If you answer: NO, then you are moral only because you FEAR the policeman in the sky - you anti-social and probably a danger to humanity and should be locked up.
obviously you can't determine what is right or wrong without first considering a standard. meta-ethics: what is that standard? devine-comand theory is just one of those positions, a very dubious one (and the least appealing in terms of it's consequences).
Err...in America as a whole there are some 15 percent atheists now, but according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons less than ONE percent of american inmates are atheists.. So I think the atheists are managing to be nice people very well without the invisible man in the sky.. .. err..unlike those 99 percent inmates.. Hehe: )
@winterstellar This falls under the theory that "there are no atheists in fox-holes". In prison you can stand alone as an atheist (a minority by statistics quoted by you) and become the bitch of some hairy thumbed guy with no neck, or ally yourself with a protective group. Most of these prison groups, or "gangs", profess some sort of spiritual faith or religious affiliation and would reject an atheist from membership. In prison it's in an atheists best interest to get religion.
Sorry bud, if you need a gawd to tell you that bar-b-queing the baby in the backyard is an evil thing there's no hope for you at all. There is no god, but morals still exist.
@TheSaturnalia Without my belief in God and an afterlife, it would be acceptable to bar-b-que you in the back yard as there would be no ultimate consequence for anything I did. Societal morals and laws just don't cut it as long as death is an escape from responsibility. Society is just humans, modern humans are just sheeple, and what do you do with sheep? That's right, we bar-b-que them. Unless we stand to loose something more important than secular freedom and life.
@Honestinwilkesbarre So you're a barbarian. Unlike you I don't need a book to tell me right from wrong. Especially the so called 'holy' bible. That book is one that would encourage you to commit any and all atrocities in the name of gawd. Have a look at some other books. I'd recommend the 'God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.
2. Makes no sense...you're playing with semantics too much, especially with the words "absolute" and "value". Furthermore, psychopaths kill w/o remorse
3. relies on someone answering positively to 2; but if I answered negatively to 2, I can say that "I treat others how I wanted to be treated"
4. Evolution is selfish...even biologists will tell you that
5. depends on if you're referring to humans individually or as a society
i actually dont believe in evil or good. just morality, and in cultures morality often differs. as i see things just you may find them unjust, its in the eye of the beholder. if you at this very moment stopped believing in god would you rape, kill and molest children? why or why not? even without a god you still have feelings thoughts, ideals and so on. to say i have no morality is actualy very disrespectful and also says those that who dont believe as you do are bad. do you agree?
@muaythaijunky Atheists adopt the morals of the society in which they were raised. Most prehistoric governing bodies were spiritually based, therefore most societies developed along with "religion". Religion is just another political entity whose true purpose is the subjugation of the many by the few, faith is separate and unrelated to religion. So, yes, atheists can and probably are good moral people. But only because of God.
god dose not = morality. or not for me any way. a few questions for the guy who posted the video. does your god agree with all of your morality and do you know the morality of your god? i dont think you know what the morality of your god is to be honest. when i was christian my belief of morality often conflicted with the bibles. as from living life without god iv been known as a good moral person. i dont steal, lie, kill, ect. my views are not black and white either.
@muaythaijunky Do you know the medicinal value of your doctor? Your doctor has no medicinal value, he isn't medicine he prescribes medicine. God isn't moral or amoral, God prescribes morality to us. My morals never conflict with the Bible. That's because I don't do those things the people of the Old Testament were directed to do. Those instructions were for them. Our directions come from the New Testament, where we entered into a NEW covenant with God.
@Honestinwilkesbarre um i think you need to crack open your bible good sir. it says god is morality when it says he is the greatest good. he is what defines morality is he not? the doctor scenario is not a proper example in this situation. the better is philosophy and the philosopher. also old testament still goes. not a single letter is omitted and he who relaxes any of the commandments is least likely to be called into the kingdom. not perfect quotes there but got out the points.
God`s morality!!. It says in the bible... Wiches, kill them. homosexuals, kill them. Fortunetellers, kill them. Those who don`t listen to priests, kill them. Those who hurt their father, kill them Those who curse their parents, kill them. Adulterers. kill them Fornicators kill them ,Those who work on the Sabbath kill them. Non believers, those who believe other religions ,false prophets, blasphemers.Kill them. What a LOVING father !!!
@chrismac1980; If you can`t figure why all those killings in the bible are wrong. I suggest that you trash your bible. It`s screwing your sense of justice, decency, love, forgiveness, compassion. No reasonalbe human can accept as truth, that all those categories of people have to be murdered. Not even the worst tyrants on earth were as bloodthirsty as this LOVING god of the bible.
@tallliza I can't figured out how you can justify something being wrong on your worldview! Why should you love, have compassion on your worldview? You have seem to avoid that question! Do you know that God was not o.k with everything in the bible! Also, God was trying to establish Israel and the bloodline of Christ (for mankind salvation) through free moral agents! (Something you probably don't understanding) Read the bible "in context" before running your mouth on youtube!
@chrismac1980 Do you know that God was not o.k with everything in the bible! Hahahha..So, god does not agree with HIS WORD !!. I must admit, you have a very peculiar brand of christianity . Morality if objective must be available to mankind somewhere. This "somewhere" I presume, is your bible. The bible(, the O.T.) is a marvel, a manual for disregard of human life. This might be my last comment. Your opinions are too outlandish, too INSANE.( a better word ). Good luck.
@tallliza You still haven't answer why is something wrong on your worldview.. "available to mankind somewhere" where? You attack my position, but can't establish your own! Also, did God AGREE with Adam and Eve disobeying him? Did he agree with Kane killing Abel - NO! So, like I said before God was not o.k with everything in bible. My opinion is "too insane" that's why billions of Christians are in line with my "Opinion" Again, you have no clue what you are talking about!
@chrismac1980 You are out of wack with christianity. Not one in a million christians will ever claim that god is not OK with some parts of HIS word.(The bible). Bye my friend,, Enjoy your fantasy.
@tallliza Where in the New Testament does God order us to kill anyone? In fact, after Jesus was born, I defy you to find one instance where God communicated with anyone until Jesus was put to death.
@tallliza I agree with killing adulterers, along with their accomplices and those who enable adultery. Adultery is not a choice or private to the adulterer, it is abuse and it destroys families and lives!
Is Forgiveness "right" of god to do in all cases? No.
Absolution from evil acts, "forgiveness," can be wrong: Your god would bring into heaven a serial killer who had a deathbed conversion. He would also send to Hell a moral, upstanding, generous, and kind man who simply didn't believe in your exact god.
Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me I've misinterpreted something.
@arthurjeremypearson You are wrong on one key topic. The God of the bible does not believe forgiveness is more right or sometimes right it is not done out of retrobution either. Foregiveness is from the grace of God Mercy is the driving force. But it sounds like the Justice of the lord is what you question. I can see your point and without Jesus Christ paying for the sins of those people then we are all lost in our sins. You view this world on a scale but God views it as 1 Sin seperates us.
@GodIsReal101 Could you rephrase that? I'm pretty sure I didn't understand what you said, and I don't want to reply without fully understanding your view.
I will try rephrasing my point in an effort to help you define yours:
The sin of the serial killer is tangible and real: he killed people, and didn't stop.
The sin of the moral, upstanding, generous, and kind man is a thought: mentally rejecting god.
Are our acts on earth more important, or the thoughts in our head?
Slavery, genocide, impossible cruelty. If that's God's morality (it is according to your beloved Bible), then I'll settle for my own instincts.
The fact that you don't understand compassion in humans is unfortunate. But how do you explain the monstrous deeds that have been carried out in the name of your God? How do you explain the morality of the Phelps family?
I do feel sorry for you if you have so little faith in human nature that you think we need to be told what is right and wrong though.
Morality dates back further than the bible, it is also present in animals, as well as changes with human advancement and discoveries, there are also other religions that act more morally acceptable than "the good" book".
You are confused about evolution. Evolution is about survival a species's genes. To illustrate what I mean lets look at certain insect colonies where only one individual gets to pass on its genes namely the queen. The workers get no benefit from there work personally since they're not allowed to reproduce. They do insure the survival of the queen's genes and ultimately their species as a whole. Check out the documentary "Nice Guys Finish First". Peace.
@PsychoSymantic Actually, it says in the Bible not to use vulgar language. Ephesians 4:29 "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." While I also disagree with a lot of things in the Bible, I find it useful to fully or at least mostly understand what you are arguing against. Also, it is better not to let emotions take over( i.e. typing in capitals). It makes you seem ignorant and angry.
@tylerdavisacoustics Sorry but your wrong. Firstly that verse is so vague it could be referring to anything, including : gossip, lying or hateful words, such as bigoted comments
I studied that book for ten years, I also wanted to be a pastor before I deconverted so I have a very good grasp of what the bible says thank you.
Also typing in caps as I did shows an EXCLAMATION NOT YELLING.
@PsychoSymantic Actually: James 5:12 "Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned." Also, Colossians 3:8 "But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth." I'm sorry, but any "four letter words" should fall into one of those categories. Again, I don't agree with it, but it wasn't difficult to find those verses.
@tylerdavisacoustics Again your wrong. You must understand that during the time this was written (49 AD) to swear was NOT what it is today, to swear was actually more like an oath to do something. What the first verse is saying is that no one owns heaven or earth so you can not claim it in an oath. The second verse much like your previous post is refering to malicious slander, NOT cussing.Remember our "cuss words" are a very new invention that come from benign words. -cont
@tylerdavisacoustics Words like shit, asshole, fuck and so on actually come from old French, German and English words. The word shit actually derives from the old English word scite and old Germen schite (dung).
Fuck actually derived from old German fricken, or fokken which meant to breed, strike or beget, the word fuck also comes from Norwegian fukka (copulate) fuck is also the most versatile word in modern english and only the uneducated morons think of these words as vulgar or bad.
