What an irritating and arrogant man. His assertion that he just wants us to think, as if Dawkins is the only book / point of view that we've read. If only we'd ponder his fatuous and casuistic reasoning we'd come to the light. The cretinous objective morality argument always astonishes. It's blindingly obvious that morality is relative to the society / time we live in. And is it just me or do you find the idea of him in a book shop telling a strange woman that she is beautiful creepy?
Just because you find something depressing or think it "leads us down a very dark alley" has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether it is true or not
Einstein was right. For many reasons the human race is a sorry lot, but unfortunately that is also why the only thing certain people understand is practical deterrents, punishment and justice for certain bad deeds, and conversely practical rewards for certain good deeds. It's just the world we live in. I honestly think people ought to by duty do good things, simply because it is the right thing to do, and believe it should be recognised and encouraged, and bad actions discouraged.
The value of morality doesn´t come from its causes. Being moral matters because it makes the world better and helps real people. The causes of morality isn´t what gives morality meaning. We all agree that consciousness and feelings are real and valuable. The questions is what they arise from. If they arise from physical patterns, then physical patterns must be more meaningful then you give them credit for. A book consists of letters, but that doesn´t mean that the stories aren´t real ;)
@ThorTheScienceGuy "Being moral matters because it make the world better and helps real people." You just tried to smuggle in 2 moral terms to prove morality. What is better and who decides? What is help and who decides? These are moral terms that you cannot assume have objective meaning unless something or someone outside of ourselves has given them meaning. Otherwise they are just as subjective as the term morality is.
You think you´re the way you are because god made your soul the way it is. Or because he decided that he would let chance do the job (that´s what free will must be if it can´t be determenistic). You believe that what matters isn´t if morality is right or makes peoples lives better, but where it comes from. Or at least that´s what your views would imply if you used the same logic when thinking about christianity as the logic you wrongly accuse Dawkins of having. You´re missrepresenting his views.
Morals dont come from God - for example killing is wrong yet most of the old testement is about war. And explain how slavery was acceptable in bibically time ( and Jesus never condems it) yet it not acceptable today
Given the scale of the appalling child rape scandal going through the Catholic church at the moment, compounded by the complicity cover-up actions, and compounded even more by the immense hypocrisy that the organisation claims to provide some sort of moral guidance to those thank think they need it......I don't think its atheists that have an Achilles heal when it comes to morality. Would be very interested in whether you still think youre right in your video.
@1878MrWhizz Why is child rape wrong from an atheist perspective? Why is the holocaust wrong? Why is anything wrong if it makes the person doing it feel good and get what they want? Just because some Christians don't live up to their own stated morality does not therefore mean that scientific naturalism can provide any objective standard at all. At bottom, atheist have no more ground to say child rape is wrong than that they personally don't like it. So what, why should anyone else care?
@littlemas2 : I think you are completely missing the point. I am not saying that scientific naturalism provides any objective moral standard. Indeed, my entire point is that morality is cultural and personal and changes over time. This is why I disagreed with David Robertson in the video because he believes that morality is universal, external and God given. Clearly it is not otherwise we would still think keeping slaves is a good thing as set out in the bible.
@MrWhizz1878 The Bible nowhere says that slavery is a good thing. At times though the Bible did give instruction about how to deal with reality on the ground, such as how if you are a slave you should behave toward your master lovingly and respectfully, but those statements do not make slavery right. As another example of this Jesus instructs his disciples to allow someone to strike their other cheek if stuck once. This does not mean that Jesus condoned cheek striking.
@littlemas2 : With respect, the bible gives clear guidance on how to keep slaves - including how badly you're allowed to beat them (the answer being just enough so that they can recover within 2 days!!!). If you didn't condone something, would you give such guidance or would you suggest that slaves should not be kept. The bible's position on slavery is absolutely the argument that kills David Robertson's main theme of his video.
@MrWhizz1878 This does nothing to kill Robertson's argument. I am quite sure as a Free Church pastor that he does not believe that the Bible ever condoned slavery, and then somehow changed its opinion later on. Orthodox Christians believe that Biblical morality has been consistent throughout time. If you lived in a society where people sometimes chose slavery over starvation then you might see where giving instruction on slavery was necessary even if it was not the ideal.
@MrWhizz1878 How does this damage his position? You want to claim that morality changes as proven by the fact the biblical morality changes, but Christian don't believe it has changed. Situational application of the constant moral principles may make it appear that they have changed, but for example the ten commandments have remained constant for over 3500 years in Judeo-Christian morality.
@MrWhizz1878 If morality does change, then perhaps at sometime in the future or in the past child rape and the holocaust will be or were moral okay. Maybe the deviant Catholic priests have just not caught up with the times because at sometime in the past their behavior was culturally okay. Would you be okay if sometime in the future using children sexually became the cultural norm as long as most people thought it was okay?
@littlemas2 : Again I think you're missing the point. You can't judge the morality of the distant past/future in the context of the morality of today. Morality changes over time and cultures. Whether child rape or holocaust will ever be, or ever were morally "right" is difficulty to say. I'd hope not. But that we may agree that some things are "wrong" doesn't mean that things are fixed. Indeed, those that wrote the bible may be shocked that we feel slavery is wrong today!
@MrWhizz1878 You're response is exactly the moral problem that this pastor is point to. You cannot categorically say certain things that everyone knows to be wrong are really objectively wrong. By saying you hope that these horrific acts will not ever be morally right, you are basically saying that at the bottom of your morality is your personal preferences. In your view how should a society determine their standards and does anyone ever have the right to judge another society?
@littlemas2 : I think you're beginning to understand, yes. Morality is not external, not objective, it changes over time and is personal and cultural. I know you can't understand how it works this way but how do you explain the moral position on slavery over time if it doesn't change?
@MrWhizz1878 By saying that morality is internal you are basically defining morality away. If morality is anything it is a duty toward someone else, but if it is simply internal then it is nothing more than a feeling or idea that I have personally. That is exactly the problem that Robertson is getting at. If you do not believe in God morality is meaningless. The guy with the loudest megaphone or biggest gun gets to impose his will on others.
@littlemas2 : I won't repeat the arguments again because you're clearly either not listening or not trying to understand. Two key points.
1. Just because you personally might go round killing people if you didn't believe in God, don't assume that the rest of us are as morally weak.
2. You say the bible doesn't condone slavery (though it does) and that it's position is unchanging yet you condone a type of slavery in some circumstances.
@MrWhizz1878 I am not saying you are morally weak, you may in fact follow basic Judeo-Christian morality pretty well. I am saying that the logical conclusion of your belief system means that morals don't really exist. You are the one who said morality is personal and cultural, and that you "hope" that child rape and the holocaust are not someday considered okay. What is morality then but personal preference? How is morality different than someone's preference blue over red?
@littlemas2 : I should hope you're NOT saying I'm morally weak. It's not me that has said they can't see the point of not killing someone if God does not exist!! Of course morals exist. What I'm saying does not exist is objective, external, absolute morality. Why not, because there is plenty evidence that even the morality that Christians say is set out in the bible has changed and parts (e.g. slavery) are no longer considered morally good. If you don't understand this then so be it.
@1878MrWhizz And I am saying that if morality is not objective then it is not morality, it is simple preference. Why does one person's preference "better" than another person's preference? Even if I were to grant for sake of argument your point about changing biblical morality that would not somehow change the problem your position presents it would simple say that everyone is in the same boat. I agree then, if morality really does change then it does not exist.
@littlemas2 : Who are you agreeing with when you say if morality changes then it doesn't exist. I'm not saying morality doesn't exist. I'm saying it changes over time and is personal/cultural. Not that it doesn't exist. External, objective, absolute morality is what I'm saying doesn't exist. If you think it DOES exist then what does it say about the keeping of slaves, say?
@1878MrWhizz As another point, are you offended that I might have implied you're morally weak? If so, on what basis are you offended? Is it just your feeling of offense or would I have violated some code? To what are you going to point me so that I might agree that I have done something wrong?
Don't take me wrong, I am not meaning to be offensive in my language or my manner, but I am saying I think your ideas are wrong.
@littlemas2 : I'm not offended, no. I'm surprised that you alluded to it being me that was somehow lacking in morality when the reality of our conversations have been that you've been suggesting you could not see the point in not stealing or killing if you didn't believe in your God. I don't believe in God yet think it's wrong to steal and kill. And also, no, I can't point you to something showing what is morally right/wrong That's exactly my point. No external, objective morality exists.
@1878MrWhizz Good we agree morality does not exist right? So you prefer not to steal and kill because of something internal, but for someone who does prefer to steal and kill they should go ahead because it is following their internal impulses? You seem to be continually suggesting that I should not kill and steal. Why not? What I have internal impulses to want something and I need to kill and steal to get it?
@littlemas2 : Ah! I see your problem. You are, for some reason, assuming that the only morality that can possibily exist is one that is external, objective, absolute and eternal and that if this doesn't exist then there's no such thing as morality. You think my view that it's wrong to kill people is a "personal impulse" or "internal preference". I call it morality, but if we use your terminology, then where do you think those inbuilt impulses and preferences come from in your view?
@MrWhizz1878 In my view our moral impulses are placed their by God to conform to the way He intended us to behavior for our own good, the good of others, and to give Him glory (see Romans 2 for a biblical argument for internal moral impulses). The standards that our impulses point to flow from the nature of God. This same God set the world up in an orderly fashion, and although men currently can violate established morals, God will eventually judge people for wrongs done.
@MrWhizz1878 In your view how do morals differ from preferring vanilla ice cream to chocolate? If individuals can decide on what they think is right and wrong, what is right might differ from person to person. I hold that morality is more like mathematical laws. While we may prefer that 2+2=5 when we build houses using that math they don't stay up very well. If morality is changeable then our societies will eventually fall apart because of differing standards.
@littlemas2 : Final question to you then (as I'm getting bored of repeating myself now) is if morality is objective and is NOT changeable, as you seem to think, then what does it say about the morality of keeping slaves and where can you point to that shows me this objective morality that we're all supposed to agree with.
@MrWhizz1878 On Biblical interpretation, the higher law interprets the lower law. Starting with the basics. Matthew 22:37-40 are the 2 great commandments. Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. The 10 commandments are an more detailed explanation of these 2. The 1st 4 express relationship with the infinite God, while the last 6 express love toward one another. Neighbor is defined by Jesus as everyone who you have the opportunity to love (see parable of the good Samaritan)
@MrWhizz1878 On slavery. Galatians 3:28 makes it clear that salvation is available for everyone regardless of social status. The book of Philemon is written to a Christian slave owner encouraging him to treat Onesimus, a runaway slave, as a brother not as a slave. The general Christian principle of seeing the value of all humans derived from the great commandments has meant that Christians have been/ are at the forefront of most human rights issues, including slavery, both past and present.
@MrWhizz1878 The Bible makes it plain that people sin and hurt one another, and the OT covenant law and the NT both point to the ideal, while at the same time giving instruction for dealing with life in a messed up world. The Bible nowhere implies that either the Jews or the NT Christians were perfect, so instruction for day to day living was necessary. When the Bible points to the ideal situations desired in the church or realized in heaven we do not see anything like slavery.
