The bible does not have a monopoly on morality

Here I'm debating the notion that the bible is the source for human morality.

This is my first narrative video. I'm not a great speaker, and of course my video is nowhere near the caliber of people like DonExodus2 or Thunderf00t, but I think the message is reasonable enough.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• atheism
• creationism
• christian
• bible
• genesis
• atheist
• debate
• morality
• sagan
• hovind
• haggard
• stalin

[trophymercier]

===

[clemstevenson]

This hits the nail right on the head. The truth of the matter is that Christians only follow a moral code, for the superstitious fear of divine retribution. I follow a moral code, for fear of the more tangible, and provable, legal retribution.

[malignantpoodle]

@julzabro

I don't disagree that there is a right and wrong. What I'm saying is that what is considered right or wrong is subject to interpretation. What's right is what we say is right. What's wrong is what we say is wrong.

the color of the sky will always be regardless of what we decide about it. the boiling point of water will be 212 regardless of whether we choose to believe it or not. Morals do not work this way. They are not intrinsic, they are invented.

[malignantpoodle]

@julzabro

Again, that objective fact stands that there are no witches has no bearing on morality. Morality is not objective. You and I can agree that believing in witches or even worse, killing people of suspect is wrong. That does not mean that there does not exist a moral code to do otherwise.

Morality is a standard of right and wrong. What you can't seem to grasp is that that standard is defined by group consensus (not facts) and varies wildly among people. Ergo, not objective

[malignantpoodle]

@julzabro

Correct. because morality is defined by a group consensus, those in line with the group consensus are acting morally.

The validity or "right or wrong" of what that consensus is doesn't factor into things. Morals are not inherently right or wrong, they are just a commonly accepted standards.

Actually, everywhere in their doctrine it talks about stoning, burning people, etc. The bible is full of examples... some involve killing disobedient children.

[malignantpoodle]

@julzabro

right, and in Europe they thought that in America the streets were paved with gold too.

[malignantpoodle]

@julzabro

I can give many examples of where morality trumps survival mechanisms, and you have already done so as well. So you're contradicting yourself.

[julzabro]

@malignantpoodle So, in your opinion, BECUZ people thought burning women who they suspected of witchcraft was morally acceptable then it WAS morally acceptable? No objective facts to show that THAT was wrong? Seriously? It's objective FACT that there are no such thing as witches! And, I could go further to say that no where, even in their doctrine, does it say for THEM to judge and then burn people!!! Law and civility are directly linked to morality....how do u figure they're not?

[julzabro]

@malignantpoodle Ok, but nonetheless, there are still many who will die trying to get here to flee their country. And giving u examples of moral codes NOT based on facts DOES show that facts are necessary for accurate morals.

[julzabro]

@malignantpoodle Well, I suppose it comes down to how we define morality. What is morality? Is it based solely on beliefs or is it a survival mechanism.....which in my opinion it's the ladder.