You are an absolute breath of fresh air. I am agnostic and stumbled on your video. Much more viewing will I do prior to jumping into comments and discussion. Thank you for posting. :)
To think that you can prove that one morality is superior to another is sheer ignorance. Most religious people will tell you the same thing. Religious people feel that certain things are moral or immoral, but they don't go and try to prove this to others. By trying to prove that your morality is superior to other forms of morality you have missed the entire point of what religion is about. Don't push your beliefs on other people; it just makes you look stupid and full of shit!
That perversion of morality may have emerged in the period of the Enlightment, but it was always kept in check by the power of the Catholic Church. It was after the decline (or demise imo) at the end of the 60's that all (moral) hell broke lose. Without a force to fight it or at least to expose it to large numbers of people, the percursors of the Frankfurt School's plan of destroying society from within won the fight.
Unfortunately for your argument, one can still accept absolute morality and disagree as to what morality is. Ex, multiple denominations of Christianity or another religion entirely.
Also, the eutherphro problem: is that which is good made so because it is loved of god, or is it loved of god because it is good? Why assume that god is even necessary for the existence of and adherence to good?
Lastly, there are so many holes in your argument that I could cut into thin slices and put it on a past
Of course morality will shift over time, we should all hope so. Aren't you glad that women are allowed rights that primitive religions don't allow? Alasdair MacIntyre advocates Aristotelian moral traditions as being in relative agreement with biblical morality. After Virtue, being one of his first books, was criticized immensely by most other contemporary philosophers. There is no Observable connection between religion of any kind and morality
other dimensions, other universes, what really happens in black holes… etc. But that´s only a possibility.
In my opinion, if you, or the author of this book you are citing, make(s) claims (lack of a better word^^) like that we could “use our words wrong”, for example morality, than you or he should probably try to think of a way to find out way to find out whether it´s true or not.
I totally understand that you feel for your fellow men and don´t want their souls to experience eternal torment.
though I have a bone to pick with all those IF-questions.
1. I think you can always ask things like:
“What if I get hit by a car when I go outside?”
(I know dumb example but you get my idea)
We don´t conclude by asking this sort of questions that we shouldn´t leave home forever.
2. I think that it OK to think that there is maybe something that science can´t “detect”. One should always think openly about those things. Maybe mankind or “science” will never find out if there are
@teriiura Evolution is not about becoming more complex, even though it can end up adding complexity with more adaptations. Bacteria are fairly simple, correct? Well, they are extremely successful-- there are certainly more of them than there are humans. Evolution is about what works, not necessarily what is bigger or smarter or braver. Sometimes an environment calls for small size or cowardice. And similarities aren't gleaned so much from the number of chromosomes as the DNA sequence.
@UnspecifiedHumanoid then it is not called evolution,but it is called variation.Like a chihuahua and a great dane.It is not evolution it is variation....the dna code has been scrambled,it hasn't evolved
Why must we accept a package deal of either A) mystical, irrational faith and objective morality, or B) scientific rationality and subjective morality?
There is a third choice: an objective morality based on the standard of man's life. A morality aimed at what is best for man's survival and happiness. A morality of rational selfishness.
I'm a little confused as to why you keep talking about the dao. Do you feel that the dao is on the same level as the bible. I'm not saying you are it just seemed odd that a christian would speak of the dao on the same level as the bible. You referred to it as being an objective morality. Some clarification on that would be nice. Also FYI science give us an objective morality through evolution. That's to complicated to get into here but if you have interest let me know and I will elaborate.
One last observation: We've already reinvented law. You're basically trying to look back on an old system and piece it together, using the words without knowing their meaning, assuming things that were written, exactly like in your example. We're not doing that. We have a fluid and functioning system. We have our own law and we judge people by it. It changes over time, slowly, but it is not subjective or speculative. We know what it is; it knows what it is.
Hypothetical: What if you do something that is completely innocuous and unharmful but "immoral?" What if? What happens then? You're trying to make a philosophical argument for an objective morality, but it is completely dependent upon something that is, for all philosophical purposes, wholly speculative.
You say "the traditional view... predicts that ma will reject the law of God." Doesn't a basic knowledge of human psychology also predict that man will attempt to exert control over others? How do you reconcile your basic observation, with which you support the "Law," with this basic observation that suggests any "Law" may have nothing to do with morality?
We've had a lot of different definitions of science over the aeons. It's all standards and practices, like how you record measurements. And we do use a lot of words that are borrowed from old science, and we don't use them as they were originally used. Some examples: Does anyone here really care why electrons are "negative"? We still use the unit "calorie" but it marks something much different from the original "caloric."
Thank's for coming back Shawn, the other guy was a jerk and blocked me for questioning his logic. I attempted to debate him in a very classy way and my comment was met with a blockage.
I didn't claim it to be "objective" (that's why I used inverted commas), only that it was a default necessity for societies to exist. My point was that it such a standard pre-existed, and religions only tried to capitalize on it.
You fail to realize your "Law" is your own subjective morality which you for some reason believe is objective.
You fail to understand that the "Biblical Law" is subject to personal interpretation. My personal interpretation is that the morality presented in the bible is primitive, unfair and often directly evil.
@Niko1Linni How so what? Is there are question here? How "Biblical Law" in it's various interpreted versions is simply a human-made subjective morality (of serious questionable quality) from a past age we are struggling to leave behind? Is that the question? Do you really need somone to point you to "why and how"?
@KingAsmodeus I actually meant how is it, ". . primitive, unfair, and often directly evil"? I can see your arguments for what you are saying, I just meant what do you see in the bible that makes it primitive unfair and evil?
There will always be standards when people decide to live in societies. For societies to work there has to be laws to make them function - that say for instance you don't just go out and start killing people or steal from people, because if everybody does that there will be chaos. There is a basic "objective default" standard of "right and wrong" that has nothing to do with god, but with how people can function well in a group. The problems arise when members try to work the fine details of it.
But you don't care about what scholars have to say about evidence and its relevence to the bible, do you? That's because you have faith, and there my friend, is the real "moral relativism" at work. I don't respect faith over reason, and I'm in good company, so I'd appreciate it if you stopped shoving your ethical values of faith over reason down others' throats, and stop treating us as amoral ingrates that have "fallen from grace."
I guess I would point you to theoreticalBS' (to avoid profanity) video on morality, where he goes into detail on defining what is right and wrong, and I think you should define your terms before hand, what to you does it mean when something is right and when something is wrong? what is your definition of morality?
In truth, all those who would claim "objective" morality fall very short of their goal. Regardless of the principles invoked, what usually ends up happening is an attempt to justify existing moral codes by claiming objectivity for them.
If we are to be honest with ourselves, then the concepts of good and evil need to be thrown out entirely. They refer to an idea of "natural law" which, frankly, is just absurd. How does one even begin to define "the way humans ought to be"?
@JesusforLife2 Firstly, morality remains contingent on the whims of that very god. As such, there can be no "objective" morality. Secondly, it is not my place to tell others how they "ought" to behave. As long as their behavior does not have a negative impact on the lives of those around them, I can see no reason to question their actions.
@HighestReason So when someone has a negative impact you tell them how they ought to behave. Who are you to question their actions as if they should not do anything that has a negative impact? You answer your own question about how to define the way humans ought to behave by telling them how.
Official != objective. Surely, murder is officially wrong. But, officially, the Universe revolved around the Earth a few thousand years ago. Official just means that it is dictated by authority (morality is authoritative by nature, as is the majority, but authority is in no way "correct" or "objective"). I'm not arguing that we shouldn't kill people, just that there's no intrinsic evil because evil is not quantifiable and does not exist apart from humans. Again, it's an abstraction.
@no The Bible lists it just before beastiality, thats how wicked and abominable it is. Even though there is no verse that specially says thou shall not rape, its not hard to use Biblical principles revealed to find out it is condemned and exegesis of other verses. In Deut. 22:25-28 a rapist is stoned. It is fornication and so is pedohilia thus its wrong and condemned. The bigger problem being who are you to condemn rapist and pedophiles? What standard are you using and where does it come from?
@JesusforLife2 stretch stretch stretch stretch, careful your bible might break Deut, 21:10-14 Deut. 20:10-1 Exodus 21:7 Zechariah 14:1-2 Samuel 15:2-4 etc. etc. Supporting pedos and rapist one verse at a time "who are you to condemn rapist and pedophiles?" because I know people who are victims of both. "What standard are you using and where does it come from?" Modern standards. Wich comes all the way from the laws from the Code of Ur-Nammu, Halakha, Assyrian law,Code of the Nesilim, etc.
@PJDolan1 1) If you read the bible instead of cherry picking you would KNOW women caused the fall of man. And as just punishment became the property of man. Do you not have a right to sell property?
2) When a women is raped, she is defiled in God's eyes. Would you want to marry a non-virgin? The only way she will have a husband is to marry the one who she had sex with. That's why it's moral.
You must turn to Jesus before understanding His Word.
All our problems come from turning from God and His PERFECT WORD.