@MrWhizz1878 As an aside to this question, can you tell me anything about the historical or literary context of the passages on slavery that you are quoting from the Bible? Do you know how they fit within the passage or the book or how the people of that culture would have viewed them? I have studied them both in college and in graduate school and you seem to be using what is called eisegesis, which is reading meaning into the text instead of reading the meaning from the text.
@littlemas2 : You accuse me of eisegesis whilst you seem to be in denial about what the bible actually says. Just read Exodus Chapter 21 for now. What misinterpretation of the meaning am I reading into the statements? Now, you may not have see these verses before so be prepared for a shock. Is this the objective, absolute morality that you think I ought to follow? Or do you think this morality is now out of date and doesn't apply to our time/culture? I await your eisegesis!!
@MrWhizz1878 Yes, I have read the whole Bible 5 times, and I can even go get my Hebrew text off my shelf (or from my several Bible programs) and work through the translation if necessary. Did you know that Exodus is part of a covenant between YHWH and the nation of Israel? Do you understand that the Levitical law is written to deal with the specific time, culture, and people group. Some principles are applicable generally, but many are not such as the priestly regulations.
@MrWhizz1878 Biblical principles of morality does not change, but every moral system has a hierarchy of morals. In various situations how those morals are applied may differ depending on the circumstances. Many of the 614 coventant laws given from Exodus through Deuteronomy are situational regulations based moral principles but with specific application to the Jewish nation at that time in history. The morals of the 10 commandments have not changed, nor have the 2 great commandments.
@littlemas2 : Your last two answers say "may differ depending on the circumstances" and "at that time in history" and "to deal with the specific time, culture and people group". QED.
These principles you say are "applicable generally", will these be the things that all human societies regardless of religion have common between them (i.e. no to murder, no to stealing, etc.). That is, things that you'd expect to see in a species that has evolved to be a social animal. Again, QED.
@MrWhizz1878 Let me ask two question which you have failed to respond to. Have you ever examined the context of the passages you are using? I can point you to some good technical commentaries if you like. Second and back to the main point: How does moral relativism deal with someone or some other culture who wants to steal from or kill you? How is large society even possible if everyone does what is right in their own eyes? Your position is simply unlivable in a free society.
@littlemas2 : Answer 1. That's precisely my point....that the guidance in the bible applies to a time and culture (neither of which are here and now). That you are suggesting I need to check commentaries to explain the context makes my point for me!! Answer 2. Humans are social species and our morality has been shaped by our ancestry in that context (e.g. I know of no human society that thinks it's right to kill its members). My position is simply how things are.
@MrWhizz1878 If you start with the assumption that morality is relative and then look at changing cultural values through time, presto you find evidence for you belief. The Bible though presents a different picture. Yes, different biblical peoples had different cultural expectations, and throughout the Bible those expectations are contrasted against a constant morality that comes from God. The whole story of the Bible is about human sinfulness and God's calling people back to himself.
@MrWhizz1878 Just because people have behaved badly through time (just as the Bible presents) does not mean that somehow the expectations of how they should behave have changed a great deal. Furthermore, just because some people have tried to justify bad behavior does not somehow make it right. Child rape was no more right when a Greek philosophers tried to justify it, then it is now when a Catholic priest does it.
@MrWhizz1878 You give a possible reason for how morality could have developed, but give no reason why anyone once conscious of the fact that morality is just opinion should still follow it. So what if society says something is wrong. Already, in this society we have decided it is ok to leave your spouse and kids if it makes you feel better, who cares about the consequences to others. Will it be okay if we decide like some ancient Greek and Arab societies that child sex is okay?
@littlemas2 : With respect, I'm bored of our discussion now as you're clearly not interested in thinking about there being any possible alternative to your view. You are just ignoring everything I've said or just not understanding what I'm saying. Either way, I feel as though I'm talking to myself and wasting my time trying to engage with you. Have it your way. Your God is fab and the bible gives superb moral guidance that we should all follow. Now, let me go throw out all my shellfish.
@littlemas2 Also, nowhere in Exodus 21 does it say that slavery is God's intention for all time or that it was ever intended as the best. It does though give instruction on humane treatment of other people in a culture where slaves had NO rights. If you read it with modern lenses on, you might think it condones slavery, but when you understand to whom it was originally written, you see the law actual begins teaching the Hebrews about the intrinsic value of all human life.
@MrWhizz1878 Here is an example of why I think that concept of relative morality is dangerous. Many people in western countries do not think a fetus is a human person and therefore women have the right to kill it if they so chose, but this did not used to be the case. What if the majority of society decides atheists have a mental disease are not really human persons and can be killed by the proper authorities if deemed necessary? Would you argue against such a policy and why?
@littlemas2 : You may consider relative morality dangerous. That doesn't mean it not the way things are. Creationists think the idea of evolution is dangerous. It's still the way things are though.
@1878MrWhizz I disagree with you about the way things are, but at least you are being consistent with your own belief system. An atheist who gets morally outraged about someone else's behavior or beliefs is like a Christian who fails to follow through on some of the basic moral tenets of their own belief system. In other words they are both failing to live consistently within their own worldview.
This guy cherry picks statements and then constructs extremely flimsy arguments.
Your saying we are good because we are told to be by God. and if we don't we will go to hell. And you say that's better than evolving our own morality?
You only do good in order to win the favour of God and go to heaven. And you think that is not selfish?
Idiot, Your arguments are flimsy and stupid. Poorly though out to the end. You only argue about Dawkins's logic and apply your own opinion without any clear rebuttal logic. You only use very meek statements saying Dawkins is "depressing" and suggesting that Athism leads to Naziism. Bad Christian crap. You reinforce my belief that Christian are really stupid.
The "Atheism leads to Naziism" argument does annoy me as there are many well document quotes (from Mein Kampf and speaches) from Hitler where he is stating his Catholicism or where he thinks he was doing the work of the Creator. The German army belt buckles had "Gott mit Uns" written on them (God is with us). There is little evidence that Hitler was an atheist and considerable evidence that he was a Catholic. He was a terrible man, but he was not an atheist.
Not about morality explicitly, but social species such as humans tend to behave in ways that are collaborative with the individuals in their social groups. This tendency is a genetic disposition (i.e. those with genes that drive unco-operative behaviours will tend to be driven out of social groups and it is harder to survive or find mates in this context so the genes for co-operation within social groupings becomes the norm). This is evolution's contribution to our moral framework.
but arent thoes unco-operative behaviours a result of social interaction and eviourment? not evolution? i think adaptation drives our moral framwork, but to say evolution shapes it is to imply we are all born with preset tentencies of "good" or "bad" behaviour. i dont think we are.
It's not clear cut, I grant you, but that certain behavioural dispositions/tendencies are influenced by genes and inherited is pretty clear - even if it's possible to 'override' those dispositions/tendencies by adapting ones behaviour (though the ability/willingness to adapt ones behaviour is a disposition/tendency that could be influenced by your genes!).
fair enouogh, i could understand our behaviour being influenced by our genes and that they would have evolved as behaviour that benefits our survival. but i dont think evolution conciously steers morality.
@MrWhizz1878 Modern atheist never seem to understand the problem. Just because you can explain how morality might have come to exist in a some naturalistic way does not give you any individual or society a reason to continue to follow that path if they have some other compelling reason to do otherwise. If you have money that I want and I can get it with little chance of harm to myself, then why should I not hurt you to get it? Nature cannot give us a moral ought.
@littlemas2 : What problem don't "modern atheists" seem to understand? Let's take your money example. We evolved to be a social species as there were benefits in our ancestry in co-operating in groups more than going it alone. Thus, behavioural tendancies that helped co-operation, trust, social collaboration, etc. were passed on. As these things got passed on, things that went against this (such as stealing) would be seen as "wrong". Don't you think stealing is wrong?
@MrWhizz1878 I think steal is wrong because it is acting unlovingly toward both God and other people, and therefore it has eternal consequences. If God does not exist, I have no idea why I should care about you or your stuff. Heck Chairman Mao lived a long life full of power and perversion while stepping on and killing all kinds of people. Why are your preferences for right and wrong better than his? He got away with it, and for all we know it made him happy.
@littlemas2: If you can't see any reason for being a good person if God does not exist then I for one am extremely pleased that you believe in God. Are you seriously saying that you can't be trusted to behave yourself otherwise? Good job you have your beliefs!
@MrWhizz1878 Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Me and everyone else who figures out that once they no longer believe in God they no longer have to believe in any objective morality. Frankly with all the protestations about how moral atheists are, I don't trust those of you who do not believe in any objective morality. How I am to know that once you decide religion is disease and you get in power that you might decide to persecute me and my ilk? What would stop you?
@littlemas2 : You don't need to worry about the atheists - they already don't have the belief in God. It's the believers that are only behaving themselves because they think God is watching them that you need to be worried about. You yourself have admitted that they can't be trusted if they didn't believe in God.
@MrWhizz1878 Really no person who stops believing in god would ever come to the conclusion that since morality does not actually exist they can do whatever they want. Read about Jeffery Dahmer's conclusions. Simply examine the atheist states of the 20 century and tell me that the lack of a moral foundation had nothing to do with the massive killing of their own people. Watch the video Cruel Logic. How would you respond to someone who took your conclusions and decided they wanted to kill you?
Also ask yourself. If there is no secular way of determining that it is right to be moral, why be moral?
If you are moral simply to placate the rules of a God, how do you know you are following the right God. And how do I know you won't be told something very different from one day to the next.
How can you make moral decisions about complex situations? Must you always go on feeling? What if you are angry and your feelings are telling you to cause harm, must I trust that God will step in?
Unfortunately, you asked yourself the correct question "Why is morality important?" but failed to answer it. You got half way to the phrase "might makes right", but left it there.
Why then is "might makes right" undesirable? Is it for the implied emotive reason you seem to suggest, that "might makes right" just feels yuck? Or are there real consequences to a "might makes right" system?
Name the consequences to this system and you'll find the secular reasons to be moral.
My attempt at shortening this into a youtube comment - genes that make bodies which happen to behave altruistically toward other bodies sharing a high proportion of the same genetic information (say kin), will by default obtain an advantage with respect to natural selection versus those (genes) which do not. Not individuals, genes. To put it another way. genes that make parents not care for their children, will tend to not still be around. Their chances of being replicated are much slimmer.
Er, you obviously haven't read the Selfish Gene. Small wonder you don't think it is sufficient explanation for altruism, seeing as you don't know what it means. The Selfish gene does not refer implicitly to selfish individuals, only performing acts of altruism for something in return. It depicts natural selection as happening at the level of the gene, not the individual or the group. A very powerful concept, which if you understood properly would rectify your misunderstandings about evolution.
I'm posting a new comment here mainly to stop essentialfat's hugely disrespectful comment being the first one anyone sees should they stumble across this video.
However, whilst I'm posting, I'd like to restate my key issue with respect to absolute morality.
The example of slavery illustrates that morality has changed over time/geography from that originally set out in biblical scripture (OT + NT). If there IS absolute morality, then it's pretty pointless as nobody knows what it is.
