and worse, as they are without morals and hardcore relativists, some people would think that is what made so pathetic. But is not only that. they believe nothing create everything!!! lol how irrational and insane someone can be? only someone who h a t e authority would say that. They actually rather say they are monkeys they accept God's authority.
ahtiests are like flies...siiimmm, zzuummm...they can't stand christians and go after them...is funny!!
despite not techincally having a higher power to answer to, does that mean we all go rape and cause destruction? and how does this in any way convince somebody to go to christ? this argument is stupid and useless.
He shouted his way to "winning" an argument against a random preconventionalist. His main point was, "Who decides morals?" The atheists response should have been, "Who are you to decide who God is?"
C'mon man - we're having a grand old time discussing. But the one person I can't get to join the conversation is you. C'mon - respond to my questions. I long for your deep wisdom and intellectual prowess.
Good point. Like I said, im not the best with words, but I just thought I should try. I can't say that if god said it was right it would be right, all I can say is that he said it is wrong, and on our hearts we also know it's wrong. Just like what god said is right, we know in our hearts is right. I'll try to get back to you with a better answer soon.
The simple truth is that Mark Spence fails to recognize that his view is the same as his opponent's view. Rather than grapple with the difficulties of the epistemology of ethics, he points out his opponent's weakness and hides his own. But the argument against his opponent illustrates the flaw in his own logic.
I find both Spence's argument flawed and his opponent's argument flawed.
I saw a question here and thought I might be able to help.
Q: if God said rape and incest were right, would it be right?
Here's what I think: in the argument, the man said it wouldn't be right just because his parents said so, so I understand where this question is coming from. But, I also believe this question cannot apply, because god has never said these things were right, but it was man who said so. I hope this helps. I'm not the best with words but I felt someone needed to try to answer.
This is denying the antecedent. Your answer goes around the question. I proposed the question: If A then what is B? But your response was: not A.
But that is not an answer to the question. It's the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Your response would have been appropriate to a question of the format "Is A?" But the question here had the format "If A then what is B?"
Further, it does not explain how God's "right" is actually right.
@MrAristotelianattic Just for clarification. The word "if" communicates a question in a hypothetical world, not necessarily something in the actual world. Thus, the original question is not asking about the actual world, but rather, the hypothetical.
I've commented on this video a number of times, but I've not received a response from you. I'd really like a response, if you'd be so kind. I think it would be a great opportunity for you to share your beliefs and perhaps convert a nonbeliever. So I'm confused as to why you have ignored my questions. Were they offensive in some way? Please get back to me.
Theist Logic: Read in a book that morals come from God, believe this at face value. Scriptural interpretations may conflict or be vague; theist doesn't acknowledge this.
Atheist Logic: Society/cultures worldwide have various moral frameworks being influenced by things such as religions, altruism, communal cooperation, socio-economics, and ideally careful rational consideration. Each society's morality is set by social consensus, yet may never be without a degree of discourse/disgreement.
Morality is completely and utterly relative. We don't acquire a sense of morality from God-- rather, by society and, ultimately, our own intellectual abilities.
What Hitler did was morally acceptable by his moral standings, and can be completely justified in terms of his philosophy. Ergo, Hitler was right. On the same token, what Gandhi did was morally acceptable and can be justified just as well. Objectively, neither are right. They're just two different views.
Firstly, I would like to express my thanks for your concern. You clearly put a lot of thought into this.
However, I believe that your logic is aptly expressed through your name-- Mr Aristotle.
Aristotle believed in a more objective view of logic than anything else, and believed that we can say with certainty that certain things "exist" and others don't. That is the fundamental premise of his epistemological framework.
Following this analogy, I don't think we can say with absolute certainty that *anything* exists.
What, after all, defines existence?
But enough with the analogy. In accordance to your argument, I don't think moral "truth" can be defined. You take a purely Aristotelian stance in your logical analysis, but it doesn't make it right. Indeed, universal "truth" is exactly what I'm uncomfortable with-- especially when it comes to purely subjective experiences.
I suggest, therefore, that you review my argument in light of this. I never claimed either Hitler or Ghandi to yield any advantageous "truth" in terms of morality. I simply claimed that each is "right" and can be "justified" in her or her ideological framework. Truth, however, fails to meet any comparative standards when it comes to morality.
I guess you'd first have to define "truth" when it comes to your logical analysis.
@QuantumBunnii Alright - well.. let's stick with your vocabulary for a moment. What do you mean by "right"? And further, do you mean that a conclusion a person demonstrates is actually right or simply right according to a particular framework? (so then, is that really right or is it simply logical - a deductive conclusion from certain premises? I would think that "logically consistent" is different from "right")
would be logically consistent, but not right. Unless you are defining "right" to mean logically following from a particular framework - in this case a framework in which cars are dogs and dogs are bananas.
@MrAristotelianattic I'm defining 'right' to be justifiable according to her or her personal beliefs. If I were to be posing a logical argument, I'd call it 'sound', not 'right' (that is, after all, what differentiates your argument from reality-- logicians call it valid, but unsound).
You must see that moral premises lie outside the scope of logic.
In order to determine whether an argument is logically valid, you'd need to *assume* the premises are true, and see if the conclusion follows.
Once you've established the argument is valid, you'd need to test it with reality (i.e., universal truth) to determine whether it's sound or unsound.
However, I'm challenging the very notion of truth in this case. We cannot determine whether something is logically sound or not because "truth", here, is subjective. It doesn't exist.
That is (to follow your math): set {x} is a subset of {A^c}, where x = moral statements, A = truth
I'm still confused on your definition of "right". Justifiable to me means "I believe x because of y" - which is the same thing as "If y then x". Justifying something requires logic. You said right = justified by personal beliefs. So I take the premises to be the personal beliefs.
But beliefs are not necessarily in tune with reality. More precisely, you are saying that moral beliefs are never in tune with reality - correct? Are we on the same page with our terms?
If my subjective belief is that an orange has wings and 4 wheels, my belief is wrong. However, if your subjective belief is that an orange is a round fruit, your belief is right.
You claimed that moral truth doesn't exist.
So then, when Spence or Buddha or Solomon says it does exist, their belief is wrong, not right.
You're trying to create a subjective right vs. objective right...
@MrAristotelianattic You seem to get the point, but not the context. It is true that I'm saying moral beliefs cannot be justified through a logical framework because they are, in fact, subjective rights.
Take the more practical example:
If I kill possessed babies then I am doing good for society
I kill possessed babies
Therefore, I do good for society
Is this true? What defines 'good for society?' The majority might in fact agree with this, or not. It makes no difference due to the subjectivity.
@MrAristotelianattic I'm simply saying that the aforementioned example is, in fact, a logically valid argument. However, there's no way to determine whether it's sound (i.e., 'true') without adopting some subjective framework to judge it with. If one were to adapt the arguer's framework, it would be (presumably) sound. If one were to adopt a more modern framework, it would be unsound. But in either case, no 'facts' actually justify the argument; so we therefore say it's neither true nor untrue.
But when something is right, it is true - by nature, right is something actual and real. Subjectively right is a contradiction in terms.
My subjective belief that oranges have wings and wheels is not right because it is not aligned with reality. We don't say that a person subjective right that oranges have wings and wheels. That may be his subjective opinion. But his opinion is not aligned with reality. Therefore his opinion is wrong. Not right.
@MrAristotelianattic Compare and contrast my example-argument (moral) with yours (non-moral).
You'll notice the difference lies in the fact that your example may be verified through objective means, whereas mine yields no such empirical basis (in talking with oranges, you can simply look at one). I'm not saying that moral truths are only *untrue*, I'm saying they yield absolutely *no* truth value whatsoever. It simply cannot be determined--i.e, they're neither "sound" nor "unsound".
1) C'mon.. empirical basis? This assumes that empiricism is true. But you don't know that it is true. We're familiar with the Matrix - shouldn't need to go down that road. Both the orange and morality are things about which we don't know and cannot truly verify. They are both opinions.
2) If neither sound nor unsound then neither right nor wrong. But you said everyone is right. Shouldn't you have said everyone is neither right nor wrong?
1) "My subjective belief that oranges have wings and wheels is not right because it is not aligned with reality." You're the one assuming empiricism determines the truth value of a proposition.
2) Semantics. I said his or her argument was true *once we adopt his or her subjective framework* and analyze the argument from that perspective. However, I readily admit that this doesn't make it a universal truth.
1) I was simply using that previous statement to demonstrate what we usually mean by right. I actually don't agree with that statement.. I was simply using it illustratively - and youtube has these annoying word limits. So it made it easier. In truth, I do not think emp. proves orange. Regardless - that's a red herring. The issue is - You (regardless of me) assume empiricism determines truth value of a proposition. "your example may be verified through objective means"
1) Lol.Well it's impossible to 'prove' any proposition through experience (empiricism), but most epistemologies (e.g., Aristotelian) conclude that an argument is sound if it's corroborated through an empirical basis.
@MrAristotelianattic The answer to this question depends, once again, on one's definition of "truth". If one defines truth to be that which is to be proven, then this statement simply is not true. However, if one defines truth to be that which can be verified through the human senses, then this is true.
To answer your question, I personally believe it is true-- as my definition of truth consists of that which can be verified through either human senses or mathematics.