When America finally rids itself of the atheist demons and the catholic whore-worshipers, and all untrue Christians, America will rid itself of the devil.
Science can't even cure the common cold. Only faith in Jesus cures!
@JesusIsRealTrustMe whatever dude. and for the record "cure the common cold" is something of a misstatement. We have medicines to alleviate the suffering from the common cold, which is a short lived non lethal in most case viral infection
Traditional morality? Conservatives are constantly harkening back to a period of time (the good old days) which never existed. It wasn't long ago that it was considered immoral, and therefore illegal to teach a woman or a black person to read. Of course, as we all know, the bible was used to justify these laws. If the bible is to be used as our moral code, should we quarantine women who are on their period? After all, the bible says they are unclean. Stone our children? The bible is moral?
I can see how exhausting it is trying to keep the faith. You look like you've aged ten years in the last 3. As a pastors son, I can tell you I've been there. I was just like you in my 20's. I wanted to be an evangelist too. It wasn't until I got a little older, did some research on my own and found out the truth about Xtianity, that I woke up. The most liberating day of my life was when I realized that desperately clinging to a belief that made no sense was a ridiculous way to spend my life
Man had a moral code long before your sadomasochistic cult was invented, or should I say, plagiarized from religions which came before it. Religion simply took those morals and claimed them as their own, and then used that to manipulate gullible people. I know its wrong to kill and steal, whether or not it is written in some book of fables written by uneducated sheepherders 2000 years ago. The old testament is the most immoral, depraved, reprobate, and disgusting book ever written.
Morality is defined as "personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society." (wiki)
If God created the world with the humanity as a pinnacle then maybe we can talk about morality being set by God. If not, we should consider also animals and aliens, and, to be universal, morality should fit all of them.
I don't believe God was satisfied with the creation of man and didn't create something better as well.
@wholethinker "If not, we should consider also animals and aliens, and, to be universal, morality should fit all of them." morality does fit them. When we compose a moral edict separating another group for discrimination, we become immoral
@DonatiLaja Note that question becomes even more powerful if you personalize it. For example, is it moral to do so and are you obligated to kill your children because they do not obey you (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) of if you are an atheist are you obligated to do so and is it more to kill yourself (Leviticus 24:16).
Why would the creator of the universe make things as they are and not as they ought to be? Also, many people have come up with objective moral codes without inserting a god. I'll agree though that if your god exists, then we are bound by his framework. I look forward to watching you prove god's existence so that I can become a moral person.
@tacojohn9 God made a perfect world just as it ought to be. God created man with free moral agency, meaning man was given the choice to continue in perfect obedience as God willed, or to deny God and sin. Man sinned, resulting in the "fall of the creation", which is why Jesus had to become a man and die for humanities sins to redeem the race and all creation.
@VenomFangX But why ought men have free moral agency? Why didn't he make us as who we ought to be in the first place? You know, like the way that is acceptable to enter heaven? What about about the people with objective moral codes, who don't believe in god? Why is god coming down and getting himself killed the only option for redemption? How does that even work to redeem us? I don't see a conclusion based on necessity.
@VenomFangX I'm enjoying your new videos (not agreeing with them!), especially when you respond to comments. (hint hint!)
I'd really like to see you respond to the highest rated comments, rather than just the "low hanging fruit" you have responded to so far. In particular the two highly rated comments from the user PJDolan1.
My summary:
1) Slavery is ALWAYS wrong, so what's up with the OT?
2) Slavery WAS okay then but is NOW wrong, so has the standard changed?
@VenomFangX It goes back to the same thing over and over again with you.We have all the reason to believe from archeological and anthropological evidence that the bible (the pentateuch) was written against the backdrop of other creationist myths deriving from polytheistic culture, therefore it is not objective law. It's ironic because it's written by man and therefore dreadfully "moral relativist" because, as you've so cogently said; man alone is uttler incapable of devising a good moral scheme
@VenomFangX Despite your contention, there are plenty of people who don't believe, or believe in other faiths, and who most of us would agree act "morally" despite not having the benefit of the guidance of your deity. Moral codes, whether incorporated in religion or not, are a human construct and have evolved over time, even in your own religion, but obviously not in your own interpretation of it. And your interpretation is nowhere near unanimous even in Christianity.
@tacojohn9 For Evidence, look up Kent Hovind and other Scientific Creationists. Then if you're convinced, go find a good church in your area. (Avoid Catholic Churches, if you can. Their better than nothing though).
@tacojohn9 why would you agree that if God exists, then we are bound by his framework? We're not talking about things he physically prevents us from doing, we're simply talking about things we can do, which he doesn't approve of.
especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.
check out wikipedia i will as well before anyone makes "judgement" or say they know what God wants here is another idea instead of looking into atheist or christianity look into Agonostics..and i am confident once you read up on agnostics maybe it will open up new ideas or opnions..here is very small quote from wikipedia there is a lot more,Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—continued ,sorry for long post but wont fit one post not trying to spam.
If moral subjectivism is true, which I think - maybe I'm wrong - you believe, your judgement of Leviticus or the Bible is meaningless. To what standard are you appealing by judging that slavery is immoral except for your own opinion? Should you admit that slavery is objectively morally wrong, i.e. independently of what people think or believe in specific place or time, then you've just unintendedly made Christian ethics a more reasonable position than secular moral subjectivism.
@Bucklehairy That's a bad argument. You're implying objective morality in your argument for objective morality. To need a standard is to have objective morality -- if he argues subjectivity either you have to argue why objectivity is better or why subjectivity is worse in this instance.
You probably misunderstood my comment. My point was that by asserting that the Bible contains or condones immoral atrocities, you're making a moral evaluation of the Bible and thus applying a moral standard on it, which is either subjective or objective. Now, if moral subjectivism is true, a moral evaluation of the Bible is nothing more than your feelings or opinion about the Bible. It would be the same as saying: Moses' hair style is awful or Moses' clothing is out of fashion.
@Bucklehairy --To what standard are you appealing by judging that slavery is immoral except for your own opinion?--
Slavery is not immoral. Look what happened when we freed the slaves. Are their lives better? Did they become better people? NO. Is our country better with freed slaves running around without their God Appointed stewards keeping them safe? NO.
You cannot claim the bible as the source for objective morality. If you think the Old Testament laws were done away with, do you also throw out the 10 commandments? If you decide to keep the 10 commandments, then remember that slavery is approved in commandments 4 & 10. If you believe that the morality of God changes, then you don't believe in objective morality. Even if he changed, the slavery, genocide, and sexism of the OT were still wrong. On ANY definition of morality, the bible is fails.
@PJDolan1 Indeed, slavery is never condemned in the Bible; it's only sanctioned (Ephesians 6:5-8)
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people."
I cited this just incase anyone wanted to bring up the "But that's the OT!" argument.
Objective morality has you fallowing a code for no good reason: Why is murder bad? God said so! Why is stealing bad? God said so! What is the punishment for either (without grace?) Eternal Hell! When I am thinking about morality I think: Is this action bad for society and is it so bad that it should be outlawed and thus restrict personal freedom? Everyone's opinion is different, that is why democracy is good yet tedious (lots of bickering)
@PJDolan1 can't take stuff out of context. slavery isn't the same as we know as then. even the slave was under the His eyes. And they were to be treated with respect. Given rest and released for His sabbath. in the seventh year they could be released unless it was their desire to remain with their master. "For you were once slaves , remember this." He even reminds the master you were once a slave at one time remember your burden. dont do unto yours what was done to you.
@deltaalphacharlie What a burden it must be to feel you have to defend the Bible. Here you are defending the practice of one human being owning another, saying it was somehow "different" in those times. What nonsense! How is it possible to treat a slave with "respect" when you OWN the slave, deprive him of his freedom, and control his fate. What could be more disrespectful? There is no "context" that makes slavery moral, and your Bible (and moral standard) supports this evil institution.
Venom, I see you've already removed one of my comments.
Please pause for a moment to consider the irony of removing a comment from someone who is merely quoting passages from the book you claim to be "the objective moral code" and challenging you to explain how those passages fit into that "objective moral code".
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
Morality is a question of philosophy, not science. Science cannot relate universal absolutes. The truth is that your bias, whether you believe in God, decides your morality. The question is what does one who does not believe in God base their morality on. All answers to this question are relative. The standard that God creates in the law is based on His character. This is a standard which He Himself follows. Yes He created the standard, but He is not man. He doesn't say oops! The Holy Spirit te
Okay, your content and personality has changed radically in the last year. Very interesting videos even if I disagree with a lot of what you are saying.
You did a fantastic job articulating your position, I hope people come away realizing that these videos are a chance for thoughtful reflection, not an argument. Thanks for the great talk Shawn.
I guess my point is, you might be right that there's an objective moral standard. You might even be right that that standard is a god (though I don't see how - morals that come from the mind of a god are still subjective by definition). There's even an outside chance that it's your particular conception of God.
Fact is, though, it doesn't matter if you're right, because an objective standard for morality is redundant these days. Being right about it would be literally meaningless.