No, it's completely NOT the point. The key thrust of your point is that morality is atheism's "achilles heel" because there is absolute morality and atheists can't know what that is. We're not comparing atheists with God - we're comparing atheists with theists. In that context, if absolute morality exists then neither atheists nor theists know what it is. That God knows what it is isn't the point at all. It's whether any people know what the absolute moral guidance is - and nobody does.
There will always be a few exceptions that lean to the left and some to the right, but both atheists and theists have the same general consensus of what is right and wrong. Why is that?
The answer is relatively straightforward. Humans are social animals (i.e. we have survived and thrived better as a species in our evolutationary ancestry by working in social groups (even if those social groups are as small as families)). Social animals are more successful if individuals in the group can be trusted and they co-operate. The genes for tendency to social behaviours have been passed down. Generally common morality is expected if this were true. Nothing at all to do with God.
Dawkins quoting abusive letters does not lead to his stating that Christianity is wrong. Dont misrepresent him.
Dawkins does not talk about society where morality doesnt exist. Misrepresentation again. Your wilfulness in twisting and making up arguments is breathtaking. My previous comment stands.
Why are some 80% of gaoled criminals(US 1997 figures)self-professed Christians? Of these, 31% are Catholic, 28% Protestant, the rest a motley group from motley cults probably including your own.
You ask "Why are some 80% of gaoled criminals(US 1997 figures)self-professed Christians?".
There is a +ve correlation between criminality and poverty (i.e. a higher percentage of poor people in prisons than in the population as a whole). There is a -ve correlation between poverty and eductation (i.e. poorer people are less well educated than better off people). There is a -ve correlation between education and religious belief (i.e. religion in more common in less well educated peoples). QED
Actually it does. It is a classic ad hominem argument and he uses it a lot. Of course I did not say that it was his ONLY argument. And your 1997 figures - another atheist myth which has been debunked many times.
Morality is hard to define. It changes with time. I think everyone inherently knows what's moral and what's not, because the "golden rule" of be nice to other people is embedded in our genes, some primitive repulse to preserve our own genetic foot print. No deity is needed.
student - everyone 'inherently' knows? What is your evidence for this? I like positions to be based on evidence not just on wishful thinking. Besides which to claim that morality 'changes with time' and yet everybody knows because of a genetic throwback appears to me to be contradictory!
Morality changes with time. Many things we used to consider morally acceptable are no longer so (polygamy, incests -- see bible) and some things that used to be considered morally unacceptable and now are (divorce, woman showing their bodies). I think people don't need to be taught religions in order to understand morality.
As always, DAR, you misrepresent RD. You have your own agenda and that involves misrepresenting anyone who doesn't argue from your own very blinkered and morally myopic stance. How many times did we all argue an 'absolute' morality? You could never get past first base because you are so amazingly blinkered. You have no credibility at all David; your egocentricity astounds most of us. Your mendacity leaves us speechless. Idiot!
I don't think this is fair. With respect, I don't think he misrepresents Dawkins. Having read the Dawkins book and David's book, I think he is genuinely disagreeing with Dawkins' arguments rather than disagreeing with a straw man of Dawkins' arguments - for the most part at least. It's the misrepresentation of the biblical stance on slavery that annoys me, though I understand him doing this as the bible's stance on slavery kills his key point about morality being the atheist Achilles heal.
Veronique - apart from the insults - perhaps you could tell me exactly where it is wrong. Tell me the misrepresentation. If you can I will apologise and change it. I look forward to hearing from you.
I don't believe that you need religion to have an absolute morality, it's not either God or subjective morality. I agree with you that subjective morality is not ideal, but that does not mean we need our morality given to us from a God. I'm sure you are aware of the Euthphro dilemma... Are God's commands/laws good because he made them good, or are they good because they are good, of course neither outcomes are desirable for the belief that we need God for morality. How do you overcome this?
I appreciate that you are busy but I would still like to pursue this discussion. You begin your video by saying it is the "Achilles heal" of atheism but I think that the biblical position on slavery is the Achilles heal of your argument. I am willing to overlook your incorrect comment that the bible condemns slavery if you are willing to accept that biblical morality with respect to slavery is no longer applicable.
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. It is impossible to discuss such a complex subject in such space. But suffice it to say just now that the OT laws for slavery given to the theocratic state of ISrael no longer apply (neither do the ceremonial or other parts of the civil law) - the NT teaching does. Slave traders go to Hell - there is no slave nor free in Christ etc. (PS. I think Marx was right about wage slaves - and that does have some bearing on our subject!)
Agree not ideal forum. But again you ignore the conflict between your view on absolute morality and the bible's stance on slavery. You may try to discard the OT as it suits you to, but the NT doesnt challenge the OT guidance on slavery. Indeed, the NT explicitly supports the OT laws:-
There is a good, 20-question test that is available online and I think you will find it interesting and (hopefully) thought provoking. Youtube won't let me post the URL but a Google Search for "morality play philosophersnet" will find it at the top. I'm not asking you to post your answers but would ask you to honestly consider whether you knew (either through hardwiring or revelation) what a supposedly timeless, universal Absolute Morality says is the right response for each case.
Thanks.. that was interesting. Although several false dichotmies were set up. As is your own misunderstanding that the fact that there is an absolute morality therefore means that I would know what is right and wrong in every situation. By the way my score was 47%
But you make my point for me - if you don't know what absolute morality actually says about something, it's of no practical use. There is no way of knowing whether our personal morality is in line with or out of step with absolute morality. Slavery remains a good example. What does absolute morality say about slavery? Are cultures that keep slaves morally right (as long as they follow the "regulations" in the bible) or are they morally wrong, and if they're morally wrong, how do you know?
I believe morality is personal/cultural even if only absolute morality is of no practical use. To illustrate....three questions.
1. If there is absolute morality, isnt it also timeless and universal?
2. If there is absolute morality, how do we know what it is?
3. If we don't know what it is, or if it has changed over time, then how is absolute morality of any practical use in determining with any certainty what is morally right or morally wrong?
But your (1) & (2) answers in combination are why I don't believe absolute morality exists or, if it does, why it's of no practical use. Consider slavery. The bible clearly condones slavery (guides on how they should be treated, where one is allowed to buy one from, etc.). Practical morality on slavery has changed in the past 300 years. If morality is absolute, was the biblical acceptance and guidance on slavery wrong or are we wrong today for considering slavery to be immoral?
The Bible does not clearly condone slavery - it regulates it in a culture where it was the accepted norm. The Bible actually condemns slavery. There is an absolute morality and from that we derive practical morality for real everyday situations.
You deliberately misrepresent by saying "The Bible actually condemns slavery". It most certainly does not. You may personally interpret something obliquely to make it look like slavery isn't being condoned but (1) this is very different to actually condemning it and (2) many phrases clearly condone slavery - no interpretation needed.
I wanted a fair discussion about absolute morality but you inventing meanings from the bible that aren't there isn't fair. No wonder you think you're right.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
"The Bible does not clearly condone slavery - it regulates it in a culture where it was the accepted norm"
That's like authority regulating pedophiles in cultures where it's the "accepted norm" your statement that morality is "timeless and universal" make no sense at all, is slavery right or wrong? if I beat a slave and he dies of his injuries two days later is it right I don't get punished? where is the "timeless and universal" morality there?
The fact that the Bible gives guidance to a culture where slavery was the norm is clear support for the view that morality changes over time/geographies/cultures. The same biblical guidance does not apply today, and did not apply then in places of the world where slavery wasn't the accepted norm.
I remain perplexed about Dardun's assertion that "The Bible actually condemns slavery". I know he is a Minister, so should know the bible well, but he is very wrong on this one. It doesn't.
there is a story in the bible it's in John 8:7 I believe, it wasn't even added to the 27 books until 600yrs after Jesus' death. It's the story where some priests are berating an adulteress, she should be stoned to death for adultery according to the law of Moses, but according to the mercy of Jesus she should not be stoned to death, the priests wait to see if Jesus will go against the law of Moses, or go against his own teaching. this proves a different morality between Moses and Jesus
Strange if you believe that morality is "timeless and universal" how do you square the stoning to death on her fathers doorstep of a wife found not to be a virgin on her wedding night, and why would it be ok to beat a slave to within an inch of his life, but not knock out any teeth or blind him, but not ok now?
Why would an un baptised baby go to hell in the past yet now go to limbo? it makes no sense
Its not ok. And limbo is not in the bible - nor is the teaching that an unbaptised baby goes to hell. You need to argue against what is being said...not what you want to be said.
The "god" of the old testament is barbaric compared to the new testament, so where's the "timeless and universal" nature of morality there, your right limbo isn't in the bible, the un baptised baby went straight to hell, the Catholic church realised only a monstrous god would allow that so they "made up" limbo! I noticed you chose to ignore the barbaric murder of a wife who wasn't a virgin (what happens to a husband who isn't a virgin?)
It was interesting! Amazing how so many atheists just assume they are brighter, more intelligent and more scientific than Christians! It was fun to watch the arguments falling apart.....
Society predates human development, a group (or flange is you will .. !!) of gorillas have highly structured "social" rules a "rouge" individual will often be expelled from the group, as I'm sure you are aware mice will show greater dismay at the ill treatments of related mice than non related mice.
Just because you find something "depressing" or "desolate" doesn't reduce it's chances of being true, you seem to struggle with what is true and what you would like to be true
Hitler was catholic in the same way that Dawkins is Anglican. There is no evidence that Hitler was a practising Catholic who had any catholic beliefs. He did not attend a catholic church and indeed hated the weakness of Christianity. But don't let truth get in the way of your prejudice!
Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
Oh dear...you need to actually read Hitler rather than atheist websites. And you need to set him in context. I have read Mein Kampf and a significant number of Hitler's papers and speeches. He hated Christianity. He was a politician in a country which had a strong tradition of Christianity -and he hated the Jews. He regarded religion as a virus which should be eradicated....now where have I heard that one before?!
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers
and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows.
For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
Could you give me the context for this quote please?
Sorry - just repeating the quote does not provide the answers to my questions. Where does this quote come from? When was it written? To whom? And you are forgetting the rather obvious fact that Jesus was a Jew? Meanwhile the fact remains that Hitler hated the church and sought to destroy Christianity. His Darwinian view that the strong survive was used to justify his cruelty
I must, however, thank the people I've debated with on here; and I mean that in all sincerity. A lot of other 'Christian' clips on youtube have the comments feature turned off, because they have no wish for free speech. At least on here that accusation cannot be thrown.
When possible I've also shown this debate to my 12 year old niece and 9 year old nephew. Now they see what religion can do to adults and how easily people can believe in silly things like ghosts etc.. It's been a pleasure, all.
"Is it reasonable to assume that 12 year olds, unless really remarkable, wouldn't normally read the whole Bible let alone understand it?"
Well, I'm not saying I understood every subtlety but I got the general gist of it's message (God is real, God watches everything you do, God is to be praised at every opportunity, God sends people to hell for not obeying him, etc etc...).
What's not true? That God doesn't basically say 'follow me or to hell you go!'? If I'm wrong then tell me how one gets to hell then. Is is a lottery or something?
"Say with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead and you'll be saved."