@MrAristotelianattic Don't quote me on my definition-- I never really thought about it until now. I'm sort of going out on a limb for the sole purpose of answering your question.
Since you agree that empiricism doesn't prove a proposition and since you say that conclusions without verifiable premises must be neither true nor false, then you must think that propositions such as "An orange is round" is neither true nor false - correct?
@MrAristotelianattic no char ret mess up... i'll try again.. Essentially, you find props = Not{A, not A} - neither true nor false. So if B = Not{A, not A} then Not{B, not B} therefore Not{{Not{A, not A}}, Not{Not {A, not A}}} ie Neither {true nor false} nor {neither true nor false} But even this last statement would be neither true nor false so: Not {Not{{Not{A, not A}}, Not{Not {A, not A}}}, Not{Not{{Not{A, not A}}, Not{Not {A, not A}}}}} into an infinite regression of absurdity
@MrAristotelianattic I agree. However, I see no viable refutation in this argument. You're simply stating that you can never determine the truth value of any moral premise.
In any case "absurdity" yields a prominently subjective connotation; this does not suggest any rebuttal in and of itself. If one thinks that 1+1+1+1.....+1 = an infinite digression is an absurdity, this does not make it any less true.
1) You've extended this beyond simply moral statements... You said that any deduction with unverifiable premises has no truth value. So then this also applies to statements like "The statue of liberty exists"
2) I've presented a reductio ad absurdum. i.e. You'd have to agree with the absurd results to maintain your belief. But you really think that The statue of liberty neither exists nor not exists AND does not {Neither exist nor not exist}???
2) I've already pointed out that "absurd" is a completely subjective deduction. It's tantamount to saying that something looks "good" or tastes "good". Whether or not my arguments 'tastes good' has no bearing on the truth value of its content, although I might agree with you. Also, I do agree with the statement regarding existence because "existence" is impossible to define. One might (rightly) think that it doesn't exist, another might (rightly) think it does.
Finally - there is a refutation. Simply because we do not know the truth value of premise, it does not mean that a truth value does not exist.
I do not know if oranges really exist. But there is a truth value nonetheless. Either oranges exist or they don't exist. It's one or the other - not both or neither. This escapes the absurdity of your logic...
You believe an orange neither exists nor not exists AND does not {neither exist nor not exist} AND ....???
We're not capable of ascertaining whether they exist or not because we're not capable of defining existence. This is the root cause that statements like "The Statue of Liberty Exists" is neither true nor not-true. In the case of morals, we can't define "right".
In other words, "Either oranges exist or they don't exist" is false. "Existence" is something only humans can fathom; so how can you make a universal statement based on this?
Once again - I agree that we are not able to KNOW whether a thing exists or not. But that doesn't mean that it does not either exist or not exist OUTSIDE of our KNOWLEDGE.
For example, I don't know if there is an invisible dog in this room. But that doesn't mean that neither is nor isn't here. It could very well be here - I just don't know it is here.
@MrAristotelianattic A dog being in your room is definitively defined though, so you can say it is either in your room or not in your room. You can't do the same for propositions because "truth" is undefined. How can you say it's either true or not-true when there is no definition of truth?
@QuantumBunnii Additionally, you are not considering the r. a. adsurdum carefully enough. The infinity part is the least of my concerns. You are saying that props belong to a category that is neither Cat. True nor Cat. False AND also not the Cat. {neither Cat. True nor False}. This is beyond truth value... These are entirely new categories here: Cat. {neither Cat. True nor Cat. False} and Cat. {not {neither Cat. True nor Cat. False}. Take a moment to really consider what is being said here.
@QuantumBunnii I assume your answer is yes. Essentially, you find all propositions to be Not{A, not A} - neither true nor false. So if B = Not{A, not A} then Not{B, not B} therefore Not{{Not{A, not A}}, Not{Not {A, not A}}} ie Neither {true nor false} nor {neither true nor false} But even this last statement would be neither true nor false so: Not {Not{{Not{A, not A}}, Not{Not {A, not A}}}, Not{Not{{Not{A, not A}}, Not{Not {A, not A}}}}} into an infinite regression of absurdity
Mark is showing him the Law. All of us are guilty of breaking the Law. All of us are guilty of breaking the Ten Commandments. Thus we NEED the Savior in Jesus CHRIST. Otherwise we are bound for the flames on Judgment Day.
What I REALLY want to know-where did you get your fabulous conclusion that you're highly unwilling to alter; that supernatural forces shaped biological earth systems, morality, and other phenomena? Why don't you do a better job defending your views by sharing how your views can ACTUALLY be tested, pass peer review, and confirmed, and therefore part of reality as you claim, rather than just ARGUMENTS against one's opponent? If you can, go win fame by providing a testable alternative to evolution!
Think of it this way; chocolate is both objectively and subjectively tasting good, and it then becomes an objective part of reality based on experiencing what tastes bad. Using Mark Spence's understanding of objectivity and subjectivity, chocolate never really tastes good. Well,this is just plain wrong. Chocolate REALLY does taste good to certain people and is therefore objective!
Another common mistake is to attribute the perception of what is good to the perception of what is pleasurable. This is a gross oversimplification of what I'm saying. Basically, as the sphere of EXPERIENCE increases, so does our ability to maximize well being. What well being IS can be slightly ambiguous, but we can know what it is NOT, and we don't need a standard outside of being what we are.
@thewayofthemaster ...You're making a mistake about what common objective reality actually IS. Things can be objectively BAD based on OUR EXPERIENCE! I think in your mind that theres some sort of ball of morality and it trickles down to us through, what would otherwise be, our morally aimless lives.. Using your logic, God can actually make morality whatever IT wants, this falls apart if objectivity CAN be determined through experience:::
-.- who determines it? It's the society. I can't believe the atheist didn't come with it. There are thousands of religions.....christianity is not the only that preaches morality...
@thewayofthemaster Actually nazi germany had the same ideals as religion, promoted by 1 person and everyone accepted it, it was not their german culture :) For instance, the old testament tell that if your gay you are going to get stoned. If you marry a woman that its not part of your tribe you have to take all of her hair and cut it. The old testament "god" tells that you have to kill children and women when they invade a city... is that justified? Sorry man, but your point is vague.
@thewayofthemaster First, you evaded that your own bible promoted genocide and mutilation of men and women genitalia. And I'll be MORE specific, there is not only ONE society, there are multiple societies. Lets assume there is this society that promotes rape, well for ME is wrong, for them is right, I consider it wrong since my society considers it wrong.... Your own god promoted genocide, so I don't know what are you getting to...
@thewayofthemaster If we were not a secular nation and allowed extremists like you to consult the bible, we WOULD be told that rape is okay. The bible gives specific instructions on what to do with war booty, i.e. young virgin females.
But as a secular nation we know that in the West we have had a moral code that long pre-dates this desert cult you belong to. Xtianity simply adopted this code along the way and now pretends to have a monopoly on it.
Dude your complete ignorance needs to stop. Mao China and Stalin Russia were secular nations yet had no problem killing millions of their own people........you act as if religious extremists are the only ones capable of horrible things.
And so the fuck what if morality pre-dates Christianity? That still doesn't answer that objective morality exists outside of human opinion.....
@177xxxx Son, I was a poli sci major back in college and I've gone back to school in my 30's to study history and religion. Both types of Communism were exactly like a religion. In fact Stalin used the Orthodox church as backing for his regime. The people were so inculcated with religion that he used that against them and took advantage of their gullibility. The gullibility that is a necessary part of any religion. So to say these were secular nations is ridiculous. Stop watching 700 club
@thewayofthemaster Modern society has decided to reject the values of the bible and declare rape and genocide a crime. So it's not very likely that we'll be going back to those old time biblical values. Do you stone your children to death if they get smart with you? It's biblical! do you quarantine your wife in a separate room when she's on her period? It's biblical. Eat shellfish and pork? You're going to hell.
Morals are determined by their utility to the individuals in society, which is why every society has prohibition against theft, murder (not necessarily killing, but unlawful killing) killing Jews for their ethnicity is not a rule that has utility to members of society, thus no rational person would agree to it.
@redcommander27 Who determines what is beneficial or detrimental to a society? Your definition is vague, relative and by what do you gain the authority or right to put it on others. It might be how you would run your ideal society but what if someone disagrees. What makes you right and them wrong? Right and wrong need to be based on absolutes or they are simply one's opinion.
I have no right to enforce my moralty on others, there are rules that every society needs to function and people would agree to these rules for their own benefit, let's say we have people who disagree on morality, they would still agree to such rules against rape murder etc. The Golden Rule is axiomatic.
@redcommander27 Not rapists and murderers. No laws, no jail time. Yet we all know rape and murder is wrong becuase God has written it on our hearts and we feel it through our conscience.
I've been meaning to make a video debunking that argument. The first problem is there are naturalistic explanations for conscience (upbringing, evolutionary psychology), the second problem is that some people don't have a conscience (google antisocial personality disorder),
The third problem with that argument is that if God's law is written in our heart, how come only the morals that every society and religion has are in our conscience, I'd feel bad if I raped or murdered, but I can tell you from experience I don't feel bad for lusting or failing to preserve the sabbath and keep it holy, clearly God's law is not written on our hearts, the first two commandments arn't even there
@thewayofthemaster LOL, god has written it on our hearts? Is that the latest story you creationists came up with? Can't fight against evolution, might as well adopt its principles and pretend hey belong to Christianity. This is exactly what Xtianity has always done throughout out history.
