A Question Atheists Can't Answer

[@BrianHoldsworth]

To those saying that this is a view that is unfamiliar to most atheistic circles and, therefore, a strawman - it's important to note some of the most influential philosophers in modern history have advanced it including David Hume, Thomas Hobbes, Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, and contemporary philosophers like Daniel Dennett. Marx has been cited by many as possibly the most influential philosopher of the late modern period.

[@830toAwesome]

Having read most of Dennet's works, I can assure you that you're mischaracterizing his actual views. Dennet's views on moral philosophy is a naturalistic one that you do not even approach discussing or laying out here.

[@niemand7811]

@BrianHoldsworth So you replied this to my comment as well, yet it doesn't argue away your strawman position you want us to deal with. What a once "influential" philosopher said in his time means not much to us right now. We have our own thoughts and ideas to develop and to establish. I can not ive in the past forever to justify my every day behavior. Neither Karl Marx idea about socialism nor Carl Jungs archetypes will explain why I am even here.

[@830toAwesome]

@@niemand7811 And him appealing to Dennet as a contemporary source is just him trying to smokescreen. I don't know many atheists who even know who Dennet is. Most Atheists don't even know philosophy or much care about it. It's mostly the terminally online that do, and only because they have to deal with the religious who use it to bulwark their ideas. But you have to keep in mind that Brian's channel isn't actually about the conversation or dialog between non-believers and believers. It's not even a channel about conversion. Brian is an apologist and his job is a safety blanket for those who believe like he does. It doesn't matter if he portrays the other side honestly, it's not important for him to do so. His job is to say things that confirm the beliefs of the audience he's generated. I'm not even saying that as a bad thing, it's just the reality. Brian isn't a communicator and nothing he actually says should be taken seriously in regards to having an actual discussion on the topics.

[@ericcraig3875]

The bible and the bible god is pro-slavery. The Atlantic Slave Trade was justified by the bible. They even named a slave ship jesus. I disagree with the bible and the imaginary god of the bible. I believe slavery is wrong on the grounds of empathy, which is one of the foundational pillars of my morality. I have read many books on the history of slavery. Slavery is very immoral to me. I consider religions to be a mental slavery that is very dangerous. Christianity is the most immoral worldview ever invented. It is evil and fraudulent in almost every aspect.

[@ericcraig3875]

Almost every sentence you said is not true. You don't feel shame?

[@LordRunolfrUlfsson]

Brian, do YOU want to be a slave? Are you married? Would you want your spouse to be a slave? Do you have children? Would you want your children to be slaves? How hard is it to conclude that slavery is wrong if you would not want yourself or anyone you care about to be enslaved?

[@2l84me8]

The lack of empathy and critical thinking these apologists have is astounding.

[@mikethefox450]

my response to your question: no. But what if I would want you to be a slave would that made it slavery ok?

[@theboombody]

He probably should have said, "Is it wrong to want others to suffer while desiring your own comfort?" The answer to that of course is yes, but that's so basic I wouldn't have a clue how you'd explain it. It's pretty much a given. Ethics I imagine is like math. Eventually you'll have to have some unexplainable axioms somewhere that you use as starting points.

[@riluna3695]

@@mikethefox450 Your desire for what happens to others is irrelevant, because they're the ones that feel the pain of the whip, not you. They're the ones that feel permanently trapped by powers and people beyond their control, not you. The idea of subjective morality does not mean and has never meant "whatever I think is right IS right." It is simply an acknowledgement of the truth of reality, that different people in different situations have different answers to moral questions. It does not propose a singular, correct answer to "what is moral?" And if that answer isn't satisfying for you, take it up with reality, not with atheists. Believe me, it's not satisfying to me either. I'd love to be able to say that my belief that everyone should be respected and treated kindly is the best and most correctest morality, but while that IS my genuine belief, that doesn't make it true for all people at all times.

[@HuxtableK]

@@mikethefox450 Then you can try, and we can see just how well a wannabe slavemaster swings from a tree.

[@Kalopsia666]

2:07 the Bible doesn’t condemn slavery. It explicitly gives instructions on how to procure slaves, and how to treat them. Just because there’s a couple stories within the book where slaves get freed, doesn’t negate the fact that instructions are laid out on how to get slaves. There’s no Commandment that says “Thou shalt not own other people”

[@Capybarrrraaaa]

A, truly, baffling omission from a loving god.

[@ionutpanticut7550]

You can tell people a million things they should not do, but if you establish what should people do and think than they will now know how to separate good from evil. The bible says to love your neighbour as yourself, to make peace with all men, to love all men etc. That's better than to number all the millions of evil things that can be done.

[@nicolasandre9886]

@@ionutpanticut7550 "The bible says to love your neighbour as yourself" It's a nice commandment, but it's also extremely vague, and leaves a lot of room for interpretation and cherry picking other verses to justify many things, definitely including slavery. Oh right, I'm an atheist, I can't say slavery is wrong, my bad.

[@TorianTammas]

​@@ionutpanticut7550So what do you do with people who arent your neighbour? This is a tribe mentality. As one obviously according to the bible can have as many slaves as one want from other tribes. Not to mention that "god" orders in the bible to kill family memberd who choose anothe religion.

[@jaclo3112]

@ionutpanticut7550 sure the bible says to love your neighbour. But when asked "who is my neighbour", jesus specified that your neighbour is a person who helps you. By default, a person who doesn't help you is not your neighbour so you don't have to love them. This interpretation is evident in the horrific practices of christianity over the last 2000 years. Genocide, slavery, theft, slaughter of non believers, rape of women and children. All atrocities condoned in the bible and practices by christians for 2000 years. Practices that have made christianity a major world religion and the catholic church the wealthiest criminal organisation in the world. Then we also have to remember that there is no hate like christian love and their jesus.

[@WhiteScorpio2]

The moral argument: "But if a genocidal invisible wizard doesn't tell me that slavery is OK, how will I know that slavery is OK?"

[@Слышьты-ф4ю]

Genocidal invisible wizard exists, you can't disprove it, therefore he also is: -infinite ability -infinite wisdom -knows all -always good and right -sees everything -reason of everything except bad things, bad things are just what you did, and he created you to be good, so you are bad somehow -was, is and will be reason for 6666 pages of random stories that all happened exactly how they were described in book that looks like any other one despite all archeological proofs and logic of having in plot a perfect observer and creator

[@coolio-46]

@@Слышьты-ф4юi have no idea if this is antitheist, atheist or religious

[@malyvo0]

@@Слышьты-ф4ю you take yourself too seriously...

[@hammishhiggins153]

Except we are now under the new covanent which teaches a form of virtue ethics which goes ageinst slavery. Also the mosaic laws which may appear to be quite shocking to some were a compromise btween his perfect word and the stubborn people of isreal as a matter of fact god even admits mosaic law was not perfect. Mosaic laws changes multiple time throu out the old testement like in the book of number were it does allow slavery but in deurotomy it says that you must let your slaves go fter 5 years and compensat them for there work all of this was t slowly mold the peoples minds so that when jesus came they would be open to his message. yes the bible condones what i would call diet slavery becuse if god had acctually come out ageinst it the would not have listend to him but with the coming of jesus and the perfection of mosaic law we can now say slavery is wrong in fact it was christainity that gave rise to the abolition movements across the world.

[@hammishhiggins153]

Thats the only reason you think slaverys bad. almost all of western civilisation is based of christianity even your own moral compass is so as much as you hate to admit it the only reason you think slavery is bad is becuse of "a genocidal invisible wizard"

[@KrazyKaiser]

"Some athiests say the bible is morally inferior for *not going far enough* to condemn slaver." This man has never read the freaking bible.

[@highroller-jq3ix]

You probably need to read the actual bible.

[@memecity9849]

​@highroller-jq3ix which one is the "actual" bible?

[@highroller-jq3ix]

@@memecity9849 The one that can be functionally used as an actual paperweight. Thanks for asking.

[@highroller-jq3ix]

@@memecity9849 The one that can be used as an actual paperweight. Thanks for asking.

[@highroller-jq3ix]

@@memecity9849 The one that can be used as an actual paperweight. Thanks for asking.

[@Antenociti]

My particular kind of atheism is the kind where people like you make me happy to be an atheist.

[@neargrog685]

“If you’re going to define something logically then you cannot include the thing that you’re trying to define in your definition” Literally every Christian quotes the bible when trying to prove it is true

[@cliftongaither6642]

cicular reasoning

[@logielleEntiopya]

The above is not circular reasoning, it is inevitable circular reference - examples of which are ubiquitous in the dictionary as an inevitability. The latter remains circular reasoning, yes.

[@Steelmage99]

I have yet to meet an honest religious apologist. This video didn't change that.

[@hammishhiggins153]

What wasnt he hounest about?