You see no one can enter Heaven without having first being washed. No sin is present or is allowed there. How do you get washed? If you understand the basics of the 'Passover' then you'll know that for sin, in those days, a lamb was killed, eaten and it's blood sprinkled around the doorways of the houses. Now, we have Jesus as God's lamb and His blood takes away our sin.
Oh, I'm sorry....hurt your feelings? Did I say a naughty word?
Considering you've used words like 'homo', 'poofery' and 'disgusting pervert' when talking about Gays I find it mighty strange you're now getting upset at me.
Well done, aladon! You've just shown, to anybody who cares to read though our debate, that you're a typical, bigoted, gay-hater, who uses his religion to back-up his own prejudices. I knew I could corner you into making yourself look an arse, and I did. Thank you!
I've read some of it. 600 plus comments is way too much. Aladon is trying to be honest and has said some things he shouldn't have. SamSlater has been baiting and some of the later comments are just very disrespectful to anyone. I doubt if even athiests should talk like that about a god who is worshipped by someone. Wether you think it nonsense or not. A bit nasty if you ask me.
Hear yourself talk, deedledawdle (or should I say aladon?). What have I said that is disrespectful or nasty? I never once called you disgusting -like you did Gay people. You took offence over an ANALOGY - an analogy that still stands btw.
If I've offended you then tough. Take it like a man. I have gay friends but didn't run away crying when you said those hate-filled words. I simply pointed out your bigotry. Did your fairy god teach you to be so mardy when people don't agree with you?
Sam, you can mock but if you made an honest study of Jesus life, death and resurrection you may discover something wonderful. But my guess is you are either too lazy, too clever or just too scared to do that.
You should do a search on this youtube for Monty Python Arguement. It just about suits you. It's your thing for sure.
I could say the same thing to you about evolution, by means of natural selection. Why would I be scared? If I was in the slightest bit inclined to believe in God, I'd start praying this minute. I mean, I don't wanna go to hell when I die! My atheism should tell you I'm not the least bit scared!
I do, however, think YOU'RE scared of the truth. Evolution disproves the BIble, which is a major thing in your life and you're scared of losing something you've devoted your life to.
There you go, my point in case. You have obviously never actually read the Bible to make silly comments like that. Evoution does not disprove anything. God's word is without error.
I've told you before , aladon -please keep up old chap- that I have read the Bible back to front as a kid. I thought it was a decent story when I was 12....with some good philosophy on life, but I never took it as the literal truth. Even at 8 or 9 I realised God was just like Father Christmas and the tooth fairy.
In retort, I can see you know next to nothing about evolution.
You presume too much. If you're well up on evolution then you wouldn't have asked and stated the things you have over the past few months while we've discoursed. The only other explanation is that you HAVE read up on it, but you just failed to understand it?
As for me and the Bible: Again, you need to keep up. I never claimed that I 'studied' the Bible at 12; I just said I read it back to front. What's so far fetched about that?
Also, contrary to your utter lack of Biblical understanding, I was a confirmed evolutionist prior to my Christian days. Since then I have continued to read and understand science.
I'm particularly interested in anthropology.
But hey, no point in flashing any credentials at you Sam, you just rubbish anything I say.
I didn't rubbish your reading ability. Is it reasonable to assume that 12 year olds, unless really remarkable, wouldn't normally read the whole Bible let alone understand it? I know terrific theologians who still ponder the mysteries of God, and they've studied hard for many years.
not so good if you are making false claims about your knowledge of the theory- sadly your cult has robbed you of the ability to see reality or indeed to see that you are incapapble of dealing with reality.
You can call them 'gays' you know. 'Homo' isn't very polite. It's like calling a disabled person a 'spaz' or 'retard'.
The anus may be a one way street, but it's their anus you know! Nothing to do with you, or the Church. Talking of one way streets: wasn't that all Mother Mary's vagina was? An EXIT point?
Gay used to mean happy. Not a disgusting pervert. By the way, it is their anus, and they can rip it to bits in the privacy of their own homes, but just dont force their poofery on society and the church. Bugger off as they say.
By the way, Jesus had brothers and sisters born after him. Get you facts straight.
"Gay used to mean happy. Not a disgusting pervert."
Showing your prejudice again, aladon! How charitable of you.
"just dont force their poofery on society and the church."
Well, the church has forced their views on gays and society for nigh on 2 millennia now. A bit hypocritical, don't you think? Plus, gays aren't FORCING anything on anybody. They're asking to be treat equally.
"By the way, Jesus had brothers and sisters born after him."
Are you convinced you that you evolved from nothing to the Big Bang, to a star, to a supernova, to gas and dust, to organic soup, to a living cell, to a metazoan, to a fish, to an amphibian, to a reptile, to a mammal, to a primate, to the person you see when you look in the mirror? - that your life is a cosmic accident, devoid of intrinsic meaning or purpose or reason for hope?
Am I convinced? For the most part - yes. We're less sure about the exact cause/instant of the big bang, but from the first millisecond onwards, all the evidence seems to fall into place. As for evolution and humans having a common ancestor with todays apes: it's beyond questioning now. The evidence overwhelms to such an extent that most Bishops and Vicars have to accept it. Maybe we will never know what caused the big bang because it may be beyond our comprehension; evolution is simple and true.
I think to say most bishops and vicars believe evolution is a bit of an sweeping exaggeration. Unless you mean Anglicans. (that was a joke)
Some Anglican Scholars in the 60's declared God was dead. One old Vicar hung himself in utter despair at their statements.
However, one day, God proved He wasn't dead and the Charismatic Movement was born. Now Anglican churches empty as churches meeting in school halls and hotels are on the increase. And they dont believe evolution.
For once we agree. Anglicans seemed to have the sense to admit that a 2000 year old book, written by goat herders, was just a guide book that shouldn't be taken too literally.
On the contrary, those who hold such beliefs are dead in sin and have no experience of a true and living God. I have a friend in New York who became Born Again whilst at Anglican Seminary. Evidence that many people take up the 'Cloth' who do not know God at all.
Me too, but I think if they don't post then it's a youtube problem. My post DID get posted, but a few hours later upon checking to see if I'd had any replies, it had disappeared.
Basically I was talking about how sensible the Anglicans are, compared to (T)evangelicals, Mormons, Catholics, etc...
A phobia, is a fear. I am not homophobic. That would be a fear of man would it not?
My point is simply that if you think Anglican's are 'sensible', then why do they defy the Word of God and employ those that God's Word say's are abhorrent?
If I was a Doctor but didn't follow my proven methods I was taught in Uni, I would be a pretty bad doctor wouldn't I?
So why do the Clergy think they can depart from God's ways but still be effective in their job's. That is why the churches are emptying.
We both have a decent enough grasp of English to know the definition of homophobia. Most hebrew based religions have a fear of homosexuality for one reason and that is propagation of their religion. they fear that encouraging homosexuality will mean less babies born into their faith. They fear it. can you give me any reason why anyone shouldn't be homosexual?
"The main reason I cant take evolution seriously is because it is so badly presented and most presentations are made with broad brush strokes with no critical evidences offered."
No critical evidences offered? Scientists publish their theories for the sole reason of them being disproved by other scientists...that's what science does. Can I suggest you enrolling in a college and doing a gcse course on biology? They'll cover evolution and you may learn something.
What an irritating and arrogant man. His assertion that he just wants us to think, as if Dawkins is the only book / point of view that we've read. If only we'd ponder his fatuous and casuistic reasoning we'd come to the light. The cretinous objective morality argument always astonishes. It's blindingly obvious that morality is relative to the society / time we live in. And is it just me or do you find the idea of him in a book shop telling a strange woman that she is beautiful creepy?
murchimal 6 months ago
Just because you find something depressing or think it "leads us down a very dark alley" has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether it is true or not
earlofainsdale 9 months ago
Einstein was right. For many reasons the human race is a sorry lot, but unfortunately that is also why the only thing certain people understand is practical deterrents, punishment and justice for certain bad deeds, and conversely practical rewards for certain good deeds. It's just the world we live in. I honestly think people ought to by duty do good things, simply because it is the right thing to do, and believe it should be recognised and encouraged, and bad actions discouraged.
TheBlackWhirlwind 9 months ago
The value of morality doesn´t come from its causes. Being moral matters because it makes the world better and helps real people. The causes of morality isn´t what gives morality meaning. We all agree that consciousness and feelings are real and valuable. The questions is what they arise from. If they arise from physical patterns, then physical patterns must be more meaningful then you give them credit for. A book consists of letters, but that doesn´t mean that the stories aren´t real ;)
ThorTheScienceGuy 1 year ago
@ThorTheScienceGuy "Being moral matters because it make the world better and helps real people." You just tried to smuggle in 2 moral terms to prove morality. What is better and who decides? What is help and who decides? These are moral terms that you cannot assume have objective meaning unless something or someone outside of ourselves has given them meaning. Otherwise they are just as subjective as the term morality is.
littlemas2 11 months ago
You think you´re the way you are because god made your soul the way it is. Or because he decided that he would let chance do the job (that´s what free will must be if it can´t be determenistic). You believe that what matters isn´t if morality is right or makes peoples lives better, but where it comes from. Or at least that´s what your views would imply if you used the same logic when thinking about christianity as the logic you wrongly accuse Dawkins of having. You´re missrepresenting his views.
ThorTheScienceGuy 1 year ago
morality comes from living in groups with other people
shnosmas 1 year ago
Morals dont come from God - for example killing is wrong yet most of the old testement is about war. And explain how slavery was acceptable in bibically time ( and Jesus never condems it) yet it not acceptable today
badpanda84 1 year ago
Given the scale of the appalling child rape scandal going through the Catholic church at the moment, compounded by the complicity cover-up actions, and compounded even more by the immense hypocrisy that the organisation claims to provide some sort of moral guidance to those thank think they need it......I don't think its atheists that have an Achilles heal when it comes to morality. Would be very interested in whether you still think youre right in your video.
1878MrWhizz 1 year ago 3
@1878MrWhizz Why is child rape wrong from an atheist perspective? Why is the holocaust wrong? Why is anything wrong if it makes the person doing it feel good and get what they want? Just because some Christians don't live up to their own stated morality does not therefore mean that scientific naturalism can provide any objective standard at all. At bottom, atheist have no more ground to say child rape is wrong than that they personally don't like it. So what, why should anyone else care?
littlemas2 11 months ago
@littlemas2 : I think you are completely missing the point. I am not saying that scientific naturalism provides any objective moral standard. Indeed, my entire point is that morality is cultural and personal and changes over time. This is why I disagreed with David Robertson in the video because he believes that morality is universal, external and God given. Clearly it is not otherwise we would still think keeping slaves is a good thing as set out in the bible.
MrWhizz1878 11 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 The Bible nowhere says that slavery is a good thing. At times though the Bible did give instruction about how to deal with reality on the ground, such as how if you are a slave you should behave toward your master lovingly and respectfully, but those statements do not make slavery right. As another example of this Jesus instructs his disciples to allow someone to strike their other cheek if stuck once. This does not mean that Jesus condoned cheek striking.
littlemas2 11 months ago
@littlemas2 : With respect, the bible gives clear guidance on how to keep slaves - including how badly you're allowed to beat them (the answer being just enough so that they can recover within 2 days!!!). If you didn't condone something, would you give such guidance or would you suggest that slaves should not be kept. The bible's position on slavery is absolutely the argument that kills David Robertson's main theme of his video.
