Slavery Anti-Apologetics (Introduction)

[The1066Al]

Further to my last comment...anticipating the objection that the ideology of the USSR was not atheism, I have a book titled "Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism", an English translation published in the USSR in 1961 as an introduction to the state ideology. The first part of the book explains at length that philosophical materialism - i.e. atheism - is the basis of Marxism-Leninism. This is EVIDENCE that atheism drove the SLAVE STATE called the USSR. Have you the integrity to accept this EVIDENCE?

[The1066Al]

OK, so you are arguing on the basis of "theistic morality", but trying to hide the fact that atheistic morality is subjective. So let's suppose you succeed in your goal. You have eradicated the Bible from the planet along with all religious belief. Well done! Right. So where do we go from here? Oh yes, we now have to face the problem that we have no morality at all - or morality imposed by the "atheist establishment" (in other words, a new form of slavery!!). We've already seen this: the USSR.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@The1066Al

Secular morality is objective as well as subjective -- it is based on facts as well as opinions. Without going off on a rant about communism, abortion, or slavery, please just answer this YES or NO question: Is it objectively true that life is better than death?

[The1066Al]

@DiscoveringReligion I don't see how "secular morality" can be objective, if it is based on the philosophy of naturalism, since you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is". That's the naturalistic fallacy. Morality cannot derive from the mere "facts" of nature. For example, show me a stick of dynamite. There is nothing in the properties of that dynamite which tell me what I "ought to" do with it. Naturalistic morality must be entirely subjective. Matter is amoral. Fact!

[DiscoveringReligion]

@The1066Al

Please just answer the question. Is life better than death? Yes or No.

[The1066Al]

@DiscoveringReligion You are asking me for a "yes" or "no" answer. That is not fair, because you are dictating the terms of the debate. You could be imposing a false dichotomy on me. I would say that in most contexts, life is better than death. But there are situations where, in order to preserve the lives of the innocent, the death of certain people (such as convicted mass murderers) may be necessary. I say this on the objective basis of the value of INNOCENT life.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@The1066Al

Thank you, that's all I wanted. I completely agree with you. There are certain times when such a statement is not always true, but for the most part we can objectively claim that life is better than death. If such a statement is true, then wouldn't you also agree that actions that promote/improve the quality of life to be better than those that diminish/destroy the quality of life?

[DiscoveringReligion]

@DiscoveringReligion

If you agree that life is better than death, would you not also agree actions that promote/improve the quality of life to be better than those that diminish/destroy the quality of life? For example, it is objectively true that health is better than disease, joy is better than sadness, and comfort is better than pain. Do you agree with all of these statements?

[The1066Al]

@DiscoveringReligion Yes, I agree with all of those statements.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@The1066Al

Perfect. I also want to mention in addition to joy, happiness, and comfort, we can add freedom to our list of things that improves the quality of life. People that are free to pursue their desires live more enjoyable lives. With all of that said, we have now defined an objective standard upon which to judge all actions. This standard is not based on God, but rather, on the fact that life is better than death and any action that improves the quality of life is good, and thus moral.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@DiscoveringReligion

I will call this objective standard "secular morality", and it works in much the same ways as the objective standard of physical health. A properly functioning body meets a standard of health, falling within the limits of an optimal temperature, blood pressure, bone density, and so on. A post-menopausal woman with the early onset osteoporosis might feel perfectly fine, but her subjective sense of well-being makes no difference to the results of a bone density exam.

[The1066Al]

@DiscoveringReligion "We have now defined an objective standard upon which to judge all actions." - Errm... no we haven't. Not at all! All we have done is agreed between ourselves on certain highly generalised, ill-defined goals. But two people coming to a consensus is not something which can conceivably define what everybody else on the planet "ought" to accept!! That's absurd reasoning. I really don't know where you get your concept of "objectivity" from. Care to explain?

[The1066Al]

@DiscoveringReligion "This standard is not based on God". - What do you mean "based on God"? Are you saying that in order to apply this "objective standard of morality" people have to dispense with their belief in God? If so, then you may be undermining their quality of life, because God is integral to their well-being, irrespective of what you think. Continued...

[The1066Al]

@DiscoveringReligion Continued... Or are you saying that this standard of morality can operate independently of belief in God? If so, then I agree with you (up to a point), especially considering that Christianity affirms that man possesses an inherent moral sense. Or are you just making a political point about the need for a "secular" society as opposed to a theocracy? If so, then I agree again, because authentic Christianity is secular. Continued...

[The1066Al]

@DiscoveringReligion Continued... That last statement may surprise you. But the early church developed within the context of a non-Christian society with the purpose of being "salt in society" - in other words, a positive influence within whatever society it happens to exist in. I am actually a secular Christian for that reason. In fact, there is evidence that Protestantism gave rise to modern secularism, whereas atheism historically has produced tyranny. Continued..