Just curious... How would you go about disproving that an objective moral standard exists?
Also, how would you distinguish between morals that everyone agrees upon (that is, a universal subjective moral standard) and a legitimately objective standard?
And granting for a second that there is such an objective standard, doesn't it become a subjective standard when we use our minds to decide to stick to it or not?
Quite the opposite, it says that we should look to our true selves, the inner part of humanity that isn't tainted with mechanations of body and mind, to use as the pattern, rather than any objective standard. The objective standard is this actual fact.
It's these reasons why I really don't accept any type of objective morality, since it really does imply that all people are the same when I very much believe that they aren't.
As a Taoist, I can't disagree more with your use of the word Tao and comparing it to the properties you mentioned of man. If anything, it is the exact opposite of those things. The Tao shows the pattern of heaven, but not what is knitted. Specifically, the Tao accepts that people are diverse, and that the pattern and path of life is not the same for all people. If it were, that'd be a lot easier!
@SeasonsCurse It is up to the believer, not me, to explain how these heinous passages fit into the Bible's "objective moral code". Making this claim, while cherry picking just the pleasing passages, is intellectually lazy and dishonest. I am well aware that there are many positive moral teachings in the Bible. However, claiming the Bible is the objective moral code invites the burden of explaining the entire book, not just your favorite passages.
Exodus 21:7-11 Continued... "And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."
Most Christians cherry pick verses that conform to your personal morality, and ignore (or explain away) the rest. This is far from an "objective moral standard".
If the Bible is the objective moral standard, how do we interpret Deuteronomy 22:28-29?
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
While I agree that there might be merit to the concept of telos and that it isn't (at least partially) subject to scientific inquiry (after all, who would claim that there is a metta-particle?), I also believe that (if there is some measure of benevolence towards us in the universe) it must be discoverable by everybody for himself, without any external guidepost, and that every external source might just as much be a distraction from the search for telos as much as it might be a help.
Yes, this is what I've been telling people for a while now. Morality does have a basis. Morals must have come from somewhere or else right and wrong would not exist in a moral sense. But we all know that right and wrong do exist.
No Sean science does not depend on terms such as biology rather it depends on a methodology. By the way we do have a group of people who hate science, they are called Christians. You can not base an augment based of the truth of the bible, without proving it to be. The I am running out of time bit is a smoke screen the truth is you WONT because you CANT
How can everyone agree to call a car a car? How can everyone agree to stay on one side of the road? By arguing that morality must be a set of rules given by your god, you have to argue that ALL conventions must be a set of rules given by your god because they follow the same "problem" of agreement. The issue is, most people agree to stay on one side of the road, just as most people agree to call a car a car -- your god hasn't told anyone to do any of those things.
@TheReligionLie The issue is not that people can agree or disagree on morality. The issue is, on what basis do we know to agree with certain moral claims or not? If it is just a free-for-all, then morality is nonsense.
@VenomFangX I'm not sure whether I agree with that dichotomy. I have a pretty bad headache, though, so I'm going to bed for now. I'll respond completely tomorrow. Sorry.
@VenomFangX that is false! do you really believe that people who believe in science rather than god think that morality is nonsense? "what if that law of god actually exists" man what a bunch of crazy stuff you spout! you see things in black and white, shaun. no book, penned be god or not will ever be able to control man as he is. we have to police ourselves. god is not a police officer.
also: supernova is a word that only dates back to 1926 and it was coined by an astronomer.
It comes down to the question of "what IS morality?" Is it solely concerned with how we obey the words of someone who claims to have authority (see Christian god, emperor, etc.)? Or is it concerned with the well-being and suffering of others? If it's the former, then morality is arbitrary because God could literally command whatever he wanted and make it moral. If it's the latter, then we do know something about well-being and happiness and can make choices regarding those issues.
@VenomFangX This is the most fallicious video you have ever made. It is seriously worst than the time that you claimed thar chemical evolution was imposssible. In order to understand objectivity morality, you must first understand the moral object divide. The enlightment decided that anything based upon reason was objective and anything based upon faith is subjective. TRADITIONAL MORALITY WAS SUBJECTIVE FOR THIS VERY REASON. The enlightment didn't destroy objectivity but infact created it.
@VenomFangX The movement you are thinking of is extentientalism. Your christian morality also fails to be objective as it fails the euthyro question. That is that christianity fails to create a standard of morality that even the gods are bound by. YHWH completely disobeys his own commandments on a wimsicle basis. Thous shall no kill- let's destory sodom etc. You will argue that a greater good was being achieved by these actions, but thats excatly how a moral subjectivist argues
@VenomFangX Since there is no standard of morality YHWH is held accoutable to, your morality is subjective. These morals are nothing moral that glorified commands that are subjective in their nature.
@VenomFangX Morality doesn't come from books, in this case the Bible, or anyone telling you what to do. There is a great difference between being moral without needing any moral code from the Bible or whatsoever and being moral because someone or something has told you that you are inmoral and, therefore, you need some kind of basis to be in the right side. The differences between these sides are too many to be enumerated here.
So, there is no need to have moral basis because your Bible tells you. For example, the Bible is full of violence, hatred, assassinations, and the biblical god is alwayas commanding to punish his people. You can read Leviticus or Deuteronomy and see that the morality presented on these pages is based in sacrifices, wars, and so on. As your morality which you are so proud of says that you should kill someone for working on Sabbath, I think no one should follow this cruel morality.
@VenomFangX If a person decides that it's worthwhile to behave in a specific fashion, then they will act in that fashion and give that way of acting meaning to themselves. Whether that is agreed upon or not is irrelevant. I could choose not to act in a specific fashion whether the fashion is objectively correct or just another person's opinion.
@VenomFangX I think your definition of nonsense implies that meaning is objective and universal. By using the definition of nonsense you just used, you implied objectivity in an argument for objectivity -- this is a form of circular reasoning.
If I argue that meaning is a human defined construct, then I can argue meaning is given by what people find to be goal-worthy and important; this is akin to subjectivism.
I'm not sure whether you gave a valid attack on my argument.
Good video. It's funny how throughout history, every culture has had nearly the exact same moral principles embedded in them. Coincidence? I don't think so.
@necr0sys That's because the ones that don't are less efficient and die out...
Cultures with no moral principle regarding say.... stealing, would not strive as well as the culture that opposed stealing.
And since stealing is universally bad for societies, this trait is "embedded" among every culture as the former would die out quickly while the latter stays with the exact same moral principle.
And this is just one of the natural factors that make them all seem similar.
@necr0sys Haha... Take a look at Hindu marriages and tell me that they are anything like your idea of "traditional marriage." Some Hindus marry animals because they believe that they're old husbands that have reincarnated. Take a look at eastern religion in general -- it's so foreign to western notions of religion that claiming consistency is a mistake. And it's not some small number either. A sizable portion of the world practices Hinduism or Buddhism.
@TheReligionLie If they want to marry a rat because they think it's a former lover go ahead. What I'm talking about are things like rape, murder, stealing etc.
@TheReligionLie The problem is that if there is a God, there can only be one true religion/faith. There are certain things that are less obvious to the human conscience, or perhaps have been desensitized over time which allow people to go against their natural God given moral compass with much ease. But there are certain things which are definite moral abominations I mentioned earlier which to any human being regardless of their cultural background would find wrong. The example of the rat cont
@TheReligionLie cont was a bad one...you are right in saying that all sins are equally bad in God's eyes....the problem we have is that there is mass deception going on, people will do certain things according to their religion based on culture and also sway of society. Over time people have become used to norm of doing things and have slowly been numbed to what is actually right and wrong.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. (KJV) John 3:19
Is so sad that people cannot understand something so basic but true Christians know the real reason why people don't accept the TRUE GOD of the Bible and that's because they freely chose to live a life of sin. People find temporal pleasure in that kind of life but they are truly empty and condemned living a Godless life, serving a fake god.
Now, for people who will then ask "how do you know that Hitler was evil?" I will ask "how do you know that a computer is a computer?" To claim the word "computer" refers to some object leads to the response "not all computers are the same, but they're still all called computers."
Based on my previous argument, morality cannot be learned if it's objective. It can be innately known, or not known. If you argue that it is innately known, you are arguing that there is an infinite amount of information that is innately known.
I challenge you to describe a tree, completely. Describe every single detail about it. Take your time -- you'll need an infinite amount of it. To claim objectivity is to claim that something is akin to that tree. The notion that something objective can be communicated with words is absurd because language cannot describe any object completely; language can only generalize. Generalization results in something abstract, which implies subjectivity. "Objective statement" is a contradiction of terms.
We are societal animals, tribal so to say. This forms the basis(standard) of human morality. It also forms the idea of justice. It's our empathy(mirror neurons) for other humans in whatever scenario it may be, we seek judgment/punishment/justice to wrongdoers. Empathy is a subjective emotion. it differs according to our relationships with people; those we hold emotional bonds to(couple this with the idea of homosexuality) then to other members of the 'tribe', and finally to outsiders.
