come debate me then

Yup we don't wish bad for anyone

Like brother taste in art has jack shit to do with MORALS wtf

It's crazy bro they actually think they are winning or sound smart in anyway. Athiests are bad thinkers it's horrible

@@yaboyvickk5635 lmaoaoaoaaiaiaiaia

@@ManarReports You know all your comments are just, you can't disprove me blah blah, this and that, attacking athiests, etc etc, but you can't actually listen or even refute our points, your argument is fallacious in nature and still claim it's all true. All you do is make up two premises with many flaws, then conclude something totally bonkers based on some book. The burden of proof is on YOU, give US evidence for your objective entity, ya can't xd

Yes master pelosi

Bro she should never do this again. Now we know why media is paid so much they protect the elites so well it's insane

Yup she hates traditional movements and clearly holds annymoaity towards them. I never seen a more manipulative person than her in my life. She knows she failed us but gaslights us that it's the other side that did

Bro she is an honorable witch from the Bohemian Grove so I assumed it's part of her training. Bro her hand movements are not used to emphasize her words. They are to put you in a trance. Clear witchcraft

You are trying to say humans aren't subjective but name me one human that achieved objectivity using the tools you mentioned. If we agree on the definition of subjectivity then one of us can be true and that's an objective reality barred away from subjective influence but we will disagree which one of us is right that's the subjective reality no matter how much data we can apply we cannot confirm it's concurrence objectively. Which means objectivity exists but we subjective entities cannot receive it because we are missing variables Science always changes when adding new variables which means it's all subjective and cannot be relied on. Back to the argument that is valid and sound. What can stop subjective entity from being ammoral except an objective being. Science is subjective and changes with new variables proving the fallacy of trusting science as your arbitor of truth and confirming my argument for me that subjective entity is always ammoral

My answer to my own argument is that objective entity is necessary if subjective entity wants to be moral what is your conclusion?

​@@ManarReports Our metric reference standards for weights, distance ( kilometers, meters, centimetres ect ) was originaly a man made concept, arbitrarily concieved with no divine dictate involved. Yet once it becomes accepted and a pre- agreed consensus reached it functions perfectly. A "meter" is not some vague "about this big" concept that varies dependant on culture or God. We can OBJECTIVELY measure things "from within our pre-agreed metric reference framework" 😜

​@@trumpbellend6717 Umm 2+2=4 always.. doesnt matter if its subjective if you answer with 5 you're always wrong unless you change the laws of nature or you change the definition of 2.

@@ManarReports Lol two things firstly with I suggest you look up the video "Questioning Darwin, if the bible said 2+2 =5" its only about 20 seconds long but kinda ironic given your narrative. 🤭 Secondly You seem confused dear, you see "morality" is a tool/common reference standard conceptualised to measure and judge objective facts. In my earlier analogy the metric system was that tool/ common reference standard that we conceptualised to measure "distances" ( objective facts ) Now absent our metric system tool / reference standard those distances would still exist irrespective our our ability to measure them ( *THEY are the objective facts* ) the tool that is doing the measuring is a *"SUBJECTIVE ONE"* .... only from within a pre-agreed subjective and arbitrarily concieved framework can we make Objective statements about said "distances" ( objective ) If my moral measurement system ceased to exist the consequences of our actions and decisions with respect to the wellbeing of ourselves and others ( *objective factual reality* ) would still exist, irrespective of our inability to recognise and evaluate said consequences and thus differentiate between decisions and actions that are appropriate from the inappropriate with respect to the desired outcome of wellbeing. But the "measuring" of it is what defines "MORALITY" and that tool / common reference standard was arbitrarily and subjectively conceptualised. Our actions have real consequences ( *objective* ) But without the pre - agreed desired goal ( *subjective* ) we can NOT make a determination of what we *"SHOULD"* or *"OUGHT"* do or not do, we are unable to differentiate between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. If i hit someone they feel pain ( *objective fact just like 2+2=4* ) means nothing without first agreeing "we don't want people to feel pain" ( *subjective goal* ) only then can we say "I OUGHT not hit people"

Every example given I was able to draw from it the necessity of objective view because why else would you say the other side is wrong. If you ask me is their morality if there are no humans that's the kind of fallacious examples and arguments I won't accept and explode at