[The1066Al]

@DiscoveringReligion Continued... It is a huge error to say that atheism is a necessary condition for secularism. "Religion" may be the enemy of a secular society, but that is "religion" defined in political terms. This is the kind of "religion" that Jesus himself spoke out against. This has nothing to do with belief in God, but idolising a particular institutional structure. Therefore there is no need at all to be an atheist in order to be "secular".

[The1066Al]

@DiscoveringReligion I can show that your standard of morality cannot be objective. You have made some videos, and I assume that the task of producing these has been rewarding for you, and has enhanced your quality of life. But, because of their content, these videos may have undermined the quality of life and well-being of certain people who strongly disagree with them. So we have a contradiction. How do you then decide whose "quality of life" claim is valid? On what basis?

[The1066Al]

@DiscoveringReligion "Without going off on a rant about communism..." - but this actually relates to the argument about slavery. It's no good just knocking the Bible, if you are not prepared to assess the social influence of alternative ideologies. Atheists have some explaining to do, because an atheistically-influenced ideology created huge prison camps and widespread slavery. That is an indisputable historical fact.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@The1066Al

I'm a secular humanist, not a communist. The only thing I share with the "ideology" of communism is a disbelief in the Christian God, the same disbelief that is shared among 4 billion other people on this planet. If you are going to lump me in with communists, then you better be prepared to do the same with all other non-Christians. Instead of judging me on what I do not believe, how about you judge me on what I ACTUALLY believe. I am not a communist, so your point is invalid.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@DiscoveringReligion

Anyway, back to my point. In much the same way a doctor can judge whether someone is healthy by applying an objective standard of health, armed with our objective standard of secular morality we too can objectively assess situations and consistently arrive at practical answers. Mind you, secular morality does not tell anyone how to live. The only time secular morality interferes with someone's actions is when they infringe on one's autonomy or well-being. Any questions?

[The1066Al]

@DiscoveringReligion You may not be a communist, but the facts of history reveal that certain committed atheists brought millions of people into slavery. Now I find it rather tiresome that whenever Christians commit atrocities, "it's the fault of Christianity or religion", but when atheists do the same, it can never be "because of atheism", because of the argument: "I am an atheist and I don't do those things!!" Hey, I am a Christian and I don't approve of slavery! Get it?

[DiscoveringReligion]

@The1066Al

I've responded to this question DAYS ago. Atheists do not follow a singular doctrine;, but Christians do. All Christians believe in the Bible, which promotes atrocities that we've already discussed. Communists have their own ideology that bars the practice of religion. Although I also reject religion, I fundamentally disagree with the ideology of communism. I am a secular humanist. I will only be held accountable for atrocities committed under secular humanism, and nothing else.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@DiscoveringReligion

Moving on... When I use the term "secular morality" I mean independent of religion. That is the context in which I am using it here, although you might find other ways the term can be used. My standard isn't ill-defined. We can judge all actions according to whether they preserve an individual's autonomy and the well-being of society, while at the same time not infringing on anyone else autonomy. Now that we have defined the standard we can objectively assess any situation.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@DiscoveringReligion

If physicians across the world can agree on a standard of physical health, why would be so so "absurd" for everyone to agree on a moral standard? You just said it is objectively true life is better than death and anything the promotes well-being must be morally good. Therefore, anything that promotes freedom, health, comfort, and happiness would be moral. It's very simple, yet consistent and very comprehensive.

[The1066Al]

@DiscoveringReligion "Atheists do not follow a singular doctrine, but Christians do". - Except that Christians don't. "The Bible" is not a "doctrine". And it does not PROMOTE (get the word?!!!) atrocities. Why do you keep projecting this word into the discussion. I have explained my understanding of this, but you consistently ignore my responses. I wonder why? I have written at length explaining my position. What else can I do?

[DiscoveringReligion]

@The1066Al

Ok then, let's stop this line of questioning. You obviously don't agree with me and I don't agree with you. I am trying to explain secular morality to you and you keep getting sidetracked with communism. I don't care about communism. I am not a communist, so end of story. Judge me by my beliefs and I'll do the same to you.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@DiscoveringReligion

Back to my point (AGAIN)...

Now you brought up the issue of freedom of speech. As I said, Secular Morality (SM) does not tell people how to live, it only preserves their freedoms and promotes well-being. The only time SM can influence behavior is when one's freedoms or well-being is placed in jeopardy. I must have the ability to do and say what I want, so long as I do not infringe on the autonomy or well-being of others.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@DiscoveringReligion

Although I might run the risk of offending someone or hurting feelings with what I say, such an action does not significantly decrease their overall quality of life. They are free to stop listening or move away from me. However, if I begin harassing them then that is is a different story. Furthermore, if my speech incites hate or causes others to harm that person then yes, my speech IS immoral, for it is causing a detriment to that person's well-being. See how that works?