Now that evolution has been proven as an indisputable fact, we have scientists (who are Christian) pushing a new kind of theory called theistic evolution. Cant dent evolution anymore? Say god did it! LOL
@thewayofthemaster Here is a moral conundrum for christians. You and a friend get caught while you are in the act of stealing, you have a job which requires you to have a clean record. To ensure you aren't fired, your friend takes the fall for you without even asking. Is it morally correct to accept this? Should you be responsible for your own actions? Your friend only wants to help you and ensure your well being, is this right? It's not like he'll be put on the cross right?
@thewayofthemaster Well, Nazi Germany is exactly what happens when Christianity gets a hold of the political apparatus. Hitler was a devout Christian as can be demonstrated by simply reading his writings, including Meine Kampf. It's eerily similar to what you evangelists do on the pulpit. Xtianity has always had a vicious streak of antisemitism running through it. The Christian church supported the regime and indeed celebrated Adolfs birthday every year.
No Nazi Germany is exactly what happens when a power obsessed racist gets into power....NO RELIGION REQUIRED. CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION. Sorry but your posts are full of this fallacy.
@177xxxx Racist? Jews are a religion, not a race. BTW, I studied all the great thinkers that our founders did before founding this nation. The reason they set this nation up as a secular govt is precisely because of what has happened throughout history when religion gets control of the political apparatus. They wanted to set up checks and balances so we didnt get the kind of thing that happened in Germany. We got pretty damn close under the Bush regime though.
@thewayofthemaster What do you mean "if?" Society absolutely does and always has determines morals. When Christians in this country decided to slaughter millions of my people (I'm NA) and steal our land, your society decided it was justified based on YOUR bible. When you enslaved millions of human beings and stole their labor, you used the bible to justify it. When you stole half of Mexico, you used the bible to justify it. (Manifest Destiny)
Also rape and killing arn't wrong according to the OT, I know Christians claim there was no rape, right, they just took the virgins for the sake of it. And all the children killed. I've already read the apologetics arguments for that and their full of roles and downright ridiculous, I think its sick that someone "moral" even writes apologetics for genocide, child-killing (real kids not fetuses without brain activity) and REAL infanticide
Sorry Christians, you don't have a monopoly on morality. Our moral code existed long before your little death cult existed it. You stole your moral code from other religions which came before, which took their code from humanists. Man has an innate sense of right and wrong. Even lower primates have it, this has been demonstrated. The bible is a highly immoral book. Leviticus 20 for starters. As a pastors son Ive head all your phony arguments before, nice try though.
@177xxxx Uh, when was this desert cult invented? 2K yrs ago. Was there anything around before that? Yes, we know that man was on this planet at least 100k years before that. So please. gimme a f'ing break. Xtianity adopted ALL it's ideas from other sources, including the virgin birth, resurrection, etc. ad nauseam.
Perfect example is 'banana man' here telling someone that rape is wrong. Not according to the bible it isnt. Xtianity has simply adopted the moral code of modern society.
EVERYTHING you said wasn't proof of anything and you are merely making assumptions based off weak "evidence". Respond when you have given solid proof that everything that happened in the bible was false....
@177xxxx I dont have time to educate you here on Youtube.Why dont you go to college and study everything I did,then you wouldnt be asking stupid questions and making dumb assertions.
Start with the Egyptian religions and how they influenced the authors of the Torah and the rest of the bible.
There is NOTHING original about Christianity, it was all stolen from other religions. Anyone who has studied any of this stuff can clearly see the truth about it.
What a terrible argument. Individuals agree to live in society, and establish codes of conduct. It can be defined by a common faith or by a set of needs and values. One does not have to believe in God to live within the confines of societal moral behavior. After all, God ordered the killing of adulterers. Do we still do that? Should we?
@bogusnachos oh yes our morals developed thousands and thousands of years gradually over time that's why were are the only species that has morals...."Be ye not as the horse, [or] as the mule, [which] have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee." [Psalm 32:9] Animals have no understanding for what is right or what is wrong. We as humans have a conscience (con=with science=knowledge) therefore we know the difference.
@GreatAfricanLion Actually, it has been demonstrated that even lower primates like chimps have a sense of morals and they don't like injustice. Our morals are innate. Anyone who says that they didn't know rape and murder were wrong before reading the bible is a sociopath and belongs in jail.
@MrTruthAddict What about those people who have never heard of the Bible nor the laws that live in the far east regions of Africa? Those who not only kill others but eat them (cannabals). I mean are they sociopaths and belong in jail?
@GreatAfricanLion Most tribal people who practice cannibalism do it for religious reasons. They think they will take in the essence or life force of that person.
Bad people do bad things. It takes religion to make good people do bad things.
@177xxxx Okay simpleton, people who eat other people are psychopaths. I know you Christian psychopaths need the bible to tell you which things are bad and good but most of us dont. We know that murder and eating people are bad. Pity you dont unless a fake 'holy book' tells you so.
So if you dont know how to define good and bad, I'd say you were a psychopath. Divine Command theory in Christianity is almost the very definition of psychopathy. A voice tells you what is good so you do it.
"Anyone who says that they didn't know rape and murder were wrong before reading the bible is a sociopath and belongs in jail"
Why exactly do they belong in jail? Just because YOU happen to not like what they are doing? If you put somebody in jail for rape or murder all you are doing is forcing your OPINION on them.
@thewayofthemaster Humans have developed societies and laws within themselves without the belief of any deities. look at the Native Americans, the Incas, or any aboriginal culture. The only downfall they had were when the pilgrims and conquistadors came here and "under the name of god"; because their society wasn't god-fearing, they caused mass genocides and raped many of the natives which nowadays are mestizos and your common Hispanics.
Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him" isn't jesus christ a man depicted with long hair? even people who believe in the book choose to define what is right or wrong in god's word, so why can't everyone else?
it is acceptable in the bible to beat children "Proverbs 23:13", it is acceptable in the bible to sell your daughter into slavery "exodus 21 verse 7" ""When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years ...as the men are." it even contradicts it self "Corinthians 11;14
@MrAristotelianattic Sure, just adding to your great comment. I doubt bananaman will answer your question. he likes to be in control and put people on the spot with stupid questions like 'have you ever lied?"
It's not that the people he talks to is stupid. It's that they very deliberately talk to people they know are not prepared to debate. It's the equivolent of a professional boxer grabbing a random kid off the street and fighting them. Maybe if the kid had time to train, maybe he would win, or at least put up a good fight. But these guys are just bullies.
@ThePhilosophersAbyss Um no, these guys dont "deliberately" talk to unqualified people. Its people who want to challenge the Way of the Master Team, and then get proven wrong. But its not even about getting proven wrong, WOTM is just trying to spread the gospel and svae people's lives. And if you're that concerned, there is a video right next to this one where Mark Spence debates a professor
Ok... but the way he talks to the random speaker. and how he is asking him the questions. its just stupid.. And hes point in the end is that we can't make our own rules. we need to get are rules from god.. But the rules was wrote by men. so that's not god's rules. you can't proove that's its god's rules. That's a fack!
This debate is just really really stupid.... Don't wast your time watching this one...
@JohnInTheUSA When you're sitting at the dinner table with your family, do you stab your sister in the neck with your fork so she wont get the last piece of meat? Most people won't, because we have an innate sense of right and wrong. If someone needs to tell you that something like that is wrong, you are a psychopath.
It isn't fair to broadcast an atheist who believes in relativism and then label him "atheist" rather than "relativist". This method suggests that all atheists are necessarily relativists. This simply isn't true.
All philosophies in existence begin with first assumptions. Assumptions. Let me repeat: Assumptions. The Christian assumption is that it is right to obey God. But how do you know that it is right to obey God? That too has no basis. But that's the nature of philosophy.
this whole subject cannot prove the existence of god. it does not show a single shred of evidence for a divine intelligence that fashioned a universe of 6,000 to 10,000 years old, who created everything in only 6 days.
@thewayofthemaster thats probably the most controversial topics thats troubled most scientists. anyways, the majority of theories that explain evolution of morality use darwinian natural selection as the underlying mechanism that enabled the evolution of morality to occur. but who do creationists think they are to come along and pollute science by filling in unknown gaps with a divine unproven creator. theres many things that science can't prove, like flying elephant ferries and pink unicorns.
1. Was it moral to participate in the holocaust? The Atomic Bombing of Japan in WWII? The Manson Family? The Inquisition? Columbine?
2. The murder of people for a belief system was condoned by society in ancient Rome. Does that mean that murder used to be moral until society decided it wasn't? If Hitler would have claimed exception under the idea that he felt akin to ancient Romans, would he have been moral?
The Bible says its OK to own slaves and to beat them and sell them. No one today believes that. What is the basis for slavery being immoral? Is this moral relativism?