[@darrylelam256]

@@hammishhiggins153 Well for starters he is claiming that atheists can't answer a very simple question that was answered that we have answered a long time and has even been answered in some of his older videos.

[@hammishhiggins153]

What is the atheist answear then?@@darrylelam256

[@takoja507]

@@hammishhiggins153 Only thing he is honest about is that he believes in Jesus (maybe, might be in it for the money tho, easy easy money). I mean people have explained all these "none" answerable questions to believers multiple times already, They just don't want to listen and understand. Like what atheist is, they can't even get that correct.

[@hammishhiggins153]

Then what is the answer? @@takoja507

[@ianchisholm5756]

'...and I hear many an atheist accuse the Bible of being morally inferior for not going far enough in its condemnation of slavery' It is dishonest to imply that the Bible does condemn slavery - God uses it to punish the Jews, orders them to make slaves of surrounding cities who surrender to them, and gives instructions as to how they may buy and own slaves. Slaves are commanded to obey their masters in Ephesians, Colossians and 1st Peter.

[@unkaumanguy1439]

Read your comment again. You just confirmed that the supposed god of the bible is an immoral jerk. And the stupidity continues 🙄

[@DaviniaHill]

It condones slavery.

[@HuxtableK]

@@DaviniaHill The Bible explicitly condones and even COMMANDS slavery.

[@CarlHobson-zm2gk]

@DaviniaHill yes it does, then again, they were a new nation surrounded by larger nations who hated them because of their God. There was wars, the Hebrews were the only nation on earth not allowed to sell their slaves, because other nations would and could sodomize them.

[@bradleypease2492]

⁠@@DaviniaHillthe man was saying it doesn’t condone slavery it absolutely invites and wants slavery

[@Nick-mp1zh]

"Is slavery wrong?" Yes. Damn, that was an easy question.

[@hanguk_kyb]

Your answer seems to imply that you have a metaphysical source of morality. This video is clearly directed at atheists not theists like u.

[@Nick-mp1zh]

@@hanguk_kyb you got me, I hold absolute faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[@hanguk_kyb]

@@Nick-mp1zh Whatever you want to call him, this video is for atheists not u.

[@Nick-mp1zh]

@@hanguk_kyb Ah but atheism is toooooootally a religion, so my answer still counts right?

[@hanguk_kyb]

@@Nick-mp1zh What? What does that have to do with anything? Call it a worldview or stance or whatever if you're not comfortable with religion. Still has no implication on u taking a theist position on morality.

[@GeoRyukaiser]

This video pretty much amounts to a christian moving the goal posts for 12 minutes and 18 seconds so as to avoid admitting his question has been answered.

[@michaelwolf8690]

I mean, lets not dismiss that he's pretty much desperately trying to dismantle the argument that slavery is wrong all this time too. Just viciously throwing everything he has at it.

[@ateriana5116]

"“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." -Leviticus 25:44-46 Not only does the bible not condemn slavery, it explicitly allows it.

[@arcticpangolin3090]

Yeah I thought it was a little weird (although expectable) that he watered down the biblical position as not going hard enough against slavery.

[@eventhisidistaken]

Yeah but, whatabout (trump/biden {pick one})!

[@TenMinuteTrips]

I wanted to comment on this video when it came out but I was at work. So better late than never. Brian proposes that he asks some random atheist if slavery is wrong. The atheist in his scenario naturally responds that yes, of course, slavery is wrong. That should be the end of the discussion. But Brian suggests that he will then ask his interlocutor to define the word, “wrong.” If I’m the random atheist in this scenario, I will simply respond, “You brought it up. What do you think “wrong” means?” Brian is attempting to make an argument about the esoteric meaning of words that otherwise have perfectly accepted meanings. What is “right or wrong” in the context of which those words are used? Wrong, as in incorrect? Right, as opposed to left? Brian knows full well what “wrong” means. His entire scenario is nothing short of playing, “Let’s troll the atheist. Here’s how.” Brian then proceeds to gaslight his audience with the claim that slavery “virtually disappeared in Christendom in the Middle Ages…” Balderdash! Brian conveniently ignores the feudal labor system where the poorest of the poor worked the land owned by the Lords and Barons. Just because it was called something different doesn’t mean it wasn’t for all practical purposes, slavery. Next up in Brian’s gaslighting essay, is the idea that slavery enjoyed a resurgence in the Age of Enlightenment; that somehow science and humanism allowed for the scientific assignment of class status, and that that somehow justified a renewed slave trade. Again, Balderdash! The Age of Enlightenment also began the Industrial Revolution. The rise in industrialization begat the rise of capitalism. Capitalism thrives on exploiting the labor pool. The textile mills in the Northern States depended on cheap cotton from the South. If the folks picking cotton are treated as farm equipment, that’s cheaper than paying the workers. Since the invention of the printing press and the rise in Protestantism put Bibles in the hands of wealthy landowners, it is no wonder that slavery experienced a perceived resurgence during the industrial age. And so, Brian, let me ask you this. Is it “wrong” to ignore red traffic lights and just barrel freely through intersections without a care in the world? How do you define “wrong?”

[@perseo7954]

You didn't answer the question tho

[@paintbox3011]

​@@perseo7954they didn't but Brian also didn't bring up that the Bible justifies slavery. Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states, "Servants, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ"

[@dannyboygoldfish926]

@@paintbox3011 So when you are 6 years old and your father tells you not to run onto a busy road, did you by chance look into his eyes and think I'm going to listen to my Dad because he looks after me and is smart? or did you run out onto the road and brake your leg?

[@dannyboygoldfish926]

@@paintbox3011 If you lived a life as a farmer working hard and then one day you had been captured in a war and was made a slave, and your master told you not to run away. Would you listen to him and keep working for food and shelter or would you run away and most likely get caught and killed?

[@dannyboygoldfish926]

@@paintbox3011 Slavery can be bad yes, But you have to understand the times. Not every person that ever been alive, lived in today's day and age. Things were different back then.

[@bradleyadams9430]

Yes, the suffering of someone who died in a war, even if they were later honored for a heroic effort, is a bad thing. That's like inferring that a child suffering and dying a horrible death from a disease is a good if it raised awareness and lead to a cure. The suffering was still a bad thing!

[@Charlotte_Martel]

And considering that some of those monuments are dedicated to those who died in utterly useless wars like WWI, their lives were sacrificed completely in vain. We can celebrate and remember their bravery while not paying homage to the warmongers who sent them to slaughter.

[@Jose-up2wg]

Pointless suffering is bad - suffering with a purpose is not

[@Mosesblah]

Why?

[@stephencastro4723]

Speaking of horrible diseases, who again turned this World into a place where diseases would easilly thrive?

[@Devoted_Catholic777]

@@Charlotte_Martelsuffering is not a bad thing for one to think such they must be a fool. People who have experienced little suffering and difficulty in life are usually some of the most unlikable horrible people. Now imagine a person that has never had to face any suffering could you imagine how disordered of a person that would be how weak they would be?

[@KrazyKaiser]

This man is literally saying "If I didn't believe in God, I would believe in Scientific Racism." Every single argument in this video is a certified banger.

[@joemiller7082]

It’s clear cut telling on themselves. “The only thing keeping me in check is my fear of the version of god I have interpreted. You don’t want to hear all of the things I would do otherwise.”

[@unduloid]

Not only does the Bible not condemn slavery, it actually _condones_ it, and the fact that slave owners have justified their practice with the Bible in hand should really give you pause.

[@Z4r4sz]

@@CarlHobson-zm2gk Yes, there was no slavery in that fairy tale. So what?

[@unduloid]

@@CarlHobson-zm2gk There was no Garden of Eden to start with.

[@HuxtableK]

@@CarlHobson-zm2gk What did you think the point of this comment was?

[@Z4r4sz]

@@CarlHobson-zm2gk How can someone witness a place that never existed? Please explain. You have one book that says it exists. Does that prove anything? No. Where was this alledged place exactly? Nobody has found any hint of it. No faith required. But YOU need faith to pretend to know something you dont really know. Also known as lying.

[@Слышьты-ф4ю]

That's the point. Religion is firstly social institution, based on contagious mass psychosis with self-complexifying delusions. Why not to be sane? _You reject the most good and wise guy and go to hell, it's justified_ Why eternal torture for both guy who just was sane and guy who nailed children to death? _Errr ummm purgatory, it always was here, yas, yas_ I don't care about my hell, but would like to send you to heaven right now (prepares automatic made in USSR heaven-sender) _Noooooo you are bad, so bad unlike us, we are objectively morally good and beautiful, and we must spread our psychosis, it's not the point that I go to heaven, it's that you go to hell_

[@justchillin1087]

This person has no idea what a strawman argument is

[@ChrisBrown22082]

Atheism is a viewpoint on a single issue - a lack of belief in a god or gods. Therefore, there are no varieties of atheism (although there are some people who define the word to mean something else so you could argue loosely this is a variety). Some atheists are materialists, others are not. A view on this subject is a separate issue from atheism.