[The1066Al]

@DiscoveringReligion You say that the action of potentially (or actually) hurting someone's feelings does not significantly decrease their overall quality of life. But that is just your opinion!! Where is the objective evidence that supports such a view? I believe in freedom of speech, but my agreement with this issue is irrelevant. Even if we both agree on something, that does not, by itself, make the issue "objectively" valid necessarily. Continued....

[The1066Al]

@DiscoveringReligion 2. Then you say that a potentially offended person is free to stop listening or move away. That may be true in many cases, but not in every case. Some people cannot just walk away from objectionable or offensive viewpoints. Perhaps those viewpoints are being expressed within their own family. Perhaps certain people are being forced to accept certain ideas in the classroom, and they are mocked if they disagree. Continued...

[The1066Al]

@DiscoveringReligion 3. Your idea of "freedom" is incredibly naive. I actually agree with your proposal: freedom of speech as long as it doesn't incite hate. I think that those who protest here in Britain with placards saying: "Behead those who insult Islam" should be arrested, charged and punished. But this is my opinion. I can't see how such an opinion can be termed "objective" within the framework of naturalism, because naturalism provides no moral guide. Continued...

[The1066Al]

@DiscoveringReligion 4. There is nothing in the observation of nature which tells us what we "ought" to do. In fact, there is nothing in the observation of nature that tells us that we "ought" to try to explain every phenomenon naturalistically! Nature just IS. And you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is". The fact that we have a moral sense, and that there is a general (very crude) consensus concerning "right and wrong" constitutes evidence against naturalism. (ends)

[DiscoveringReligion]

@The1066Al

I can I assume from your failure to respond any further that you've accepted my explanation of secular morality and thus concede the debate?

[The1066Al]

@DiscoveringReligion Sorry to disappoint you, but my "failure to respond" is due to two factors: I don't have unlimited time and I am still waiting for your response to my comment about the subjectivism of secular morality. You still haven't answered the question about "the lesser evil" concept, and also I made a point about how you cope with conflicting definitions of the "quality of life". Does your silence therefore mean that you have conceded the debate to me?

[The1066Al]

@The1066Al Further to my last comment - I notice that you did write a comment about the conflict associated with "quality of life" as it relates to freedom of speech, but you addressed it to yourself!! Hence I never saw it (I was waiting for it to come into my inbox). OK, so I'll address this issue....

[DistortedV12]

We watch this in my bible study.

[DistortedV12]

Christian here.  I'm learning how to unravel atheism from the inside :)

[DiscoveringReligion]

@DistortedV12

Heh, you can't "unravel atheism" with this video, for it has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. I depend solely on the doctrines of Christianity and evidence of atrocities promoted/regulated throughout Scripture. As I demonstrate through my argument, the theistic understanding of morality is inconsistent and makes sweeping concessions for vile practices that would never be permitted today, which should not be the case if God's morality were truly objective, fixed, and absolute.

[winterstellar]

Seriously, if your friends and family believe in magic men in the sky, maybe it's time to move.. Go to university or college, move to Europe, do something!

[csaver]

"Write down"? "Memorize"?? What we need is an anti-Apologist iPhone App! I smell gold.

[ari1234a]

More .. When i go to work here they do not ask am i Atheist/Agnostic every morning before work. It Seems that they do, in the land of the free and the brave.

[KajiCarson]

Religion is nothing but an emotional response to the awe and complexity of our world, a mishmash of mysticism with no basis in reality. It's a stifling dead end of an idea, and we'd all be better off without it. Thanks for the videos, sir, you are awesome!

[exmuslimforever]

Brilliant!

[halflifeproductionz]

@exmuslimforever should we be doing something similar in regards to islam?

[exmuslimforever]

@halflifeproductionz I think that would be great! Islam is worth every effort.

[halflifeproductionz]

@exmuslimforever Christianity is just too easy to refute, people don't know the intellectual history of islam, quran or the hadiths therefore i think we need to apply higher criticism to islam as Salman Rushdie said. Britain is overrun with islamofascists in every corner and if there isn't some movement countering it then shariah will soon follow.

[exmuslimforever]

@halflifeproductionz I totally agree. It is urgently required to have that movement.I really fear for the whole of Europe.

[BlackLabelSlushie]

Subbed

[NonProphetess]

I have found that it is better to just get it over with quickly. Like taking a band-aid off. I ran through town buck-assed naked, raping and pillaging and murdering. I then used the blood of my victims to write the word, ATHEIST across my forehead. Aaaaaah, it is such a huge weight off my shoulders to finally be out as an atheist and be able to live the sin-filled life I always wanted to.