@ironboot21 This was the argument utilized by the defense at the Nuremberg trials -- they were merely following the lawful orders of their superiors, from a properly constituted governing authority. It didn't fly. They were found guilty, as they should have known what they were doing was wrong, regardless of what their society (Germany under the National Socialists), simply based upon the objective moral law.
Jesus said that we should treat eachother with love and kindness. Not doing this is going against Jesus. Going against Jesus is going against God. (check the comment below on this one)
"Jesus replied “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” ‘And the second’ he says: “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
And then Jesus made an interesting comment “The whole Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets, depend, or hang, or stand, on these two commandments.” Love for God and love for one’s neighbour in fact embraces all the specifics of the Ten Commandments,
Jesus made this quite clear when he said, for example, that its not just a matter of not committing murder ; You commit adultery if you look at someone lustfully.
What atheist have to understand is that we are not arguing about whether they can be moral or do good thing. It is more about how can even know what good or bad is in the first place without a overarching rule or Lawgiver to measure from.
the society stipulates what good and moral is...nothing more and nothing less. i'm also an atheist and accept the views of believers but i also have to say, that we learn a lot about balancing our action thanks to our parents but not every parents are good and tell us the right things. and beside that, the fact that not every culture has the same definition of what good and moral is, is very important. it's not right to just enforce own ethics to other people...
Mark not all books are meant to be palmed around like the Bible.open a book called a dictionary, look up the word morality And let the definition of morality tell you where you should get your morals.You'll be surprised to know that not one definition mentions the word God.also look up the word values. you mention Hitler, in Hitlers mind and in the minds of the people that fallowed him they were in their right mind .just like the U.S is in there right mind to invade certain countries.understand?
wow lol.. these are the kinds of atheists that irritate my brain when watching.. what an ignorant fool!.. "your putting words in my mouth".. Mark repeated his words to the exact letter every time, thats not putting words in your mouth, thats you realizing your stupid!
Let's get to the point. Do you believe we're born evil and without Jesus we're not good? Do you have issues knowing the difference between good and bad without Jesus?
Good - of a favorable character or tendency... think deep about that definition and it will make sense. Is there anything else you want me to do for you?
If you punch yourself, does it hurt? Can you understand another person would feel the same way if you punched another person? So, why would you punch them? Because God says not to?
@jags018 Can you explain your context as to what I said before, or just say more because I don't know what you're trying to say with your reply. Thank you.
Praise God! This is awesome. I did some evangelism and man I wish I had watched these vids because sometimes I would have no idea how to answer people.
Morality does not come from god, Christians are more moral then the very god they worship. when is the last time a christian killed somone for working on the sabbath?God ordered somone stoned to death for collecting sticks on the sabbath, he endorses slaver commits genocide, murder, touture, rape, infanticide, he has she bears rip apart children for taunting a bald man. This is where morality comes from? I think not .People, christians have evolved above this, redefined morality, am I wrong?
Evolution wouldnt work very well if we ate eachother. If your not killing and rapeing people for no other reason than you dont want to, and find it repulsive, you are a moral person. If you dont kill or rape people because your worried about being punished, or judged by God then you are not a moral person.
Do you suppose Shaw was closer to God after this exchange? I would say Shaw was closest to God as he stepped up to the microphone. He was, at that moment, a Seeker.... I would say he was farthest from God he had ever been at the end when he stepped away from the mic.
Morality comes from what you are taught as a child. But absolute universal moral rights and wrongs come from evolution to benefit the overall survival for the species. Survival of the fittest, but only between opposing species. One species must construct morals that benefit the overall survival and prosperity of the species as a whole.
atheists are fool like the Bible says....
and worse, as they are without morals and hardcore relativists, some people would think that is what made so pathetic. But is not only that. they believe nothing create everything!!! lol how irrational and insane someone can be? only someone who h a t e authority would say that. They actually rather say they are monkeys they accept God's authority.
ahtiests are like flies...siiimmm, zzuummm...they can't stand christians and go after them...is funny!!
guilhermesazonov 1 month ago
despite not techincally having a higher power to answer to, does that mean we all go rape and cause destruction? and how does this in any way convince somebody to go to christ? this argument is stupid and useless.
sorry8140 1 month ago
by who's definition? LOL
SHOW TIME! good job Mark
guilhermesazonov 1 month ago
He shouted his way to "winning" an argument against a random preconventionalist. His main point was, "Who decides morals?" The atheists response should have been, "Who are you to decide who God is?"
chivasillars 1 month ago
@chivasillars He doesn't decide WHO God is, he bases it off of the Bible.
branchbros 1 month ago
How can organized molecules have ethics?
Taiwan1997 1 month ago
LOL!! That was awesome. God is awesome. :D HA! Shaw: "So who gets to decide? GOD!?!" Mark: "YES!" LOL
82shellyrae 1 month ago
@thewayofthemaster
C'mon man - we're having a grand old time discussing. But the one person I can't get to join the conversation is you. C'mon - respond to my questions. I long for your deep wisdom and intellectual prowess.
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
Good point. Like I said, im not the best with words, but I just thought I should try. I can't say that if god said it was right it would be right, all I can say is that he said it is wrong, and on our hearts we also know it's wrong. Just like what god said is right, we know in our hearts is right. I'll try to get back to you with a better answer soon.
zegreatchancho 3 months ago
@zegreatchancho
I appreciate the honesty.
The simple truth is that Mark Spence fails to recognize that his view is the same as his opponent's view. Rather than grapple with the difficulties of the epistemology of ethics, he points out his opponent's weakness and hides his own. But the argument against his opponent illustrates the flaw in his own logic.
I find both Spence's argument flawed and his opponent's argument flawed.
MrAristotelianattic 3 months ago
great video!!
kirkspreviews 3 months ago
I saw a question here and thought I might be able to help.
Q: if God said rape and incest were right, would it be right?
Here's what I think: in the argument, the man said it wouldn't be right just because his parents said so, so I understand where this question is coming from. But, I also believe this question cannot apply, because god has never said these things were right, but it was man who said so. I hope this helps. I'm not the best with words but I felt someone needed to try to answer.
zegreatchancho 3 months ago
@zegreatchancho
This is denying the antecedent. Your answer goes around the question. I proposed the question: If A then what is B? But your response was: not A.
But that is not an answer to the question. It's the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Your response would have been appropriate to a question of the format "Is A?" But the question here had the format "If A then what is B?"
Further, it does not explain how God's "right" is actually right.
MrAristotelianattic 3 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic Just for clarification. The word "if" communicates a question in a hypothetical world, not necessarily something in the actual world. Thus, the original question is not asking about the actual world, but rather, the hypothetical.
MrAristotelianattic 3 months ago
Atheist 1, Mark Spence 0.
SubconsciousGatherer 4 months ago
@thewayofthemaster
Hello,
I've commented on this video a number of times, but I've not received a response from you. I'd really like a response, if you'd be so kind. I think it would be a great opportunity for you to share your beliefs and perhaps convert a nonbeliever. So I'm confused as to why you have ignored my questions. Were they offensive in some way? Please get back to me.
Thanks.
MrAristotelianattic 4 months ago
Theist Logic: Read in a book that morals come from God, believe this at face value. Scriptural interpretations may conflict or be vague; theist doesn't acknowledge this.
Atheist Logic: Society/cultures worldwide have various moral frameworks being influenced by things such as religions, altruism, communal cooperation, socio-economics, and ideally careful rational consideration. Each society's morality is set by social consensus, yet may never be without a degree of discourse/disgreement.
Majesticgoat 5 months ago
Both of these guys are retarded.
Morality is completely and utterly relative. We don't acquire a sense of morality from God-- rather, by society and, ultimately, our own intellectual abilities.
What Hitler did was morally acceptable by his moral standings, and can be completely justified in terms of his philosophy. Ergo, Hitler was right. On the same token, what Gandhi did was morally acceptable and can be justified just as well. Objectively, neither are right. They're just two different views.
QuantumBunnii 5 months ago
@QuantumBunnii the diference is how it affects other people at thats how a society works
sl3ya44 5 months ago
@QuantumBunnii Just to clarify.. x can be true and x can be not true simultaneously? Or in other words, the set {x, not X} = true?
MrAristotelianattic 3 months ago
@QuantumBunnii
Sorry - I'm a little impatient waiting for a reply, so I will assume that you believe set {x, not x} = true.
But if the universal set {x, not x} = true, then the particular set {A, not A} = true.
Let us say that B = set {A, not A}.
Well, then set {B, not B} can equal true.
But if {B. not B} = true, then {A, not A} and not {A, not A} = true.
i.e. A is true, false, and neither true nor false.
So then a thing can be neither true nor false?
But further, if C={B, not B}, what next?
MrAristotelianattic 3 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic
Firstly, I would like to express my thanks for your concern. You clearly put a lot of thought into this.
However, I believe that your logic is aptly expressed through your name-- Mr Aristotle.
Aristotle believed in a more objective view of logic than anything else, and believed that we can say with certainty that certain things "exist" and others don't. That is the fundamental premise of his epistemological framework.
QuantumBunnii 3 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic
Following this analogy, I don't think we can say with absolute certainty that *anything* exists.
What, after all, defines existence?
But enough with the analogy. In accordance to your argument, I don't think moral "truth" can be defined. You take a purely Aristotelian stance in your logical analysis, but it doesn't make it right. Indeed, universal "truth" is exactly what I'm uncomfortable with-- especially when it comes to purely subjective experiences.