[@ChrisBrown22082]

@@masinaverde901 I've only ever heard theists define the word like this. Given the extreme difficulty in proving a negative, like the supernatural doesn't exist, almost all atheists I've come across define it as a lack of belief. Therefore it is not a truth claim but the default position in advance of positive evidence for the God claim. In the same way that those accused of a crime don't need to prove their innocence, rather it is up to the prosecution to prove that they are guilty, the burden of proof is on theists.

[@hermaeusmora424]

@@masinaverde901 No it isn't.

[@hermaeusmora424]

@@masinaverde901 Not it isn't.

[@hermaeusmora424]

@@masinaverde901 No it is not. Atheism is the lack of a belief. Agnosticism is the lack of knowledge. You can read up on atheism on The American Atheist site or on The Atheist Allegiance International. There you will find a more detailed explanation, but basically the "a" is a prefix and means without. Theism means belief in god so a-theism is without belief in god aka lack of a god belief.

[@ChrisBrown22082]

@@masinaverde901 Check OED for the dictionary definition. You can define the word how you choose but you're likely to cause confusion by using it in this way. Your definition is not useful as almost no-one would define themselves as atheist by that definition. If you look at the root of the word, it is a-theist meaning not theist. A theist is someone who believes in a god so an a-theist is someone who doesn't believe in a god. There is no third category. The definition of agnosticism is "the belief that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknowable". Atheists may or may not be agnostic depending on whether they believe it is impossible to know things about the supernatural.

[@sh4577]

Viced Rhino absolutely demolished this video, it was a pleasure to watch.

[@Julian0101]

He was not the only one, personally i liked TMM take, where he explained definitions are not arguments, so calling it circular reasoning is just brian's mistake. And sure a definition can be circular but in no way that makes it circular *reasoning.*

[@DeconvertedMan]

It only took me an hour... :D

[@matheuspinho4987]

*Next video:* questions that pagans can't answer

[@PattyBee]

Plot twist atheists are pagans

[@drycleanernick7603]

Yes

[@ungas024]

They are now called "New Atheists".

[@regandonohue3899]

A question Muslims can't answer

[@Bateluer]

I feel like that would be a long video. Neo-paganism has a lot of, er, gaps.

[@NotArtorias]

So, just so we are clear, despite not being around due to christianity in the Middle Ages, the trans-atlantic slave trade was started by portugal, a very christian country ,at the time, and allies with Spain, the most powerful catholic country

[@DocReasonable]

Morals are based on empathy, simple as that... for example, "I would not want to be a slave, therefore I would not enslave anyone.' If you have empathy, you will understand this way of thinking. If not, then you're probably religious and need to be told what's bad and what's good.

[@scienceexplains302]

Yes, and accepting what is bad or good based on the rules of a dictator is obedience, not morality

[@skdncbdjsjxbdb]

How is rape immoral is this framework?

[@scienceexplains302]

@@skdncbdjsjxbdb Which one? We discussed two.

[@DocReasonable]

Rape is immoral to anyone with empathy and a sense of decency, which excludes religious zealots. @@skdncbdjsjxbdb

[@El_Bruno7510]

@@skdncbdjsjxbdb Seriously? Can you not read or understand simple logic? I would not want to be r@ped, therefore I would not r@pe anyone! Now you might argue that some people do want to be, because they have such a fantasy for example. In which case it is not really r@pe then is it.

[@johnrobertson93]

In most cases, when an atheist states words to the effect that "only that which may be materially observed or empirically measured is real" with reference to theist claims, they are making reference to claims of the supernatural such as the existence of God, angels, demons, etc. Some atheists will go further to assert that theist, and even non-theist, claims of moral realism are similarly false, erroneous or otherwise unreal; in other words, some atheists are moral anti-realists -- those who do not share the moral realist view that moral statements reflect objective (mind-independent) facts about the world (universe/reality) rather than subjective (mind-dependent) opinions about how the world (universe) or state of affairs ought to be. Is slavery wrong? Yes. Slavery is morally wrong in that the vast majority of society deem it to be so and morality -- the social mores of modern society generally condemn it. Yes, slavery is morally wrong to those who hold to a standard of right and wrong based on empathy or following from the veil of ignorance, or rooted in egalitarian principles. For those who hold that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and the standard of morality, slavery is not morally wrong. The Bible neither universally condemns slavery nor prohibits it; rather, it allows for and makes provisions for how slavery ought to be practiced. If one holds that the Bible is the inviolate moral truth, then one cannot hold that slavery is wrong.

[@xavier84623]

objective morals cant exist i dont think. because if you get your morals from god or some cosmic book of rules or something, then your just getting it from that source. its that sources subjective opinion on morals and your just subjectively deciding to go with that one. what if in another reality the gods and laws of physics have different morals? as long as you can say that, it pretty much means objective morality is impossible, it is all relative to something.

[@yarvae]

The argument in this video is actually one that is more harmful to theists. The premise that is proven, which I agree with, is simply that morals have no objective backing and are subjective. This however agrees with the (logical) atheist position that we construct our morals. The position claiming objectivity in morals is the theist one. By this logic, the argument that we can't objectively say slavery is wrong only hurts the religious claims that it is objectively wrong. Whether you want to admit it or not, theist moral systems were also constructed by people and for that reason fail to be any more compelling than atheist ones. For this argument to benefit the theist position, you would first have to prove the objectivity of theist morals by proving this existence of these morals beyond the physical. The only issue for you then is that we live in a solely physical world so good luck. The only reason the argument seems to work is because it is begging the question by assuming such things like the soul or objective rights exist.

[@robertvirnig638]

Atheism isn't a worldview, it is just the lack of inclusion of one thing from one's worldview. But the kind of person you described mostly fits me as I am a humanist and philosophical naturalist. Humans evolved traits involved behavioral traits to protect one's family and community. This is a survival trait for humans and this promoting overall human well-being is balanced by promoting personal well-being. It is therefore natural for us to base morality on human well-being. Slavery objectively diminishes human well-being and is thereby immoral.

[@oxcart4172]

A man who believes in an undetectable being is talking about logic...

[@torontocitizen6802]

I’m an atheist and I can answer the question “is slavery wrong?” My answer is “YES! Slavery is wrong!” I want you to answer the question as well. Can you even do that without a bunch of caveats?

[@eddyeldridge7427]

They can answer it with lies.

[@jamesmccloud7535]

You missed the point of the video. Why is it wrong? Is there even right or wrong in the first place? Who determnies this? What if another person disagrees and think its right? Why are you right instead of them if objective morality doesnt exist.

[@torontocitizen6802]

@@jamesmccloud7535 How do you justify slavery as moral? Because a book says so? Are you incapable of thinking for yourself?

[@169FLOZ]

@@jamesmccloud7535 What in the actual fuck does morality have to do with atheism?

[@tommyhayes8702]

@@eddyeldridge7427 There is nothing, not one word, of the supernatural claims of the bible that can be verified or assessed. None of it. In the history of the world no one has ever managed such a feat. Now remind me, who is the liar?

[@cygnusustus]

If the question is "Is slavery wrong?" then the answers are: Christian: No. Secular Humanist: Yes. Next question?

[@newglof9558]

Really? Someone tell the Christian abolitionists that! And tell the kulaks in the Soviet work camps that as well!

[@eventhisidistaken]

@@newglof9558 ...also tell the slave owning witch trialing Christians of a few hundred years ago. The idea that slavery is wrong is new in history, and arose from secular humanism out of the Age of Enlightenment, not Christianity, which was fine with it for most of its 2000 year history.

[@newglof9558]

​​@@eventhisidistakenReally? Someone should tell St. Gregory of Nyssa and the Cappadocian Fathers that! They opposed it within the first 500 years of Christianity's history. I think you might have a view of history that is as biased as it is simplistic.

[@eventhisidistaken]

@@newglof9558 It would seem most Christians either didn't care about what St Gregory said, or forgot about it. FYI, slavery continued in predominantly Christian nations until the late 1800s.

[@HuxtableK]

@@newglof9558 If Christians claim that slavery is wrong, they are saying that their God is wrong. That's not exactly a great response.

[@ricardocasartelli]

Also suffering out of heroism, like self-denial or dying for a cause, which might be praised anywhere, is not suitable for suffering out of slavery, because in those cases the sacrifice is voluntary, while slavery is not.

[@eventhisidistaken]

We praise those who suffer for out benefit for selfish reasons, while we simultaneously condemn those who suffer to harm us, also for selfish reasons.