@PsychoSymantic As you have so pointed out, the definition of words change. Just because the words had not been invented yet, does not mean that they are not vulgar or obscene, which most people, not just uneducated morons, still view them as. If you don't agree with this, then you are an uneducated moron, because if you look in the dictionary, these words are clearly defined as "usually obscene." So, once again, you're wrong. The Bible says not to use "obscene talk," which "fuck" is defined as.
@tylerdavisacoustics Words like fuck, shit or asshole are NOT stated as being obscene in ANY dictionary, thats total bullshit and a lie. The obscenity of a word or phrase is subjective (especially words so young) and as I pointed out to you many times that your bible referral to "obscene talk" has nothing to do with modern language and to curse was a literal thing (to place a curse on someone) -cont
@tylerdavisacoustics Not to mention I have shown the historicity of these words. Simple fact of the matter is I have the facts on my side, I have evidence on my side as well. You have nothing more then conjecture, subjectivity and a 2,000 yo book written by ignorant sheep herders.
@PsychoSymantic Go to merriam-webster's dictionary online and search for "fuck." You'll see it is clearly defined as "usually obscene." It is not a lie, and I don't believe in the Bible, but I know what I'm talking about. You should learn how to spell and use English words before you argue over their definitions. In every post you've submitted you spelled the contraction for "you are" as "your," the possessive word. I studied the Bible at a Christian academy for 13 years. I know what it says.
@tylerdavisacoustics Maybe you should read the definition of "usually". Also just because something is seen as obscene doesn't make it a fact. It's an opinion.
Oh yes the typical "learn to spell" argument, usually used by one who has no argument to stand on. Your just pissed because I've have shown that you misinterpret the bible.
Oh and just because you went to a christian academy for 13 years doesn't mean jack.
I actually studied to become a pastor, you know, at a University.
@PsychoSymantic Usual: 1. accordant with usage, custom, or habit 2. commonly or ordinarily used 3. found in ordinary practice or in the ordinary course of event. obscene: a : abhorrent to morality or virtue; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity b : containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage. Any reasonable, educated person would see that curse words fit this category. The "n-word" wasn't invented then either, that doesn't mean it's not obscene. cont.-
@PsychoSymantic If you disagree, then I challenge you to call a group of African Americans the "n-word" and see if they find that offensive, or simply walk up to any group of people and call them a bunch of "mother-fucking, son-of-a-bitches" and see if they respond with a happy "hello." Yes, I pointed out that you can't spell because it served the purpose of showing your inability to use small English words while telling me to check definitions. You are angry, and have no common sense. Obviously
This is such crap. morality evolved along with species, to ensure the survival of the species. to say that morality came from a book is just ignorance of reality.
Your god is a horrible source for morality, he has murdered children. Your god has also encouraged:
slavery, spousal abuse, child abuse, child molestation, murder, genocide and general violence towards those who do not follow the bible.
@PsychoSymantic Please give the scripture where my God has done these things you speak of? Otherwise you are making them up. The bible I have read all my life does not share these made up scriptures you speak of. My God is against all those things you have just listed.
@PsychoSymantic When a Hebrew becomes a slave because of debt.
And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. And then he shall depart from you; he and his children with him; and shall return to his own family.
@GodIsReal101 He shall return to the possession of his fathers. For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God. And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have; from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves.
@GodIsReal101 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.a. You shall not compel him to serve as a slave: In the Mosaic law, if one chronically could not pay his debts, he would have to work off the debt as a servant of his creditor. But these laws command fair, just and compassion none the less
@GodIsReal101 Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine, murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves.
@GodIsReal101 The Bible acknowledged the slave’s status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46), The Bible restricted the master’s power over the slave. Ex. 21:20). The slave was a member of the master’s household (Lev. 22:11) The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14)
The slave was required and to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11). The list goes on and on. That is the slavery issued debunked.
@GodIsReal101 Oh well that changes everything then, guess I'll go and buy me a young girl from a poor family then and set her to work. since your god has no problem with the subjecting of another human.
If there is nothing wrong with slavery, per your god, then why has NEARLY EVERY nation abolished it.
@PsychoSymantic Where does he condone it? I think you have it wrong my friend. If you read a history book you would find that it was Christian men and women that lead the way to abolishing slavery accross the world. It was Mankind that put slavery into action and God who commanded it to be away with. It was God who said treat ALL even slaves at that time in history to be treated as equals and like the children of the house. So you are wrong and grasping for straws.. History shows us Gods will
@GodIsReal101 Actually, Paul, wrote the people of Colossae ordering slaves to obey their masters. Note that this is after Jesus's death and the "new covenant" between man and God that makes the OT law irrelevant. Colossians 3:22 (NIV): "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."
This is evident throughout the New Testament. Luke 7:2-10; Titus 2:9-10
@tylerdavisacoustics You need to research the greek word for slave and then see if it was used in this text. Also this is a false dilemma you have created. I am talking about the Bible not stating that slavery was good or the best approach. It would be the same as me giving a speech to a bunch of slaves in the early 1900's. I wouldn't believe it was right and yet I could give them advice on how to live under the paticular law at that time. Where does the NT say that you should have slaves?
@GodIsReal101 If that's the case, why is the greek word for "servant" not used instead. There is obviously a word for it, because "servant" is used in the other scriptures you listed in response to PsychoSymantic. Yet, in the scriptures I referenced, "slave" is used. Also, it's interesting that many Christians use God's "endless power" to say that scientific evidence doesn't matter when it comes to issues like the Flood and Creation, but then try to prove their theories with science. Explain?
@tylerdavisacoustics Also, after researching the greek word for "slave," which is "doulos," I realize that it means both slave and servant. And, "doulos" used as slave in Greek means voluntary or involuntary slavery. However, this does not change my argument. It was left to the translators to determine whether to use the word slave or servant, because doulos applies to both. The translators would know that, and should know to choose the appropriate English word, as not to confuse, which it does.
@GodIsReal101 Also, I did not create a "false dilemma," which is a logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options. I presented a fact. To quote myself, "Actually, Paul, wrote the people of Colossae ordering slaves to obey their masters." Then I gave evidence to support this fact. I did not say the NT says you "should have slaves." However, there is no evidence to show that Paul told the people not to have them.
@GodIsReal101 Here's another fact: Greek is a fully inflected language. This means that each Greek word changes according to what it means in a sentence, like "doulos." This also includes subject/verb agreement according to number. Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life." "Wages" is plural. "Is" should be "are," or "wages" should be "wage." Once again, there is a translation contradiction which makes this information less credible. I researched it.
So I can't be moral without a belief in God? Okay, well that's total BS. Whether or not morality exists outside of our minds is irrelevant, because morality IS a part of our minds. What happens outside of our minds in terms of morality is nonsense and you know it.
Understand: absolute means without exception or condition. So, moral absolutes allow no exception or condition. That means no exceptions for God either. Your problem will emerge when you try to make a list of acts that would still be wrong even if your god committed them. If you can, you prove that your morality, not God's, is driving. If you can't, you're admitting that any act is excusable if God does or orders it and that you only have one absolute moral value: obey God no matter what.
By the way you're just reading an apologetics piece off of a webpage, and the argument you're reading in no way evidences the existence of your god nor demonstrates that your god has anything to do with morality. Causality and nature are the authors of my morality, and I have morality without god. Even if I didn't, people had laws and moral codes long before anyone worshiped your god.
There is no reason to believe that your god is real or that it is responsible for morality. There are different types of morality and many of them change according to the society and time period, but the basics are fairly universal and serve us well as a social species. We normally don't consider the morality of actions that have no consequences on individuals or societies, unless we involve religion, because morality exists for the best interest of people and societies.
The problem with your argument is, that your god is directly promoting evil. Your god kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). Your god also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).
@GodIsReal101 Your god of the Bible also allows & promotes slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11). There is plenty more if you would like me to list them - it may take awhile, there is a lot to list.
@freetheworldof Please do list them all and I will explain the text as you will be copying and pasting and I have read the five books of the Pentateuch. I understand how you can be confused if you have not read the work just a verse that you would like to take out of context.
@GodIsReal101 Lets just take one for now. Please explain: Exodus 21:7-11 --- "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners" .... A perfectly straightforward, unambiguous statement, which simply cannot be taken out of context no matter how hard you may try. Please explain to everyone how this is moral?
The idea of evolved morality is largely centered around the concept that, as a member of a social species, altruism is beneficial. Any primitive human would have been part of a group, and helping the group would help themselves.
1. Right and wrong are subjective but derived from empathy - a trait inherent in many mammals, even lower species such as dolphins and apes. Your conclusion is a non sequitur.
2. Objective ethics are quite real, however, by simple merit of speaking to real actions/impacts. Christian morality is subjective.
3. Is simply scientific denialism. "Selfishness" on a genomic level is not the same thing as selfishness on a rational level. This is extremely sophomoric.
You cannot assert that 'god' decides what is moral without first defining your version of god and establishing what 'morality' is. What is 'god' and how does a 'god' decide what is morally correct?
21st century 'morality' differs from 10th century 'morality'. The 'sense of right and wrong' that you speak of changes over time. If it is not constant, then how could it have been 'decided' or 'given' to us?
"God does not promote evil deeds" - How would you know that or are you just asserting it?
There were serious errors at every step in your video, but I just wanted to hone in on one...
You really should have done some research on ethics before you start making false dichotomies. There aren't the only three different ethical theories to explain where morality came from. For instance I am a consequentialist, and I believe in real objective morality unlike any of the three moral theories you proposed.
[...] There I'm inclined to agree with you somewhat. Perhaps there are people who cannot be moral by today's secular standards without some fear of damnation. I'm not one of them, but I cannot speak on the behalf of others. Fear of God seems like a very powerful way to prevent people from doing evil.