MrWhizz1878 11 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 This does nothing to kill Robertson's argument. I am quite sure as a Free Church pastor that he does not believe that the Bible ever condoned slavery, and then somehow changed its opinion later on. Orthodox Christians believe that Biblical morality has been consistent throughout time. If you lived in a society where people sometimes chose slavery over starvation then you might see where giving instruction on slavery was necessary even if it was not the ideal.
littlemas2 11 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 How does this damage his position? You want to claim that morality changes as proven by the fact the biblical morality changes, but Christian don't believe it has changed. Situational application of the constant moral principles may make it appear that they have changed, but for example the ten commandments have remained constant for over 3500 years in Judeo-Christian morality.
littlemas2 11 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 If morality does change, then perhaps at sometime in the future or in the past child rape and the holocaust will be or were moral okay. Maybe the deviant Catholic priests have just not caught up with the times because at sometime in the past their behavior was culturally okay. Would you be okay if sometime in the future using children sexually became the cultural norm as long as most people thought it was okay?
littlemas2 11 months ago
@littlemas2 : Again I think you're missing the point. You can't judge the morality of the distant past/future in the context of the morality of today. Morality changes over time and cultures. Whether child rape or holocaust will ever be, or ever were morally "right" is difficulty to say. I'd hope not. But that we may agree that some things are "wrong" doesn't mean that things are fixed. Indeed, those that wrote the bible may be shocked that we feel slavery is wrong today!
MrWhizz1878 11 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 You're response is exactly the moral problem that this pastor is point to. You cannot categorically say certain things that everyone knows to be wrong are really objectively wrong. By saying you hope that these horrific acts will not ever be morally right, you are basically saying that at the bottom of your morality is your personal preferences. In your view how should a society determine their standards and does anyone ever have the right to judge another society?
littlemas2 11 months ago
@littlemas2 : I think you're beginning to understand, yes. Morality is not external, not objective, it changes over time and is personal and cultural. I know you can't understand how it works this way but how do you explain the moral position on slavery over time if it doesn't change?
MrWhizz1878 11 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 By saying that morality is internal you are basically defining morality away. If morality is anything it is a duty toward someone else, but if it is simply internal then it is nothing more than a feeling or idea that I have personally. That is exactly the problem that Robertson is getting at. If you do not believe in God morality is meaningless. The guy with the loudest megaphone or biggest gun gets to impose his will on others.
littlemas2 11 months ago
@littlemas2 : I won't repeat the arguments again because you're clearly either not listening or not trying to understand. Two key points.
1. Just because you personally might go round killing people if you didn't believe in God, don't assume that the rest of us are as morally weak.
2. You say the bible doesn't condone slavery (though it does) and that it's position is unchanging yet you condone a type of slavery in some circumstances.
I don't think you've thought things through.
MrWhizz1878 11 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 I am not saying you are morally weak, you may in fact follow basic Judeo-Christian morality pretty well. I am saying that the logical conclusion of your belief system means that morals don't really exist. You are the one who said morality is personal and cultural, and that you "hope" that child rape and the holocaust are not someday considered okay. What is morality then but personal preference? How is morality different than someone's preference blue over red?
littlemas2 11 months ago
@littlemas2 : I should hope you're NOT saying I'm morally weak. It's not me that has said they can't see the point of not killing someone if God does not exist!! Of course morals exist. What I'm saying does not exist is objective, external, absolute morality. Why not, because there is plenty evidence that even the morality that Christians say is set out in the bible has changed and parts (e.g. slavery) are no longer considered morally good. If you don't understand this then so be it.
1878MrWhizz 11 months ago
@1878MrWhizz And I am saying that if morality is not objective then it is not morality, it is simple preference. Why does one person's preference "better" than another person's preference? Even if I were to grant for sake of argument your point about changing biblical morality that would not somehow change the problem your position presents it would simple say that everyone is in the same boat. I agree then, if morality really does change then it does not exist.
littlemas2 11 months ago
@littlemas2 : Who are you agreeing with when you say if morality changes then it doesn't exist. I'm not saying morality doesn't exist. I'm saying it changes over time and is personal/cultural. Not that it doesn't exist. External, objective, absolute morality is what I'm saying doesn't exist. If you think it DOES exist then what does it say about the keeping of slaves, say?
1878MrWhizz 11 months ago
@1878MrWhizz As another point, are you offended that I might have implied you're morally weak? If so, on what basis are you offended? Is it just your feeling of offense or would I have violated some code? To what are you going to point me so that I might agree that I have done something wrong?
Don't take me wrong, I am not meaning to be offensive in my language or my manner, but I am saying I think your ideas are wrong.
littlemas2 11 months ago
@littlemas2 : I'm not offended, no. I'm surprised that you alluded to it being me that was somehow lacking in morality when the reality of our conversations have been that you've been suggesting you could not see the point in not stealing or killing if you didn't believe in your God. I don't believe in God yet think it's wrong to steal and kill. And also, no, I can't point you to something showing what is morally right/wrong That's exactly my point. No external, objective morality exists.
1878MrWhizz 11 months ago
@1878MrWhizz Good we agree morality does not exist right? So you prefer not to steal and kill because of something internal, but for someone who does prefer to steal and kill they should go ahead because it is following their internal impulses? You seem to be continually suggesting that I should not kill and steal. Why not? What I have internal impulses to want something and I need to kill and steal to get it?
littlemas2 11 months ago
@littlemas2 : Ah! I see your problem. You are, for some reason, assuming that the only morality that can possibily exist is one that is external, objective, absolute and eternal and that if this doesn't exist then there's no such thing as morality. You think my view that it's wrong to kill people is a "personal impulse" or "internal preference". I call it morality, but if we use your terminology, then where do you think those inbuilt impulses and preferences come from in your view?
MrWhizz1878 10 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 In my view our moral impulses are placed their by God to conform to the way He intended us to behavior for our own good, the good of others, and to give Him glory (see Romans 2 for a biblical argument for internal moral impulses). The standards that our impulses point to flow from the nature of God. This same God set the world up in an orderly fashion, and although men currently can violate established morals, God will eventually judge people for wrongs done.
littlemas2 10 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 In your view how do morals differ from preferring vanilla ice cream to chocolate? If individuals can decide on what they think is right and wrong, what is right might differ from person to person. I hold that morality is more like mathematical laws. While we may prefer that 2+2=5 when we build houses using that math they don't stay up very well. If morality is changeable then our societies will eventually fall apart because of differing standards.
littlemas2 10 months ago
@littlemas2 : Final question to you then (as I'm getting bored of repeating myself now) is if morality is objective and is NOT changeable, as you seem to think, then what does it say about the morality of keeping slaves and where can you point to that shows me this objective morality that we're all supposed to agree with.
MrWhizz1878 10 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 On Biblical interpretation, the higher law interprets the lower law. Starting with the basics. Matthew 22:37-40 are the 2 great commandments. Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. The 10 commandments are an more detailed explanation of these 2. The 1st 4 express relationship with the infinite God, while the last 6 express love toward one another. Neighbor is defined by Jesus as everyone who you have the opportunity to love (see parable of the good Samaritan)
littlemas2 10 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 On slavery. Galatians 3:28 makes it clear that salvation is available for everyone regardless of social status. The book of Philemon is written to a Christian slave owner encouraging him to treat Onesimus, a runaway slave, as a brother not as a slave. The general Christian principle of seeing the value of all humans derived from the great commandments has meant that Christians have been/ are at the forefront of most human rights issues, including slavery, both past and present.
littlemas2 10 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 The Bible makes it plain that people sin and hurt one another, and the OT covenant law and the NT both point to the ideal, while at the same time giving instruction for dealing with life in a messed up world. The Bible nowhere implies that either the Jews or the NT Christians were perfect, so instruction for day to day living was necessary. When the Bible points to the ideal situations desired in the church or realized in heaven we do not see anything like slavery.
littlemas2 10 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 As an aside to this question, can you tell me anything about the historical or literary context of the passages on slavery that you are quoting from the Bible? Do you know how they fit within the passage or the book or how the people of that culture would have viewed them? I have studied them both in college and in graduate school and you seem to be using what is called eisegesis, which is reading meaning into the text instead of reading the meaning from the text.
littlemas2 10 months ago
@littlemas2 : You accuse me of eisegesis whilst you seem to be in denial about what the bible actually says. Just read Exodus Chapter 21 for now. What misinterpretation of the meaning am I reading into the statements? Now, you may not have see these verses before so be prepared for a shock. Is this the objective, absolute morality that you think I ought to follow? Or do you think this morality is now out of date and doesn't apply to our time/culture? I await your eisegesis!!
MrWhizz1878 10 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 Yes, I have read the whole Bible 5 times, and I can even go get my Hebrew text off my shelf (or from my several Bible programs) and work through the translation if necessary. Did you know that Exodus is part of a covenant between YHWH and the nation of Israel? Do you understand that the Levitical law is written to deal with the specific time, culture, and people group. Some principles are applicable generally, but many are not such as the priestly regulations.
littlemas2 10 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 Biblical principles of morality does not change, but every moral system has a hierarchy of morals. In various situations how those morals are applied may differ depending on the circumstances. Many of the 614 coventant laws given from Exodus through Deuteronomy are situational regulations based moral principles but with specific application to the Jewish nation at that time in history. The morals of the 10 commandments have not changed, nor have the 2 great commandments.
littlemas2 10 months ago
@littlemas2 : Your last two answers say "may differ depending on the circumstances" and "at that time in history" and "to deal with the specific time, culture and people group". QED.
These principles you say are "applicable generally", will these be the things that all human societies regardless of religion have common between them (i.e. no to murder, no to stealing, etc.). That is, things that you'd expect to see in a species that has evolved to be a social animal. Again, QED.
MrWhizz1878 10 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 Let me ask two question which you have failed to respond to. Have you ever examined the context of the passages you are using? I can point you to some good technical commentaries if you like. Second and back to the main point: How does moral relativism deal with someone or some other culture who wants to steal from or kill you? How is large society even possible if everyone does what is right in their own eyes? Your position is simply unlivable in a free society.
littlemas2 10 months ago
@littlemas2 : Answer 1. That's precisely my point....that the guidance in the bible applies to a time and culture (neither of which are here and now). That you are suggesting I need to check commentaries to explain the context makes my point for me!! Answer 2. Humans are social species and our morality has been shaped by our ancestry in that context (e.g. I know of no human society that thinks it's right to kill its members). My position is simply how things are.