[@kenny78166]

1. An entire field of study is dedicated to 'Semantic Network Theory' and 'Foundationalism.' 2. Implying that the 'social contract' is about 'what is right is wrong' is a straw man (mutual benefit and rational self-interest are distinct from what is right and wrong) 3. The law is not a 'series of documented statements about what is right and wrong'. Some laws are/were immoral. 4. Morality exists outside of legal systems. Legal systems merely codify things that may or may not be moral (see point 3). 5. We have empirically tested and measured the basis for morality in neuroscience, anthropology and psychology. 6. The idea that 'slavery virtually disappeared in Christendom in the Middle Ages' is laughable. Pope Gregory: "Slaves should be told ...[not] to despise their masters and recognise they are only slaves." 7. There are Bibles written specifically for slaves. This occurred post-enlightenment. 8. 'Greater than the whole universe' is axiomatically wrong. If God exists, he exists in the universe. I suppose you mean 'outside of space-time'?

[@kylekornbau935]

Another fallacy of this is that being able to rationally support what you think or do is meaningful or important. The absurdity is the amount of language gymnastics being spewed here. We all do our best (except psychopaths) to be good people and we all fail. Having a verbally defined set or morals that you can logically support is meaningless except if you’re trying to control what others do. Then you can say you’re justified in doing that because god is on your side.

[@jimd6641]

I stopped listening after: "The bible doesn't go far enough in condemning slavery" Are you kidding me? The bible is 100% fine with slavery! It tells where to get them, how to treat them and how much to beat them, and that slaves should obey their masters.

[@TheShakenFist]

Feline is a term in Phylogenetics. Its a describing word of the Family Felidae. This can include house cats but also can include lions, tigers, and cheetahs. So using feline is more than ok to use in a definition. So the definition you used whist bad is correct. It is a feline creature that humans have inordenate affection for. Because this would not be true or larger cats and wild cats. I mean if you mess that up... cant wait to see the rest of the video.

[@shinywarm6906]

the same applies to the "honeybee" v "bee" definition he claims is circular. The honeybee is just one of a large number of taxa called "bees". That he cant be bothered to check out his object examples are valid is a good illustration of the laziness of his arguments

[@h8uall66]

This is a philosophically uninteresting question. A more interesting question is "why was slavery considered just and moral by Jews and Christians in Biblical times (and many other times in history) but is considered immoral by Jews and Christians now?"

[@brandonandrews4009]

There's a lot to address here, but you didn't actually argue for God's existence at any point. I think this jumbled mess is best classified as the informal fallacy of "appeal to consequences."

[@newglof9558]

He also never claimed to

[@brandonandrews4009]

@@newglof9558 Then what’s the point of the video? Brian Holdsworth: Why don’t you share my beliefs? Straw man atheist: Your beliefs lack empirical evidence. Brian Holdsworth: So do yours!

[@paintbox3011]

​@@brandonandrews4009All of this while this is in the Bible: Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states, "Servants, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ" ☠️

[@brandonandrews4009]

@@paintbox3011 Exodus 21:20 “When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner’s property.”

[@NottherealLucifer]

​@@newglof9558Yes, he did. The first time he ever asserted that his god was real was when every argument after that fact became one about his god's existence. "Atheists can't answer this question" is an irrelevant point because the assertion underlying any argument he could ever make about atheists is unfounded. Until literally any theist can prove that their god exists, their religious arguments are null.

[@Mythraen]

You either seriously do not understand how definitions work, or you are really bad at getting your point across, or possibly both. I'm leaning towards both. A definition is, by definition, synonymous with the word it describes. It's also not "circular reasoning." The description _has to_ be equivalent to the word it describes, or it's not a definition.

[@valiant971]

Stop trying to use logic. You don't really have the hang of it.

[@hereticairsoft4918]

Tmm just wiped the floor with good old holdsworth

[@DocReasonable]

The Bible NEVER condemns slavery. Why lie if your position is true?

[@arcticpangolin3090]

Let’s start off with a quick definition of wrong which fits this context: that which causes or promotes undue or gratuitous suffering. Now all we have to ask is “does slavery cause undue or gratuitous suffering?*” I myself would say yes and thus I would it is wrong. But on what basis does the Christian justify this conclusion? Because their supposedly holy text not only doesn’t go far enough to condemn slavery, it doesn’t explicitly condemn slavery whatsoever. However it does explicitly condone it. Thus the Christian has to ignore or misrepresent their scripture in order to reach a conclusion that slavery is morally wrong. I also want to point out a case of disingenuous framing. Because you start out but trying to narrow your field to empiricists only to ask a moral question. You see empiricism tends to apply to truth claims about how things are but moral questions don’t tend to fall into this category. Moral questions are based upon subjective value judgments and don’t fall under the same category as empirically justified truth. This kind of framing is highly disingenuous as it seems you’re trying to narrow the field in order to set yourself up for an easy victory rather than engage in legitimate discussion. *And no, suffering isn’t synonymous with evil. Suffering is an experience. Suffering is something you go through. Suffering is synonymous with pain and unpleasantness but not evil or bad. For example the sentence “that is a bad/evil action,” cannot be substituted with “that is a suffering action.” The later doesn’t really make sense grammatically but even if we assume it did these sentences do not have the same meaning. It is also kind of funny that after accusing these terms of being synonymous yourself you immediately then admit they aren’t. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? I think you are. And your examples following this are an excellent point…against your claim. Because let’s take exercise or certain medicines. They may cause suffering but they are not bad. In fact many “suffer” through a gruelling workout and would describe that experience as good. This is why most presentations of problems of suffering actually use adjectives like “gratuitous or grotesque” to describe the kind of suffering being referred to.

[@adrianagilar]

Does the consensual incest of two adults fall under your definition, or is incest something that is not wrong now?

[@arcticpangolin3090]

@@adrianagilar Incest is more something we tend to find distasteful but not usually from a moral perspective if you actually look at it. Of course in examples with abuse or disproportionate power then this would come under a moral frame but the act of incest itself is something I might even class as amoral. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s weird but that’s easily explained as an evolutionary adaptation to limit damaging impacts on the gene pool. If you disagree can you please highlight the moral principles or moral values that this act would violate? If you can’t by what justification do you have?

[@sweetpeabrown261]

@@adrianagilar This came up in the series "House". What if they have no intentions o having offspring? What difference does it make then? I think this is a good question, even if it is extra unlikely to come up in reality because it has been an actual cultural tabu forever.

[@theMosen]

I'm an atheist and I think I can comfortably say "slavery ought not exist". By that I just mean it would be a better world if slavery did not exist. And by "better world" I mean a preferable world with less suffering and more well-being. And that's measurable by asking people about their well-being. I don't really see what the problem is... Theists, all else equal, which is preferable: a world with less suffering or one with more suffering? And why?

[@Azariy0]

I am an atheist too, and this is quite interesting to me. I used to believe in utilitarianism, (which is what you're describing here) but I no longer do so. If you can, could you answer a few questions? It's fine if you won't. So, the reason I no longer follow any moral systems is simple. Why take into account other's people wellbeing? Why would you help other people, what's the justification? I get that there's this practical effect of "karma" where, when you help other people they will help you later, and that there's psychological benefits to being grateful, giving and kind, but beyond that, what's the reason? Say, if you can get 100K dollars, or pass on the opportunity so that an another random person in the world gets 1M dollars, why wouldn't you take the 100K? Even if you'll feel guilty afterwards, you could do therapy with that money. Rational egoism claims that it's rational for you to act only if it benefits you. So, if you are helping someone, it's because it benefits you. If you're not helping someone, it's because it benefits you. If you're harming someone, it benefits you, etc. So I just don't see the reason to help others when you don't need to. I think that all that matters is your own happiness. Also, just as a "seriousness check", I wanna ask you how much you are dedicated to utilitarianism? Because sometimes it can really go against your intuition. For example, let's say there's 5 patients who all need organ transplants, and the hospital they're in doesn't have any. But, there's a healthy guy who has all the right and compatible organs. You're a surgeon. You can kill the healthy patient to harvest his organs and save 5 people with them. According to utilitarianism, you should proceed to kill the guy. So, do you agree?

[@HuxtableK]

@@Azariy0 The example you gave at the end is not taking into account bodily autonomy, which doesn't conflict with utilitarianism. In fact, both situations you offered (the one where you can pass up 100K currency to give someone else 1M currency, and the one where you can raid one person's organs to save five people) aren't real situations. It's quite telling that your two main arguments against Utilitarianism are entirely fictional scenarios, extreme examples that don't have any real chance of happening.

[@Azariy0]

@@HuxtableK Uhh, I am pretty sure bodily autonomy does conflict with utilitarianism. In the case of organ harvesting, you are sacrificing 1 person to save 5. This example is specifically set up in a way so that you are saving the same amount of people as in the classic trolley problem. Since (I suppose) you claim that you can't kill 1 patient due to his rights, how is it different from killing a person in some other way to save 5 people. So, suppose there's a train heading for 5 people. You can divert it into an another track only killing 1 person. It's the exact same situation but in the organ one you installed a special rule which prevents saving people. Utilitarianism is meant to increase overall utility or happiness of all people, so you should definitely kill 1 person for his organs. (If you believe in utilitarianism. You seem to believe in rights...) And... Thought experiments are an extremely basic and helpful thing in philosophy, so I have no idea why you're saying this. It's like f=ma in physics. It's not "telling" at all that the thought experiments I listed have low chance of occuring in reality. I am talking about logical consistency here, which is very important in the real world.