Do you believe religions other than Christianity to be true? If not, there are many religions uninfluenced by Christianity and some even pre-dating it which have come about with moral principles, many of which are respectable as with Christianity. If these other religions did not come about from a divine being, then surely they are the works of men who had to have come about these principles from secular means. Now as to enforcing these principles, religion is obviously as very useful tool.
It is my own morality that lets me know that the bible and religion are not okay. The god of the bible doesnt even hold up to his own standards of morality. The truth is people created the moral law, people created the bible, people created the concept of religion and so forth.
@GodIsReal101 "...God or the bible does not promote evil or evil deeds as you have tried to point out."
Numbers15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
35-36 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
Morality is subjective. There is no absolute morality.
Most Christians, including you, are more moral than the bible would have them be. They focus on the "love one another" parts and they discard the immoral stuff even though its right there next to the good. On the other hand, when people actually follow the bible, you get Westboro baptists and worse. I think it's honestly tragic that the good will of most Christians is credited unduly to Christianity rather than to the people themselves.
According to Genesis chapter 3 humans would have NO morality if they had not resisted the efforts of god to keep them ignorant. Fortunately after YHVH lied to Adam the serpent told Eve the truth and she and Adam acted upon that truth, and YHVH got pissed off and cursed all of humanity in perpetuity for it. But even so he was obliged to admit that that act of rational independence was of enormous benefit to them: "Behold, the man is become AS ONE OF US, to know good and evil" Thanks, Eve!
Right and wrong do exist, but they are never absolutes. Religious morality works this way, and that's the problem: it doesn't judge the appropriate course of action on a case by case basis.
So what is right and wrong? Yes, these terms are social constructs. Does this make them relative? Of course not. Morality is tailored to best fit our existence within society.
Morality isn't something that is given from the top-down; rather it is built by every one of us from the bottom-up.
The source of morality is human intelligence and reason. Look at the morality in the Bible: sexism, slavery, murder, war, homophobia, are all condoned.
What about morals from other religions before Christian god? For example Buddhism, it's been there 500 years before the Christianity and morals from Buddhism is really good with none of the badness in Christianity. It's one of the most peaceful religions in the world and they don't even believe in a god. ;)
Christianity believes in the laws of Torah. As Jesus Christ was a Jew so an extension would be the best description. So based on that our beliefs are as old as creation. Also do a fact check on Buddhism and see if you find problems with their past. Many to list within their world view and history.
@Imaginefree69 If I find one Atheist that does something wrong does that make all atheist wrong? You point out the bibles narative on certain people in history showing they were with Sin like you and me. The problem with your argument is that God or the bible does not promote evil or evil deeds as you have tried to point out.
@GodIsReal101 "...God or the bible does not promote evil or evil deeds as you have tried to point out."
Numbers15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
35-36 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
@GodIsReal101 "...God or the bible does not promote evil or evil deeds as you have tried to point out."
Numbers15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
35-36 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
@GodIsReal101 no, he did just show that the bible condones evil shit you moron. 1 samuel 15:3. psalm 137:9. judges 11:30-1, 34:5. 1 peter 2:18. go read your goddamn book, its very VEEEERY evil. i want you to adress those passages and explain why there not evil and i will send you some more, since your a christian, you havnt read the bible
@GodIsReal101 so, you know that your religion came from another and has been translated many times and even been hand picked to have stuff took out of it, yet you still think that its the word of god? damn your delusional
". So based on that our beliefs are as old as creation. "
So how do you explain ethics in ancient Mesopotamia? Or the great advances in ethical philosophy in ancient Greece or pre-Christian Rome? It seems you have little recourse but to fall back on your unsubstantiated presuppositions here.
Yes. you can say this about anything. if you look for wrong, you will find it. if you look for right. you will find it. So, When I read the Bible I look for good and right and worth and grace... not evil, or wrong, or discrepancies. Seek and you shall find, just remember to seek the good things.
Isn't it called "cherry picking"? If you already know what's good, right, worth and grace you don't need a Bible in the first place don't you think.
The argument in this video is that morality came from God (Christian God). If Bible is God's word. How can you guys remove certain parts and only select certain parts to follow?
Listen. You are what you eat. I'm not going to debate you. I made a statement and I stand by it. The Bible speaks for itself. Read it and find your own answers.
The only point I wish to make is that God's existence isn't necessarily true; objective morality isn't necessarily true; and the combination of the two isn't necessary.
However, I do see this from both sides of the coin. I just feel that the arguments in the video (though clear and comprehensive) lack scope on hereditary nature, and the way that morality could arise through the random shift and accumulation of dormant genes.
Think of it in terms of a group of random individuals in a species. Each of them has a different level of dormant "caring" genes in them from prior mutations in their ancestries. Some individuals even have a high enough concentration of "caring" in them that it affects their behaviour.
Let's say that these group of "caring" individuals are driven by their nature to work together. This could help them in their environment to conserve the existence of the "caring" gene.
Morality without the EXISTANCE of God (as you say in the vid) is already a very different thing than "morality without God", which could refer to the current state of an average "cultural christian" in the West - and there are millions of these people. You seem to ignore the fact that Christian thought has imbued Western societies.
Ok then I am right? You say you disagree do you believe your views are right? The problem is we can dance around words like maybe or tentatively but in real life I guarantee you believe there are things today that are right and or wrong. If you did not than you would not believe in order. If you don't believe in order than we can begin a new series of questions in regards to order.
I'm am right in the context of the philosophies I subscribe to, as you are to yours. I'm just not convinced that there is anything that is absolutely right or absolutely wrong without exception.
From an evolutionary perspective, morality is driven by the most successful empathic tendencies that are naturally selected.
So sad.. your religion has left you morally immature. You don't see why not murdering is common sense? You never even touched on the Euthyphro dilemma, which shows that your arguments have been debunked since Plato. Words like "fairness" have straightforward definitions. The notion of equal treatment. Human beings, and many other creatures, are successful because of our social nature.
The Euthyphro dilemma is not a dilemma and has been discounted almost as soon as it was deemed a dilemma. It excepts only two answer God is either A or B yet never opens for the option of A and B or C. You say fairness is straightforward but I ask based on what standard?
There are alternatives to the two horns of the dilemma, but each of them (that I've ever see) come with a set of problems and whimsical paradoxes.
What standard do we base the concept of fairness? Well, we agree on what words mean and put them in a book (the dictionary). If a parent gives a desired gift to one child and whips another for the same action under the same circumstances... this book (the dictionary) lets us know that this action is not "fair".
So broken down to it's beginning you believe fairness which is a form of justice based on just about every definition I have reviewed is based on what a man said the word or feeling meant many years ago. I ask where does the feeling of justice or injustice come from? If there is fair then there must be unfair. If that is the case who states what is fair and just? We the people? If so what if we the people choose unfair things is that fair then? You also wrote of a whipped child is that wrong 2u
The definition of fairness is consistent between dictionaries. We agree about what words mean. If I want to call apples oranges, that doesn't work because I am no longer speaking a common language. I can be proved wrong with the dictionary. Concepts such as "equal" are as straightforward as basic math. Perhaps you mean to ask why fairness or justice are valuable or "good" for us in general? Many reasons-- societal benefits, individual benefits, conforming with empathy, etc.
So you prescribe to a wrong and a right. By your own words you feel you are more pious then the bible or even God. You don't live your life with the idea that right and wrong don't exist you live your life with the idea that humans are the law givers. The question is where did those idea's to create those laws and or change them come from? Evolutionary morality fails in so many ways. You admit right and wrong you admit a law you admit a law giver the law giver must be greater than the law.
I do feel that modern society is morally superior to that of primitive tribes-people living in biblical times because as a whole we have rejected several immoral institutions. Almost everyone is morally superior to the biblical, Christian version of God.
I admit a moral law giver called reality and the consequences of our existence as beings who benefit from social order and mutual respect. Attributing this to the work of a consciousness is unnecessary and frankly problematic.
"I do feel that modern society is morally superior to that of primitive tribes-people living in biblical times"
Surely you can see that this is only perceived to be more moral because it is relative to our standards.
If we interpret morality in terms of social contracts, a society with different set of social contracts isn't any more objectively 'immoral' than our own.
It's strange that you would reject the god concept and then propose objective morality anyway.
If a person from that sort of early society were to see modern society and learn what we know now, it seems obvious that they would agree that it is more moral.
At the same time, I understand that for the most part, it is not right to hold their lifestyle against them. They didn't have the knowledge or resources to provide many of these things. They didn't understand the benefits of egalitarianism or civil rights, and did not know how best to replace despotism or torture used as rehabilitation.
"If a person from that sort of early society were to see modern society and learn what we know now, it seems obvious that they would agree that it is more moral."
I disagree, likely any previous society would perceive us to be a bunch of destructively self-absorbed hedonists.
"They didn't understand the benefits of egalitarianism or civil rights."
There are arguably points in time that such things were not beneficial to the society.
We are probably both going to disagree on the first point, but consider that those ancient people are not living as they do because they had a choice between the two societies, like some modern 3rd-world monastery-- and they are just as hedonistic, self-absorbed, and destructive as they are able to be.
On the second point, I don't see how the benefits of egalitarianism and civil rights are not socially beneficial to any society. You'll have to unpack that a bit if you don't mind. Thanks.
I do not argue that morality is based on social contracts, it is more basic than that. Empathy is an important example.
There are situations where the moral choice is objectively obvious. Under some conditions, it is a bit of a grey area that is worthy of debate-- where sources of moral behavior are at odds. Here we discuss the pros and cons just like any other decision.
"I do not argue that morality is based on social contracts, it is more basic than that. Empathy is an important example."