AKA - Put pants on if you're in the arctic. Going down to religion about hiding such things, we're stepping in dangerous water. For one, we all know that hurting one another is wrong. So - if we see someone punch another - that's bad. If we see a Muslim hit his wife - it's still bad even though their religion says it is okay. It is quite unfortunate Islam claims to follow the same God of Christianity, because it is contrary to what Scripture says on that. So, getting out of this loop
be a part of our diet. However, as humans, we have a choice of what we want to do, unlike most animals. Ever seen an animal go - "Berries or Salmon right by one another." Animals go for whatever is best. Humans are one of the only species who can deliberately starve themselves on a whim, and not have instincts take over. Nature can explain about hiding skin too, unfortunately. Stand out in your environment with or without clothes, see the result. If it is negative, change the equation.
@lightbrownpoop Xtianity has historically been transmitted generationally by parents raising children in their religion, giving the children no choice in the matter. Thus the bible has spread along w/ the religion by force, plain & simple. As for impact, the I Ching, the Analects of Confucius, the Tao te Ching, the works of Aristotle, Plato, Herodotus, Euclid, Virgil, William Shakespeare, Homer, Spinoza, Hume, Voltaire, Paine, Darwin, & many more have had profound effect throughout history.
The main stream media is not Christian. The public schools are not Christian but that doesn't stop my tax dollars from funding them. If a single penny of taxes went to fund Christian schools their would be riots in the streets tomorrow. The world is not Christian, yet the world finds it necessary to shove their beliefs down my throat and the throat of Christians. Christian beliefs, morals and practices are not permitted in society in any shape or form.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?
If you have a moral theory that nobody pays attention to, do you really have a moral theory?
Since everybody disagrees on what the absolute moral standard theory should be, the only sensible moral theory is tautological, that which the majority thinks is moral, is moral. If the majority think that rape is moral, then the minority can influence society to make rape immoral. The key is flexibility
These objective morals are transcendent. They just exist. We only discover them. They exist as 2+2=4 exists. If there are no minds, then they stop. When there are minds they manifest and have absolutely nothing to do with some invisible, inter-dimensional conscious observer that there is absolutely zero evidence for.
I believe there are objective morals, but it is logically impossible for there to be a God that has power over them. I decide what morals are subjective and object. For instance. Slavery has always been wrong and will never be moral. The owning of another person is objective. It doesn't matter if society accepted them at one time or will in the future. Society, through progressing, discovered this objective morality. The objective morals we discover is a tribute to the struggle of humanity.
If God created morals then morality is subjective and arbitrary because God can change them at anytime. If morals are objective, then God has no power to change them is not omnipotent because those morals would exist weather He does or not and He would not have sovereignty over them and God would not have freedom of will. There's no way around this and Plato debunked the possibility of gods dictating objective morality with his euthyphro dilemma 400 years before christianity.
@Liverhawk25 It's crystal clear about the fact that Jesus died for our sins and if we believe in him we'll live with him forever, about the fact that we are to put no one before God and about the fact that we should love our neighbor as ourself. That is what is most important. I'm not saying the other stuff isn't, and I'm certainly not agreeing with you on the subject of the Bible not being clear. I'm just syaing that for anyone questioning, the Bible makes those things crystal clear.
If evolutionism is true, then y do we still have all this "morality" around us? Does it really have anything to DO with evolutionism?
The truth of the matter is, u can't have morality without Christian morality; u can't have Christian morality without Christianity; u can't have Christianity without the Bible; & u certainly can't have the Bible without Genesis 1 to 11! Morality has changed from absolute authority to human opinion. From "because G-d sez so" to "because it's not nice."
People are always born with a clear already-installed G-d-given conscience – rightly governing what is right & wrong. It is human nature to abhor & dislike what is obviously bad & evil. But coming to knowing JESUS is when u really get it right.
I would like to add that theology in and of itself, with all the waring and pitted opposition and slavery and other atrocities that cannot be simply pushed aside as not what they really seem, do not make for any kind of reasonable source for morals. A christian can be good or bad just as an atheist can be good or bad and nothing whatsoever sets the two apart except for the christian claim to forgiveness.
You're argument seems to boil down to the same bottom line as ever; morals can not exist without god's rules because man in his ever imperfect form could not come up with them him self and natural selection only allows for caring for ones kind. I disagree, many examples exist in nature where one species cares for another, including humans caring for dogs and dogs caring for pigs. We have in us, imperfectly placed but still undeniable, a caring heart as well as a waring heart.
Americans/Christians...
Emperor470 5 days ago
You are an absolute breath of fresh air. I am agnostic and stumbled on your video. Much more viewing will I do prior to jumping into comments and discussion. Thank you for posting. :)
0NGLIGHTS 1 month ago
To think that you can prove that one morality is superior to another is sheer ignorance. Most religious people will tell you the same thing. Religious people feel that certain things are moral or immoral, but they don't go and try to prove this to others. By trying to prove that your morality is superior to other forms of morality you have missed the entire point of what religion is about. Don't push your beliefs on other people; it just makes you look stupid and full of shit!
VitalSigns1 1 month ago
That perversion of morality may have emerged in the period of the Enlightment, but it was always kept in check by the power of the Catholic Church. It was after the decline (or demise imo) at the end of the 60's that all (moral) hell broke lose. Without a force to fight it or at least to expose it to large numbers of people, the percursors of the Frankfurt School's plan of destroying society from within won the fight.
theantisauronist 8 months ago
Keep it up and be blessed mr. Fangx
-Gbu-
LMR5878 8 months ago
*a pastrami sandwich
Ihopyourpancakes 10 months ago
Unfortunately for your argument, one can still accept absolute morality and disagree as to what morality is. Ex, multiple denominations of Christianity or another religion entirely.
Also, the eutherphro problem: is that which is good made so because it is loved of god, or is it loved of god because it is good? Why assume that god is even necessary for the existence of and adherence to good?
Lastly, there are so many holes in your argument that I could cut into thin slices and put it on a past
Ihopyourpancakes 10 months ago
Of course morality will shift over time, we should all hope so. Aren't you glad that women are allowed rights that primitive religions don't allow? Alasdair MacIntyre advocates Aristotelian moral traditions as being in relative agreement with biblical morality. After Virtue, being one of his first books, was criticized immensely by most other contemporary philosophers. There is no Observable connection between religion of any kind and morality
Ither1 10 months ago
I saw some of your paintings in one of your videos there very good...Do you use them for the background of your videos?
XGailoftheblackArtX 11 months ago
I understand it because for me it´s the other way around. I don´t want them to throw away their precious lifetime or their happiness.
All in all, I think it´s very important that people like you and me continue to talk and have a conversation.
mathiaspaul1987 1 year ago
other dimensions, other universes, what really happens in black holes… etc. But that´s only a possibility.
In my opinion, if you, or the author of this book you are citing, make(s) claims (lack of a better word^^) like that we could “use our words wrong”, for example morality, than you or he should probably try to think of a way to find out way to find out whether it´s true or not.
I totally understand that you feel for your fellow men and don´t want their souls to experience eternal torment.
mathiaspaul1987 1 year ago
Interesting vid,
though I have a bone to pick with all those IF-questions.
1. I think you can always ask things like:
“What if I get hit by a car when I go outside?”
(I know dumb example but you get my idea)
We don´t conclude by asking this sort of questions that we shouldn´t leave home forever.
2. I think that it OK to think that there is maybe something that science can´t “detect”. One should always think openly about those things. Maybe mankind or “science” will never find out if there are
mathiaspaul1987 1 year ago
Read Nietzsche.
alifeofreason 1 year ago
@teriiura Evolution is not about becoming more complex, even though it can end up adding complexity with more adaptations. Bacteria are fairly simple, correct? Well, they are extremely successful-- there are certainly more of them than there are humans. Evolution is about what works, not necessarily what is bigger or smarter or braver. Sometimes an environment calls for small size or cowardice. And similarities aren't gleaned so much from the number of chromosomes as the DNA sequence.
UnspecifiedHumanoid 1 year ago
@UnspecifiedHumanoid then it is not called evolution,but it is called variation.Like a chihuahua and a great dane.It is not evolution it is variation....the dna code has been scrambled,it hasn't evolved
teriiura 1 year ago
Why must we accept a package deal of either A) mystical, irrational faith and objective morality, or B) scientific rationality and subjective morality?