QuantumBunnii 3 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic
I suggest, therefore, that you review my argument in light of this. I never claimed either Hitler or Ghandi to yield any advantageous "truth" in terms of morality. I simply claimed that each is "right" and can be "justified" in her or her ideological framework. Truth, however, fails to meet any comparative standards when it comes to morality.
I guess you'd first have to define "truth" when it comes to your logical analysis.
QuantumBunnii 3 months ago
@QuantumBunnii Alright - well.. let's stick with your vocabulary for a moment. What do you mean by "right"? And further, do you mean that a conclusion a person demonstrates is actually right or simply right according to a particular framework? (so then, is that really right or is it simply logical - a deductive conclusion from certain premises? I would think that "logically consistent" is different from "right")
MrAristotelianattic 3 months ago
@QuantumBunnii
For example,
All dogs are bananas
All race cars are dogs
therefore
All race cars are bananas
would be logically consistent, but not right. Unless you are defining "right" to mean logically following from a particular framework - in this case a framework in which cars are dogs and dogs are bananas.
MrAristotelianattic 3 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic I'm defining 'right' to be justifiable according to her or her personal beliefs. If I were to be posing a logical argument, I'd call it 'sound', not 'right' (that is, after all, what differentiates your argument from reality-- logicians call it valid, but unsound).
You must see that moral premises lie outside the scope of logic.
In order to determine whether an argument is logically valid, you'd need to *assume* the premises are true, and see if the conclusion follows.
QuantumBunnii 3 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic
Once you've established the argument is valid, you'd need to test it with reality (i.e., universal truth) to determine whether it's sound or unsound.
However, I'm challenging the very notion of truth in this case. We cannot determine whether something is logically sound or not because "truth", here, is subjective. It doesn't exist.
That is (to follow your math): set {x} is a subset of {A^c}, where x = moral statements, A = truth
QuantumBunnii 3 months ago
@QuantumBunnii
I'm still confused on your definition of "right". Justifiable to me means "I believe x because of y" - which is the same thing as "If y then x". Justifying something requires logic. You said right = justified by personal beliefs. So I take the premises to be the personal beliefs.
But beliefs are not necessarily in tune with reality. More precisely, you are saying that moral beliefs are never in tune with reality - correct? Are we on the same page with our terms?
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
@QuantumBunnii
Sorry - my impatience gets the best of me - lol
I'll continue my thoughts.
If my subjective belief is that an orange has wings and 4 wheels, my belief is wrong. However, if your subjective belief is that an orange is a round fruit, your belief is right.
You claimed that moral truth doesn't exist.
So then, when Spence or Buddha or Solomon says it does exist, their belief is wrong, not right.
You're trying to create a subjective right vs. objective right...
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic You seem to get the point, but not the context. It is true that I'm saying moral beliefs cannot be justified through a logical framework because they are, in fact, subjective rights.
Take the more practical example:
If I kill possessed babies then I am doing good for society
I kill possessed babies
Therefore, I do good for society
Is this true? What defines 'good for society?' The majority might in fact agree with this, or not. It makes no difference due to the subjectivity.
QuantumBunnii 2 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic I'm simply saying that the aforementioned example is, in fact, a logically valid argument. However, there's no way to determine whether it's sound (i.e., 'true') without adopting some subjective framework to judge it with. If one were to adapt the arguer's framework, it would be (presumably) sound. If one were to adopt a more modern framework, it would be unsound. But in either case, no 'facts' actually justify the argument; so we therefore say it's neither true nor untrue.
QuantumBunnii 2 months ago
@QuantumBunnii
Ok - then these moral beliefs are logically consistent - valid. They are simply not sound. This is what you are saying.
But to say something is right is to say it is sound. Right is not the same as valid.
So if I say:
All eels have wings and wheels
oranges are eels
therefore
oranges have wings and wheels
- this is valid. But no one would say that the conclusion is "right". Right implies sound. yes?
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
@QuantumBunnii
You said that "[moral truth] doesn't exist."
Now you are saying that an argument is neither true nor untrue.
But if moral truth doesn't exist, then to say that moral truth Does exist is untrue.
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
@QuantumBunnii
But when something is right, it is true - by nature, right is something actual and real. Subjectively right is a contradiction in terms.
My subjective belief that oranges have wings and wheels is not right because it is not aligned with reality. We don't say that a person subjective right that oranges have wings and wheels. That may be his subjective opinion. But his opinion is not aligned with reality. Therefore his opinion is wrong. Not right.
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic Compare and contrast my example-argument (moral) with yours (non-moral).
You'll notice the difference lies in the fact that your example may be verified through objective means, whereas mine yields no such empirical basis (in talking with oranges, you can simply look at one). I'm not saying that moral truths are only *untrue*, I'm saying they yield absolutely *no* truth value whatsoever. It simply cannot be determined--i.e, they're neither "sound" nor "unsound".
QuantumBunnii 2 months ago
@QuantumBunnii
1) C'mon.. empirical basis? This assumes that empiricism is true. But you don't know that it is true. We're familiar with the Matrix - shouldn't need to go down that road. Both the orange and morality are things about which we don't know and cannot truly verify. They are both opinions.
2) If neither sound nor unsound then neither right nor wrong. But you said everyone is right. Shouldn't you have said everyone is neither right nor wrong?
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic
1) "My subjective belief that oranges have wings and wheels is not right because it is not aligned with reality." You're the one assuming empiricism determines the truth value of a proposition.
2) Semantics. I said his or her argument was true *once we adopt his or her subjective framework* and analyze the argument from that perspective. However, I readily admit that this doesn't make it a universal truth.
QuantumBunnii 2 months ago
@QuantumBunnii
1) I was simply using that previous statement to demonstrate what we usually mean by right. I actually don't agree with that statement.. I was simply using it illustratively - and youtube has these annoying word limits. So it made it easier. In truth, I do not think emp. proves orange. Regardless - that's a red herring. The issue is - You (regardless of me) assume empiricism determines truth value of a proposition. "your example may be verified through objective means"
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic
1) Lol.Well it's impossible to 'prove' any proposition through experience (empiricism), but most epistemologies (e.g., Aristotelian) conclude that an argument is sound if it's corroborated through an empirical basis.
In any case, I was just following your example.
2) Yas. (:
QuantumBunnii 2 months ago
@QuantumBunnii
Ok - cool. I think we're on the same page... btw - I love Aristotle - but I don't agree with everything he says.
Now - the next question - Do you then think that propositions such as "An orange is round" is neither true nor false?
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic The answer to this question depends, once again, on one's definition of "truth". If one defines truth to be that which is to be proven, then this statement simply is not true. However, if one defines truth to be that which can be verified through the human senses, then this is true.
To answer your question, I personally believe it is true-- as my definition of truth consists of that which can be verified through either human senses or mathematics.
QuantumBunnii 2 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic Don't quote me on my definition-- I never really thought about it until now. I'm sort of going out on a limb for the sole purpose of answering your question.
QuantumBunnii 2 months ago
@QuantumBunnii
Since you agree that empiricism doesn't prove a proposition and since you say that conclusions without verifiable premises must be neither true nor false, then you must think that propositions such as "An orange is round" is neither true nor false - correct?
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic
Youtube is so messed up - It took all of my character returns - sorry it looks so messy and unclear.. So frustrating.
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic I agree. However, I see no viable refutation in this argument. You're simply stating that you can never determine the truth value of any moral premise.
In any case "absurdity" yields a prominently subjective connotation; this does not suggest any rebuttal in and of itself. If one thinks that 1+1+1+1.....+1 = an infinite digression is an absurdity, this does not make it any less true.
QuantumBunnii 2 months ago
@QuantumBunnii
1) You've extended this beyond simply moral statements... You said that any deduction with unverifiable premises has no truth value. So then this also applies to statements like "The statue of liberty exists"
2) I've presented a reductio ad absurdum. i.e. You'd have to agree with the absurd results to maintain your belief. But you really think that The statue of liberty neither exists nor not exists AND does not {Neither exist nor not exist}???
Surely not - how could you?
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic 1) Yep.
2) I've already pointed out that "absurd" is a completely subjective deduction. It's tantamount to saying that something looks "good" or tastes "good". Whether or not my arguments 'tastes good' has no bearing on the truth value of its content, although I might agree with you. Also, I do agree with the statement regarding existence because "existence" is impossible to define. One might (rightly) think that it doesn't exist, another might (rightly) think it does.
QuantumBunnii 2 months ago
@QuantumBunnii
Finally - there is a refutation. Simply because we do not know the truth value of premise, it does not mean that a truth value does not exist.
I do not know if oranges really exist. But there is a truth value nonetheless. Either oranges exist or they don't exist. It's one or the other - not both or neither. This escapes the absurdity of your logic...
You believe an orange neither exists nor not exists AND does not {neither exist nor not exist} AND ....???
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic
We're not capable of ascertaining whether they exist or not because we're not capable of defining existence. This is the root cause that statements like "The Statue of Liberty Exists" is neither true nor not-true. In the case of morals, we can't define "right".