I agree that empathy plays a major role in determining an individual's basis for what is moral or not, but from the perspective of the collective (where individual empathic abilities may vary) there has to be some sort of intellectual understanding of what other people interpret as right and wrong. Which is where I see the social contracts coming into play, literally or not.
For social contracts to come into play, there has to be some reasoning behind them. If they are arbitrary and based on nothing, then they are of little value. I guess what I am trying to get at is the impetus behind noble/"good" social contracts. So, we are probably really talking about the same things.
First off, all of the Scholastic and Hugo Grotius held that there was a natural law that would be of some validity even if one were to claim that God did not exist. Because man is of a social nature we know that the prerequisite conditions of society ought to bind him. The Justinian maxims of law are thus; live honestly, harm no one and give everyman his due. Unless such conditions are prevalent a society cannot form.
Such rules come from the nature of man as he is. The right and wrong of legislation, is dependent on weather they they reflect these basic maxims, genuine custom such as which side of the road to drive on, or reflect a genuine agreement of those bound by such a law.
In fact positing God as legislator takes right and wrong out of the real, and puts it into the opinions of a mind. This is even before the problems of proper interpretation and interpreter arise.
Is whipping a child wrong to me? Yes, even though the bible says it is good to use corporal punishment, it is wrong to me. Why? Well, empathy for one: I wouldn't want to be whipped, others seem similar, therefore the obvious assumption is that they would not like to be whipped. Also, I see it as having a negative impact on the parent-child relationship, especially in comparison to the modern accepted alternatives. I may feel differently if unaware of the alternatives.
This is true that God is the moral law giver, but I have a question. If I put you and a small child in a room without food and water, at some point you would kill that child to stay alive. This would be wrong, but you would still do it. So whats the difference in killing and eating a kid anytime as opposed to the scenario above?
If I told you that you had to save your Mom or Dad from a burning building then who would you save? You could only save one.. These and millions like them can be used to describe the dilema of choice not the dilema of the law.. That is my answer.
Interesting. There are millions of suffering people in the world, many dying from terrible illnesses right NOW at this very moment, and your god is busy laughing at scientists? Huh.
Well, I have to admit, that does sound like a god who would purposely collapse a house, murdering a bunch of innocent children. ;)
"Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook?" Oh, okay. That's Job 41:1
It's interesting, but I see no reason to assume this a dinosaur. It still isn't entirely clear what "leviathan" was referring to. My money is still on the crocodiles of Jordan.
"1 Corinthians 15:39-43...God does laugh at PROUD MEN!!!"
That isn't in 1 Corinthians 15, I'm not sure what verse you're talking about. Surely, to say we fully understand the bible is to be a proud man indeed. Science is good. Daniel 1:17-20
Also If you do "...taken away..." anything from God's word: That's a BIG SIN...
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: (v.19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city,..." Rev. 22:18-19
"Also If you do "...taken away..." anything from God's word"
Taking away from the glory of the full truth is also a failing under God. Consider part of John 21:25 "I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written"
The bible should be more like a limited instruction manual to God's will, but not the full and direct masterpiece that we could embrace. In order to understand the words, we have to first be touched with that grace.
morals evolved to its highest degree in species that live together to prevent conflict what is so hard to beleive about that! expeshely when there is sound evidence for it.
as for mud list me one scientist that says life came from mud what a duche bag.
What proof of either statement do you have. Give an example where morals evolved in species to help the species live. Explain how that evolution has evolved to where today we view stealing as bad. Because in let's say a cavemans time wouldn't stealing food if your starving be a trait that would help you survive??? As more the mud point comment I will let that one slide as I know you have no proof just faith that it happened. Just wanted you to admit that you believe in something not empirical.
I really think you misunderstood evolution. In more social animals there is a trust factor you must consider. Interdependency is crucial for the group survival - if you stole food from your neighbour then their trust in you would be damaged. If that trust is abused enough then the group would expel you and you would be far less likely to survive.
Your comment about mud really does reveal lots about your knowledge...I sense the heavy influence of spin doctors here. Makes me think of Galileo...
funny...you call God amoral in your argument thus canceling out your whole argument and proving that you are indeed a 'moral' person and that you do hold to absolutes. comes around full circle
Well if Morality cannot exist without God and you say God exists, then what you are saying is that we are moral without following the Bible since it is already innate within us due to that God.
I myself believe nothing that was written within biblical texts and as such do not have a belief in any God but i am extremely ethical and moral, more so than the questionable ethics and morality of the Bible.
I knew the question of "what standards" would come up, its the standard question from the standard Christian. The standards of the Bible are far from what i would call the "right" standards which involve the killing of others for the most menial of things, hence my standards are greater than that of the Bible because i "naturally" go above and beyond those "standards" of the Bible.
And where did i get them? Well if it was God then i don't need the Bible and if not him then from my Mother.
I know it is such a simple question yet one you refuse to answer. You make fun but yet you know where this argument goes. Without using religion try and explain where morality comes from. More specific your morality. If it was your mother then where did she get it and so on and so on. BTW were any of these people theist? If you say that we all have morality then explain your case as I would love to hear how morality can change yet be right but also right and wrong are just subjective.
If belief in god is based on faith, a code of morality attributed to this belief in god must also be faith based. A morality held by faith is not objective by any definition of the word.
The question becomes - morality of which god'? Throughout history mankind has worshipped hundreds of gods and practiced numerous religious ideologies, each with considerably varied moral commandments. The dilemma remains the same for the theist as for the atheist.
@GodIsReal101
There is a very strict morality in buddhism which in my opinion is superior to christianity. There is no God of buddhism.
BaneOfAzrael 1 week ago in playlist My Top Videos
Is there morality without god?
If you answer: NO, then you are moral only because you FEAR the policeman in the sky - you anti-social and probably a danger to humanity and should be locked up.
cr4yv3n 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Morality cannot be prescribed by God because God doesn't exist.
nightvidcole 3 months ago
obviously you can't determine what is right or wrong without first considering a standard. meta-ethics: what is that standard? devine-comand theory is just one of those positions, a very dubious one (and the least appealing in terms of it's consequences).
fede2 5 months ago
Err...in America as a whole there are some 15 percent atheists now, but according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons less than ONE percent of american inmates are atheists.. So I think the atheists are managing to be nice people very well without the invisible man in the sky.. .. err..unlike those 99 percent inmates.. Hehe: )
winterstellar 6 months ago
@winterstellar This falls under the theory that "there are no atheists in fox-holes". In prison you can stand alone as an atheist (a minority by statistics quoted by you) and become the bitch of some hairy thumbed guy with no neck, or ally yourself with a protective group. Most of these prison groups, or "gangs", profess some sort of spiritual faith or religious affiliation and would reject an atheist from membership. In prison it's in an atheists best interest to get religion.
Honestinwilkesbarre 6 months ago
Sorry bud, if you need a gawd to tell you that bar-b-queing the baby in the backyard is an evil thing there's no hope for you at all. There is no god, but morals still exist.
TheSaturnalia 6 months ago
@TheSaturnalia Without my belief in God and an afterlife, it would be acceptable to bar-b-que you in the back yard as there would be no ultimate consequence for anything I did. Societal morals and laws just don't cut it as long as death is an escape from responsibility. Society is just humans, modern humans are just sheeple, and what do you do with sheep? That's right, we bar-b-que them. Unless we stand to loose something more important than secular freedom and life.
Honestinwilkesbarre 6 months ago
@Honestinwilkesbarre So you're a barbarian. Unlike you I don't need a book to tell me right from wrong. Especially the so called 'holy' bible. That book is one that would encourage you to commit any and all atrocities in the name of gawd. Have a look at some other books. I'd recommend the 'God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.
TheSaturnalia 5 months ago
1. There's a right and wrong.
2. Makes no sense...you're playing with semantics too much, especially with the words "absolute" and "value". Furthermore, psychopaths kill w/o remorse
3. relies on someone answering positively to 2; but if I answered negatively to 2, I can say that "I treat others how I wanted to be treated"
4. Evolution is selfish...even biologists will tell you that
5. depends on if you're referring to humans individually or as a society
6. no
kingdevon101 7 months ago
i actually dont believe in evil or good. just morality, and in cultures morality often differs. as i see things just you may find them unjust, its in the eye of the beholder. if you at this very moment stopped believing in god would you rape, kill and molest children? why or why not? even without a god you still have feelings thoughts, ideals and so on. to say i have no morality is actualy very disrespectful and also says those that who dont believe as you do are bad. do you agree?
muaythaijunky 7 months ago
@muaythaijunky Atheists adopt the morals of the society in which they were raised. Most prehistoric governing bodies were spiritually based, therefore most societies developed along with "religion". Religion is just another political entity whose true purpose is the subjugation of the many by the few, faith is separate and unrelated to religion. So, yes, atheists can and probably are good moral people. But only because of God.
Honestinwilkesbarre 6 months ago
god dose not = morality. or not for me any way. a few questions for the guy who posted the video. does your god agree with all of your morality and do you know the morality of your god? i dont think you know what the morality of your god is to be honest. when i was christian my belief of morality often conflicted with the bibles. as from living life without god iv been known as a good moral person. i dont steal, lie, kill, ect. my views are not black and white either.
muaythaijunky 7 months ago
@muaythaijunky Do you know the medicinal value of your doctor? Your doctor has no medicinal value, he isn't medicine he prescribes medicine. God isn't moral or amoral, God prescribes morality to us. My morals never conflict with the Bible. That's because I don't do those things the people of the Old Testament were directed to do. Those instructions were for them. Our directions come from the New Testament, where we entered into a NEW covenant with God.