[ari1234a]

Really ??

You people need help to "announce" that you are atheist ?

Thats ridiculous, does the religious need help to announce that they are religious ?

You, US citizens lol

[mrsanity]

@ari1234a "What church do you go to?" upon meeting someone, or "Why don't you go to church?" amongst those that know you are VERY common questions in the US.

In certain circles, the wrong answer can make your life very uncomfortable indeed.

[detersgumig]

@ari1234a That's so easy to say for us living in Europe. There are so many of us here, and religion is generally considered a private matter. I'm sure there are places in America too where being an atheist is rather unproblematic, but I've seen plenty of evidence that this is not the case everywhere.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@ari1234a

Do you belong to a very religious family? Are you highly active within your church, as are most of the people you associate with? Are you concerned what your friends and family might think when you reveal your disbelief in God? The people that can answer "yes" to these questions are the ones private messaging me for help expressing their atheism to those they known.

[ari1234a]

@DiscoveringReligion No.

No, why i should.

No I am not concerned what my friends and my family think, when i reveal that i am an Agnostic/Atheist to gods that write books.

So Tell them.

[joslinnick]

@ari1234a In many communities, coming out as an atheist can result in the excommunication by friends, family, and community. Imagine just leaving the mormon faith in Utah. Doing that means social suicide. Imagine coming out as an atheist in the black community. That would mean social excommunication. When religion is totally ingrained into one's culture, coming out as an atheist can have dire consequences.

[prind666]

@ari1234a atheists are the most hated minority in the united states people can lose family friends and jobs when they come out as an atheist.

[elpatriotaLX]

@prind666

LOL. I think that you are exaggerating a bit.

I never went to church and it is not that my parents are atheist, we just never ever went to church, talked about god or prayed. We just never cared who believes in god or not.  In my family, we are just not religious at all... I wonder what I am? I never cared about religion, I don't go to church but I never called myself an atheist.

Only one time someone called me a heretic but she said it jokingly. LOL

[prind666]

@elpatriotaLX different communities are different but its still a fact that atheists are more hated then every other minority in america. i cant even run for public offices in certain states due to there constitutions. in highschool when i told a group of kids i was an atheist they thought my beliefs were that after i die i was going to turn into a fucking tree! then they mocked me continualy untill i dropped out this year......i fucking hate dane cook. anyways the whole family...

[prind666]

@prind666 thing is the same way for me exepte we debate alot and its actually healthy discussion. i never called myself an atheist untill late middle school.

[elpatriotaLX]

@prind666

I think you can run for public office. To be a president; you are right on that one. Also if you want to be a president you can't be single.

[LordSauceness]

@ari1234a *does the religious need help to announce that they are religious ?*

Why do you think there's a Creation Museum loaded with dinosaurs living with people in the Garden of Eden?

Why do you think there is Christian Apologetics?

Atheists need no apologetics, but if yer not careful, or well studied, you could get sucked into the religious pipline.

[237Michael]

The Abrahamic religions (I don't know much about other religions...) justify the most horrible actions and practices: murder, slavery, incest, pedophilia, woman abuse, child abuse, racism, ethnic cleansing, torture, genocide... etc.

[flyingfisbeefilms]

I just tell everybody I'm an atheist as soon as the subject comes up! I'm me they are them.

[DannyPhantomBeast]

I don't believe slavery is INHERENTLY evil, given it's consensual/contractual and protection from abuse.

(Pets are owned property, for example, but there are laws against beating or starving them.)

[DannyPhantomBeast]

@DannyPhantomBeast ...and Old Testament slavery definitely was not that.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@DannyPhantomBeast

I agree. I can only argue against something that is non-consensual, which violates personal autonomy. The slavery I discuss in the Bible clearly portrays slaves getting beaten against their will, where those being enslaved are unable to obtain freedom and certainly wish to do so. I feel consent is key to understanding morality. I might not personally agree with acts of prostitution or gay sex, but as long as all parties are consenting, I cannot object to them on moral grounds.

[jarjarbinks77]

I dick slapped my family with my atheism, right in the face. They are all born again Christians/Pentecostals. The used to like to debate with me but I stomp their ass all the time so now they find excuses not too debate.

[libalchris]

@DiscoveringReligion Love your videos dude! great job, I only wish I'd had the opportunity to come out to my family as an atheist the way you suggested. My family found out all of the sudden.

[Mectrixctic]

Did you go to Think-tank? That article is freaking humongous.

[ghettobrown209]

2:00 GIGGTY

[ghettobrown209]

best channel on youtube!