There is a third choice: an objective morality based on the standard of man's life. A morality aimed at what is best for man's survival and happiness. A morality of rational selfishness.
jonathanaconway 1 year ago
This idea/argument is copied almost word for word from C.S. Lewis' Abolition of Man. I took a class on him at Oxford.
bigsurwander12 1 year ago
I'm a little confused as to why you keep talking about the dao. Do you feel that the dao is on the same level as the bible. I'm not saying you are it just seemed odd that a christian would speak of the dao on the same level as the bible. You referred to it as being an objective morality. Some clarification on that would be nice. Also FYI science give us an objective morality through evolution. That's to complicated to get into here but if you have interest let me know and I will elaborate.
dpdelve 1 year ago
One last observation: We've already reinvented law. You're basically trying to look back on an old system and piece it together, using the words without knowing their meaning, assuming things that were written, exactly like in your example. We're not doing that. We have a fluid and functioning system. We have our own law and we judge people by it. It changes over time, slowly, but it is not subjective or speculative. We know what it is; it knows what it is.
klutterkicker 1 year ago
Hypothetical: What if you do something that is completely innocuous and unharmful but "immoral?" What if? What happens then? You're trying to make a philosophical argument for an objective morality, but it is completely dependent upon something that is, for all philosophical purposes, wholly speculative.
klutterkicker 1 year ago
Where do you get your concept that science cannot detect certain things which do exist?
klutterkicker 1 year ago
You say "the traditional view... predicts that ma will reject the law of God." Doesn't a basic knowledge of human psychology also predict that man will attempt to exert control over others? How do you reconcile your basic observation, with which you support the "Law," with this basic observation that suggests any "Law" may have nothing to do with morality?
klutterkicker 1 year ago
We've had a lot of different definitions of science over the aeons. It's all standards and practices, like how you record measurements. And we do use a lot of words that are borrowed from old science, and we don't use them as they were originally used. Some examples: Does anyone here really care why electrons are "negative"? We still use the unit "calorie" but it marks something much different from the original "caloric."
klutterkicker 1 year ago
One thing missing is that science isn't an objective way to know. There is also logical deductive reasoning.
comradesteve1990 1 year ago
Thank's for coming back Shawn, the other guy was a jerk and blocked me for questioning his logic. I attempted to debate him in a very classy way and my comment was met with a blockage.
suckmejagon 1 year ago
I didn't claim it to be "objective" (that's why I used inverted commas), only that it was a default necessity for societies to exist. My point was that it such a standard pre-existed, and religions only tried to capitalize on it.
kirindechu 1 year ago
You fail to realize your "Law" is your own subjective morality which you for some reason believe is objective.
You fail to understand that the "Biblical Law" is subject to personal interpretation. My personal interpretation is that the morality presented in the bible is primitive, unfair and often directly evil.
KingAsmodeus 1 year ago
@KingAsmodeus How so, King?
Niko1Linni 1 year ago
@Niko1Linni How so what? Is there are question here? How "Biblical Law" in it's various interpreted versions is simply a human-made subjective morality (of serious questionable quality) from a past age we are struggling to leave behind? Is that the question? Do you really need somone to point you to "why and how"?
KingAsmodeus 1 year ago
@KingAsmodeus I actually meant how is it, ". . primitive, unfair, and often directly evil"? I can see your arguments for what you are saying, I just meant what do you see in the bible that makes it primitive unfair and evil?
Niko1Linni 1 year ago
There will always be standards when people decide to live in societies. For societies to work there has to be laws to make them function - that say for instance you don't just go out and start killing people or steal from people, because if everybody does that there will be chaos. There is a basic "objective default" standard of "right and wrong" that has nothing to do with god, but with how people can function well in a group. The problems arise when members try to work the fine details of it.
kirindechu 1 year ago
lol u back lost jessie woodrow atleast got u back
Darcy137 1 year ago
But you don't care about what scholars have to say about evidence and its relevence to the bible, do you? That's because you have faith, and there my friend, is the real "moral relativism" at work. I don't respect faith over reason, and I'm in good company, so I'd appreciate it if you stopped shoving your ethical values of faith over reason down others' throats, and stop treating us as amoral ingrates that have "fallen from grace."
WSilva832 1 year ago
I guess I would point you to theoreticalBS' (to avoid profanity) video on morality, where he goes into detail on defining what is right and wrong, and I think you should define your terms before hand, what to you does it mean when something is right and when something is wrong? what is your definition of morality?
thank you
xMarchx31stx 1 year ago
In truth, all those who would claim "objective" morality fall very short of their goal. Regardless of the principles invoked, what usually ends up happening is an attempt to justify existing moral codes by claiming objectivity for them.
If we are to be honest with ourselves, then the concepts of good and evil need to be thrown out entirely. They refer to an idea of "natural law" which, frankly, is just absurd. How does one even begin to define "the way humans ought to be"?
HighestReason 1 year ago
@HighestReason With God, there's a great book on it.
XHAWK77X 1 year ago
@HighestReason Remember that when you tell others how they ought to behave.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Firstly, morality remains contingent on the whims of that very god. As such, there can be no "objective" morality. Secondly, it is not my place to tell others how they "ought" to behave. As long as their behavior does not have a negative impact on the lives of those around them, I can see no reason to question their actions.
HighestReason 1 year ago
@HighestReason So when someone has a negative impact you tell them how they ought to behave. Who are you to question their actions as if they should not do anything that has a negative impact? You answer your own question about how to define the way humans ought to behave by telling them how.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
morality can't be subjective.
If morals are relative/subjective, then they apply to everyone.
subjective moralisty becomes universal
relatives are not the same as universals
Therefore - subjective morality can't exist
sukka113 1 year ago
ah. I meant *I'm not arguing that we should kill people.
jaykgrey 1 year ago
Official != objective. Surely, murder is officially wrong. But, officially, the Universe revolved around the Earth a few thousand years ago. Official just means that it is dictated by authority (morality is authoritative by nature, as is the majority, but authority is in no way "correct" or "objective"). I'm not arguing that we shouldn't kill people, just that there's no intrinsic evil because evil is not quantifiable and does not exist apart from humans. Again, it's an abstraction.
jaykgrey 1 year ago
Thank you for equating Homosexuality with rape and Pedophilia
yet ironicly, the bible dosen't condem rape and pedophilia
noccie 1 year ago
@no The Bible lists it just before beastiality, thats how wicked and abominable it is. Even though there is no verse that specially says thou shall not rape, its not hard to use Biblical principles revealed to find out it is condemned and exegesis of other verses. In Deut. 22:25-28 a rapist is stoned. It is fornication and so is pedohilia thus its wrong and condemned. The bigger problem being who are you to condemn rapist and pedophiles? What standard are you using and where does it come from?
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
noccie 1 year ago
@PJDolan1 1) If you read the bible instead of cherry picking you would KNOW women caused the fall of man. And as just punishment became the property of man. Do you not have a right to sell property?
2) When a women is raped, she is defiled in God's eyes. Would you want to marry a non-virgin? The only way she will have a husband is to marry the one who she had sex with. That's why it's moral.
You must turn to Jesus before understanding His Word.
JesusIsRealTrustMe 1 year ago
@JesusIsRealTrustMe
"Would you want to marry a non-virgin?"
Do you actually think that you will/had married a virgin?
How would you know if she was still a virgin? Because she said so?
obaeyens 1 year ago
@obaeyens "How would you know if she was still a virgin? Because she said so?"
If she says she is and there's no blood, then she's a liar.
JesusIsRealTrustMe 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JesusIsRealTrustMe
"If she says she is and there's no blood, then she's a liar."
You apparently have never heard of tricks to fake it?
Many religious women go to hospitals to restore it in order to pretend that they are still virgin.
obaeyens 1 year ago
All our problems come from turning from God and His PERFECT WORD.
When America finally rids itself of the atheist demons and the catholic whore-worshipers, and all untrue Christians, America will rid itself of the devil.
Science can't even cure the common cold. Only faith in Jesus cures!
JesusIsRealTrustMe 1 year ago
@JesusIsRealTrustMe whatever dude. and for the record "cure the common cold" is something of a misstatement. We have medicines to alleviate the suffering from the common cold, which is a short lived non lethal in most case viral infection
salitica 1 year ago
Traditional morality? Conservatives are constantly harkening back to a period of time (the good old days) which never existed. It wasn't long ago that it was considered immoral, and therefore illegal to teach a woman or a black person to read. Of course, as we all know, the bible was used to justify these laws. If the bible is to be used as our moral code, should we quarantine women who are on their period? After all, the bible says they are unclean. Stone our children? The bible is moral?
MrTruthAddict 1 year ago
I can see how exhausting it is trying to keep the faith. You look like you've aged ten years in the last 3. As a pastors son, I can tell you I've been there. I was just like you in my 20's. I wanted to be an evangelist too. It wasn't until I got a little older, did some research on my own and found out the truth about Xtianity, that I woke up. The most liberating day of my life was when I realized that desperately clinging to a belief that made no sense was a ridiculous way to spend my life
MrTruthAddict 1 year ago
Man had a moral code long before your sadomasochistic cult was invented, or should I say, plagiarized from religions which came before it. Religion simply took those morals and claimed them as their own, and then used that to manipulate gullible people. I know its wrong to kill and steal, whether or not it is written in some book of fables written by uneducated sheepherders 2000 years ago. The old testament is the most immoral, depraved, reprobate, and disgusting book ever written.
MrTruthAddict 1 year ago
Morality is defined as "personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society." (wiki)
If God created the world with the humanity as a pinnacle then maybe we can talk about morality being set by God. If not, we should consider also animals and aliens, and, to be universal, morality should fit all of them.