Honestinwilkesbarre 6 months ago
@Honestinwilkesbarre um i think you need to crack open your bible good sir. it says god is morality when it says he is the greatest good. he is what defines morality is he not? the doctor scenario is not a proper example in this situation. the better is philosophy and the philosopher. also old testament still goes. not a single letter is omitted and he who relaxes any of the commandments is least likely to be called into the kingdom. not perfect quotes there but got out the points.
muaythaijunky 5 months ago
God`s morality!!. It says in the bible... Wiches, kill them. homosexuals, kill them. Fortunetellers, kill them. Those who don`t listen to priests, kill them. Those who hurt their father, kill them Those who curse their parents, kill them. Adulterers. kill them Fornicators kill them ,Those who work on the Sabbath kill them. Non believers, those who believe other religions ,false prophets, blasphemers.Kill them. What a LOVING father !!!
tallliza 7 months ago
@tallliza Do you know the reasons behind it? And if God is wrong, how can you explain why it would be wrong on view?
chrismac1980 7 months ago
@chrismac1980; If you can`t figure why all those killings in the bible are wrong. I suggest that you trash your bible. It`s screwing your sense of justice, decency, love, forgiveness, compassion. No reasonalbe human can accept as truth, that all those categories of people have to be murdered. Not even the worst tyrants on earth were as bloodthirsty as this LOVING god of the bible.
tallliza 7 months ago
@tallliza I can't figured out how you can justify something being wrong on your worldview! Why should you love, have compassion on your worldview? You have seem to avoid that question! Do you know that God was not o.k with everything in the bible! Also, God was trying to establish Israel and the bloodline of Christ (for mankind salvation) through free moral agents! (Something you probably don't understanding) Read the bible "in context" before running your mouth on youtube!
chrismac1980 7 months ago
@chrismac1980 Do you know that God was not o.k with everything in the bible! Hahahha..So, god does not agree with HIS WORD !!. I must admit, you have a very peculiar brand of christianity . Morality if objective must be available to mankind somewhere. This "somewhere" I presume, is your bible. The bible(, the O.T.) is a marvel, a manual for disregard of human life. This might be my last comment. Your opinions are too outlandish, too INSANE.( a better word ). Good luck.
tallliza 7 months ago
@tallliza You still haven't answer why is something wrong on your worldview.. "available to mankind somewhere" where? You attack my position, but can't establish your own! Also, did God AGREE with Adam and Eve disobeying him? Did he agree with Kane killing Abel - NO! So, like I said before God was not o.k with everything in bible. My opinion is "too insane" that's why billions of Christians are in line with my "Opinion" Again, you have no clue what you are talking about!
chrismac1980 7 months ago
@chrismac1980 You are out of wack with christianity. Not one in a million christians will ever claim that god is not OK with some parts of HIS word.(The bible). Bye my friend,, Enjoy your fantasy.
tallliza 7 months ago
@tallliza Where in the New Testament does God order us to kill anyone? In fact, after Jesus was born, I defy you to find one instance where God communicated with anyone until Jesus was put to death.
Honestinwilkesbarre 6 months ago
@Honestinwilkesbarre
Acts 12:23 "And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost."
It's fairly close.
TehOrkyMan 5 months ago
@tallliza I agree with killing adulterers, along with their accomplices and those who enable adultery. Adultery is not a choice or private to the adulterer, it is abuse and it destroys families and lives!
Honestinwilkesbarre 6 months ago
Is Forgiveness "right" of god to do in all cases? No.
Absolution from evil acts, "forgiveness," can be wrong: Your god would bring into heaven a serial killer who had a deathbed conversion. He would also send to Hell a moral, upstanding, generous, and kind man who simply didn't believe in your exact god.
Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me I've misinterpreted something.
arthurjeremypearson 9 months ago 3
@arthurjeremypearson You are wrong on one key topic. The God of the bible does not believe forgiveness is more right or sometimes right it is not done out of retrobution either. Foregiveness is from the grace of God Mercy is the driving force. But it sounds like the Justice of the lord is what you question. I can see your point and without Jesus Christ paying for the sins of those people then we are all lost in our sins. You view this world on a scale but God views it as 1 Sin seperates us.
GodIsReal101 9 months ago
@GodIsReal101 Could you rephrase that? I'm pretty sure I didn't understand what you said, and I don't want to reply without fully understanding your view.
I will try rephrasing my point in an effort to help you define yours:
The sin of the serial killer is tangible and real: he killed people, and didn't stop.
The sin of the moral, upstanding, generous, and kind man is a thought: mentally rejecting god.
Are our acts on earth more important, or the thoughts in our head?
arthurjeremypearson 9 months ago
@GodIsReal101 Wow, what a response -.-
Alecalisk 7 months ago
Slavery, genocide, impossible cruelty. If that's God's morality (it is according to your beloved Bible), then I'll settle for my own instincts.
The fact that you don't understand compassion in humans is unfortunate. But how do you explain the monstrous deeds that have been carried out in the name of your God? How do you explain the morality of the Phelps family?
I do feel sorry for you if you have so little faith in human nature that you think we need to be told what is right and wrong though.
ruud76 10 months ago
Morality dates back further than the bible, it is also present in animals, as well as changes with human advancement and discoveries, there are also other religions that act more morally acceptable than "the good" book".
lynus111 10 months ago
You are confused about evolution. Evolution is about survival a species's genes. To illustrate what I mean lets look at certain insect colonies where only one individual gets to pass on its genes namely the queen. The workers get no benefit from there work personally since they're not allowed to reproduce. They do insure the survival of the queen's genes and ultimately their species as a whole. Check out the documentary "Nice Guys Finish First". Peace.
QuantumRealms 1 year ago
@PsychoSymantic You swore so your gone... Thanks for the conversation but your morality has been shown. Thanks anyways..
GodIsReal101 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 Your kidding right.
Afraid of a word or are you afraid of the argument?
oh no I said a bad word, that you don't even know the meaning of. BTW swearing IS NOT WRONG, IT'S NO WHERE IN YOUR BIBLE..
PsychoSymantic 1 year ago
@PsychoSymantic Actually, it says in the Bible not to use vulgar language. Ephesians 4:29 "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." While I also disagree with a lot of things in the Bible, I find it useful to fully or at least mostly understand what you are arguing against. Also, it is better not to let emotions take over( i.e. typing in capitals). It makes you seem ignorant and angry.
tylerdavisacoustics 11 months ago
@tylerdavisacoustics Sorry but your wrong. Firstly that verse is so vague it could be referring to anything, including : gossip, lying or hateful words, such as bigoted comments
I studied that book for ten years, I also wanted to be a pastor before I deconverted so I have a very good grasp of what the bible says thank you.
Also typing in caps as I did shows an EXCLAMATION NOT YELLING.
PsychoSymantic 11 months ago
@PsychoSymantic Actually: James 5:12 "Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned." Also, Colossians 3:8 "But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth." I'm sorry, but any "four letter words" should fall into one of those categories. Again, I don't agree with it, but it wasn't difficult to find those verses.
tylerdavisacoustics 11 months ago
@tylerdavisacoustics Again your wrong. You must understand that during the time this was written (49 AD) to swear was NOT what it is today, to swear was actually more like an oath to do something. What the first verse is saying is that no one owns heaven or earth so you can not claim it in an oath. The second verse much like your previous post is refering to malicious slander, NOT cussing.Remember our "cuss words" are a very new invention that come from benign words. -cont
PsychoSymantic 11 months ago
@tylerdavisacoustics Words like shit, asshole, fuck and so on actually come from old French, German and English words. The word shit actually derives from the old English word scite and old Germen schite (dung).
Fuck actually derived from old German fricken, or fokken which meant to breed, strike or beget, the word fuck also comes from Norwegian fukka (copulate) fuck is also the most versatile word in modern english and only the uneducated morons think of these words as vulgar or bad.
PsychoSymantic 11 months ago
@PsychoSymantic As you have so pointed out, the definition of words change. Just because the words had not been invented yet, does not mean that they are not vulgar or obscene, which most people, not just uneducated morons, still view them as. If you don't agree with this, then you are an uneducated moron, because if you look in the dictionary, these words are clearly defined as "usually obscene." So, once again, you're wrong. The Bible says not to use "obscene talk," which "fuck" is defined as.
tylerdavisacoustics 11 months ago
@tylerdavisacoustics Words like fuck, shit or asshole are NOT stated as being obscene in ANY dictionary, thats total bullshit and a lie. The obscenity of a word or phrase is subjective (especially words so young) and as I pointed out to you many times that your bible referral to "obscene talk" has nothing to do with modern language and to curse was a literal thing (to place a curse on someone) -cont
PsychoSymantic 11 months ago
@tylerdavisacoustics Not to mention I have shown the historicity of these words. Simple fact of the matter is I have the facts on my side, I have evidence on my side as well. You have nothing more then conjecture, subjectivity and a 2,000 yo book written by ignorant sheep herders.
PsychoSymantic 11 months ago
@PsychoSymantic Go to merriam-webster's dictionary online and search for "fuck." You'll see it is clearly defined as "usually obscene." It is not a lie, and I don't believe in the Bible, but I know what I'm talking about. You should learn how to spell and use English words before you argue over their definitions. In every post you've submitted you spelled the contraction for "you are" as "your," the possessive word. I studied the Bible at a Christian academy for 13 years. I know what it says.
tylerdavisacoustics 11 months ago
@tylerdavisacoustics Maybe you should read the definition of "usually". Also just because something is seen as obscene doesn't make it a fact. It's an opinion.
Oh yes the typical "learn to spell" argument, usually used by one who has no argument to stand on. Your just pissed because I've have shown that you misinterpret the bible.
Oh and just because you went to a christian academy for 13 years doesn't mean jack.
I actually studied to become a pastor, you know, at a University.