[@HuxtableK]

@@Azariy0 Did that one person consent to giving up their organs? If not then it violates bodily autonomy and so violates the basic morality of utilitarianism. There. You're wrong.

[@theMosen]

@@Azariy0 Ok, there is a _lot_ to unpack here. I have a lot of thoughts, this is going to be a long rant. In fact I'm going to have to divide it into several comments due to youtube's character limit. I want to start by pointing out that I deliberately didn't appeal to any -isms in my initial comment. I prefer to take a naive, practical approach and see if and where inconsistencies arise rather than adopt a fully fledged -ism and have to defend it against all the academic attacks that it has received over the centuries. You asked how much I am dedicated to utilitarianism, well the answer is not at all, I am dedicated to adopting moral language that is consistent and useful. (I should mention at this point that I regard this debate, and ethics in general, to be about the use of language. I'm not interested in appeals to some deeper underlying Platonian reality. I don't believe in it, I hold the common contemporary academic philosophical view that words derive their meaning from their usage alone and from nothing "deeper".) As we will see, my views on how we can apply moral language consistently and in a useful manner do very much align with certain forms of utilitarianism, but let's not put the cart before the horse. I also diverge from utilitarianism on a metaethical level, but we'll get to that. You've made a bunch of compelling points that seek to address possible flaws in the doctrine of utilitarianism, but they don't address the consistency of my initial simple train of thought, at least not directly. So I extend the challenge that I gave theists to you: All else equal, is a world with less suffering not preferable to one with more suffering? (And is it in any way inconsistent or unproductive to use moral language to reflect that preference?) I think the point we might disagree on most if you're coming from a rational egoist perspective is my focus on usefulness. I hold rational egoism to be one of the more consistent ethical worldviews, coming close to utilitarianism in that respect, but I find it to be much less useful in both a personal and social sense. With all of that out of the way, your questions should certainly be fodder for some interesting debate even (or especially) with me not being 100% committed to utilitarianism, so I will gladly attempt to answer them as best I can. (lol, my intro was as long as your entire comment ) I guess your main question was your first one: why take into account other's people well-being. Well first of all, why not? Notice how your question carries an implication that your own well-being is all that _actually_ matters. More specifically, your question is "how does improving other people's well being improve my own?" I actually believe that it does and I'll get to that soon, but for now, notice how your meta-ethic stance is already baked into the question. A naive altruist might ask you the same thing backwards: "Why take you're own well-being into account? How does doing so help you help others?" And then be equally confused by your stance as you are by theirs. You said you believe that all that matters is your own happiness, what if they say "no you're wrong, helping others is all that matters"? How would you refute that? Are not both of those positions equally arbitrary? Our ethics is an expression of our priorities, and me personally, I want all of humanity to do well, not just myself. In fact I go a step further, I extend my utilitarianism to all sentient beings, animals and aliens included. The universe is a open sandbox game where we set our own goals, and the goal that I have chosen is nothing less than the max-happiness-for-all victory. Of course I won't achieve it, but the journey is the reward, because why tf not. It seems more meaningful that just focusing on one's own little self. Call this personal meta-ethical position "optimistic nihilism" if you will. (1/3)

[@AnotherViewer]

Moral Argument - begs the question as to whether morality is in fact ultimately authoritative, and whether morals actually exist or have meaning independently of us or whether, as many believe, there are alternative explanations for the existence of morals. In reality, it is neither necessary to follow a religion in order to be moral, nor is a religious person necessarily a moral one. Certainly, there appears to be no good reason to suppose that the absence of religion predisposes a person to be “bad”. Furthermore, atheism is quite compatible with philosophies like humanism which does have a system of ethics and purpose. For theists who argue that atheists have no motivation to be moral, the atheist could answer that virtue is its own reward and that, as Aristotle believed, being good and living virtuously is the only way to a fulfilled, self-actualized life. God and religion do not need to come into the equation at all. The idea that morality flows from religion received a major set-back in the public perception with the 9/11 attacks in 2001, when nineteen Al-Qaeda suicide hijackers occasioned the deaths of almost 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, secure in their expectation of a special place in paradise, complete with the use of 72 virgins, as a reward for their martyrdom. In fact, according to the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, 224 of 300 suicide terror attacks between 1980 and 2003 involved Islamist groups or terrorist acts in Muslim-majority lands. Similarly, the incidence of pedophilia and child molestation among Catholic priests has been well documented in recent years, and more evidence comes to light with each passing year, suggesting that even the devoutly religious are far from immune from immoral behavior (as well as bringing into question the wisdom of the Catholic doctrine of celibacy). Studies by the biologist Marc Hauser, involving a series of hypothetical moral choices, have shown that there is no statistically significant difference in the moral judgements made by atheists and religious believers, nor by members of the Kuna, a small Central American tribe with little or no contact with Westerners and no formal religion. There may in fact be good Darwinian reasons for altruism, generosity and “moral” behavior, which have applied throughout history and prehistory, for instance, the favoring of genetic kin, the giving of favors in anticipation of reciprocation or payback, and the social benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity or kindness (as in the potlatch custom of North American native groups). Even if circumstances have changed in the modern world, such hard-wired urges likely persist, in much the same way as the sexual urge persists even when the Darwinian pressure to procreate is not the primary motive. Moral codes clearly do change over time. For example, the practice of women working outside the home in Western societies has changed over time from being considered immoral to moral as changes have occurred in how women are valued as well as in what women themselves value in their lives. In the same way, the torture and burning of possible witches in 17th Century Europe can be seen as either a supreme act of morality or as the product of evil incarnate, depending on one's perspective. It is also clear that moral behavior is highly malleable, and subject to psychological, social and cultural pressures. The well-known “shock” experiments of Stanley Milgram and the “Stanford Country Jail” experiments of Philip Zimbardo in the 1960s were graphic illustrations of this malleability, especially where the subject is just an intermediate link in a chain of evil actions and under social pressure to demonstrate obedience to authority. It should be remembered that these experiments were conducted in the wake of the Adolf Eichmann Nazi Holocaust trials, in which the phase “the banality of evil” was first coined. Secular Morality: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h3K0d4ydrqp0eas

[@killianmiller6107]

I just want to run this past you, do you think there’s such a thing as “evolution of the gaps” arguments, where we speculate on evolutionary grounds to explain some physical or psychological behavior even though, strictly speaking, we do not have evidence to support this speculation? Like on the matter of morality, an evolution of the gaps might sound like “back in the caveman days, the human community was more likely to survive and pass on its genes if they didn’t lie, steal, murder, rape, enslave, etc, because it promotes group cohesion.” Though arguably these things would make someone more likely to survive and reproduce if they lie about where their food is or whether they did something, if they steal and eat the fruits of others’ labors, if they murder their competitive adversaries, and if they pass on their genes through forceful reproduction. The point being, this kind of speculation toward “evolutionary morality” is something some people are willing to believe without any strict evidence for it, possibly to avoid the chance that “goodness” is transcendent. Perhaps the argument is that evolutionary speculation has better empirical basis for the concept of “goodness” than something that has “no empirical basis” like the transcendent, when it’s precisely the concept of goodness that points toward the transcendent, like how truth points toward the transcendent (because what’s true is true no matter what anyone tries to say). Anyway, your thoughts?

[@sandrajackson709]

@@killianmiller6107 Even if there were no evidence for evolutionary psychology in which I don't see how there couldn't be if our actual brains evolved then of course our phycology would change and now we can understand abstract ideas not understood previous in our evolution and with that you seen a gradual advancement in how complex our societies have become. But supposing there was no such thing. What makes a truth transcendent rather than what our minds have come to discover about this reality. What in that process happens absent of a physical brain that would make it transcendent? There is simply what is and what is not and whether we come to know what is or what isn't doesn;t make in transcendent in any way or provides evidence that is transcendent. Reality is not a product of what we think about it and is in no way defined by what we call truth, or our concepts of what is good or bad.

[@masinaverde901]

You can't even define morals or where they came from in a purposeless system that is a series of random chemical reactions. Yet we have truths that transcend the material.

[@sandrajackson709]

@@masinaverde901 So do these chemical reactions not take place in the brain and could the process of even pronouncing the word truth and understanding the concept have taken place without a physical brain? Did you think our erectus ancestors could comprehend what morality was or did it take more process of an evolving brain to arrive at the point we are now? If an alien race existed and far exceeded us in intelligence with more peaceful societies what do you think would be different about them in comparison to us? And why have we not learned to have those same peaceful societies? Why haven't our "moral system" gotten us that far?