In other words, "Either oranges exist or they don't exist" is false. "Existence" is something only humans can fathom; so how can you make a universal statement based on this?
QuantumBunnii 2 months ago
@QuantumBunnii
Once again - I agree that we are not able to KNOW whether a thing exists or not. But that doesn't mean that it does not either exist or not exist OUTSIDE of our KNOWLEDGE.
For example, I don't know if there is an invisible dog in this room. But that doesn't mean that neither is nor isn't here. It could very well be here - I just don't know it is here.
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
@QuantumBunnii You're confusing epistemology and metaphysics.
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic A dog being in your room is definitively defined though, so you can say it is either in your room or not in your room. You can't do the same for propositions because "truth" is undefined. How can you say it's either true or not-true when there is no definition of truth?
QuantumBunnii 2 months ago
@QuantumBunnii
I don't think you follow...
What if I put forth the following deduction:
My dresser is in my room
An invisible dog is in my dresser
Therefore
An invisible dog is in my room
You agree that the premises are unverifiable yes?
Which means, according to you, that the premises are neither true nor false - yes?
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
@QuantumBunnii Additionally, you are not considering the r. a. adsurdum carefully enough. The infinity part is the least of my concerns. You are saying that props belong to a category that is neither Cat. True nor Cat. False AND also not the Cat. {neither Cat. True nor False}. This is beyond truth value... These are entirely new categories here: Cat. {neither Cat. True nor Cat. False} and Cat. {not {neither Cat. True nor Cat. False}. Take a moment to really consider what is being said here.
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic Not following... Why not just make a category called 'Undetermined Truth Value'?
That way, Moral Premise P is an element of Und.
Where Und. is not a subset of Truth
Two completely different sets, no infinities.
QuantumBunnii 2 months ago
@QuantumBunnii
It's hard to fathom I know. But I'm illustrating the logic of your beliefs.
You said that a proposition can be not{x, not x}.
Therefore a proposition B can be not{A, not A}.
And also proposition C can be not{B, not B}.
Given:
B = not{A, not A}
C= not{B, not B}
C = not{{not{A, not A}}, not{not {A, not A}}}
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
@QuantumBunnii Once again - the infinity is the LEAST of my concerns.
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QuantumBunnii Also - "Undetermined" is very different from "neither true nor not true"
For example, in logic, when a conditional if x then y is assumed true, then if y is asserted x is indeterminate.
But indeterminate means that it "could be true or could be false"
"could be true or could be false" is not the same as "neither true nor false"
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
@QuantumBunnii
2) well, you said "Ergo, Hitler was right." but whatever... what you really mean is that he is neither right nor wrong - yes?
MrAristotelianattic 2 months ago
Mark is showing him the Law. All of us are guilty of breaking the Law. All of us are guilty of breaking the Ten Commandments. Thus we NEED the Savior in Jesus CHRIST. Otherwise we are bound for the flames on Judgment Day.
King1Papa1 6 months ago
@King1Papa1 You were doing okay until you said "thus" and then you made a HUGE leap in logic and sounded like a nonsensical lunatic.
MrTruthAddict 5 months ago
Let me clarify: It's sad that these guys are preaching this kind of nonsense.
theNCGstudios 6 months ago in playlist Open Air
Wow, this has some very good points!
mewmewkiki4 7 months ago
What I REALLY want to know-where did you get your fabulous conclusion that you're highly unwilling to alter; that supernatural forces shaped biological earth systems, morality, and other phenomena? Why don't you do a better job defending your views by sharing how your views can ACTUALLY be tested, pass peer review, and confirmed, and therefore part of reality as you claim, rather than just ARGUMENTS against one's opponent? If you can, go win fame by providing a testable alternative to evolution!
inconsp1cuous1515 7 months ago 2
Think of it this way; chocolate is both objectively and subjectively tasting good, and it then becomes an objective part of reality based on experiencing what tastes bad. Using Mark Spence's understanding of objectivity and subjectivity, chocolate never really tastes good. Well,this is just plain wrong. Chocolate REALLY does taste good to certain people and is therefore objective!
inconsp1cuous1515 7 months ago 2
Another common mistake is to attribute the perception of what is good to the perception of what is pleasurable. This is a gross oversimplification of what I'm saying. Basically, as the sphere of EXPERIENCE increases, so does our ability to maximize well being. What well being IS can be slightly ambiguous, but we can know what it is NOT, and we don't need a standard outside of being what we are.
inconsp1cuous1515 7 months ago 2
@thewayofthemaster ...You're making a mistake about what common objective reality actually IS. Things can be objectively BAD based on OUR EXPERIENCE! I think in your mind that theres some sort of ball of morality and it trickles down to us through, what would otherwise be, our morally aimless lives.. Using your logic, God can actually make morality whatever IT wants, this falls apart if objectivity CAN be determined through experience:::
inconsp1cuous1515 7 months ago 2
-.- who determines it? It's the society. I can't believe the atheist didn't come with it. There are thousands of religions.....christianity is not the only that preaches morality...
chemprify 8 months ago
@chemprify If society determines morals, was Nazi Germany justified?
thewayofthemaster 8 months ago
@thewayofthemaster Actually nazi germany had the same ideals as religion, promoted by 1 person and everyone accepted it, it was not their german culture :) For instance, the old testament tell that if your gay you are going to get stoned. If you marry a woman that its not part of your tribe you have to take all of her hair and cut it. The old testament "god" tells that you have to kill children and women when they invade a city... is that justified? Sorry man, but your point is vague.
chemprify 8 months ago
@chemprify Let's be specific then. If a society decided rape is OK, would you agree that it is OK for that society to rape woman?
thewayofthemaster 8 months ago
@thewayofthemaster First, you evaded that your own bible promoted genocide and mutilation of men and women genitalia. And I'll be MORE specific, there is not only ONE society, there are multiple societies. Lets assume there is this society that promotes rape, well for ME is wrong, for them is right, I consider it wrong since my society considers it wrong.... Your own god promoted genocide, so I don't know what are you getting to...
chemprify 8 months ago
@thewayofthemaster If we were not a secular nation and allowed extremists like you to consult the bible, we WOULD be told that rape is okay. The bible gives specific instructions on what to do with war booty, i.e. young virgin females.
But as a secular nation we know that in the West we have had a moral code that long pre-dates this desert cult you belong to. Xtianity simply adopted this code along the way and now pretends to have a monopoly on it.
Nice try but, fail.
MrTruthAddict 7 months ago
@MrTruthAddict
Dude your complete ignorance needs to stop. Mao China and Stalin Russia were secular nations yet had no problem killing millions of their own people........you act as if religious extremists are the only ones capable of horrible things.
And so the fuck what if morality pre-dates Christianity? That still doesn't answer that objective morality exists outside of human opinion.....
177xxxx 7 months ago
@177xxxx Son, I was a poli sci major back in college and I've gone back to school in my 30's to study history and religion. Both types of Communism were exactly like a religion. In fact Stalin used the Orthodox church as backing for his regime. The people were so inculcated with religion that he used that against them and took advantage of their gullibility. The gullibility that is a necessary part of any religion. So to say these were secular nations is ridiculous. Stop watching 700 club
MrTruthAddict 7 months ago
@thewayofthemaster Modern society has decided to reject the values of the bible and declare rape and genocide a crime. So it's not very likely that we'll be going back to those old time biblical values. Do you stone your children to death if they get smart with you? It's biblical! do you quarantine your wife in a separate room when she's on her period? It's biblical. Eat shellfish and pork? You're going to hell.
Christianity is a fraud.
MrTruthAddict 5 months ago
@thewayofthemaster
Morals are determined by their utility to the individuals in society, which is why every society has prohibition against theft, murder (not necessarily killing, but unlawful killing) killing Jews for their ethnicity is not a rule that has utility to members of society, thus no rational person would agree to it.
redcommander27 8 months ago
@redcommander27 Who determines what is beneficial or detrimental to a society? Your definition is vague, relative and by what do you gain the authority or right to put it on others. It might be how you would run your ideal society but what if someone disagrees. What makes you right and them wrong? Right and wrong need to be based on absolutes or they are simply one's opinion.
thewayofthemaster 8 months ago
@thewayofthemaster
I have no right to enforce my moralty on others, there are rules that every society needs to function and people would agree to these rules for their own benefit, let's say we have people who disagree on morality, they would still agree to such rules against rape murder etc. The Golden Rule is axiomatic.
redcommander27 8 months ago
@redcommander27 Not rapists and murderers. No laws, no jail time. Yet we all know rape and murder is wrong becuase God has written it on our hearts and we feel it through our conscience.
thewayofthemaster 8 months ago
@thewayofthemaster
I've been meaning to make a video debunking that argument. The first problem is there are naturalistic explanations for conscience (upbringing, evolutionary psychology), the second problem is that some people don't have a conscience (google antisocial personality disorder),
redcommander27 8 months ago
@thewayofthemaster
The third problem with that argument is that if God's law is written in our heart, how come only the morals that every society and religion has are in our conscience, I'd feel bad if I raped or murdered, but I can tell you from experience I don't feel bad for lusting or failing to preserve the sabbath and keep it holy, clearly God's law is not written on our hearts, the first two commandments arn't even there
redcommander27 8 months ago
@thewayofthemaster LOL, god has written it on our hearts? Is that the latest story you creationists came up with? Can't fight against evolution, might as well adopt its principles and pretend hey belong to Christianity. This is exactly what Xtianity has always done throughout out history.