And this relies on god to exist. And there is no evidence for said god, so you cannot use that in an argument to prove that morality is objective

It's subjective in interpretation but the objective entity is any entity powerful to know every variable at all times and scriptures are how we derive objective entities moral claims. You can claim our interpretation of Scripture is subjective but the actual scripture is from an objective entity. Does this explain a bit about the diff of objective entity as I describe it and how you describe it

What other conclusion can you give me to solve the solution of humans being ammoral forever

@@ManarReports Again you presume that such an entity (god) exists therefore objective morality exists. This is fallacious because all the bible is, is a book. You don't provide any sound evidence for your objective entity at all. You can't validate your argument by just saying, but my book is objective.

Hahaha I swear she is embarrassing to all Americans. No wonder the world thinks men are women if these are the people making the laws and logical arguments hahaha

I can't believe a person with such skewed views on reality has their hands on the wheels of our Republic

@@ManarReports, America is not a Republic. It's an Oligarchy.

LMAO her husband took her falling asleep lmaoaoa

@@ManarReports 🤣👌

Bro I'm brand new to debate scene and I promise I could do 10 times better debating her own positions than her. Even her husband went to sleep 😴

Great point. No return for America. BRICS financially chocking West is the only solution to regain our government

Yup that's why we have Congress. She just trying to use buzz words she thinks we are stupid

That's your opinion

@@ManarReports 🤔 Hmm is your "opinion" with regards the "right" God subjective or objective?? Can we ground morality in "any" God or just the particular one YOU determined is the "right" one out of the many thousands man has invented ?? If your answer is the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if your answer is the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍 The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔

That's true but we can't trust any subjective entity to tell us true morality. We just staying ammoral

@@ManarReports Lol please feel free to *NAME THE SPECIFIC "ENTITY"* you think is the objective reference standard that we should all adhere and aspire to dear. I'll wait.......... 🥱😴

​​​​@@ManarReports​...you might have missed the point of the original commenter altogether. "The fact that an entity is not human does make its moral views objective" is referring to whatever being you're appealing to as a basis for your claims to objective morality. you're functionally punting the can further down the road by saying "I will abide by this being's objective definition of morality", because you've merely asserted said being exists, and has access to objective morality. What if said being is lying? You have no access to objective moral knowledge, how will you evaluate whether it's objectively moral or not? In short, all you've gotten to is "Humans have no access to any objective morality". To which congrats, but you're in the same boat unless you can prove that said objectivity and/or objective being exists. If you're going to talk about objective morality in the sense that we all feel an unprovoked kick to the face of an innocent being is wrong (you raised this example in another comment thread), sure. That means we have access to it, objective being or not. If we know something is wrong because we feel it is wrong, either it's all subjective or it's objective and we have access to objective morality. If the former, then it's not objectively wrong, therefore failing as an example. If it's the latter, we clearly need no objective being to tell us what's right and what's wrong. If your point is that we don't possess any objective morality, I can agree with you. I believe morality is a subjective affair, and we as a society come up with objective rules to achieve subjective goals. Where I disagree is you asserting that some entity has access to objective morality, or that we should listen to an entity claiming knowledge of objective morality at face value.

​​@@ManarReportsI think they are pointing our specifically that God is an "Entity" to give his own Moral values. Which is alright. But there's one problem who object against such ideal to be not "Objective" at the same time. You may ask [or someone else may do ask..], "how is that possible? How can an entity give subjective and objective moral values?" Well in technicality it isn't really _subjective_ but based on attributes of God (if you believe they exists firstly...) Or characteristics of God. The reason why it is objective is because he is All knowing and All powerful, He created the Universe hence is the best source for Guidance for humans, specially considering what he intends for Humanity. I guess that is what is missing from the OP of the thread.

​@@somethingeasy333how about my response?

Actions have inherent values this destroys consequentialism. Is a kick to the face inherently neutral or do you need to see the consequences of that kick to determine the moral value of that action??