PsychoSymantic 11 months ago
@PsychoSymantic Usual: 1. accordant with usage, custom, or habit 2. commonly or ordinarily used 3. found in ordinary practice or in the ordinary course of event. obscene: a : abhorrent to morality or virtue; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity b : containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage. Any reasonable, educated person would see that curse words fit this category. The "n-word" wasn't invented then either, that doesn't mean it's not obscene. cont.-
tylerdavisacoustics 11 months ago
@PsychoSymantic If you disagree, then I challenge you to call a group of African Americans the "n-word" and see if they find that offensive, or simply walk up to any group of people and call them a bunch of "mother-fucking, son-of-a-bitches" and see if they respond with a happy "hello." Yes, I pointed out that you can't spell because it served the purpose of showing your inability to use small English words while telling me to check definitions. You are angry, and have no common sense. Obviously
tylerdavisacoustics 11 months ago
@GodIsReal101 Get over yourself, they are just words. your god has done far worse.
typical self rightious christian.
PsychoSymantic 1 year ago
This is such crap. morality evolved along with species, to ensure the survival of the species. to say that morality came from a book is just ignorance of reality.
Your god is a horrible source for morality, he has murdered children. Your god has also encouraged:
slavery, spousal abuse, child abuse, child molestation, murder, genocide and general violence towards those who do not follow the bible.
Yeah thats a fantastic source for morality.
PsychoSymantic 1 year ago
@PsychoSymantic Please give the scripture where my God has done these things you speak of? Otherwise you are making them up. The bible I have read all my life does not share these made up scriptures you speak of. My God is against all those things you have just listed.
GodIsReal101 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 Slavery Leviticus 25:44-46, how slaves are to be treated Exodus 21:2-6, selling your daughter into slavery Exodus 21:2-6
child abuse Proverbs 23:13-14, Deuteronomy 21:18-21.
Child molestation Numbers 31:17-18.
Murder 2 Kings 2:23-24, 1Samuel 6:19-20, Hosea 9:11-16, Exodus 12:29-30
Genocide Deuteronomy 20:16, Joshua 10:40-41, the flood
Violence towards nonbelievers Deuteronomy 17:12, Exodus 22:19, Deuteronomy 17:1-5.
as I said the bible is IMMORAL
PsychoSymantic 1 year ago
@PsychoSymantic When a Hebrew becomes a slave because of debt.
And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. And then he shall depart from you; he and his children with him; and shall return to his own family.
GodIsReal101 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 He shall return to the possession of his fathers. For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God. And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have; from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves.
GodIsReal101 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.a. You shall not compel him to serve as a slave: In the Mosaic law, if one chronically could not pay his debts, he would have to work off the debt as a servant of his creditor. But these laws command fair, just and compassion none the less
GodIsReal101 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine, murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves.
GodIsReal101 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 The Bible acknowledged the slave’s status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46), The Bible restricted the master’s power over the slave. Ex. 21:20). The slave was a member of the master’s household (Lev. 22:11) The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14)
The slave was required and to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11). The list goes on and on. That is the slavery issued debunked.
GodIsReal101 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 Oh well that changes everything then, guess I'll go and buy me a young girl from a poor family then and set her to work. since your god has no problem with the subjecting of another human.
If there is nothing wrong with slavery, per your god, then why has NEARLY EVERY nation abolished it.
PsychoSymantic 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 I don't know what I find more appalling.
A god who condones slavery or the fact that YOU'RE defending it.
PsychoSymantic 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 I have proven that your god doesn't mearly allow slavery. HE CONDONES IT
PsychoSymantic 1 year ago
@PsychoSymantic Where does he condone it? I think you have it wrong my friend. If you read a history book you would find that it was Christian men and women that lead the way to abolishing slavery accross the world. It was Mankind that put slavery into action and God who commanded it to be away with. It was God who said treat ALL even slaves at that time in history to be treated as equals and like the children of the house. So you are wrong and grasping for straws.. History shows us Gods will
GodIsReal101 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 Actually, Paul, wrote the people of Colossae ordering slaves to obey their masters. Note that this is after Jesus's death and the "new covenant" between man and God that makes the OT law irrelevant. Colossians 3:22 (NIV): "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."
This is evident throughout the New Testament. Luke 7:2-10; Titus 2:9-10
tylerdavisacoustics 11 months ago
@tylerdavisacoustics You need to research the greek word for slave and then see if it was used in this text. Also this is a false dilemma you have created. I am talking about the Bible not stating that slavery was good or the best approach. It would be the same as me giving a speech to a bunch of slaves in the early 1900's. I wouldn't believe it was right and yet I could give them advice on how to live under the paticular law at that time. Where does the NT say that you should have slaves?
GodIsReal101 11 months ago
@GodIsReal101 If that's the case, why is the greek word for "servant" not used instead. There is obviously a word for it, because "servant" is used in the other scriptures you listed in response to PsychoSymantic. Yet, in the scriptures I referenced, "slave" is used. Also, it's interesting that many Christians use God's "endless power" to say that scientific evidence doesn't matter when it comes to issues like the Flood and Creation, but then try to prove their theories with science. Explain?
tylerdavisacoustics 11 months ago
@tylerdavisacoustics Also, after researching the greek word for "slave," which is "doulos," I realize that it means both slave and servant. And, "doulos" used as slave in Greek means voluntary or involuntary slavery. However, this does not change my argument. It was left to the translators to determine whether to use the word slave or servant, because doulos applies to both. The translators would know that, and should know to choose the appropriate English word, as not to confuse, which it does.
tylerdavisacoustics 11 months ago
Comment removed
tylerdavisacoustics 11 months ago
Comment removed
tylerdavisacoustics 11 months ago
Comment removed
tylerdavisacoustics 11 months ago
Comment removed
tylerdavisacoustics 11 months ago
Comment removed
tylerdavisacoustics 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodIsReal101 Also, I did not create a "false dilemma," which is a logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options. I presented a fact. To quote myself, "Actually, Paul, wrote the people of Colossae ordering slaves to obey their masters." Then I gave evidence to support this fact. I did not say the NT says you "should have slaves." However, there is no evidence to show that Paul told the people not to have them.
tylerdavisacoustics 11 months ago
@GodIsReal101 Here's another fact: Greek is a fully inflected language. This means that each Greek word changes according to what it means in a sentence, like "doulos." This also includes subject/verb agreement according to number. Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life." "Wages" is plural. "Is" should be "are," or "wages" should be "wage." Once again, there is a translation contradiction which makes this information less credible. I researched it.
tylerdavisacoustics 11 months ago
So I can't be moral without a belief in God? Okay, well that's total BS. Whether or not morality exists outside of our minds is irrelevant, because morality IS a part of our minds. What happens outside of our minds in terms of morality is nonsense and you know it.
MassacreBlast 1 year ago
Understand: absolute means without exception or condition. So, moral absolutes allow no exception or condition. That means no exceptions for God either. Your problem will emerge when you try to make a list of acts that would still be wrong even if your god committed them. If you can, you prove that your morality, not God's, is driving. If you can't, you're admitting that any act is excusable if God does or orders it and that you only have one absolute moral value: obey God no matter what.
DeaconVerter 1 year ago
By the way you're just reading an apologetics piece off of a webpage, and the argument you're reading in no way evidences the existence of your god nor demonstrates that your god has anything to do with morality. Causality and nature are the authors of my morality, and I have morality without god. Even if I didn't, people had laws and moral codes long before anyone worshiped your god.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
There is no reason to believe that your god is real or that it is responsible for morality. There are different types of morality and many of them change according to the society and time period, but the basics are fairly universal and serve us well as a social species. We normally don't consider the morality of actions that have no consequences on individuals or societies, unless we involve religion, because morality exists for the best interest of people and societies.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
The problem with your argument is, that your god is directly promoting evil. Your god kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). Your god also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).
freetheworldof 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 Your god of the Bible also allows & promotes slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11). There is plenty more if you would like me to list them - it may take awhile, there is a lot to list.
freetheworldof 1 year ago
@freetheworldof Please do list them all and I will explain the text as you will be copying and pasting and I have read the five books of the Pentateuch. I understand how you can be confused if you have not read the work just a verse that you would like to take out of context.
GodIsReal101 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 Lets just take one for now. Please explain: Exodus 21:7-11 --- "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners" .... A perfectly straightforward, unambiguous statement, which simply cannot be taken out of context no matter how hard you may try. Please explain to everyone how this is moral?
freetheworldof 1 year ago
The idea of evolved morality is largely centered around the concept that, as a member of a social species, altruism is beneficial. Any primitive human would have been part of a group, and helping the group would help themselves.
ShrapnelSong 1 year ago
1. Right and wrong are subjective but derived from empathy - a trait inherent in many mammals, even lower species such as dolphins and apes. Your conclusion is a non sequitur.
2. Objective ethics are quite real, however, by simple merit of speaking to real actions/impacts. Christian morality is subjective.
3. Is simply scientific denialism. "Selfishness" on a genomic level is not the same thing as selfishness on a rational level. This is extremely sophomoric.
ephekt420 1 year ago
You cannot assert that 'god' decides what is moral without first defining your version of god and establishing what 'morality' is. What is 'god' and how does a 'god' decide what is morally correct?
21st century 'morality' differs from 10th century 'morality'. The 'sense of right and wrong' that you speak of changes over time. If it is not constant, then how could it have been 'decided' or 'given' to us?
"God does not promote evil deeds" - How would you know that or are you just asserting it?
LewisPearson 1 year ago
There were serious errors at every step in your video, but I just wanted to hone in on one...
You really should have done some research on ethics before you start making false dichotomies. There aren't the only three different ethical theories to explain where morality came from. For instance I am a consequentialist, and I believe in real objective morality unlike any of the three moral theories you proposed.