I don't believe God was satisfied with the creation of man and didn't create something better as well.
wholethinker 1 year ago
@wholethinker "If not, we should consider also animals and aliens, and, to be universal, morality should fit all of them." morality does fit them. When we compose a moral edict separating another group for discrimination, we become immoral
salitica 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if you were 100% sure your god commanded you to kill someone: would you do it? and would it be the right thing for you to do?
DonatiLaja 1 year ago
@DonatiLaja Note that question becomes even more powerful if you personalize it. For example, is it moral to do so and are you obligated to kill your children because they do not obey you (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) of if you are an atheist are you obligated to do so and is it more to kill yourself (Leviticus 24:16).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
Why would the creator of the universe make things as they are and not as they ought to be? Also, many people have come up with objective moral codes without inserting a god. I'll agree though that if your god exists, then we are bound by his framework. I look forward to watching you prove god's existence so that I can become a moral person.
tacojohn9 1 year ago
@tacojohn9 God made a perfect world just as it ought to be. God created man with free moral agency, meaning man was given the choice to continue in perfect obedience as God willed, or to deny God and sin. Man sinned, resulting in the "fall of the creation", which is why Jesus had to become a man and die for humanities sins to redeem the race and all creation.
VenomFangX 1 year ago
@VenomFangX But why ought men have free moral agency? Why didn't he make us as who we ought to be in the first place? You know, like the way that is acceptable to enter heaven? What about about the people with objective moral codes, who don't believe in god? Why is god coming down and getting himself killed the only option for redemption? How does that even work to redeem us? I don't see a conclusion based on necessity.
tacojohn9 1 year ago
@VenomFangX I'm enjoying your new videos (not agreeing with them!), especially when you respond to comments. (hint hint!)
I'd really like to see you respond to the highest rated comments, rather than just the "low hanging fruit" you have responded to so far. In particular the two highly rated comments from the user PJDolan1.
My summary:
1) Slavery is ALWAYS wrong, so what's up with the OT?
2) Slavery WAS okay then but is NOW wrong, so has the standard changed?
3) Slavery is okay, even now.
skevosmavros 1 year ago
@skevosmavros
Jezuzfreek777 thinks slavery is okay with God's guidance from godly principles. He said as much on Stickam last week.
GodAImighty 1 year ago
@VenomFangX Define perfect.
fireeyedb0y 1 year ago
@VenomFangX It goes back to the same thing over and over again with you.We have all the reason to believe from archeological and anthropological evidence that the bible (the pentateuch) was written against the backdrop of other creationist myths deriving from polytheistic culture, therefore it is not objective law. It's ironic because it's written by man and therefore dreadfully "moral relativist" because, as you've so cogently said; man alone is uttler incapable of devising a good moral scheme
WSilva832 1 year ago
@VenomFangX Now go have fun arguing with biblical scholars that the pentateuch was written by Moses.
WSilva832 1 year ago
@VenomFangX Despite your contention, there are plenty of people who don't believe, or believe in other faiths, and who most of us would agree act "morally" despite not having the benefit of the guidance of your deity. Moral codes, whether incorporated in religion or not, are a human construct and have evolved over time, even in your own religion, but obviously not in your own interpretation of it. And your interpretation is nowhere near unanimous even in Christianity.
dredesch 1 year ago
@tacojohn9 For Evidence, look up Kent Hovind and other Scientific Creationists. Then if you're convinced, go find a good church in your area. (Avoid Catholic Churches, if you can. Their better than nothing though).
XHAWK77X 1 year ago
@tacojohn9 why would you agree that if God exists, then we are bound by his framework? We're not talking about things he physically prevents us from doing, we're simply talking about things we can do, which he doesn't approve of.
Chameleon41 1 year ago
@PJDolan1 Sounds like a good moral plan to me! o.o
mythicalhell 1 year ago
especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.
johndebbra 1 year ago
check out wikipedia i will as well before anyone makes "judgement" or say they know what God wants here is another idea instead of looking into atheist or christianity look into Agonostics..and i am confident once you read up on agnostics maybe it will open up new ideas or opnions..here is very small quote from wikipedia there is a lot more,Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—continued ,sorry for long post but wont fit one post not trying to spam.
johndebbra 1 year ago
Great video, thanks for the info & God bless,
Harry.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@ainefairygoddess
Red herring.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@PJDolan1
If moral subjectivism is true, which I think - maybe I'm wrong - you believe, your judgement of Leviticus or the Bible is meaningless. To what standard are you appealing by judging that slavery is immoral except for your own opinion? Should you admit that slavery is objectively morally wrong, i.e. independently of what people think or believe in specific place or time, then you've just unintendedly made Christian ethics a more reasonable position than secular moral subjectivism.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy That's a bad argument. You're implying objective morality in your argument for objective morality. To need a standard is to have objective morality -- if he argues subjectivity either you have to argue why objectivity is better or why subjectivity is worse in this instance.
TheReligionLie 1 year ago
@TheReligionLie
You probably misunderstood my comment. My point was that by asserting that the Bible contains or condones immoral atrocities, you're making a moral evaluation of the Bible and thus applying a moral standard on it, which is either subjective or objective. Now, if moral subjectivism is true, a moral evaluation of the Bible is nothing more than your feelings or opinion about the Bible. It would be the same as saying: Moses' hair style is awful or Moses' clothing is out of fashion.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy --To what standard are you appealing by judging that slavery is immoral except for your own opinion?--
Slavery is not immoral. Look what happened when we freed the slaves. Are their lives better? Did they become better people? NO. Is our country better with freed slaves running around without their God Appointed stewards keeping them safe? NO.
JesusIsRealTrustMe 1 year ago
@JesusIsRealTrustMe
Give me a break.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
You cannot claim the bible as the source for objective morality. If you think the Old Testament laws were done away with, do you also throw out the 10 commandments? If you decide to keep the 10 commandments, then remember that slavery is approved in commandments 4 & 10. If you believe that the morality of God changes, then you don't believe in objective morality. Even if he changed, the slavery, genocide, and sexism of the OT were still wrong. On ANY definition of morality, the bible is fails.
ainefairygoddess 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@PJDolan1 Indeed, slavery is never condemned in the Bible; it's only sanctioned (Ephesians 6:5-8)
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people."
I cited this just incase anyone wanted to bring up the "But that's the OT!" argument.
gmn545 1 year ago
This is a lot better than VFX'es old videos; good job!
YodatheJedi12 1 year ago
Objective morality has you fallowing a code for no good reason: Why is murder bad? God said so! Why is stealing bad? God said so! What is the punishment for either (without grace?) Eternal Hell! When I am thinking about morality I think: Is this action bad for society and is it so bad that it should be outlawed and thus restrict personal freedom? Everyone's opinion is different, that is why democracy is good yet tedious (lots of bickering)
MacabreManifesto 1 year ago
So now you he want to deny the exsistance of supernova
DD7100 1 year ago
We've tried this type of morality before. It's called the dark ages.
Dhad91 1 year ago
@PJDolan1 can't take stuff out of context. slavery isn't the same as we know as then. even the slave was under the His eyes. And they were to be treated with respect. Given rest and released for His sabbath. in the seventh year they could be released unless it was their desire to remain with their master. "For you were once slaves , remember this." He even reminds the master you were once a slave at one time remember your burden. dont do unto yours what was done to you.
deltaalphacharlie 1 year ago
@deltaalphacharlie What a burden it must be to feel you have to defend the Bible. Here you are defending the practice of one human being owning another, saying it was somehow "different" in those times. What nonsense! How is it possible to treat a slave with "respect" when you OWN the slave, deprive him of his freedom, and control his fate. What could be more disrespectful? There is no "context" that makes slavery moral, and your Bible (and moral standard) supports this evil institution.
PJDolan1 1 year ago 2
Good video
Redback1234 1 year ago
Venom, I see you've already removed one of my comments.
Please pause for a moment to consider the irony of removing a comment from someone who is merely quoting passages from the book you claim to be "the objective moral code" and challenging you to explain how those passages fit into that "objective moral code".
PJDolan1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
PJDolan1 1 year ago
Morality is a question of philosophy, not science. Science cannot relate universal absolutes. The truth is that your bias, whether you believe in God, decides your morality. The question is what does one who does not believe in God base their morality on. All answers to this question are relative. The standard that God creates in the law is based on His character. This is a standard which He Himself follows. Yes He created the standard, but He is not man. He doesn't say oops! The Holy Spirit te
Pastor1Rev 1 year ago
its like im hearing the summery of warhammer 40k's dark age
Hypastpist 1 year ago
Okay, your content and personality has changed radically in the last year. Very interesting videos even if I disagree with a lot of what you are saying.
dadrogon 1 year ago
You did a fantastic job articulating your position, I hope people come away realizing that these videos are a chance for thoughtful reflection, not an argument. Thanks for the great talk Shawn.
Jeremiah29v13 1 year ago
You make subjective statements calling them objective on a regular basis. Your letter to me proves this!
BornAgayn 1 year ago
For morals to be objective, they would have to be independent of God, too.