Now that evolution has been proven as an indisputable fact, we have scientists (who are Christian) pushing a new kind of theory called theistic evolution. Cant dent evolution anymore? Say god did it! LOL
MrTruthAddict 7 months ago
@MrTruthAddict Cant DENY* evolution
MrTruthAddict 7 months ago
@thewayofthemaster Here is a moral conundrum for christians. You and a friend get caught while you are in the act of stealing, you have a job which requires you to have a clean record. To ensure you aren't fired, your friend takes the fall for you without even asking. Is it morally correct to accept this? Should you be responsible for your own actions? Your friend only wants to help you and ensure your well being, is this right? It's not like he'll be put on the cross right?
cr4ckb4by 5 months ago
@thewayofthemaster Well, Nazi Germany is exactly what happens when Christianity gets a hold of the political apparatus. Hitler was a devout Christian as can be demonstrated by simply reading his writings, including Meine Kampf. It's eerily similar to what you evangelists do on the pulpit. Xtianity has always had a vicious streak of antisemitism running through it. The Christian church supported the regime and indeed celebrated Adolfs birthday every year.
Christianity =psychopathy
MrTruthAddict 7 months ago
@MrTruthAddict
No Nazi Germany is exactly what happens when a power obsessed racist gets into power....NO RELIGION REQUIRED. CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION. Sorry but your posts are full of this fallacy.
177xxxx 7 months ago
@177xxxx Racist? Jews are a religion, not a race. BTW, I studied all the great thinkers that our founders did before founding this nation. The reason they set this nation up as a secular govt is precisely because of what has happened throughout history when religion gets control of the political apparatus. They wanted to set up checks and balances so we didnt get the kind of thing that happened in Germany. We got pretty damn close under the Bush regime though.
MrTruthAddict 7 months ago
@thewayofthemaster What do you mean "if?" Society absolutely does and always has determines morals. When Christians in this country decided to slaughter millions of my people (I'm NA) and steal our land, your society decided it was justified based on YOUR bible. When you enslaved millions of human beings and stole their labor, you used the bible to justify it. When you stole half of Mexico, you used the bible to justify it. (Manifest Destiny)
Christian society has always been relativistic.
MrTruthAddict 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thewayofthemaster You never answered my previous ?s man:
How do you know that it is right to do what God says? How do you demonstrate that doing what God tells you is right is actually right?
Additionally, if God said that rape and incest were right, would it actually be right?
What if he said you should stone homosexuals? Should you stone homosexuals?
How do you determine that God is actually right? What if he said you should commit genocide? How do you determine if that is good?
MrAristotelianattic 4 months ago
@thewayofthemaster... Again - waiting for a response...... Please respond - your chance to win over nonbeliever!
MrAristotelianattic 4 months ago
@chemprify
Also rape and killing arn't wrong according to the OT, I know Christians claim there was no rape, right, they just took the virgins for the sake of it. And all the children killed. I've already read the apologetics arguments for that and their full of roles and downright ridiculous, I think its sick that someone "moral" even writes apologetics for genocide, child-killing (real kids not fetuses without brain activity) and REAL infanticide
redcommander27 8 months ago
@redcommander27 Agreed, read my responses to this moron, OT is the most evil book i've ever seen.
chemprify 8 months ago
Sorry Christians, you don't have a monopoly on morality. Our moral code existed long before your little death cult existed it. You stole your moral code from other religions which came before, which took their code from humanists. Man has an innate sense of right and wrong. Even lower primates have it, this has been demonstrated. The bible is a highly immoral book. Leviticus 20 for starters. As a pastors son Ive head all your phony arguments before, nice try though.
MrTruthAddict 9 months ago
@MrTruthAddict
um first of all you have no proof that religious people stole it from humanists....if they even existed back then...
And secondly who says you have to follow that "innate" moral code just because it's been written into us?
177xxxx 7 months ago
@177xxxx Uh, when was this desert cult invented? 2K yrs ago. Was there anything around before that? Yes, we know that man was on this planet at least 100k years before that. So please. gimme a f'ing break. Xtianity adopted ALL it's ideas from other sources, including the virgin birth, resurrection, etc. ad nauseam.
Perfect example is 'banana man' here telling someone that rape is wrong. Not according to the bible it isnt. Xtianity has simply adopted the moral code of modern society.
MrTruthAddict 7 months ago
@MrTruthAddict
EVERYTHING you said wasn't proof of anything and you are merely making assumptions based off weak "evidence". Respond when you have given solid proof that everything that happened in the bible was false....
177xxxx 7 months ago
@177xxxx I dont have time to educate you here on Youtube.Why dont you go to college and study everything I did,then you wouldnt be asking stupid questions and making dumb assertions.
Start with the Egyptian religions and how they influenced the authors of the Torah and the rest of the bible.
There is NOTHING original about Christianity, it was all stolen from other religions. Anyone who has studied any of this stuff can clearly see the truth about it.
Youre obviously blinded by Xtianity
MrTruthAddict 7 months ago
What a terrible argument. Individuals agree to live in society, and establish codes of conduct. It can be defined by a common faith or by a set of needs and values. One does not have to believe in God to live within the confines of societal moral behavior. After all, God ordered the killing of adulterers. Do we still do that? Should we?
BorgMX5 9 months ago
Was it moral for the soldiers of Joshua to kill the children of Jericho?
bogusnachos 9 months ago
Most of have an internal sense of right and wrong which developed through evolution and is much better than the morality of the bible.
bogusnachos 9 months ago
@bogusnachos oh yes our morals developed thousands and thousands of years gradually over time that's why were are the only species that has morals...."Be ye not as the horse, [or] as the mule, [which] have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee." [Psalm 32:9] Animals have no understanding for what is right or what is wrong. We as humans have a conscience (con=with science=knowledge) therefore we know the difference.
GreatAfricanLion 9 months ago
@GreatAfricanLion Actually, it has been demonstrated that even lower primates like chimps have a sense of morals and they don't like injustice. Our morals are innate. Anyone who says that they didn't know rape and murder were wrong before reading the bible is a sociopath and belongs in jail.
MrTruthAddict 9 months ago
@MrTruthAddict What about those people who have never heard of the Bible nor the laws that live in the far east regions of Africa? Those who not only kill others but eat them (cannabals). I mean are they sociopaths and belong in jail?
GreatAfricanLion 9 months ago
@GreatAfricanLion Most tribal people who practice cannibalism do it for religious reasons. They think they will take in the essence or life force of that person.
Bad people do bad things. It takes religion to make good people do bad things.
MrTruthAddict 9 months ago
Um and what about the people who practice cannibalism solely because they ENJOY IT.....without religion being their motivation?
Sorry but you're doing nothing but generalizing...
Plus you say religion makes people do bad things.....well.....how do you define what is "bad" and what isn't bad?
177xxxx 7 months ago
@177xxxx Okay simpleton, people who eat other people are psychopaths. I know you Christian psychopaths need the bible to tell you which things are bad and good but most of us dont. We know that murder and eating people are bad. Pity you dont unless a fake 'holy book' tells you so.
So if you dont know how to define good and bad, I'd say you were a psychopath. Divine Command theory in Christianity is almost the very definition of psychopathy. A voice tells you what is good so you do it.
MrTruthAddict 7 months ago
@MrTruthAddict
"Anyone who says that they didn't know rape and murder were wrong before reading the bible is a sociopath and belongs in jail"
Why exactly do they belong in jail? Just because YOU happen to not like what they are doing? If you put somebody in jail for rape or murder all you are doing is forcing your OPINION on them.
177xxxx 7 months ago
@177xxxx this is just a retarded statement that doesnt even merit a response
MrTruthAddict 7 months ago
@thewayofthemaster Humans have developed societies and laws within themselves without the belief of any deities. look at the Native Americans, the Incas, or any aboriginal culture. The only downfall they had were when the pilgrims and conquistadors came here and "under the name of god"; because their society wasn't god-fearing, they caused mass genocides and raped many of the natives which nowadays are mestizos and your common Hispanics.
axb25 9 months ago
Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him" isn't jesus christ a man depicted with long hair? even people who believe in the book choose to define what is right or wrong in god's word, so why can't everyone else?
axb25 9 months ago
it is acceptable in the bible to beat children "Proverbs 23:13", it is acceptable in the bible to sell your daughter into slavery "exodus 21 verse 7" ""When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years ...as the men are." it even contradicts it self "Corinthians 11;14
axb25 9 months ago
Additionally, if God said that rape and incest were right, would it actually be right?
What if he said you should stone homosexuals? Should you stone homosexuals?
How do you determine that God is actually right? What if he said you should commit genocide? How do you determine if that is good?
MrAristotelianattic 9 months ago
How do you know that it is right to do what God says? How do you demonstrate that doing what God tells you is right is actually right?
MrAristotelianattic 9 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic
thewayofthemaster:
Please respond to this comment. This question is absolutely essential!
MrAristotelianattic 9 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic All psychopaths just KNOW that what the voice in their head is telling them to do is right and good. Why question that?