@@ManarReports I have just demonstrated why values are subjective and we can only have "inherent values" from within the perspective of a subjective and arbitrarily concieved framework but you simply ignored it. Instead you choose to respond by spouting a baseless assertion as if it actually constitutes some form of rational argument. 🤭 Of course our actions have real consequences ( *objective* ) But without the pre - agreed desired goal ( *subjective* ) we can NOT make a determination of what we *"SHOULD"* or *"OUGHT"* do or not do, we are unable to differentiate between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. If i hit someone they feel pain ( *objective fact* ) means nothing without first agreeing "we don't want people to feel pain" ( *subjective goal* ) only then can we say "I OUGHT not hit people"

@@trumpbellend6717wrong you’re just black so your value is not worth much thus proving not subjectivity but relativity which they are different concepts that blend into each other but are distinct

Give me a better answer to my conclusion of humans are ammoral that doesn't rely on obj entity.. you can't!!

@@ManarReports First thing to note is your complete inability or unwillingness to even attempt to address my very specific questions, this alone demonstrates both the hypocrisy and fragility of your position dear. Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. The recognition and evaluation of the consequences our choices have with regards to ourselves and others. My NOT believing in a mythological god in no way impedes the ability of forming such moral assessments. We are self aware conscious pain and emotion feeling individuals capable of love or hate, incredible acts of altruism or depravity. It's how we navigate through life and these potential extremes that define us, not our belief ( or lack of ) in anyone's specific subjective invisible "God" Buy hey if you disagree and actually wish to engage in an honest discourse then please define "morality" and "good" for us all...... does it relate to human wellbeing or suffering and how we treat each other ? Is it relative or absolute ? Objective or subjective, if objective then *NAME THE SPECIFIC STANDARD* ? What purpose does it serve ie what the goal of a moral system ? 🤔 If these basic questions are beyond you then please don't waste either my time or your own in further discussion

​@trumpbellend6717 calling his God "mythological" just already shows in itself how close minded you are on your own views and unwilling to open your eyes or ears to hear what anyone else has to say... mythological lmaooo .. man probably believes Jesus never walked the Earth even th9ugh its backed by historical data, yet you'll follow up with "well men can lie" 😂😂😂🤡

​@ManarReports For you all morons out there saying if morality is objective and that it comes from god. Our morality is an evolutionary trait you [__]ing idiots. "If our morality is relative why aren't you killing everyone or there should be no one in jail" is [__]ing stupid statement to say I'll answer it for you since you don't search for the answers. The answer is you will never get away with it because getting away with isn't just about some form of authority, it's the basic concept of survival. The guy who goes around killing people willy-nilly is the guy everyone probably knows about and avoids. And Also humans survive based on communities. Their success is predicated on cooperation, morality is the very foundation of cooperation. I won't do to you what I don't want done to me. It's agonizingly simple. And I say agonizing because you guys refuse to use more than 1 Brain cell it makes my head hurt thinking about how the [__]ing hell you manage to get food into your face without poking your eyes out. mortality is an evolutionary favorable trait. It's just don't hurt each other we all survive better , anything that comes further from that is figuring out what does harm. Some say if you are not going to be caught why not do it? Your understanding of evolution is extremely poor. Okay, so you kill the next person cause you won't get caught and the next and the next and the next never getting caught until you are the last man standing with no food because you're not a farmer and no shelter because you're not a builder and you die freezing and starving all alone with no one to help you survive What a champion you are, well done you just proved natural selection favors working together because it increases your chances of survival you [__]ing utter idiot. Sure kicking someone in the face or smth doesn't kill them but remember we are a social species, our survival as a species is dependent on the fact that we work together.if we kept hurting eachother we won't work together and remember being alone in the wilderness with no help and many predators is not a great way to survive. Also, many religions have some form of overpowered forgiveness mechanic that means that as long you truly say whoops my bad god( like the guy who killed everyone, and is regretting he killed people) you will get away with literally everything. It's always funny when god boys talk up morality when they often say they would murder, destroy, steal, and rape to their heart's content if god doesn't exist. That's horrifying (only I am allowed to do it because I don't believe in god )

Not gonna lie I have no idea why bring Justin to this panel he barely knew destiny and ruined the conversation. What low IQ on display it was brilliant.. I'm just mad cuz I got invited to the panel and they picked those dumbasses instead

@@ManarReports Yeah could have used more pro-debate people, it was super one sided. Keep trying bro, you’re content seems fun!