[@AnotherViewer]

@@killianmiller6107 "The point being, this kind of speculation toward “evolutionary morality” is something some people are willing to believe without any strict evidence for it, possibly to avoid the chance that “goodness” is transcendent." When archeologists, anthropologists, etc find patterns in the evidence of early human habitation combined with studies of our genetic cousins (other Great Ape species), we have evidence of just that. Remember, there are more than just "scientists" there are people who specialize in finding that evidence and the presenting it to others in that same field and when the conclusions that match the evidence pass this "peer review" is it then accepted. If you can find a copy or pdf check out the book : "Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives" edited by Leonard D. Katz "Perhaps the argument is that evolutionary speculation has better empirical basis for the concept of “goodness” than something that has “no empirical basis” like the transcendent, when it’s precisely the concept of goodness that points toward the transcendent, like how truth points toward the transcendent (because what’s true is true no matter what anyone tries to say)." Speaking of making a claim with no empirical basis. You keep using that word (transcendent) without actually showing that the subject is actually transcendent. I understand transcendent is just something that is beyond or above the range of normal. When morality in species is the normal, what part of it is actually transcendent and why is it even needed?

[@ArenHill]

It's so adorable that people like this think that they've come up with something so profound that atheists 'can't answer' when it's easily answerable. What's even funnier is that they assume that even if we can't answer, it proves god.

[@MrHardfoot]

If morality can't exist without religion then it can't exist with religion.

[@Capybarrrraaaa]

I think a large part of your issue is in seeing a morality as a noun instead of a verb; it's something we do, not something that, physically, exists. You also seem to have a very 'individual' sense of what morality is, which I'd say is a limited framing since morality is, necessarily, a group-activity. What is moral is what we agree to protect. What is immoral is what we agree to remove. The _"agree"_ is the important part; morality is a mutual pact of protection. Most people agree to systems, which can best explain what we agree to, by applying the scientific method to them; to test the outcomes against our reactions and to create iterative models of best-fit. That's why we create concepts 'Freedom of Expression' instead of fiddling with individual cases all of the time. Slavery is wrong for multiple reasons: because we don't want ourselves enslaved, because it's upsetting, but most importantly; because it forces us to choose between larger axioms or itself. We can't hold concepts like free-speech, free-expression, free-association, freedom-of-movement, property rights, etc. and slavery at the same time (for as long as we hold to the principle of non-contradiction). That is too large a philosophical cost for most people to agree to slavery. So, it becomes wrong.

[@BrianHoldsworth]

That's a thoughtful reponse, thank you. But the problem is, based on the kind of atheism I'm confronting (empiricism) it doesn't work, because you haven't provided any empirical evidence for your definition of morality or for why slavery is wrong. These are metaphysical reasons that require us to judge between non-physical potentials - that is a world that can't be seen or measured, but only contemplated or revealed by the supernatural.

[@Capybarrrraaaa]

@@BrianHoldsworth I'm not sure why you expect or want empirical evidence for this, it's like expecting evidence for the definition of 'walking'. Similarly, syllogisms don't exist, they are logical tools that help us navigate the world that _does_ exist. Do you expect empirical evidence for syllogisms or walking? If you want to say that this approach is not accurate, then you'd have a _whole lot_ more to throw-out, too. Understanding of existence requires an observer, remember. Even if a god made reality and morality, throwing-out this reasoning also jettisons your concept of god, too.

[@hitman5782]

@@BrianHoldsworth So your point is, if there isn´t a god who likes to kill firstborn children, kill 42 children because some of them called a bold man bold (2.kings) or kill all children by flooding the world and so on then we wouldn´t be able to figure out that something might be wrong about running around decapitating the people around us? Wow, just wow!

[@ricardocasartelli]

I’m not quite sure that the examples of suffering like chemotherapy, surgery or exercise fit slavery. Because those are supposed to provoke a greater benefit for the individual that suffers them, while the kind of suffering that slavery provokes doesn’t lead to a further benefit for the slaves themselves.

[@oponentgull186others4]

Yeah. I’m not sure with this guy. He doesn’t know what a feline is, he doesn’t know what suffering is, and he assumes his book accounts for morality when a read through kinda states otherwise.

[@Devoted_Catholic777]

@@oponentgull186others4atheist says causing suffering is wrong also atheist THATS NOT WHAT I SAID

[@Devoted_Catholic777]

@@oponentgull186others4atheists need to be more specific and say it’s wrong to cause suffering to people that doesn’t benefit them. Which wouldn’t work for slavery because some people actually did benefit from being enslaved

[@oponentgull186others4]

@@Devoted_Catholic777 watching people defend slavery is sad. People benefitted from it, however the people who benefitted weren’t the ones who suffered, instead the ones who inflicted the suffering at god’s word by the way.

[@Devoted_Catholic777]

@@oponentgull186others4 Yes it is sad, now stop defending slavery atheists have no way to say it’s morally wrong and that helps people who support slavery. the Africans didn’t hunt down and sell other tribe members because the bible told them to it doesn’t tell them to do that they did it because they had no God telling them not too. Also it makes way more logical sense for the weak to be dominated by the strong and intelligent under atheism that’s how it works in nature survival of the fittest and natural selection would produce the top civilization and people and these all occur in nature already. As well as what I said slaves did benefit from slavery depending on circumstances etc some slaves came from places that they were barley surviving in and needed desperately to have medical aid etc if you were lucky enough to get a high position as a slave to an important person etc you certainly received benefits from that and potentially were in a better position then you were back in Africa barley scrapping by on the daily

[@pessiruuska]

I would say morals are just a set of rules humans have based upon themselves, partly due to biology and empathy as it makes cooperation easier and partly due to cultural evolution as communities started to impose rules to make living together easier. Those rules have evolved over the years into different things but eventually have come together as morals that we live by and by those same rules we define what is wrong and what is right. I believe slavery is wrong because it infringes on human rights and puts some humans below others. But the morals I hold which shape my belief with have been implanted in me mostly by society, and like most people, my belief might very well be different had I lived in another society at another time.

[@Devoted_Catholic777]

With atheism some humans are under others… a extremely retarded person in no way can coherently have the same value as a highly productive member of society under atheism. So argument was a fail. Same with where you think it comes from just random opinions that have no base on reality or they’re what’s beneficial which isnt actually how the words morally right or wrong are used killing all the bums to harvest their organs for productive people could be beneficial that doesn’t make it right.

[@TiJacQc18]

I am catholic, but, I could refute your argument, from a truly atheistic and naturalist point of view by saying that what you define as human rights doesn't really exists and it is just manmade. What would it matter if someone was put below others because goodness and evil don't exist. I think you should try to live coherently if that is the case. If all can be explained through naturalism and evolution, then it means that invisible things don't really exist since they might just be manmade to help us survive and thrive as societies. What I mean by invisible things are not just God or angel or souls, but mainly concepts such as innocence, victory, justice and honor. Those are invisible things because there is no matter, energy, wave or any physical measurement of their existence which might easily be dismissed as though they don't exist, just like good and evil. Think of it, there is no physical proof that someone is innocent. There is no physical proof that injustices exist outside our subjective desires of it existing (according to naturalism). It bothered me for a while until I started reading about history. I read this book, The Rape of Nanking, which describes the sacking of the Chinese capital, Nanking, in 1937, by the Japanese. The city had surrendered, and yet, the Japanese committed genocide, around 300 000 people were killed in 6 weeks. The books claims that there were decapitation contests made in the streets, there were people who were halfway buried into the ground and then live fed to germen sheperds, some Japanese soldiers slashed the bellies of pregnant women and toyed with their unborn baby around their sword. It is estimated that around 80 000 women were raped. Japanese soldiers apparently walked into Chinese houses or appartements, raped the women there, and then asked their fathers, brothers, sons, to rape their mothers, sisters and daughters otherwise they would kill the men also, which they might also do anyway. Now remember what I first said, be coherent. Either this is objectively evil, or it is not. If evil is subjective, one could argue that it does not exist objectively but that each defines what is good or bad and that what can be evil to someone might be good to another. And if there is no physical proof that innocence exists, nor injustice, then what happens just happened. If innocence does not truly exist and is the product of evolution to help society thrive, then one can rework the definition so that, in that moment, our ennemies are guilty. This is what the french revolutionaires did, and so did the communist and the nazis. And remember, you ought to be coherent, all that described suffering, was not evil, it was only an illusion of being evil. See, through evolution, Man has evolved so that he could invent concepts to help him out "innocence", "injustice", "honor", "good", "evil", "God". Either he invented these concepts, in which case, good and evil and innocence and justice are illusions, or, just like mathematics, Man has discovered what was good and evil, and he merely translated with human symbols what they were. Picture those things, invisible things, concepts, like glasses. Either they are glasses with a pink filter, which prevents you from seeing the world in it's true form (no morality), or they are good glasses which help see the world closer to what it truly is (with morality), just like you would with laws of physics. In the end, once again, be coherent. If it is all naturalism, how do we know that evil exists at all? That innocence and injustice exist at all? How can we know they are not the product of the human mind? And carry that into your own life. If you see something beautiful, tell yourself "This is not beautiful, nor good, I have simply evolved to see this as such." If you see something evil, tell yourself this "I can turn away, whatever indignation I feel in my heart is only because I have evolved to feel this way." If you or someone you love is striken by injustice, there is no need for reparation, not truly. If you see or hear the story of a hero, of a truly good man, such as Saint Isaac Jogues who is a Jesuit Martyr who decided to go back and evangelise the natives despite having been tortured, enslaved and nearly killed years prior, by those people, and yet went back to help them find God nonetheless. If you hear or see such testemonie, remind yourself "What that man did was pointless, fool" Be coherent.