In other words, fail.
unforgivn81 1 year ago
I guess my point is, you might be right that there's an objective moral standard. You might even be right that that standard is a god (though I don't see how - morals that come from the mind of a god are still subjective by definition). There's even an outside chance that it's your particular conception of God.
Fact is, though, it doesn't matter if you're right, because an objective standard for morality is redundant these days. Being right about it would be literally meaningless.
rhettboy2010 1 year ago
Just curious... How would you go about disproving that an objective moral standard exists?
Also, how would you distinguish between morals that everyone agrees upon (that is, a universal subjective moral standard) and a legitimately objective standard?
And granting for a second that there is such an objective standard, doesn't it become a subjective standard when we use our minds to decide to stick to it or not?
rhettboy2010 1 year ago
Quite the opposite, it says that we should look to our true selves, the inner part of humanity that isn't tainted with mechanations of body and mind, to use as the pattern, rather than any objective standard. The objective standard is this actual fact.
It's these reasons why I really don't accept any type of objective morality, since it really does imply that all people are the same when I very much believe that they aren't.
EngineeringIsMagic 1 year ago
As a Taoist, I can't disagree more with your use of the word Tao and comparing it to the properties you mentioned of man. If anything, it is the exact opposite of those things. The Tao shows the pattern of heaven, but not what is knitted. Specifically, the Tao accepts that people are diverse, and that the pattern and path of life is not the same for all people. If it were, that'd be a lot easier!
EngineeringIsMagic 1 year ago
@PJDolan1 It's funny how you choose these quotes and think of them as an accurate representation of Christianity.
SeasonsCurse 1 year ago
@SeasonsCurse It is up to the believer, not me, to explain how these heinous passages fit into the Bible's "objective moral code". Making this claim, while cherry picking just the pleasing passages, is intellectually lazy and dishonest. I am well aware that there are many positive moral teachings in the Bible. However, claiming the Bible is the objective moral code invites the burden of explaining the entire book, not just your favorite passages.
PJDolan1 1 year ago 4
Exodus 21:7-11 Continued... "And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."
PJDolan1 1 year ago 3
Most Christians cherry pick verses that conform to your personal morality, and ignore (or explain away) the rest. This is far from an "objective moral standard".
If the Bible is the objective moral standard, how do we interpret Deuteronomy 22:28-29?
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
PJDolan1 1 year ago 3
nice forest hide out
mapledelux 1 year ago
While I agree that there might be merit to the concept of telos and that it isn't (at least partially) subject to scientific inquiry (after all, who would claim that there is a metta-particle?), I also believe that (if there is some measure of benevolence towards us in the universe) it must be discoverable by everybody for himself, without any external guidepost, and that every external source might just as much be a distraction from the search for telos as much as it might be a help.
garouHH 1 year ago
Comment removed
Havermayer 1 year ago
Yes, this is what I've been telling people for a while now. Morality does have a basis. Morals must have come from somewhere or else right and wrong would not exist in a moral sense. But we all know that right and wrong do exist.
freshtildeathonline 1 year ago
Homosexuality is a matter of choice/self-interest and a result of introspection.
Swampymcswamp 1 year ago
No Sean science does not depend on terms such as biology rather it depends on a methodology. By the way we do have a group of people who hate science, they are called Christians. You can not base an augment based of the truth of the bible, without proving it to be. The I am running out of time bit is a smoke screen the truth is you WONT because you CANT
educatedAtheist 1 year ago
How can everyone agree to call a car a car? How can everyone agree to stay on one side of the road? By arguing that morality must be a set of rules given by your god, you have to argue that ALL conventions must be a set of rules given by your god because they follow the same "problem" of agreement. The issue is, most people agree to stay on one side of the road, just as most people agree to call a car a car -- your god hasn't told anyone to do any of those things.
TheReligionLie 1 year ago
@TheReligionLie The issue is not that people can agree or disagree on morality. The issue is, on what basis do we know to agree with certain moral claims or not? If it is just a free-for-all, then morality is nonsense.
VenomFangX 1 year ago 5
@VenomFangX I'm not sure whether I agree with that dichotomy. I have a pretty bad headache, though, so I'm going to bed for now. I'll respond completely tomorrow. Sorry.
TheReligionLie 1 year ago
@VenomFangX Precisely. But it has a utilitarian value, so we act as if it isn't nonsense. Same as free will.
rhettboy2010 1 year ago
@VenomFangX that is false! do you really believe that people who believe in science rather than god think that morality is nonsense? "what if that law of god actually exists" man what a bunch of crazy stuff you spout! you see things in black and white, shaun. no book, penned be god or not will ever be able to control man as he is. we have to police ourselves. god is not a police officer.
also: supernova is a word that only dates back to 1926 and it was coined by an astronomer.
misterbuckethead 1 year ago
@VenomFangX
It comes down to the question of "what IS morality?" Is it solely concerned with how we obey the words of someone who claims to have authority (see Christian god, emperor, etc.)? Or is it concerned with the well-being and suffering of others? If it's the former, then morality is arbitrary because God could literally command whatever he wanted and make it moral. If it's the latter, then we do know something about well-being and happiness and can make choices regarding those issues.
D3PyroGS 1 year ago
@VenomFangX This is the most fallicious video you have ever made. It is seriously worst than the time that you claimed thar chemical evolution was imposssible. In order to understand objectivity morality, you must first understand the moral object divide. The enlightment decided that anything based upon reason was objective and anything based upon faith is subjective. TRADITIONAL MORALITY WAS SUBJECTIVE FOR THIS VERY REASON. The enlightment didn't destroy objectivity but infact created it.
XAsbestos 1 year ago
@VenomFangX The movement you are thinking of is extentientalism. Your christian morality also fails to be objective as it fails the euthyro question. That is that christianity fails to create a standard of morality that even the gods are bound by. YHWH completely disobeys his own commandments on a wimsicle basis. Thous shall no kill- let's destory sodom etc. You will argue that a greater good was being achieved by these actions, but thats excatly how a moral subjectivist argues
XAsbestos 1 year ago
@VenomFangX Since there is no standard of morality YHWH is held accoutable to, your morality is subjective. These morals are nothing moral that glorified commands that are subjective in their nature.
XAsbestos 1 year ago
@VenomFangX Morality doesn't come from books, in this case the Bible, or anyone telling you what to do. There is a great difference between being moral without needing any moral code from the Bible or whatsoever and being moral because someone or something has told you that you are inmoral and, therefore, you need some kind of basis to be in the right side. The differences between these sides are too many to be enumerated here.
elandir85 1 year ago
So, there is no need to have moral basis because your Bible tells you. For example, the Bible is full of violence, hatred, assassinations, and the biblical god is alwayas commanding to punish his people. You can read Leviticus or Deuteronomy and see that the morality presented on these pages is based in sacrifices, wars, and so on. As your morality which you are so proud of says that you should kill someone for working on Sabbath, I think no one should follow this cruel morality.
elandir85 1 year ago
@elandir85 And it's absolutely beautiful.
deltaalphacharlie 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheReligionLie 1 year ago
@VenomFangX If a person decides that it's worthwhile to behave in a specific fashion, then they will act in that fashion and give that way of acting meaning to themselves. Whether that is agreed upon or not is irrelevant. I could choose not to act in a specific fashion whether the fashion is objectively correct or just another person's opinion.
TheReligionLie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VenomFangX I think your definition of nonsense implies that meaning is objective and universal. By using the definition of nonsense you just used, you implied objectivity in an argument for objectivity -- this is a form of circular reasoning.
If I argue that meaning is a human defined construct, then I can argue meaning is given by what people find to be goal-worthy and important; this is akin to subjectivism.
I'm not sure whether you gave a valid attack on my argument.
TheReligionLie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Glad to see you are back here on YouTube
JesusChristProperty 1 year ago
11:45 - Yes, that could be the case but so could the opposite... Their eternal souls "could" be in jeopardy for not acting by their sexuality.
So; in this case we are forced to with hold judgment and decide what to allow based on what is actually supported by evidence.
Scraxs 1 year ago
Good video. It's funny how throughout history, every culture has had nearly the exact same moral principles embedded in them. Coincidence? I don't think so.
necr0sys 1 year ago
@necr0sys That's because the ones that don't are less efficient and die out...
Cultures with no moral principle regarding say.... stealing, would not strive as well as the culture that opposed stealing.
And since stealing is universally bad for societies, this trait is "embedded" among every culture as the former would die out quickly while the latter stays with the exact same moral principle.
And this is just one of the natural factors that make them all seem similar.
Scraxs 1 year ago
@necr0sys Haha... Take a look at Hindu marriages and tell me that they are anything like your idea of "traditional marriage." Some Hindus marry animals because they believe that they're old husbands that have reincarnated. Take a look at eastern religion in general -- it's so foreign to western notions of religion that claiming consistency is a mistake. And it's not some small number either. A sizable portion of the world practices Hinduism or Buddhism.