MaximumAxiom 1 year ago
[...] There I'm inclined to agree with you somewhat. Perhaps there are people who cannot be moral by today's secular standards without some fear of damnation. I'm not one of them, but I cannot speak on the behalf of others. Fear of God seems like a very powerful way to prevent people from doing evil.
stinky472 1 year ago
Do you believe religions other than Christianity to be true? If not, there are many religions uninfluenced by Christianity and some even pre-dating it which have come about with moral principles, many of which are respectable as with Christianity. If these other religions did not come about from a divine being, then surely they are the works of men who had to have come about these principles from secular means. Now as to enforcing these principles, religion is obviously as very useful tool.
stinky472 1 year ago
It is my own morality that lets me know that the bible and religion are not okay. The god of the bible doesnt even hold up to his own standards of morality. The truth is people created the moral law, people created the bible, people created the concept of religion and so forth.
B4mytyme 1 year ago
There is no right in wrong; just the plan (ECC 6:10).
bigbaddeerhunter 1 year ago
@bigbaddeerhunter right & wrong, I meant.
bigbaddeerhunter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodIsReal101 "...God or the bible does not promote evil or evil deeds as you have tried to point out."
Numbers15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
35-36 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
theshredator 1 year ago
Morality is subjective. There is no absolute morality.
Most Christians, including you, are more moral than the bible would have them be. They focus on the "love one another" parts and they discard the immoral stuff even though its right there next to the good. On the other hand, when people actually follow the bible, you get Westboro baptists and worse. I think it's honestly tragic that the good will of most Christians is credited unduly to Christianity rather than to the people themselves.
theshredator 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution supplies all that is needed for the development
of codes of conduct that preserve and facilitate
survival and co-operation,
which is precisely what these "laws" do.
Such sensitivities in no way support your particular god.
In fact, as Christians believe that their most heinous acts
will be magically vanished and forgotten via human sacrifice,
they actually have very little incentive to act in a moral manner.
Hmmm..
That just might explain a hell of a lot.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
To see the moral argument refuted, visit my channel and watch my video on the subject.
reprise92 2 years ago
Right and wrong do exist, but they are never absolutes. Religious morality works this way, and that's the problem: it doesn't judge the appropriate course of action on a case by case basis.
So what is right and wrong? Yes, these terms are social constructs. Does this make them relative? Of course not. Morality is tailored to best fit our existence within society.
Morality isn't something that is given from the top-down; rather it is built by every one of us from the bottom-up.
ISDP1337 2 years ago
Good video. If only other's would watch it before they speak.
bluliite 2 years ago
The source of morality is human intelligence and reason. Look at the morality in the Bible: sexism, slavery, murder, war, homophobia, are all condoned.
aristopus 2 years ago
What about morals from other religions before Christian god? For example Buddhism, it's been there 500 years before the Christianity and morals from Buddhism is really good with none of the badness in Christianity. It's one of the most peaceful religions in the world and they don't even believe in a god. ;)
theonewayroad01 2 years ago
Christianity believes in the laws of Torah. As Jesus Christ was a Jew so an extension would be the best description. So based on that our beliefs are as old as creation. Also do a fact check on Buddhism and see if you find problems with their past. Many to list within their world view and history.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
Hi, care to list them please?
theonewayroad01 2 years ago
@GodIsReal101 If your neighbours work on Saturday, kill them.
If your child throws oatmeal at you, kill him.
If your sister has premarital sex, kill her
(but don't think twice about her sex partner).
If the folks in the next town aren't Christians,
kill them all and take their baby girls home for sex slaves.
It's all there, advice for a perfect life.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 If I find one Atheist that does something wrong does that make all atheist wrong? You point out the bibles narative on certain people in history showing they were with Sin like you and me. The problem with your argument is that God or the bible does not promote evil or evil deeds as you have tried to point out.
Thanks and God bless
GodIsReal101 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 Your comment is not really a response to what I said.
You've changed the topic entirely.
I'm not talking about what Christians do,
I'm reporting what the god of the Bible commands his people to do.
I know that diversion is a popular religious tactic,
but I decline to play that game.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 "God or the bible does not promote evil or evil deeds as you have tried to point out. "
Please show me where I have claimed
one single thing that is not in the Bible.
Or apologize and retract your lie.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 "...God or the bible does not promote evil or evil deeds as you have tried to point out."
Numbers15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
35-36 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
theshredator 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodIsReal101 "...God or the bible does not promote evil or evil deeds as you have tried to point out."
Numbers15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
35-36 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
theshredator 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 no, he did just show that the bible condones evil shit you moron. 1 samuel 15:3. psalm 137:9. judges 11:30-1, 34:5. 1 peter 2:18. go read your goddamn book, its very VEEEERY evil. i want you to adress those passages and explain why there not evil and i will send you some more, since your a christian, you havnt read the bible
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101
The problem of evil poke holes in this narrative.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 so, you know that your religion came from another and has been translated many times and even been hand picked to have stuff took out of it, yet you still think that its the word of god? damn your delusional
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101
". So based on that our beliefs are as old as creation. "
So how do you explain ethics in ancient Mesopotamia? Or the great advances in ethical philosophy in ancient Greece or pre-Christian Rome? It seems you have little recourse but to fall back on your unsubstantiated presuppositions here.
ephekt420 1 year ago
The Only Wrong in Christianity, is the Wrong you look for.
toptech777 2 years ago
"The Only Wrong in Christianity, is the Wrong you look for."
Can't we say the same thing about other faiths as well?
theonewayroad01 2 years ago
Yes. you can say this about anything. if you look for wrong, you will find it. if you look for right. you will find it. So, When I read the Bible I look for good and right and worth and grace... not evil, or wrong, or discrepancies. Seek and you shall find, just remember to seek the good things.
toptech777 2 years ago
Isn't it called "cherry picking"? If you already know what's good, right, worth and grace you don't need a Bible in the first place don't you think.
The argument in this video is that morality came from God (Christian God). If Bible is God's word. How can you guys remove certain parts and only select certain parts to follow?
theonewayroad01 2 years ago
Listen. You are what you eat. I'm not going to debate you. I made a statement and I stand by it. The Bible speaks for itself. Read it and find your own answers.
toptech777 2 years ago
Agreed. And yes, you are what you eat.
theonewayroad01 2 years ago
The only point I wish to make is that God's existence isn't necessarily true; objective morality isn't necessarily true; and the combination of the two isn't necessary.
However, I do see this from both sides of the coin. I just feel that the arguments in the video (though clear and comprehensive) lack scope on hereditary nature, and the way that morality could arise through the random shift and accumulation of dormant genes.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
This is a little far stretched from basic empathy, but consider how genes for monogamy in the animal kingdom work watch?v=5ddlKQwDIe8
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Think of it in terms of a group of random individuals in a species. Each of them has a different level of dormant "caring" genes in them from prior mutations in their ancestries. Some individuals even have a high enough concentration of "caring" in them that it affects their behaviour.
Let's say that these group of "caring" individuals are driven by their nature to work together. This could help them in their environment to conserve the existence of the "caring" gene.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Morality without the EXISTANCE of God (as you say in the vid) is already a very different thing than "morality without God", which could refer to the current state of an average "cultural christian" in the West - and there are millions of these people. You seem to ignore the fact that Christian thought has imbued Western societies.
jcmmanuel 2 years ago
"They value absolutely that there are no absolute values"
I disagree. I could easily tentatively hold that there are no absolute values. This is very different.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Ok then I am right? You say you disagree do you believe your views are right? The problem is we can dance around words like maybe or tentatively but in real life I guarantee you believe there are things today that are right and or wrong. If you did not than you would not believe in order. If you don't believe in order than we can begin a new series of questions in regards to order.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
I'm am right in the context of the philosophies I subscribe to, as you are to yours. I'm just not convinced that there is anything that is absolutely right or absolutely wrong without exception.
From an evolutionary perspective, morality is driven by the most successful empathic tendencies that are naturally selected.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
So sad.. your religion has left you morally immature. You don't see why not murdering is common sense? You never even touched on the Euthyphro dilemma, which shows that your arguments have been debunked since Plato. Words like "fairness" have straightforward definitions. The notion of equal treatment. Human beings, and many other creatures, are successful because of our social nature.
hugesinker 2 years ago
The Euthyphro dilemma is not a dilemma and has been discounted almost as soon as it was deemed a dilemma. It excepts only two answer God is either A or B yet never opens for the option of A and B or C. You say fairness is straightforward but I ask based on what standard?
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
There are alternatives to the two horns of the dilemma, but each of them (that I've ever see) come with a set of problems and whimsical paradoxes.
What standard do we base the concept of fairness? Well, we agree on what words mean and put them in a book (the dictionary). If a parent gives a desired gift to one child and whips another for the same action under the same circumstances... this book (the dictionary) lets us know that this action is not "fair".
Neat, isn't it. The dictionary.
hugesinker 2 years ago
So broken down to it's beginning you believe fairness which is a form of justice based on just about every definition I have reviewed is based on what a man said the word or feeling meant many years ago. I ask where does the feeling of justice or injustice come from? If there is fair then there must be unfair. If that is the case who states what is fair and just? We the people? If so what if we the people choose unfair things is that fair then? You also wrote of a whipped child is that wrong 2u
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
@GodIsReal101,
The definition of fairness is consistent between dictionaries. We agree about what words mean. If I want to call apples oranges, that doesn't work because I am no longer speaking a common language. I can be proved wrong with the dictionary. Concepts such as "equal" are as straightforward as basic math. Perhaps you mean to ask why fairness or justice are valuable or "good" for us in general? Many reasons-- societal benefits, individual benefits, conforming with empathy, etc.
hugesinker 2 years ago
So you prescribe to a wrong and a right. By your own words you feel you are more pious then the bible or even God. You don't live your life with the idea that right and wrong don't exist you live your life with the idea that humans are the law givers. The question is where did those idea's to create those laws and or change them come from? Evolutionary morality fails in so many ways. You admit right and wrong you admit a law you admit a law giver the law giver must be greater than the law.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
I do feel that modern society is morally superior to that of primitive tribes-people living in biblical times because as a whole we have rejected several immoral institutions. Almost everyone is morally superior to the biblical, Christian version of God.