[@JB-yb4wn]

@@TiJacQc18 Innocence can be proven with science, it's called evidence. Victory can be proven with facts, look at the score, that is evidence of a victory. Justice is what courts mete out after they prove someone is not innocent by using science. Honour is evidenced by deeds. How about this premise? People will not do things unto others that would be done unto themselves.

[@TiJacQc18]

@@JB-yb4wn I do not see how you have proven the existence of those concepts you have poorly defined. I think the weakest definition you gave was the on about Justice. Obviously, there is something that we call justice that goes beyond what court decides. If a man rapes a woman, it is an injustice whether the court can prove it or not. I am asking for the evidence that those concepts exist truly, objectively. For example, you claim that Innocence is evidence. Okay, I see what you mean, however, it does not meet what I meant in the first place. What I meant was, you are a Jew in Nazi Germany in the 1930 and 1940s, the State claims that you are guilty, how do you prove your innocence then? What evidence do you have? We changed the law and have found that you are guilty. What I claim is that there is such a thing as injustice or innocence regardless of whether the States or the social contract agrees with you. I'm not sure you can prove that with "science". As for your premise, I don't know what you mean by that? People do all sorts of things they wish other people wouldn't do to them. Lying is the first one that comes to mind.

[@JB-yb4wn]

@@TiJacQc18 Or you are a Jew in sitting in Spain being massacred by Catholics? Being found guilty of being from a different religion than Christianity. You people are hypocrites as well. So, getting back to your Jew being persecuted in Germany, this is where your justice thing comes up, because a lot of those judges were executed at the Nuremberg trials for such errant behaviour. This inane example of guilt or innocence does not reflect the normal behaviour of a state. Such examples that you mention can be found in states that have no checks and balances therefore innocence is not what is being judged here, what is being judged is whether the individual is a threat to the existence to the state and has to be made an example of. Theocratic states like Saudi Arabia and Iran do this all the time. Because I don't gerrymander my argument to fit my narrative like you do, my reasoning was reflecting the posit that 99% of us would recognize as a proper interpretation of why someone needs to be judged innocent or guilty; as in a court of law in a country that has institutions to protect rights against government abuse. The social contract that the government has with its populace is clearly spelled out in a given constitution and a concomitant infrastructure of laws that ensure that governments and/or the civilians of the given state behave according to the law. This law gets amended as societal norms change, (as in the case of slavery, which I see the bible hasn't addressed yet). These laws were accepted rules that even the most ancient civilizations had because they wanted a social order and redressment from those acting outside the norms of that society. My comment reflects that attitude.

[@gwens2463]

At around the minute mark: 1) Your prompt for the type of atheist you have in mind: Only what can be empirically observed and materially measured is real. ->1) My response: I don't know if that is true, our minds have limits we will never be aware of. 2) In this case, if you want to assert anything is real that's the sort of evidence you need to provide. ->2) If something is observed, measured, proven, I know I have a good reason to believe that something is 'real'. In simpler terms; I usually believe what I can know, I don't believe what I can't know. Around 2 minute mark: 1) Is slavery wrong?: You say you hear atheists claiming the Bible doesn't go far enough for its condemnations of slavery. - 1) They're not out of line, in the Bible you will find guidelines on how to enforce slavery. Like in most ancient texts, slavery wasn't treated like it was unethical. 2) Then you go on to say you don't think the atheists you described can answer the question sufficiently, you think their answers are illogical and that their explanation isn't as sufficient as they would expect from others. Circular reasoning, even. -2) I think you are conflating reality and morality. To prove something is real and to prove something is right or wrong are two very different subjects. 4 minute mark: 1) So what is right and wrong? You bring up the common "atheist", or rather a philosophical perspective, of whatever prevents suffering and increases wellbeing is morality. ->1) It is a philosophical position anyone can take regardless of religion, one many subscribed to your religion probably do so as well. 2) You then go on to claim yourself that in this view: suffering = evil, wellbeing = good. You give the example of... exercising... like, exercise is suffering but it's for the greater good. ->2) You set up a dummy version of this philosophy without even properly bringing it down. The small suffering of exercising towards a greater physique is overshadowed by its benefits, which results in greater wellbeing overall. Or a more dire example, submitting yourself to the suffering of being mauled to death by a cavebear to save the children of your tribe can also be a way to decrease suffering and increase wellbeing. These are the sort of things we have done long before the concepts of religion and philosophy even came to mind. Some might even call this morality! 5:30 mark: 1) Morality is just what has been agreed upon, like a social contract which can accumulate into a legal system. You say this is begging that the law is synonymous to morality, which according to you just goes around in circles. You say the law pertains to what is morally right or wrong. That it fails to account for individual cases. How to judge one legal system that endorses slavery, and one that doesn't? Unless morality sits outside of legal systems. ->1) Excellent questions, and good news; morality DOES exist outside of legal systems. The law is NOT synonymous to morality. The law is more than often disgustingly sycophantic towards the ruling class. I don't agree. Doesn't christianity inspire people to follow the law of their patron state, though? 2) Once again you claim circular reasoning. You say the law is not a substitute for morality. Morality cannot be accounted for empirically. ->2) Now there at long last, you've actually adressed what you've been meaning to say for the last 7 minutes. You want *empirical* evidence for morality, because people want *empircal* data for the existence of *things*. Morality isn't a *thing* you can prove exists, a *thing*, an entity you can prove. This is where you are wrong and have always been wrong, confusing an idea for an actual thing. After this I'm done tbf, it's been enough for me. I enjoy discussing theïsm but I'm afraid I have a date with my mom to watch the Chosen (ironically 😇, a show I've recommended to her because I love her dearly and her religion brings her joy.). I'm grateful you put your positions out there, but you would do well to talk to atheists in real time instead of talking to straw men, it's a better look for both you and me. I can talk, though my English is so-so so that might be funny.

[@ryanbarham8464]

INCREDIBLY dishonest to imply that the Bible condemns slavery when it is explicitly in favor. Morality is subjective. Back when the Old Testament was written, the authors would have said that slavery is NOT wrong, in and of itself. About 200 years ago, we here in America had a rather heated debate over whether slavery was wrong or not. And nowadays, it's generally agreed upon that it is. I believe slavery is wrong, but objectively speaking, this question has no answer. And speaking of 200 years ago: back before slavery was abolished in America? It's main practitioners were Christians. Turns out, you can justify morally reprehensible acts by appealing to divine authority.

[@peebothuhlu7186]

@01:52 Q: "Is slavery wrong?" A: "Yes." That seemed easy. Next insurmountable question?

[@newglof9558]

By what standard

[@taratamburello3253]

The standard of not causing a fellow living thing unnecessary pain, emotional or physical.

[@newglof9558]

​@@taratamburello3253and what does that have to do with morality?

[@taratamburello3253]

@@newglof9558 it relates because it is the fundamental base of morals any human, who is a member of a social species with the ability to feel pain and the desire to avoid it, should follow

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

​@@taratamburello3253I don't need any standard to determine which human behaviors are moral, amoral, or immoral. I, and I alone, determine that.

[@jon66097]

The meaning of Synonym is one of two or MORE words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses. So all definition are by definition synonyms. Which apparently means we can't define anything according to this guy.

[@docmatthy]

You are right. And he is unable to see this. All in all the "logic" of his argumentation is completely false.

[@ralphreinert]

I was about to say basically the same thing but I figured someone else would say it first. So this was my comment: Define the word "word" without using words.