MrWhizz1878 10 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 If you start with the assumption that morality is relative and then look at changing cultural values through time, presto you find evidence for you belief. The Bible though presents a different picture. Yes, different biblical peoples had different cultural expectations, and throughout the Bible those expectations are contrasted against a constant morality that comes from God. The whole story of the Bible is about human sinfulness and God's calling people back to himself.
littlemas2 10 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 Just because people have behaved badly through time (just as the Bible presents) does not mean that somehow the expectations of how they should behave have changed a great deal. Furthermore, just because some people have tried to justify bad behavior does not somehow make it right. Child rape was no more right when a Greek philosophers tried to justify it, then it is now when a Catholic priest does it.
littlemas2 10 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 You give a possible reason for how morality could have developed, but give no reason why anyone once conscious of the fact that morality is just opinion should still follow it. So what if society says something is wrong. Already, in this society we have decided it is ok to leave your spouse and kids if it makes you feel better, who cares about the consequences to others. Will it be okay if we decide like some ancient Greek and Arab societies that child sex is okay?
littlemas2 10 months ago
@littlemas2 : With respect, I'm bored of our discussion now as you're clearly not interested in thinking about there being any possible alternative to your view. You are just ignoring everything I've said or just not understanding what I'm saying. Either way, I feel as though I'm talking to myself and wasting my time trying to engage with you. Have it your way. Your God is fab and the bible gives superb moral guidance that we should all follow. Now, let me go throw out all my shellfish.
MrWhizz1878 10 months ago
@littlemas2 Also, nowhere in Exodus 21 does it say that slavery is God's intention for all time or that it was ever intended as the best. It does though give instruction on humane treatment of other people in a culture where slaves had NO rights. If you read it with modern lenses on, you might think it condones slavery, but when you understand to whom it was originally written, you see the law actual begins teaching the Hebrews about the intrinsic value of all human life.
littlemas2 10 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 Here is an example of why I think that concept of relative morality is dangerous. Many people in western countries do not think a fetus is a human person and therefore women have the right to kill it if they so chose, but this did not used to be the case. What if the majority of society decides atheists have a mental disease are not really human persons and can be killed by the proper authorities if deemed necessary? Would you argue against such a policy and why?
littlemas2 11 months ago
@littlemas2 : You may consider relative morality dangerous. That doesn't mean it not the way things are. Creationists think the idea of evolution is dangerous. It's still the way things are though.
1878MrWhizz 11 months ago
@1878MrWhizz I disagree with you about the way things are, but at least you are being consistent with your own belief system. An atheist who gets morally outraged about someone else's behavior or beliefs is like a Christian who fails to follow through on some of the basic moral tenets of their own belief system. In other words they are both failing to live consistently within their own worldview.
littlemas2 10 months ago
This guy cherry picks statements and then constructs extremely flimsy arguments.
Your saying we are good because we are told to be by God. and if we don't we will go to hell. And you say that's better than evolving our own morality?
You only do good in order to win the favour of God and go to heaven. And you think that is not selfish?
Your argument is pathetic.
FAIL!
believerornot 2 years ago
Idiot, Your arguments are flimsy and stupid. Poorly though out to the end. You only argue about Dawkins's logic and apply your own opinion without any clear rebuttal logic. You only use very meek statements saying Dawkins is "depressing" and suggesting that Athism leads to Naziism. Bad Christian crap. You reinforce my belief that Christian are really stupid.
Andrewlohbihler 2 years ago
The "Atheism leads to Naziism" argument does annoy me as there are many well document quotes (from Mein Kampf and speaches) from Hitler where he is stating his Catholicism or where he thinks he was doing the work of the Creator. The German army belt buckles had "Gott mit Uns" written on them (God is with us). There is little evidence that Hitler was an atheist and considerable evidence that he was a Catholic. He was a terrible man, but he was not an atheist.
MrWhizz1878 2 years ago 3
evolution ain't claiming to have a say about morality... this guy is almost as bad as ben stine
chadmaveric 2 years ago
Not about morality explicitly, but social species such as humans tend to behave in ways that are collaborative with the individuals in their social groups. This tendency is a genetic disposition (i.e. those with genes that drive unco-operative behaviours will tend to be driven out of social groups and it is harder to survive or find mates in this context so the genes for co-operation within social groupings becomes the norm). This is evolution's contribution to our moral framework.
MrWhizz1878 2 years ago 6
but arent thoes unco-operative behaviours a result of social interaction and eviourment? not evolution? i think adaptation drives our moral framwork, but to say evolution shapes it is to imply we are all born with preset tentencies of "good" or "bad" behaviour. i dont think we are.
chadmaveric 2 years ago
It's not clear cut, I grant you, but that certain behavioural dispositions/tendencies are influenced by genes and inherited is pretty clear - even if it's possible to 'override' those dispositions/tendencies by adapting ones behaviour (though the ability/willingness to adapt ones behaviour is a disposition/tendency that could be influenced by your genes!).
1878MrWhizz 2 years ago
fair enouogh, i could understand our behaviour being influenced by our genes and that they would have evolved as behaviour that benefits our survival. but i dont think evolution conciously steers morality.
chadmaveric 2 years ago
Evolution cannot do anything consciously. It's a process. Blind pityless indifference is what Dawkins uses to describe it.
1878MrWhizz 2 years ago
@MrWhizz1878 Modern atheist never seem to understand the problem. Just because you can explain how morality might have come to exist in a some naturalistic way does not give you any individual or society a reason to continue to follow that path if they have some other compelling reason to do otherwise. If you have money that I want and I can get it with little chance of harm to myself, then why should I not hurt you to get it? Nature cannot give us a moral ought.
littlemas2 11 months ago
@littlemas2 : What problem don't "modern atheists" seem to understand? Let's take your money example. We evolved to be a social species as there were benefits in our ancestry in co-operating in groups more than going it alone. Thus, behavioural tendancies that helped co-operation, trust, social collaboration, etc. were passed on. As these things got passed on, things that went against this (such as stealing) would be seen as "wrong". Don't you think stealing is wrong?
MrWhizz1878 11 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 I think steal is wrong because it is acting unlovingly toward both God and other people, and therefore it has eternal consequences. If God does not exist, I have no idea why I should care about you or your stuff. Heck Chairman Mao lived a long life full of power and perversion while stepping on and killing all kinds of people. Why are your preferences for right and wrong better than his? He got away with it, and for all we know it made him happy.
littlemas2 11 months ago
@littlemas2: If you can't see any reason for being a good person if God does not exist then I for one am extremely pleased that you believe in God. Are you seriously saying that you can't be trusted to behave yourself otherwise? Good job you have your beliefs!
MrWhizz1878 11 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Me and everyone else who figures out that once they no longer believe in God they no longer have to believe in any objective morality. Frankly with all the protestations about how moral atheists are, I don't trust those of you who do not believe in any objective morality. How I am to know that once you decide religion is disease and you get in power that you might decide to persecute me and my ilk? What would stop you?
littlemas2 11 months ago
@littlemas2 : You don't need to worry about the atheists - they already don't have the belief in God. It's the believers that are only behaving themselves because they think God is watching them that you need to be worried about. You yourself have admitted that they can't be trusted if they didn't believe in God.
MrWhizz1878 11 months ago
@MrWhizz1878 Really no person who stops believing in god would ever come to the conclusion that since morality does not actually exist they can do whatever they want. Read about Jeffery Dahmer's conclusions. Simply examine the atheist states of the 20 century and tell me that the lack of a moral foundation had nothing to do with the massive killing of their own people. Watch the video Cruel Logic. How would you respond to someone who took your conclusions and decided they wanted to kill you?
littlemas2 11 months ago
Also ask yourself. If there is no secular way of determining that it is right to be moral, why be moral?
If you are moral simply to placate the rules of a God, how do you know you are following the right God. And how do I know you won't be told something very different from one day to the next.
How can you make moral decisions about complex situations? Must you always go on feeling? What if you are angry and your feelings are telling you to cause harm, must I trust that God will step in?
jamesstephenbrown 2 years ago
Unfortunately, you asked yourself the correct question "Why is morality important?" but failed to answer it. You got half way to the phrase "might makes right", but left it there.
Why then is "might makes right" undesirable? Is it for the implied emotive reason you seem to suggest, that "might makes right" just feels yuck? Or are there real consequences to a "might makes right" system?
Name the consequences to this system and you'll find the secular reasons to be moral.
jamesstephenbrown 2 years ago
My attempt at shortening this into a youtube comment - genes that make bodies which happen to behave altruistically toward other bodies sharing a high proportion of the same genetic information (say kin), will by default obtain an advantage with respect to natural selection versus those (genes) which do not. Not individuals, genes. To put it another way. genes that make parents not care for their children, will tend to not still be around. Their chances of being replicated are much slimmer.
lpl78 3 years ago
lpl78 : Great comments, and a strong understanding.
Malbrojia 2 years ago
Er, you obviously haven't read the Selfish Gene. Small wonder you don't think it is sufficient explanation for altruism, seeing as you don't know what it means. The Selfish gene does not refer implicitly to selfish individuals, only performing acts of altruism for something in return. It depicts natural selection as happening at the level of the gene, not the individual or the group. A very powerful concept, which if you understood properly would rectify your misunderstandings about evolution.
lpl78 3 years ago 2
I'm posting a new comment here mainly to stop essentialfat's hugely disrespectful comment being the first one anyone sees should they stumble across this video.
However, whilst I'm posting, I'd like to restate my key issue with respect to absolute morality.
The example of slavery illustrates that morality has changed over time/geography from that originally set out in biblical scripture (OT + NT). If there IS absolute morality, then it's pretty pointless as nobody knows what it is.
1878MrWhizz 3 years ago
"If there IS absolute morality, then it's pretty pointless as nobody knows what it is."
God does - which is the point!
dardun 2 years ago
No, it's completely NOT the point. The key thrust of your point is that morality is atheism's "achilles heel" because there is absolute morality and atheists can't know what that is. We're not comparing atheists with God - we're comparing atheists with theists. In that context, if absolute morality exists then neither atheists nor theists know what it is. That God knows what it is isn't the point at all. It's whether any people know what the absolute moral guidance is - and nobody does.
1878MrWhizz 2 years ago
There will always be a few exceptions that lean to the left and some to the right, but both atheists and theists have the same general consensus of what is right and wrong. Why is that?
goretoym 2 years ago
The answer is relatively straightforward. Humans are social animals (i.e. we have survived and thrived better as a species in our evolutationary ancestry by working in social groups (even if those social groups are as small as families)). Social animals are more successful if individuals in the group can be trusted and they co-operate. The genes for tendency to social behaviours have been passed down. Generally common morality is expected if this were true. Nothing at all to do with God.
MrWhizz1878 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dardun "If there IS absolute morality, then it's pretty pointless as nobody knows what it is."
God does - which is the point! "
yes but first which God and secondly nobody know or agress what it is. Otherwise there would be so much debate
badpanda84 1 year ago
what a twat
essentialfat 3 years ago
Dawkins quoting abusive letters does not lead to his stating that Christianity is wrong. Dont misrepresent him.
Dawkins does not talk about society where morality doesnt exist. Misrepresentation again. Your wilfulness in twisting and making up arguments is breathtaking. My previous comment stands.
Why are some 80% of gaoled criminals(US 1997 figures)self-professed Christians? Of these, 31% are Catholic, 28% Protestant, the rest a motley group from motley cults probably including your own.
VeroniqueCG 3 years ago
You ask "Why are some 80% of gaoled criminals(US 1997 figures)self-professed Christians?".