@@ayeoneup7645 MANAR IS RISING

Habibi stop by when you can we missed you

Come to discord this isnt enough

"Morality" is a tool/common reference standard conceptualised to measure and judge objective facts. In my earlier analogy the metric system was that tool/ common reference standard that we conceptualised to measure "distances" ( objective facts ) Now absent our metric system tool / reference standard those distances would still exist irrespective our our ability to measure them ( *THEY are the objective facts* ) the tool that is doing the measuring is a *"SUBJECTIVE ONE"* .... only from within a pre-agreed subjective and arbitrarily concieved framework can we make Objective statements about said "distances" ( objective ) If my moral measurement system ceased to exist the consequences of our actions and decisions with respect to the wellbeing of ourselves and others ( *objective factual reality* ) would still exist, irrespective of our inability to recognise and evaluate said consequences and thus differentiate between decisions and actions that are appropriate from the inappropriate with respect to the desired outcome of wellbeing. But the "measuring" of it is what defines "MORALITY" and that tool / common reference standard was arbitrarily and subjectively conceptualised. Our actions have real consequences ( *objective* ) But without the pre - agreed desired goal ( *subjective* ) we can NOT make a determination of what we *"SHOULD"* or *"OUGHT"* do or not do, we are unable to differentiate between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. If i hit someone they feel pain ( *objective fact* ) means nothing without first agreeing "we don't want people to feel pain" ( *subjective goal* ) only then can we say "I OUGHT not hit people"

We live daily stop by the discord

HAHAHA

Bro who cares I don't think he even monetized his videos

Come try to do better vs me and perfect the argument. At least I'm trying weirdo

Haha welcome brother

Ok you come debate me then we live almost daily

don't project. just cause you waste your money drinking and scrounging for resource just so someone notices you, doesn't mean everyone else does. keep worshipping yourself bud.

@@BunnyWithaTommygun I don't waste my money on drink. Haven't for nearly twenty years(Even then I was barely a social drinker). I don't scrounge. I've got a cushy job in database engineering, I'm fully qualified and can pivot into any field within the computing science sector if I want. I just remember what it was like to be around people who behave like he did. At least they were usually drunk. You got so triggered over a single sentence. Get a life🤣

It's so sad 😭

That's a different argument because we now have to look at the scriptures and the evidences we have. Once you accept subjective moralities flaws we start looking for a better option and thank God the abrahamic religions set up an objective entity that they trust completely and is perfectly creating a solution to the problem we concluded from my argument in the video. According to my argument Abrahamic religions are the only ones that truly know they are moral and only if they refer to the objective entity with scriptures. Islam is the final religion and is the only religion with a miracle alive today which is the glorious Quran. A book memorized by millions completely unscathed from corruption throughout the years. I have a lot more evidence to proclaim Islam is the true religion and is the final message God sent us. Following the Quran leads you to be the most moral person on earth

@@ManarReports well then prob best start working on your claims about the stories in the quran being setup by an objective entity, when literally every single interpretation of those stories is subjective by definition (human brain interpreting the world = subjective) your idea of what constitutes a miracle, as well as what is good evidence for a miracle is also entirely subjective, even if the quran was verified as being unchanging (which you may be wrong about as the first version does not actualy exist today)... so what?, if a story manages to stay the same for 2 thousand years does that mean that the best explanation is a supernatural being? if harry potter is perfectly preserved 2000 years from now, does that mean that harry potter existed? if the spiderman comics are exactly the same does that mean that spiderman existed? the ability to keep a story straight is a separate argument as to whether the story is historically true. saying the quan leads you to being the most moral person is exactly what somebody who subjectively interpreted allah as being perfectly moral would say, and likewise, somebody who subjectively interpreted christ as being perfectly moral would also say christianity leads to morality..... theres no way to verify it.

Hey there poopy diaper baby man :)

I’ll happily debate you. There’s no way you can claim objective morality exists while also claiming it comes from good

@@Hruljina come to discord discord.gg/attvZNxrve

@@ManarReports Joined in as Hookero.

@@ManarReports still waiting

If we keep it up the opportunity will come very soon just need to be prepared

Buzzword salad lmao

Will do better on next one