I admit a moral law giver called reality and the consequences of our existence as beings who benefit from social order and mutual respect. Attributing this to the work of a consciousness is unnecessary and frankly problematic.
hugesinker 2 years ago
"I do feel that modern society is morally superior to that of primitive tribes-people living in biblical times"
Surely you can see that this is only perceived to be more moral because it is relative to our standards.
If we interpret morality in terms of social contracts, a society with different set of social contracts isn't any more objectively 'immoral' than our own.
It's strange that you would reject the god concept and then propose objective morality anyway.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
If a person from that sort of early society were to see modern society and learn what we know now, it seems obvious that they would agree that it is more moral.
At the same time, I understand that for the most part, it is not right to hold their lifestyle against them. They didn't have the knowledge or resources to provide many of these things. They didn't understand the benefits of egalitarianism or civil rights, and did not know how best to replace despotism or torture used as rehabilitation.
hugesinker 2 years ago
"If a person from that sort of early society were to see modern society and learn what we know now, it seems obvious that they would agree that it is more moral."
I disagree, likely any previous society would perceive us to be a bunch of destructively self-absorbed hedonists.
"They didn't understand the benefits of egalitarianism or civil rights."
There are arguably points in time that such things were not beneficial to the society.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
We are probably both going to disagree on the first point, but consider that those ancient people are not living as they do because they had a choice between the two societies, like some modern 3rd-world monastery-- and they are just as hedonistic, self-absorbed, and destructive as they are able to be.
On the second point, I don't see how the benefits of egalitarianism and civil rights are not socially beneficial to any society. You'll have to unpack that a bit if you don't mind. Thanks.
hugesinker 2 years ago
I do not argue that morality is based on social contracts, it is more basic than that. Empathy is an important example.
There are situations where the moral choice is objectively obvious. Under some conditions, it is a bit of a grey area that is worthy of debate-- where sources of moral behavior are at odds. Here we discuss the pros and cons just like any other decision.
hugesinker 2 years ago
"I do not argue that morality is based on social contracts, it is more basic than that. Empathy is an important example."
I agree that empathy plays a major role in determining an individual's basis for what is moral or not, but from the perspective of the collective (where individual empathic abilities may vary) there has to be some sort of intellectual understanding of what other people interpret as right and wrong. Which is where I see the social contracts coming into play, literally or not.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
For social contracts to come into play, there has to be some reasoning behind them. If they are arbitrary and based on nothing, then they are of little value. I guess what I am trying to get at is the impetus behind noble/"good" social contracts. So, we are probably really talking about the same things.
hugesinker 2 years ago
@GodIsReal101
First off, all of the Scholastic and Hugo Grotius held that there was a natural law that would be of some validity even if one were to claim that God did not exist. Because man is of a social nature we know that the prerequisite conditions of society ought to bind him. The Justinian maxims of law are thus; live honestly, harm no one and give everyman his due. Unless such conditions are prevalent a society cannot form.
WorBlux 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101
Such rules come from the nature of man as he is. The right and wrong of legislation, is dependent on weather they they reflect these basic maxims, genuine custom such as which side of the road to drive on, or reflect a genuine agreement of those bound by such a law.
In fact positing God as legislator takes right and wrong out of the real, and puts it into the opinions of a mind. This is even before the problems of proper interpretation and interpreter arise.
WorBlux 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 ,
Is whipping a child wrong to me? Yes, even though the bible says it is good to use corporal punishment, it is wrong to me. Why? Well, empathy for one: I wouldn't want to be whipped, others seem similar, therefore the obvious assumption is that they would not like to be whipped. Also, I see it as having a negative impact on the parent-child relationship, especially in comparison to the modern accepted alternatives. I may feel differently if unaware of the alternatives.
hugesinker 2 years ago
This is true that God is the moral law giver, but I have a question. If I put you and a small child in a room without food and water, at some point you would kill that child to stay alive. This would be wrong, but you would still do it. So whats the difference in killing and eating a kid anytime as opposed to the scenario above?
timlaz 2 years ago
If I told you that you had to save your Mom or Dad from a burning building then who would you save? You could only save one.. These and millions like them can be used to describe the dilema of choice not the dilema of the law.. That is my answer.
God bless
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
No, I will not kill a child and eat him to stay alive. You must be out of your mind.
Also, God provides.
psychkoala 2 years ago
God laughs at evolutionists:
-Job 40:1 (God made dino's at the same time of man.)
-1 Corinthians 15:39-43 (God against evolution)
-Revelation 6:15-16 (Evolutionist praying to ROCKS).
-"But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith,God resisting the proud, but gives grace to the humble." James 4:6
redrulesnow 2 years ago
Interesting. There are millions of suffering people in the world, many dying from terrible illnesses right NOW at this very moment, and your god is busy laughing at scientists? Huh.
Well, I have to admit, that does sound like a god who would purposely collapse a house, murdering a bunch of innocent children. ;)
Archaeosix 2 years ago
"Job 40:1"
The behemoths were the crocodiles of Jordan.
"1 Corinthians 15:39-43"
Ecclesiastes 3:19 (we are no greater than the beasts)
"Revelation 6:15-16"
Nay, this has nothing to do with evolution, this is more in line with 1 Samuel 2:7. Anything that is granted can be taken away.
"James 4:6"
What is more humble than assuming that we may not know? If you were humble, you would not assume the specific nature of how life was created.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
In Job 40:1..."Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook?..." Clearly a dinosaur!
You didn't say anything about 1 Corinthians 15:39-43...God does laugh at PROUD MEN!!!
redrulesnow 2 years ago
"Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook?" Oh, okay. That's Job 41:1
It's interesting, but I see no reason to assume this a dinosaur. It still isn't entirely clear what "leviathan" was referring to. My money is still on the crocodiles of Jordan.
"1 Corinthians 15:39-43...God does laugh at PROUD MEN!!!"
That isn't in 1 Corinthians 15, I'm not sure what verse you're talking about. Surely, to say we fully understand the bible is to be a proud man indeed. Science is good. Daniel 1:17-20
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Also If you do "...taken away..." anything from God's word: That's a BIG SIN...
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: (v.19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city,..." Rev. 22:18-19
redrulesnow 2 years ago
"Also If you do "...taken away..." anything from God's word"
Taking away from the glory of the full truth is also a failing under God. Consider part of John 21:25 "I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written"
The bible should be more like a limited instruction manual to God's will, but not the full and direct masterpiece that we could embrace. In order to understand the words, we have to first be touched with that grace.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
morals evolved to its highest degree in species that live together to prevent conflict what is so hard to beleive about that! expeshely when there is sound evidence for it.
as for mud list me one scientist that says life came from mud what a duche bag.
go burn your strawmans some more.
SUPERDYKEful 2 years ago
What proof of either statement do you have. Give an example where morals evolved in species to help the species live. Explain how that evolution has evolved to where today we view stealing as bad. Because in let's say a cavemans time wouldn't stealing food if your starving be a trait that would help you survive??? As more the mud point comment I will let that one slide as I know you have no proof just faith that it happened. Just wanted you to admit that you believe in something not empirical.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
I really think you misunderstood evolution. In more social animals there is a trust factor you must consider. Interdependency is crucial for the group survival - if you stole food from your neighbour then their trust in you would be damaged. If that trust is abused enough then the group would expel you and you would be far less likely to survive.
Your comment about mud really does reveal lots about your knowledge...I sense the heavy influence of spin doctors here. Makes me think of Galileo...
BlueStarFlower 2 years ago
sure then perhaps you wuld have known that morality has a natural explanation.
but then again i doubt you even read your bible becuase god being moral is like a shark going vegan.
SUPERDYKEful 2 years ago
funny...you call God amoral in your argument thus canceling out your whole argument and proving that you are indeed a 'moral' person and that you do hold to absolutes. comes around full circle
Autry29 2 years ago
There is a third option there has always been a third option. You only leave me with two this argument has been destroyed time and time again.
Thanks
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
Well if Morality cannot exist without God and you say God exists, then what you are saying is that we are moral without following the Bible since it is already innate within us due to that God.
I myself believe nothing that was written within biblical texts and as such do not have a belief in any God but i am extremely ethical and moral, more so than the questionable ethics and morality of the Bible.
blade004 2 years ago
You are moral based on what standards?
Where did you get these standards?
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
I knew the question of "what standards" would come up, its the standard question from the standard Christian. The standards of the Bible are far from what i would call the "right" standards which involve the killing of others for the most menial of things, hence my standards are greater than that of the Bible because i "naturally" go above and beyond those "standards" of the Bible.
And where did i get them? Well if it was God then i don't need the Bible and if not him then from my Mother.
blade004 2 years ago
I know it is such a simple question yet one you refuse to answer. You make fun but yet you know where this argument goes. Without using religion try and explain where morality comes from. More specific your morality. If it was your mother then where did she get it and so on and so on. BTW were any of these people theist? If you say that we all have morality then explain your case as I would love to hear how morality can change yet be right but also right and wrong are just subjective.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
If belief in god is based on faith, a code of morality attributed to this belief in god must also be faith based. A morality held by faith is not objective by any definition of the word.
The question becomes - morality of which god'? Throughout history mankind has worshipped hundreds of gods and practiced numerous religious ideologies, each with considerably varied moral commandments. The dilemma remains the same for the theist as for the atheist.
Which religious moral code is right?
sweetsweatyfeet 2 years ago