MrTruthAddict 7 months ago
@MrTruthAddict I'm a little lost there. Are you being serious or sarcastic?
MrAristotelianattic 5 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic Sure, just adding to your great comment. I doubt bananaman will answer your question. he likes to be in control and put people on the spot with stupid questions like 'have you ever lied?"
MrTruthAddict 5 months ago
@ironboot21
It's not that the people he talks to is stupid. It's that they very deliberately talk to people they know are not prepared to debate. It's the equivolent of a professional boxer grabbing a random kid off the street and fighting them. Maybe if the kid had time to train, maybe he would win, or at least put up a good fight. But these guys are just bullies.
ThePhilosophersAbyss 10 months ago
@ThePhilosophersAbyss Um no, these guys dont "deliberately" talk to unqualified people. Its people who want to challenge the Way of the Master Team, and then get proven wrong. But its not even about getting proven wrong, WOTM is just trying to spread the gospel and svae people's lives. And if you're that concerned, there is a video right next to this one where Mark Spence debates a professor
;)
camthejock 7 months ago 2
@camthejock save peoples lives?? LOL
MrTruthAddict 7 months ago
Ok... but the way he talks to the random speaker. and how he is asking him the questions. its just stupid.. And hes point in the end is that we can't make our own rules. we need to get are rules from god.. But the rules was wrote by men. so that's not god's rules. you can't proove that's its god's rules. That's a fack!
This debate is just really really stupid.... Don't wast your time watching this one...
TheNorthCold 10 months ago
@ironboot21 Humans are naturally moral??? Please give me your "proof" of this. You must live under a rock if you truly believe that.
JohnInTheUSA 10 months ago
@JohnInTheUSA When you're sitting at the dinner table with your family, do you stab your sister in the neck with your fork so she wont get the last piece of meat? Most people won't, because we have an innate sense of right and wrong. If someone needs to tell you that something like that is wrong, you are a psychopath.
MrTruthAddict 7 months ago
This is actually a great discussion ... very socratic , almost the exact as Euthyphro and Meno
shueyk2320 10 months ago
It isn't fair to broadcast an atheist who believes in relativism and then label him "atheist" rather than "relativist". This method suggests that all atheists are necessarily relativists. This simply isn't true.
All philosophies in existence begin with first assumptions. Assumptions. Let me repeat: Assumptions. The Christian assumption is that it is right to obey God. But how do you know that it is right to obey God? That too has no basis. But that's the nature of philosophy.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic It also isn't fair to make this atheist a spokesperson for atheism. He's ignorant.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
this whole subject cannot prove the existence of god. it does not show a single shred of evidence for a divine intelligence that fashioned a universe of 6,000 to 10,000 years old, who created everything in only 6 days.
Macham88 10 months ago
@thewayofthemaster thats probably the most controversial topics thats troubled most scientists. anyways, the majority of theories that explain evolution of morality use darwinian natural selection as the underlying mechanism that enabled the evolution of morality to occur. but who do creationists think they are to come along and pollute science by filling in unknown gaps with a divine unproven creator. theres many things that science can't prove, like flying elephant ferries and pink unicorns.
Macham88 10 months ago
@ironboot21 Yeah I need to see your proof.
1. Was it moral to participate in the holocaust? The Atomic Bombing of Japan in WWII? The Manson Family? The Inquisition? Columbine?
2. The murder of people for a belief system was condoned by society in ancient Rome. Does that mean that murder used to be moral until society decided it wasn't? If Hitler would have claimed exception under the idea that he felt akin to ancient Romans, would he have been moral?
3. Are you the ultimate judge of morality?
chipchuck1 10 months ago
@ironboot21 I would also like to know about this proof.
RefinersFire298 10 months ago
The Bible says its OK to own slaves and to beat them and sell them. No one today believes that. What is the basis for slavery being immoral? Is this moral relativism?
bogusnachos 10 months ago
Shaw you make no sense
lmadigan1971 11 months ago
@ironboot21 This was the argument utilized by the defense at the Nuremberg trials -- they were merely following the lawful orders of their superiors, from a properly constituted governing authority. It didn't fly. They were found guilty, as they should have known what they were doing was wrong, regardless of what their society (Germany under the National Socialists), simply based upon the objective moral law.
ytuseruber 11 months ago
@ironboot21
So Hitler was moral according to you?
bigdaveyb 11 months ago
@discountninjuh
Jesus said that we should treat eachother with love and kindness. Not doing this is going against Jesus. Going against Jesus is going against God. (check the comment below on this one)
diakoniaable 11 months ago
@discountninjuh
"Jesus replied “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” ‘And the second’ he says: “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
diakoniaable 11 months ago
And then Jesus made an interesting comment “The whole Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets, depend, or hang, or stand, on these two commandments.” Love for God and love for one’s neighbour in fact embraces all the specifics of the Ten Commandments,
Jesus made this quite clear when he said, for example, that its not just a matter of not committing murder ; You commit adultery if you look at someone lustfully.
diakoniaable 11 months ago
Wow, Mark Spence is great! (along with all WOTM's)
You should put more up of him.
pursueproverbs31 1 year ago
What atheist have to understand is that we are not arguing about whether they can be moral or do good thing. It is more about how can even know what good or bad is in the first place without a overarching rule or Lawgiver to measure from.
Creationcreed 1 year ago
the society stipulates what good and moral is...nothing more and nothing less. i'm also an atheist and accept the views of believers but i also have to say, that we learn a lot about balancing our action thanks to our parents but not every parents are good and tell us the right things. and beside that, the fact that not every culture has the same definition of what good and moral is, is very important. it's not right to just enforce own ethics to other people...
withmycap 1 year ago
Mark not all books are meant to be palmed around like the Bible.open a book called a dictionary, look up the word morality And let the definition of morality tell you where you should get your morals.You'll be surprised to know that not one definition mentions the word God.also look up the word values. you mention Hitler, in Hitlers mind and in the minds of the people that fallowed him they were in their right mind .just like the U.S is in there right mind to invade certain countries.understand?
a1saouse 1 year ago
wow lol.. these are the kinds of atheists that irritate my brain when watching.. what an ignorant fool!.. "your putting words in my mouth".. Mark repeated his words to the exact letter every time, thats not putting words in your mouth, thats you realizing your stupid!
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
Let's get to the point. Do you believe we're born evil and without Jesus we're not good? Do you have issues knowing the difference between good and bad without Jesus?
cronchin 1 year ago
Good - of a favorable character or tendency... think deep about that definition and it will make sense. Is there anything else you want me to do for you?
cronchin 1 year ago
@cronchin Define a favorable character..be specific
jags018 1 year ago
If you punch yourself, does it hurt? Can you understand another person would feel the same way if you punched another person? So, why would you punch them? Because God says not to?
cronchin 1 year ago
@cronchin Then all you need to do is define good...
jags018 1 year ago
@jags018 Can you explain your context as to what I said before, or just say more because I don't know what you're trying to say with your reply. Thank you.
cronchin 1 year ago
@cronchin please give the definiton of the term good...
jags018 1 year ago
Praise God! This is awesome. I did some evangelism and man I wish I had watched these vids because sometimes I would have no idea how to answer people.
woopersk 1 year ago
Morality does not come from god, Christians are more moral then the very god they worship. when is the last time a christian killed somone for working on the sabbath?God ordered somone stoned to death for collecting sticks on the sabbath, he endorses slaver commits genocide, murder, touture, rape, infanticide, he has she bears rip apart children for taunting a bald man. This is where morality comes from? I think not .People, christians have evolved above this, redefined morality, am I wrong?
groovyengineer 1 year ago
Evolution wouldnt work very well if we ate eachother. If your not killing and rapeing people for no other reason than you dont want to, and find it repulsive, you are a moral person. If you dont kill or rape people because your worried about being punished, or judged by God then you are not a moral person.
groovyengineer 1 year ago
Do you suppose Shaw was closer to God after this exchange? I would say Shaw was closest to God as he stepped up to the microphone. He was, at that moment, a Seeker.... I would say he was farthest from God he had ever been at the end when he stepped away from the mic.
Luvbonnie26 1 year ago
A Christian will never lead a soul to Christ by winning a debate or argument. Be humble, and show love.
Luvbonnie26 1 year ago
Preach the Word logic never saves.The Word the Word the Word where is the Word?
polopowers1 1 year ago
morality come from our society... this guy Mark Spencer is a real jerk.
tulipsontheorgan 1 year ago
@tulipsontheorgan, the laws of society come from people.
akatsu24 1 year ago
@tulipsontheorgan Well who in the society gets to say what is right and what isn't?
lintlikr 1 year ago
Morality comes from what you are taught as a child. But absolute universal moral rights and wrongs come from evolution to benefit the overall survival for the species. Survival of the fittest, but only between opposing species. One species must construct morals that benefit the overall survival and prosperity of the species as a whole.
HaveFaithInScience 1 year ago
I wish Richard Dawkins would take the mic. Arguing with this guy is like arguing with a five year old.
aaronodonnell11 1 year ago
@aaronodonnell11, ah, but richard dawkins is merely a good speaker, it doesn't mean he has any more profound insight towards morals than me and you
akatsu24 1 year ago