
Yet what could be more arrogant than claiming that there is a god and that you understand him so well you can explain any confusion someone else might have as a result of reading his disgusting iron age slave trader;s manual?
Surely arrogance doesn't come any more smug and repulsive than that?
Oceanus57 2 years ago
It is not arrogance to dismiss something that has no evidence. Do fairies exist or unicorns. How about manbearpig, a creature that is half man half bear and half pig. Really anything we can think up could exist, as long as it followed rules of logic(a square circle does not exist for example). What is much more arrogant is for people to say one of these things exist, and not just keep this belief to themselves but to create laws based on these beliefs.
senorfletch 2 years ago
Fairies and unicorns do not make moral demands on us; God does. Manbearpigs do not make certain things right or wrong; if they exist, they exist, if not it is of no matter to this discussion. God has made requirements of us and that's why we make laws based on "these beliefs". Besides, what you believe determines how you live - and if you get a lot of God-believers together, their laws will reflect their faith.
bfyau 2 years ago
God does not have higher standing than fairies or unicorns. Both come from books or else people who say they can speak to or see them while nobody else can. You know what they do to people who say they hear voices now? They put them in mental hospitals. You know there are many different gods that have been created throughout human history. They all make different demands and have different morals. Multiple faiths cannot be right, but all of them could be wrong.
senorfletch 2 years ago
The question here is whether or not atheists can account from within their network of related presuppositions (worldview) the necessary preconditions for what we refer to as evidence. Just because evidence exists does not mean that atheists can account for it. They treat it almost as axiomatic... forgetting that axioms also rely upon a set of necessary preconditions that cannot be in conflict with their espoused worldview.
In short, you missed the point.
paleocrat 2 years ago
"the necessary preconditions for what we refer to as evidence"
"Just because evidence exists does not mean that atheists can account for it"
Yep atheists cannot account for the origin of all the evidence they use to develop their world view. Unlike a theist they are not completely certain about any truth of the universe. Atheists use reason, logic and experimentation to form their beliefs of how the universe actually is.
senorfletch 2 years ago
There is no more zeus throwing lightning or poseiden controlling the sea. We have scientific explanations for these things now. Science has yet to explain how the universe began(the details at least), and cannot explain certain experiences we have, or how morals evolve in civilizations. But that doesnt mean it never can. If the best we have on morality is the bible, we are taking our morals from a book that is incompatible with the theory of evolution and the age of the universe.
senorfletch 2 years ago
One more thing, if that comment on slavery was for me sorry for my ignorance on the subject. I definitely have not studied Christianity any more than reading Gensis and a few books written by atheists on the subject. I am forgetting which of Sam Harris' books it was where he commented about slavery, maybe both, but thats where that was coming from.I had hoped he had done some research on the topic,I guess it's never safe to assume.I'll ask Christians how I should interpret the bible from now on.
senorfletch 2 years ago
Comment removed
Oceanus57 2 years ago
Ha ha. Check out your ratings for this peice of nonsense. Top tip - when posting zealoty nonsense, disable ratings and comments, otherwise rational people will come by the truckload and point out to you that you're a god-bothering dipwit.
Oceanus57 2 years ago
The reason people have rated it low is because the atheists that watch it can't disprove or agrue against the claims. Harldy "rational".
Childinfaith 2 years ago
No, the reason people have rated it low is because it's clearly rubbish. Another tip for you - cut and paste your posts into a spell checker before you finally post them. That way people will take longer to realise you're an under-educated bigot with no interest in discovering what is rational whatsoever.
Oceanus57 2 years ago
Here's an idea. Why don't you call him and tell him yourself what you think of his videos. You said yourself that it's a peice of nonsence. I would assume then you would quickly refute the argument of Jeremiah in a one on one encounter. Unless someone is to "busy" to care. I.E. Cowerdice.
Childinfaith 2 years ago
269.749.7398
every monday and friday 5-7 PM EST.
Childinfaith 2 years ago
I will call him and destroy him and make him stutter even more.