TheReligionLie 1 year ago
@TheReligionLie If they want to marry a rat because they think it's a former lover go ahead. What I'm talking about are things like rape, murder, stealing etc.
necr0sys 1 year ago
@necr0sys I'm confused... the bible claims that all sins are equally as bad, and marrying a rat would be considered against god's will.
So, in summary: you're only picking out the parts of the bible that allow you to argue universal/objective morality.
TheReligionLie 1 year ago
@TheReligionLie The problem is that if there is a God, there can only be one true religion/faith. There are certain things that are less obvious to the human conscience, or perhaps have been desensitized over time which allow people to go against their natural God given moral compass with much ease. But there are certain things which are definite moral abominations I mentioned earlier which to any human being regardless of their cultural background would find wrong. The example of the rat cont
necr0sys 1 year ago
@TheReligionLie cont was a bad one...you are right in saying that all sins are equally bad in God's eyes....the problem we have is that there is mass deception going on, people will do certain things according to their religion based on culture and also sway of society. Over time people have become used to norm of doing things and have slowly been numbed to what is actually right and wrong.
necr0sys 1 year ago
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. (KJV) John 3:19
Is so sad that people cannot understand something so basic but true Christians know the real reason why people don't accept the TRUE GOD of the Bible and that's because they freely chose to live a life of sin. People find temporal pleasure in that kind of life but they are truly empty and condemned living a Godless life, serving a fake god.
Qtapples 1 year ago
However, if the argument you use can be applied to life without your god, you lose. Might as well add that.
TheReligionLie 1 year ago
you can argue that there is*
TheReligionLie 1 year ago
Now, for people who will then ask "how do you know that Hitler was evil?" I will ask "how do you know that a computer is a computer?" To claim the word "computer" refers to some object leads to the response "not all computers are the same, but they're still all called computers."
TheReligionLie 1 year ago
Based on my previous argument, morality cannot be learned if it's objective. It can be innately known, or not known. If you argue that it is innately known, you are arguing that there is an infinite amount of information that is innately known.
TheReligionLie 1 year ago
I challenge you to describe a tree, completely. Describe every single detail about it. Take your time -- you'll need an infinite amount of it. To claim objectivity is to claim that something is akin to that tree. The notion that something objective can be communicated with words is absurd because language cannot describe any object completely; language can only generalize. Generalization results in something abstract, which implies subjectivity. "Objective statement" is a contradiction of terms.
TheReligionLie 1 year ago
We are societal animals, tribal so to say. This forms the basis(standard) of human morality. It also forms the idea of justice. It's our empathy(mirror neurons) for other humans in whatever scenario it may be, we seek judgment/punishment/justice to wrongdoers. Empathy is a subjective emotion. it differs according to our relationships with people; those we hold emotional bonds to(couple this with the idea of homosexuality) then to other members of the 'tribe', and finally to outsiders.
Mcfly88 1 year ago
watch?v=asvg5Kf97Hw
MortQ42 1 year ago
Even if you think it's okay, you still know if it's right or wrong. Just nature will tell you, usually.
UnwaveredFaith 1 year ago
AKA - Put pants on if you're in the arctic. Going down to religion about hiding such things, we're stepping in dangerous water. For one, we all know that hurting one another is wrong. So - if we see someone punch another - that's bad. If we see a Muslim hit his wife - it's still bad even though their religion says it is okay. It is quite unfortunate Islam claims to follow the same God of Christianity, because it is contrary to what Scripture says on that. So, getting out of this loop
UnwaveredFaith 1 year ago
be a part of our diet. However, as humans, we have a choice of what we want to do, unlike most animals. Ever seen an animal go - "Berries or Salmon right by one another." Animals go for whatever is best. Humans are one of the only species who can deliberately starve themselves on a whim, and not have instincts take over. Nature can explain about hiding skin too, unfortunately. Stand out in your environment with or without clothes, see the result. If it is negative, change the equation.
UnwaveredFaith 1 year ago
You bring up things that can be discussed and do so in a manner that is courteous...this is a good thing.
TogetherForPeace 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop Xtianity has historically been transmitted generationally by parents raising children in their religion, giving the children no choice in the matter. Thus the bible has spread along w/ the religion by force, plain & simple. As for impact, the I Ching, the Analects of Confucius, the Tao te Ching, the works of Aristotle, Plato, Herodotus, Euclid, Virgil, William Shakespeare, Homer, Spinoza, Hume, Voltaire, Paine, Darwin, & many more have had profound effect throughout history.
trevorzlee 1 year ago
Oop, our own eyes... my bad. My brain's a bit foggy today, I've been writing all day and working on characters for a novel I'm writing. My bad.
UnwaveredFaith 1 year ago
The main stream media is not Christian. The public schools are not Christian but that doesn't stop my tax dollars from funding them. If a single penny of taxes went to fund Christian schools their would be riots in the streets tomorrow. The world is not Christian, yet the world finds it necessary to shove their beliefs down my throat and the throat of Christians. Christian beliefs, morals and practices are not permitted in society in any shape or form.
soulwinningministry 1 year ago
God is right and man is wrong
Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
There is absolute truth
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
I'll live by the standards set by God.
soulwinningministry 1 year ago
@soulwinningministry
2 Samuel 12-11/18
Your god has two women raped and kills a child
(the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill) it took 7 days for the child to die.
Nice "standards" you have there.....
stefansv32 1 year ago
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?
If you have a moral theory that nobody pays attention to, do you really have a moral theory?
Since everybody disagrees on what the absolute moral standard theory should be, the only sensible moral theory is tautological, that which the majority thinks is moral, is moral. If the majority think that rape is moral, then the minority can influence society to make rape immoral. The key is flexibility
Empathica1 1 year ago
These objective morals are transcendent. They just exist. We only discover them. They exist as 2+2=4 exists. If there are no minds, then they stop. When there are minds they manifest and have absolutely nothing to do with some invisible, inter-dimensional conscious observer that there is absolutely zero evidence for.
knethrea 1 year ago
I believe there are objective morals, but it is logically impossible for there to be a God that has power over them. I decide what morals are subjective and object. For instance. Slavery has always been wrong and will never be moral. The owning of another person is objective. It doesn't matter if society accepted them at one time or will in the future. Society, through progressing, discovered this objective morality. The objective morals we discover is a tribute to the struggle of humanity.
knethrea 1 year ago
If God created morals then morality is subjective and arbitrary because God can change them at anytime. If morals are objective, then God has no power to change them is not omnipotent because those morals would exist weather He does or not and He would not have sovereignty over them and God would not have freedom of will. There's no way around this and Plato debunked the possibility of gods dictating objective morality with his euthyphro dilemma 400 years before christianity.
knethrea 1 year ago
@Liverhawk25 It's crystal clear about the fact that Jesus died for our sins and if we believe in him we'll live with him forever, about the fact that we are to put no one before God and about the fact that we should love our neighbor as ourself. That is what is most important. I'm not saying the other stuff isn't, and I'm certainly not agreeing with you on the subject of the Bible not being clear. I'm just syaing that for anyone questioning, the Bible makes those things crystal clear.
hollypop2001 1 year ago
@Liverhawk25 I don't know what else to say to you. We aren't going to agree on this, because you're saying the Bible says something that it doesn't.
I think the Bible is clear on the things that you listed, and if anyone has any doubt all they have to do is a little research.
hollypop2001 1 year ago
If evolutionism is true, then y do we still have all this "morality" around us? Does it really have anything to DO with evolutionism?
The truth of the matter is, u can't have morality without Christian morality; u can't have Christian morality without Christianity; u can't have Christianity without the Bible; & u certainly can't have the Bible without Genesis 1 to 11! Morality has changed from absolute authority to human opinion. From "because G-d sez so" to "because it's not nice."
Eye2EyeIIIV 1 year ago
People are always born with a clear already-installed G-d-given conscience – rightly governing what is right & wrong. It is human nature to abhor & dislike what is obviously bad & evil. But coming to knowing JESUS is when u really get it right.
Eye2EyeIIIV 1 year ago
(Proverbs 8:13)
"The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; pride & arrogance & the evil way & the froward (perverse) mouth do I hate."
(It always hits the nail right on the head!)
Satanic teachings like evolutionism or communism really does nothing but destroys peoples' given consciences & degenerates them.
(To skeptcis:) This is NOT to say "u need religion to be moral". No! U need only JESUS to do that!
Eye2EyeIIIV 1 year ago
I would like to add that theology in and of itself, with all the waring and pitted opposition and slavery and other atrocities that cannot be simply pushed aside as not what they really seem, do not make for any kind of reasonable source for morals. A christian can be good or bad just as an atheist can be good or bad and nothing whatsoever sets the two apart except for the christian claim to forgiveness.
ShenFromTerraTraba 1 year ago
You're argument seems to boil down to the same bottom line as ever; morals can not exist without god's rules because man in his ever imperfect form could not come up with them him self and natural selection only allows for caring for ones kind. I disagree, many examples exist in nature where one species cares for another, including humans caring for dogs and dogs caring for pigs. We have in us, imperfectly placed but still undeniable, a caring heart as well as a waring heart.
ShenFromTerraTraba 1 year ago