There is a +ve correlation between criminality and poverty (i.e. a higher percentage of poor people in prisons than in the population as a whole). There is a -ve correlation between poverty and eductation (i.e. poorer people are less well educated than better off people). There is a -ve correlation between education and religious belief (i.e. religion in more common in less well educated peoples). QED
1878MrWhizz 3 years ago
Actually it does. It is a classic ad hominem argument and he uses it a lot. Of course I did not say that it was his ONLY argument. And your 1997 figures - another atheist myth which has been debunked many times.
dardun 2 years ago
Morality is hard to define. It changes with time. I think everyone inherently knows what's moral and what's not, because the "golden rule" of be nice to other people is embedded in our genes, some primitive repulse to preserve our own genetic foot print. No deity is needed.
student007 3 years ago
student - everyone 'inherently' knows? What is your evidence for this? I like positions to be based on evidence not just on wishful thinking. Besides which to claim that morality 'changes with time' and yet everybody knows because of a genetic throwback appears to me to be contradictory!
dardun 3 years ago
Morality changes with time. Many things we used to consider morally acceptable are no longer so (polygamy, incests -- see bible) and some things that used to be considered morally unacceptable and now are (divorce, woman showing their bodies). I think people don't need to be taught religions in order to understand morality.
student007 3 years ago
As always, DAR, you misrepresent RD. You have your own agenda and that involves misrepresenting anyone who doesn't argue from your own very blinkered and morally myopic stance. How many times did we all argue an 'absolute' morality? You could never get past first base because you are so amazingly blinkered. You have no credibility at all David; your egocentricity astounds most of us. Your mendacity leaves us speechless. Idiot!
VeroniqueCG 3 years ago
I don't think this is fair. With respect, I don't think he misrepresents Dawkins. Having read the Dawkins book and David's book, I think he is genuinely disagreeing with Dawkins' arguments rather than disagreeing with a straw man of Dawkins' arguments - for the most part at least. It's the misrepresentation of the biblical stance on slavery that annoys me, though I understand him doing this as the bible's stance on slavery kills his key point about morality being the atheist Achilles heal.
1878MrWhizz 3 years ago
Veronique - apart from the insults - perhaps you could tell me exactly where it is wrong. Tell me the misrepresentation. If you can I will apologise and change it. I look forward to hearing from you.
dardun 3 years ago
I don't believe that you need religion to have an absolute morality, it's not either God or subjective morality. I agree with you that subjective morality is not ideal, but that does not mean we need our morality given to us from a God. I'm sure you are aware of the Euthphro dilemma... Are God's commands/laws good because he made them good, or are they good because they are good, of course neither outcomes are desirable for the belief that we need God for morality. How do you overcome this?
Ben1220 3 years ago
Dardun
I appreciate that you are busy but I would still like to pursue this discussion. You begin your video by saying it is the "Achilles heal" of atheism but I think that the biblical position on slavery is the Achilles heal of your argument. I am willing to overlook your incorrect comment that the bible condemns slavery if you are willing to accept that biblical morality with respect to slavery is no longer applicable.
1878MrWhizz 3 years ago
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. It is impossible to discuss such a complex subject in such space. But suffice it to say just now that the OT laws for slavery given to the theocratic state of ISrael no longer apply (neither do the ceremonial or other parts of the civil law) - the NT teaching does. Slave traders go to Hell - there is no slave nor free in Christ etc. (PS. I think Marx was right about wage slaves - and that does have some bearing on our subject!)
dardun 3 years ago
Agree not ideal forum. But again you ignore the conflict between your view on absolute morality and the bible's stance on slavery. You may try to discard the OT as it suits you to, but the NT doesnt challenge the OT guidance on slavery. Indeed, the NT explicitly supports the OT laws:-
Matthew 5:18-19
Luke 16:17
2 Timothy 3:16
2 Peter 20-21
John 10:35
And one specifically on slavery: 1 Peter 2:18
I have done my research on this. Morality is theism's achilles heel, not atheism's.
1878MrWhizz 3 years ago
Dardun
There is a good, 20-question test that is available online and I think you will find it interesting and (hopefully) thought provoking. Youtube won't let me post the URL but a Google Search for "morality play philosophersnet" will find it at the top. I'm not asking you to post your answers but would ask you to honestly consider whether you knew (either through hardwiring or revelation) what a supposedly timeless, universal Absolute Morality says is the right response for each case.
1878MrWhizz 3 years ago
Thanks.. that was interesting. Although several false dichotmies were set up. As is your own misunderstanding that the fact that there is an absolute morality therefore means that I would know what is right and wrong in every situation. By the way my score was 47%
dardun 3 years ago
But you make my point for me - if you don't know what absolute morality actually says about something, it's of no practical use. There is no way of knowing whether our personal morality is in line with or out of step with absolute morality. Slavery remains a good example. What does absolute morality say about slavery? Are cultures that keep slaves morally right (as long as they follow the "regulations" in the bible) or are they morally wrong, and if they're morally wrong, how do you know?
1878MrWhizz 3 years ago
I believe morality is personal/cultural even if only absolute morality is of no practical use. To illustrate....three questions.
1. If there is absolute morality, isnt it also timeless and universal?
2. If there is absolute morality, how do we know what it is?
3. If we don't know what it is, or if it has changed over time, then how is absolute morality of any practical use in determining with any certainty what is morally right or morally wrong?
Morality is personal.
1878MrWhizz 3 years ago
1. Absolute morality is timeless and universal.
2. If it is 'hardwired' into us and if it has been revealed to us.
3. therefore does not apply
dardun 3 years ago
But your (1) & (2) answers in combination are why I don't believe absolute morality exists or, if it does, why it's of no practical use. Consider slavery. The bible clearly condones slavery (guides on how they should be treated, where one is allowed to buy one from, etc.). Practical morality on slavery has changed in the past 300 years. If morality is absolute, was the biblical acceptance and guidance on slavery wrong or are we wrong today for considering slavery to be immoral?
1878MrWhizz 3 years ago
The Bible does not clearly condone slavery - it regulates it in a culture where it was the accepted norm. The Bible actually condemns slavery. There is an absolute morality and from that we derive practical morality for real everyday situations.
dardun 3 years ago
You deliberately misrepresent by saying "The Bible actually condemns slavery". It most certainly does not. You may personally interpret something obliquely to make it look like slavery isn't being condoned but (1) this is very different to actually condemning it and (2) many phrases clearly condone slavery - no interpretation needed.
I wanted a fair discussion about absolute morality but you inventing meanings from the bible that aren't there isn't fair. No wonder you think you're right.
1878MrWhizz 3 years ago
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
"Timeless and universal"
itsChristonabike 3 years ago
"The Bible does not clearly condone slavery - it regulates it in a culture where it was the accepted norm"
That's like authority regulating pedophiles in cultures where it's the "accepted norm" your statement that morality is "timeless and universal" make no sense at all, is slavery right or wrong? if I beat a slave and he dies of his injuries two days later is it right I don't get punished? where is the "timeless and universal" morality there?
itsChristonabike 3 years ago
The fact that the Bible gives guidance to a culture where slavery was the norm is clear support for the view that morality changes over time/geographies/cultures. The same biblical guidance does not apply today, and did not apply then in places of the world where slavery wasn't the accepted norm.
I remain perplexed about Dardun's assertion that "The Bible actually condemns slavery". I know he is a Minister, so should know the bible well, but he is very wrong on this one. It doesn't.
1878MrWhizz 3 years ago
there is a story in the bible it's in John 8:7 I believe, it wasn't even added to the 27 books until 600yrs after Jesus' death. It's the story where some priests are berating an adulteress, she should be stoned to death for adultery according to the law of Moses, but according to the mercy of Jesus she should not be stoned to death, the priests wait to see if Jesus will go against the law of Moses, or go against his own teaching. this proves a different morality between Moses and Jesus
itsChristonabike 3 years ago
Strange if you believe that morality is "timeless and universal" how do you square the stoning to death on her fathers doorstep of a wife found not to be a virgin on her wedding night, and why would it be ok to beat a slave to within an inch of his life, but not knock out any teeth or blind him, but not ok now?
Why would an un baptised baby go to hell in the past yet now go to limbo? it makes no sense
itsChristonabike 3 years ago
Its not ok. And limbo is not in the bible - nor is the teaching that an unbaptised baby goes to hell. You need to argue against what is being said...not what you want to be said.
dardun 3 years ago
The "god" of the old testament is barbaric compared to the new testament, so where's the "timeless and universal" nature of morality there, your right limbo isn't in the bible, the un baptised baby went straight to hell, the Catholic church realised only a monstrous god would allow that so they "made up" limbo! I noticed you chose to ignore the barbaric murder of a wife who wasn't a virgin (what happens to a husband who isn't a virgin?)
itsChristonabike 3 years ago
I enjoyed your debate at Millsaps College last year. Stay strong brother.
joshlsulli 3 years ago
Thanks josh,
It was interesting! Amazing how so many atheists just assume they are brighter, more intelligent and more scientific than Christians! It was fun to watch the arguments falling apart.....
dardun 3 years ago
Society predates human development, a group (or flange is you will .. !!) of gorillas have highly structured "social" rules a "rouge" individual will often be expelled from the group, as I'm sure you are aware mice will show greater dismay at the ill treatments of related mice than non related mice.
Just because you find something "depressing" or "desolate" doesn't reduce it's chances of being true, you seem to struggle with what is true and what you would like to be true
Hitler was catholic!
itsChristonabike 3 years ago
Hitler was catholic in the same way that Dawkins is Anglican. There is no evidence that Hitler was a practising Catholic who had any catholic beliefs. He did not attend a catholic church and indeed hated the weakness of Christianity. But don't let truth get in the way of your prejudice!
dardun 3 years ago
Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
itsChristonabike 3 years ago
Oh dear...you need to actually read Hitler rather than atheist websites. And you need to set him in context. I have read Mein Kampf and a significant number of Hitler's papers and speeches. He hated Christianity. He was a politician in a country which had a strong tradition of Christianity -and he hated the Jews. He regarded religion as a virus which should be eradicated....now where have I heard that one before?!
dardun 3 years ago
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers
itsChristonabike 3 years ago
and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows.
itsChristonabike 3 years ago
For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
Could you give me the context for this quote please?
itsChristonabike 3 years ago
Sorry - just repeating the quote does not provide the answers to my questions. Where does this quote come from? When was it written? To whom? And you are forgetting the rather obvious fact that Jesus was a Jew? Meanwhile the fact remains that Hitler hated the church and sought to destroy Christianity. His Darwinian view that the strong survive was used to justify his cruelty
dardun 3 years ago
Will you guys get your act together?
"I have no idea how many christians there were in auschwitz, because most of them if not all of them were jews.
That IS a tricky subject because jews are not believers because they rejected the messiah. But the jews still remain Gods people"
From another "christian"
itsChristonabike 3 years ago
I must, however, thank the people I've debated with on here; and I mean that in all sincerity. A lot of other 'Christian' clips on youtube have the comments feature turned off, because they have no wish for free speech. At least on here that accusation cannot be thrown.