Th3chozen1 2 years ago
Yes, somehow I can kill Muslims with one hand and preach the bible with one hand while screaming "ATHEISM HAS NO MORAL!"
Honestly, screaming that Atheists can have no morals holds no truth in reality. Get real before you post dumb ass lectures on YouTube.
Cordman1221 2 years ago
He didn't say they have no morals, he says that they can't account for them.
Childinfaith 2 years ago
Yes, and Christians can right?
Cordman1221 2 years ago
Yes, yes we can.
Childinfaith 2 years ago
If morality would be relative, things would be bad, so therefore it's objective?
wimscheers 2 years ago
frankly, paleocrat, you haven't managed to adress atheism, you've only adressed certain atheists.
you also seem to imply that moral standards are merely a logical conclusion derrived from a preconcieved existance of some diety. that's not nearly enough to have any bearing in reality.
morality is a human conception reflected on a particular aspect of reality (human behavior). it is by this definition as relevant as math or science and demands, as such, objective standards.
fede2 2 years ago
Comment removed
Childinfaith 2 years ago
by what authority? reason. if objective behavioral standards were so removed from our basic understanding, as you suggest, i would have no choice but to be a nihilist.
fede2 2 years ago
"wrong or write(sic)"
hahahahahahaha!
I love it when people want to sound intelligent and important but their spelling lets them down and reveals them for the uneducated fake FAKE FAKES they are!
Oceanus57 2 years ago
Theists do not have a monopoly on morality. A proper code of human morality is determined by reason. Not by inexplicable commandment by some some supernatural entity in the sky. That is not morality, that is obedience.
There are countless religious faiths across the globe each with unique and often conflicting moral codes.
Some of the bloodiest atrocities, murder and suffering in man kinds history came from religious conflict, and intolerance towards those who did not share a particular faith.
sweetsweatyfeet 2 years ago
What a person believe morally is irrelevant to their atheism. Atheism means a lack of a belief in gods. Nothing else. It doesn't even mean no objective morality. It doesn't mean a damn thing besides a person's position on god.
anavarre 3 years ago
morality is a separate notion from faith.
fede2 3 years ago
You don't understand moral relativism at all. It is not majority rules. Moral relativism is the position that acts must be judged individually and objectively by their circumstances and, more importantly, by their consequences. Moral absolutism judges acts in a vacuum, with no regard to consequences. It's LAZY morality, not perfect morality. Moral absolutism is for people who don't want to think before they act.
butchkitties 3 years ago
Your argument does not hold true:Those who supported slavery turned to the BIBLE to support their views.The Spanish inquisition?Where did they get their inspiration?Where did the 911 hijackers get their inspiration?Belief in god only reinforces our own belief structure, and it is easy for a "holy man" to warp those beliefs for their own uses, as in Jonestown.The only reason why a lot of moral concepts ended up in the bible, (and koran and torah) is because PEOPLE put them there.
dangerouslytalented 3 years ago 4
Great job Paleo. Evidence of a God and of a loving one is all around us - except for the willingly ignorant. Einstein, Newton, Hawking, etc. all concluded that there had to have been an intelligent, prime mover, and it wasn't them despite their efforts to prove otherwise. I suppose all these hacks attempting to debate the side of no God are more intelligent than these fellows.
Wilyam23 3 years ago
Listening to asinine rubbish like this should be considered immoral for wasting peoples time.
YaMumYaNanYaGran 3 years ago
I hate the "where do you draw the line?" argument! Close minded thinking like that counts as a loss. It always comes down to being afraid of change and uncertainty of what the future holds. Not like people in power like the church hasn't done enough damage. How much money does the vatican get from people every year and what is it spent on? People in third world countries like africa could thrive with pocketmoney that the Vatican has!
lol, does the Pumpkin Pie Baking Granny use Hitler's ovens?
Cybersonic5 3 years ago
Alright. Then let's play without lines. No lines drawn. Let the murderers, rapists, thieves, and child molesters free. If we can't draw a line, then there is no line. If there is no line, then there is no crossing it. No rights, no violation of rights, no tyranny or freedom.