When possible I've also shown this debate to my 12 year old niece and 9 year old nephew. Now they see what religion can do to adults and how easily people can believe in silly things like ghosts etc.. It's been a pleasure, all.
SamSlater 3 years ago
"Is it reasonable to assume that 12 year olds, unless really remarkable, wouldn't normally read the whole Bible let alone understand it?"
Well, I'm not saying I understood every subtlety but I got the general gist of it's message (God is real, God watches everything you do, God is to be praised at every opportunity, God sends people to hell for not obeying him, etc etc...).
SamSlater 3 years ago
There you go, you show yourself to be completely clueless.
your last sentence is not true for starters. You missed out that God is Love. God is merciful. God is abounding in grace and slow to anger.
I think it's time for some revision.
aladon1965 3 years ago
What's not true? That God doesn't basically say 'follow me or to hell you go!'? If I'm wrong then tell me how one gets to hell then. Is is a lottery or something?
SamSlater 3 years ago
"Say with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead and you'll be saved."
You see no one can enter Heaven without having first being washed. No sin is present or is allowed there. How do you get washed? If you understand the basics of the 'Passover' then you'll know that for sin, in those days, a lamb was killed, eaten and it's blood sprinkled around the doorways of the houses. Now, we have Jesus as God's lamb and His blood takes away our sin.
aladon1965 3 years ago
Which is another way of saying "suck my dick or you get your brains blown out"?
It's an ultimatum.....no getting away from that. An evil ultimatum too.
SamSlater 3 years ago
Thats it Sam. No more responses to you. Have it your own way. I hope your proud of yourself.
aladon1965 3 years ago
Oh, I'm sorry....hurt your feelings? Did I say a naughty word?
Considering you've used words like 'homo', 'poofery' and 'disgusting pervert' when talking about Gays I find it mighty strange you're now getting upset at me.
Well done, aladon! You've just shown, to anybody who cares to read though our debate, that you're a typical, bigoted, gay-hater, who uses his religion to back-up his own prejudices. I knew I could corner you into making yourself look an arse, and I did. Thank you!
SamSlater 3 years ago
I've read some of it. 600 plus comments is way too much. Aladon is trying to be honest and has said some things he shouldn't have. SamSlater has been baiting and some of the later comments are just very disrespectful to anyone. I doubt if even athiests should talk like that about a god who is worshipped by someone. Wether you think it nonsense or not. A bit nasty if you ask me.
deedledawdle 3 years ago
Hear yourself talk, deedledawdle (or should I say aladon?). What have I said that is disrespectful or nasty? I never once called you disgusting -like you did Gay people. You took offence over an ANALOGY - an analogy that still stands btw.
If I've offended you then tough. Take it like a man. I have gay friends but didn't run away crying when you said those hate-filled words. I simply pointed out your bigotry. Did your fairy god teach you to be so mardy when people don't agree with you?
SamSlater 3 years ago
You having some medical experience should know that all girls are virgins before they have sex.
aladon1965 3 years ago
Lol....and that small bit of medical experience tells me supernatural being don't magically impregnate random women throughout ancient Israel!
I don't know how Joseph fell for that old chestnut!
SamSlater 3 years ago
Sam, you can mock but if you made an honest study of Jesus life, death and resurrection you may discover something wonderful. But my guess is you are either too lazy, too clever or just too scared to do that.
You should do a search on this youtube for Monty Python Arguement. It just about suits you. It's your thing for sure.
aladon1965 3 years ago
I could say the same thing to you about evolution, by means of natural selection. Why would I be scared? If I was in the slightest bit inclined to believe in God, I'd start praying this minute. I mean, I don't wanna go to hell when I die! My atheism should tell you I'm not the least bit scared!
I do, however, think YOU'RE scared of the truth. Evolution disproves the BIble, which is a major thing in your life and you're scared of losing something you've devoted your life to.
SamSlater 3 years ago
There you go, my point in case. You have obviously never actually read the Bible to make silly comments like that. Evoution does not disprove anything. God's word is without error.
aladon1965 3 years ago
I've told you before , aladon -please keep up old chap- that I have read the Bible back to front as a kid. I thought it was a decent story when I was 12....with some good philosophy on life, but I never took it as the literal truth. Even at 8 or 9 I realised God was just like Father Christmas and the tooth fairy.
In retort, I can see you know next to nothing about evolution.
SamSlater 3 years ago
Sam, I am probably the better read between us when it comes to evolutionary theory.
Reading the Bible at 12 is hardly what you would call study. I would also doubt very much if you actually read it all. Sounds a bit far fetched.
aladon1965 3 years ago
You presume too much. If you're well up on evolution then you wouldn't have asked and stated the things you have over the past few months while we've discoursed. The only other explanation is that you HAVE read up on it, but you just failed to understand it?
As for me and the Bible: Again, you need to keep up. I never claimed that I 'studied' the Bible at 12; I just said I read it back to front. What's so far fetched about that?
SamSlater 3 years ago
It's rather a long read for a 12 year old.
Also, contrary to your utter lack of Biblical understanding, I was a confirmed evolutionist prior to my Christian days. Since then I have continued to read and understand science.
I'm particularly interested in anthropology.
But hey, no point in flashing any credentials at you Sam, you just rubbish anything I say.
aladon1965 3 years ago
"But hey, no point in flashing any credentials at you Sam, you just rubbish anything I say."
How strange...I was thinking the exact same thing about you. You even rubbished my reading ability, never mind my stand on the universe!
SamSlater 3 years ago
You should be in Stand-Up.
I didn't rubbish your reading ability. Is it reasonable to assume that 12 year olds, unless really remarkable, wouldn't normally read the whole Bible let alone understand it? I know terrific theologians who still ponder the mysteries of God, and they've studied hard for many years.
aladon1965 3 years ago
Sam, I am probably the better read between us when it comes to evolutionary theory.
what a fucking hoot! you are incapable of even stating the most basic hypotheses of evolutionary theory.
McMonster65 3 years ago
"you are incapable of even stating the most basic hypotheses of evolutionary theory. "
Good for me.
aladon1965 3 years ago
not so good if you are making false claims about your knowledge of the theory- sadly your cult has robbed you of the ability to see reality or indeed to see that you are incapapble of dealing with reality.
McMonster65 3 years ago
You can call them 'gays' you know. 'Homo' isn't very polite. It's like calling a disabled person a 'spaz' or 'retard'.
The anus may be a one way street, but it's their anus you know! Nothing to do with you, or the Church. Talking of one way streets: wasn't that all Mother Mary's vagina was? An EXIT point?
SamSlater 3 years ago
Gay used to mean happy. Not a disgusting pervert. By the way, it is their anus, and they can rip it to bits in the privacy of their own homes, but just dont force their poofery on society and the church. Bugger off as they say.
By the way, Jesus had brothers and sisters born after him. Get you facts straight.
aladon1965 3 years ago
"Gay used to mean happy. Not a disgusting pervert."
Showing your prejudice again, aladon! How charitable of you.
"just dont force their poofery on society and the church."
Well, the church has forced their views on gays and society for nigh on 2 millennia now. A bit hypocritical, don't you think? Plus, gays aren't FORCING anything on anybody. They're asking to be treat equally.
"By the way, Jesus had brothers and sisters born after him."
Stop referring to her as 'the virgin' then!
SamSlater 3 years ago
Are you convinced you that you evolved from nothing to the Big Bang, to a star, to a supernova, to gas and dust, to organic soup, to a living cell, to a metazoan, to a fish, to an amphibian, to a reptile, to a mammal, to a primate, to the person you see when you look in the mirror? - that your life is a cosmic accident, devoid of intrinsic meaning or purpose or reason for hope?
aladon1965 3 years ago
Am I convinced? For the most part - yes. We're less sure about the exact cause/instant of the big bang, but from the first millisecond onwards, all the evidence seems to fall into place. As for evolution and humans having a common ancestor with todays apes: it's beyond questioning now. The evidence overwhelms to such an extent that most Bishops and Vicars have to accept it. Maybe we will never know what caused the big bang because it may be beyond our comprehension; evolution is simple and true.
SamSlater 3 years ago
I think to say most bishops and vicars believe evolution is a bit of an sweeping exaggeration. Unless you mean Anglicans. (that was a joke)
Some Anglican Scholars in the 60's declared God was dead. One old Vicar hung himself in utter despair at their statements.
However, one day, God proved He wasn't dead and the Charismatic Movement was born. Now Anglican churches empty as churches meeting in school halls and hotels are on the increase. And they dont believe evolution.
aladon1965 3 years ago
For once we agree. Anglicans seemed to have the sense to admit that a 2000 year old book, written by goat herders, was just a guide book that shouldn't be taken too literally.
SamSlater 3 years ago
On the contrary, those who hold such beliefs are dead in sin and have no experience of a true and living God. I have a friend in New York who became Born Again whilst at Anglican Seminary. Evidence that many people take up the 'Cloth' who do not know God at all.
aladon1965 3 years ago
If he hadn't been Born Again he would have still taken up his 'profession' without knowing God at all.
aladon1965 3 years ago
Ah, it seems my last post was removed. Definitely 'televangelists' around here then?
SamSlater 3 years ago
I have had lots of posts that have vanished or not even appeared after I have hit the 'post comment' button.
aladon1965 3 years ago
Me too, but I think if they don't post then it's a youtube problem. My post DID get posted, but a few hours later upon checking to see if I'd had any replies, it had disappeared.
Basically I was talking about how sensible the Anglicans are, compared to (T)evangelicals, Mormons, Catholics, etc...
SamSlater 3 years ago
Sensible? Gay vicars and bishops? Lesbian theologians? Bishops who dont believe the virgin birth? I dont know about sensible.
aladon1965 3 years ago
So you're homophobic then? What a nice man.
SamSlater 3 years ago
A phobia, is a fear. I am not homophobic. That would be a fear of man would it not?
My point is simply that if you think Anglican's are 'sensible', then why do they defy the Word of God and employ those that God's Word say's are abhorrent?
If I was a Doctor but didn't follow my proven methods I was taught in Uni, I would be a pretty bad doctor wouldn't I?
So why do the Clergy think they can depart from God's ways but still be effective in their job's. That is why the churches are emptying.
aladon1965 3 years ago
We both have a decent enough grasp of English to know the definition of homophobia. Most hebrew based religions have a fear of homosexuality for one reason and that is propagation of their religion. they fear that encouraging homosexuality will mean less babies born into their faith. They fear it. can you give me any reason why anyone shouldn't be homosexual?
SamSlater 3 years ago
I can assure you that 'homophobia' was a word invented by homo's. I fear them not.
Why shouldn't people be homo's? The anus is a one way street. An Exit point.
Men and women are natural as intended by God. Anything else is just vile.
aladon1965 3 years ago
"The main reason I cant take evolution seriously is because it is so badly presented and most presentations are made with broad brush strokes with no critical evidences offered."
No critical evidences offered? Scientists publish their theories for the sole reason of them being disproved by other scientists...that's what science does. Can I suggest you enrolling in a college and doing a gcse course on biology? They'll cover evolution and you may learn something.
SamSlater 3 years ago