"Open minded" people like you can talk all day long. But it would be hell on earth if you got your way. Thank God we have enough "closed minded" people smart enough not to fall for your nonsense.
paleocrat 3 years ago
I see you want to win this by using a term to it's extremes. You don't need a bible or any religous text to know what is right and what is wrong. This includes murderers, rapist, thieves, and child molesters being bad. Exploitation is also bad (like religous figures).
Take it that if an old lady is crossing a street and it looks like she needs help. Naturally you would think "She needs to be helped" and you would help her out for her not because the bible says so.
Take care!
Cybersonic5 3 years ago 2
On the one hand you aren't a fan over debating where (if anywhere) a line may be drawn. On the other hand you say that my examples are extremes. Furthermore, you admit to there being a line dividing right and wrong! You even list some rights and wrongs. Then comes the bare assertion, begging the question.
I'm talking about this on my radio show tonight. Feel free to listen. Calling in would be classic. Most atheists chicken out... with lame excuses. Unfortunate, but predictable.
paleocrat 3 years ago
I know this little comment section is dedicated to Atheists and their morality, but are Deists welcome as well?
Beskargam 3 years ago
Anyone is welcome to comment on my channel. I deny no one, and I only block those who flood my site with nonsense. To date, I have only done this to two or three people, all but one being permitted back on after promising to discontinue flooding.
Deists are a rare breed, so your take will be insightful.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Well, my own take on morals is that if something harms someone and it can be avoided, then it is immoral. I guess my morals spring from empathy, which is a trait necessary to human society. Granted, it's not really a Deist take on morality (I'm not even sure there is one), but there it is.
I'm not seeing the connection between Atheism and morality though. Take an Atheist Buddhist for example, I know one, and he doesn't buy into moral relativism any more than you do.
Beskargam 3 years ago
I deal with the connection between atheism and ethics in two recent videos:
1. Some Atheists Just Don't Get It
2. Bobin for Answers
paleocrat 3 years ago
I especially like the moral bit in the bible where it says to kill all non-believers, people with long hair, gays and thieves.
Then it condradicts iself by saying that all murderers have to be killed.
Moral. Really...
mitchewawa2 3 years ago
But isn't it funny that Atheists only make up 2 (or was it .2?) percent of the jail population.
jadziafreedom 3 years ago
But isn't it funny that this video isn't even dealing with whether people consistently live out their espoused ethical presuppositions? Nobody here is saying that Christians or atheists consistently live out their espoused worldview. The issue under discussion was with how we come to ethical conclusions and how these findings are in any way binding.
In short, your point here is worthless... at least for this video. It may work (not likely) on another, but not here.
aleebannister 3 years ago
Christians pretty much just want to convert the world because they want everybody else to be just as miserable as they are.
TheAgnosticAspie 3 years ago
hello, i am the nicest human being to have ever existed on the face of the earth, and i dont believe in neither god nor allah, nor do i believe any teaching should nor could really tell anyone how to live, for it is already in each and everyone of us to understand that the way we ourselves like to be treated is the same way we should strive to treat others that surround us to acheive the maximal amount of happiness for all - religion and such aside, just be nice and that's all there is to it ;)
GronTheMighty 3 years ago
A christian talking about morality. That's rich.
Morality is relative.
Your arguements sucks shit. Seriously, they do.
Complete and utter idiocy.
TheWetVirgin 3 years ago 2
what a pile of intellectual puke
lianghaochen 3 years ago
You are certainly a master of shameless self-promotion... congrats.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Christiantity = Moral wealth (you say).
The nazi party was christian based.
Nazis = Moral?
Morality is irrelitive. The nicest man in the world can be atheist.
mitchewawa2 3 years ago
Learn to spell before you make an attempt at trying to sound like you know what your talking about
KengoKilla 3 years ago
Congratulations, a personal attack. Ok for one, you mispelled you're, For another, that has nothing to do with what I said. If you want more proof:
Exodus 21 Verse 7: It says you can sell your daughter to slavery.
If the religion and the bible says this then you wants to be moral?
mitchewawa2 3 years ago