[@zemas1712]

I like how he poses these questions of "Can you define 'this' and your response is going to be 'this' and that is a circular argument." No, I would not use any of those responses to define bees or cats, but I'm not going to here as those were purely hypotheticals and don't matter to the overall discussion. I do agree with the statement, though I will slightly alter the wording, that 'Nothing should be believed as fact if it cannot be imperically proven' so I guess I am being 'called out' and I am going to respond with my views of the subject. When defining what is 'wrong' I would first off like to be a bit more specific and say we are talking about what is 'morally wrong'. As simply something being 'wrong' can also refer to for example being 'factually wrong', which is something else entirely. When talking about what is 'morally wrong', I would probably lean close to the argument you presented. In my own words, what is morally right is 'That which causes the least amount of suffering, and elevates the most amount of well being, for as many people as possible.' There may be holes in that, I don't know, I haven't thought too deeply on this stuff for a while, if you find holes I agree with I am happy to adjust to account for it. Your argument that I've simply replaced suffering with 'what is bad' and that there are plenty of examples where suffering is good, as it leads to good results. I do not see this as conflicting at all. People who suffer and die in wars as you used as an example, suffered so that the country they defended didn't get taken over or continuously get attacked by a hostile forign power, who would inflict a much greater amount of suffering, by either being oppressive, taking away the people's culture and/or freedoms for generations. They suffered now, and greatly so, so that others won't have to suffer more for generations to come, which is noble and worth recognizing and honoring. Your argument for exercise is simmilarly flawed, as you suffer in the moment of doing your exercise so that your body will be more physically fit and last longer in the long term. Giving you a longer and healthier life where you suffer less from back and joint issues as you get older while also elevating your well being be making you capable to do more physically demanding tasks easier. Now finally, when it comes to slavery, yes it is obviously morally reprehensible to allow slavery, we are talking about owning another person as property. Anyone with a basic amount of empathy and ability to put themselves in someone elses position can see that being owned as property with no freedom is a terrible situation to be in for anyone, even if we, for the sake of argument, were to treat slaves well, give them proper food clothing and shelter, it is still a terrible fate to not be able to persue your own goals in life and be forced to work to please others for no compensation other than the basic necessities to sustain their lives. Once again, 'That which causes the least amount of suffering, and elevates the most amount of well being, for as many people as possible.' a slavery system would cause a great amount of suffering for a great amount of people only to elevate the well being for a comparatively small group of people. It doesn't take much intelligence to realize that lifting a burden (In this case, keeping society running) causes much less stress on the individual if an entire group tries to lift it together rather than making a few do it alone, spreading the burden on a great amount of people causes less suffering overall, therefor slavery is 'morally wrong' Note that I am not arguing from emotions or feelings here, which I also very easily could. If you wanted to imperically prove this, you could 'hypothetically' take a sample group of slaves and slave owners, with the slaves being set to work and the owners watch and compare them to a group of workers of a number equal to the slaves + the slave owners, doing the exact same tasks all together and measure the stress on their bodies, observe health conditions after a number of years of labour or apply the standards of human rights groups like amnesty international and the likes or whatever other measurement you would prefer, to see which group has the most suffering and have the best standards of living, and there you have your answer. Though we don't even need test groups as we have the data from many years ago when slaves were part of sociey in the western world, or if you want more recent data, there are still coutries in today's world that practice slavery, go there and take the data you want. Hope this was somewhat comprehensible.

[@aliceosborne3866]

This is the same question as “where do atheists get their morals from”, and the answer is the same too….it’s a social construct.. and that is also the reason why the bible doesn’t state slavery is wrong.. because 2 thousand years ago you wouldn’t have found people who would say slavery is wrong. 2 thousand yrs ago they didn’t see slavery as wrong.

[@hermaeusmora424]

2:12 Bible not going far enough in its condemnations of slavery? The bible is pro slavery. Tells you who you can enslave, tells you how you can treat them etc etc.

[@arcticpangolin3090]

It also has different standards for foreign peoples, only bringing more parallels with the North Atlantic slave trade.

[@newglof9558]

out-of-context verses yanked from Exodus are not "the Bible's stance on slavery"

[@hermaeusmora424]

@@newglof9558 They aren't out of context. Christians are the only ones that want to rip it out of context, because you can't accept that the bible advocates for it.

[@arcticpangolin3090]

@@newglof9558 You can claim out of context all you like, doesn’t make it true. If it truly is out of context why don’t you provide the context you think is present and demonstrate it.

[@newglof9558]

​@@arcticpangolin3090oh I dunno guy, how about the entire Biblical narrative and the ancient world as a whole? I gotta ask, is it nice being able to sit on your high horse of the present, in your nice, air-conditioned flat, wagging your finger and clutching your pearls on people of the past for their moral inferiority? It's ridiculous. Slavery was and still is a universal human institution. That's what it is. Wage slavery still exists. Furthermore this omits certain Biblical concepts like Jubilee years, etc.

[@DrMustacho]

Is being a slave good? Would you want to be a slave Is happy birthday a bad song? Just because something isn't objective doesn't mean there isnt a pattern or concensus

[@heiwaii847]

Universally speaking, the value of slavery or any other humanistically derived concept, idea, or language is considered null. The reason is because it depends on the perspective to which you ask the question towards which may or may not change the answer. Morals in any category are subject to differences of opinion. There are congruences of shared values of morals, which is what is generally agreed upon depending on the individual/group perspective.

[@bobbyellis5006]

"Why is slavery wrong?" As you stated, first we must define what we mean by wrong. I would argue that we define what is "wrong" as an action imposed on a person by a nothing person that does undue harm to that person. Telling someone to exercise and making them "suffer" through pain is not a harm as it is something that will help them further down the line. Punching a stranger in the face over a disagreement is a harm as it is something forced upon them that causes them pain and injury whether it be physically, emotionally, or financial. Even if some benefit might come out of it at some point down the line, the negative consequences outweigh those benefits and were the intended goal of the person inflicting the harm. Also, that harm is meant to benefit the person applying the harm despite the lack of consent from the person experiencing the negative effects. Putting a person who is found guilty of a violent crime into prison is not a harm, as they themselves have caused undue harm to others, and therefore forfeited their ability to consent to participating in a society governed by rules that forbid violent crimes. I think you get the point. At a certain level, we have to agree on basic ideas or you just continue down a spiral of constant definitions. We as human beings have evolved to be cultural and tribal beings, achieving our greatest works due to cooperation and teamwork. We may disagree on what those works are or what they should achieve in the end, but it's very easy to see that a larger population putting its efforts towards achieving something will succeed over a smaller group, all other things being equal. Slavery, by our previous definition of "right and wrong" is wrong. It brings undue harm to others without their consent, even if it benefits the slave owner. The slave owner's goal is not to benefit the slave, but themselves at the expense of the slave. This goes against the evolved ideas of cooperation and teamwork. It is a parasitic relationship, not a cooperative one. We can then see how slavery is "wrong" even by evolutionary standards. "Morality is a standard of truth. What ought to be or what not ought to be." If this is your definition of morality, then the Bible is a very poor place to gain your morality. According to Christian doctrine, the Bible is the word (or inspired word) of an all powerful, all knowing God, who himself says that he is never changing (Hebrews 13:8, Malachi 3:6). What God sees as right or wrong, should never change unless you are saying that what ought to be, or what not ought to be is subject to change throughout time. If that is the case, then God's truth would be subject to change. Perhaps you should answer the question yourself. Is slavery right or wrong. God does not condemn it in the Bible. Why was it ok before and not ok now? Has God's truth changed? Is revenge right or wrong? God orders the Israelites to take an eye-for-an-eye. But the sermon on the mount tells us to turn the other cheek, specifically against a violent person. Has God's truth changed? Simply saying that "different times different rules" can't be applied to a "standard of truth, what ought to be or what not ought to be." By your own definition, if something ought not to be, it should always be the case that it not ought to be. What is harmful now should have been harmful then and vice versa. This idea of slavery dying off in Christendom is either poor research or just outright lying. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It is true that we see a decrease in slavery during the rise of Christianity in Europe. Part of that can be attributed to people like St. Patrick and Bathilde Queen of the Franks having been enslaved at one point and fighting against slavery once they came to prominence. But it does not mean that slavery did not exist in medieval Europe before the Renaissance. It's difficult to judge exact numbers, as the Roman word for slave (servus) was later applied to a certain class of unfree people known as serfs, you know the thing that medieval Europe's entire economy and political system was built upon. What did change was the idea of Christian slaves being sold to non-Christians. That was prohibited by the church. As a result Christian slavers moved their focus to selling non-Christian slaves to other non-Christian slaves. We have records of cities that built massive trading routes based on slavery, Venice being the most prominent. From Venice we see a large population of Slavs and Eastern Europeans non-Christians being transported through different European countries and to places like North Africa and the Middle East. Eunuchs were so valuable in the slave trade that Venice even began to see a rise in Castration Houses to meet the demand. As for your idea that secular logic dictates that the strong should dominate the weak and that before the human soul was the only thing used to measure a person's worth, I would argue this heavily. The Catholic Church obviously did not think so at the time, when they deemed that the general populous was not worthy of reading and studying God's word themselves, sealing off that kind of ability behind Latin sermons, claiming that the only way to get to heaven was by having a priest accept your confession. The very idea of a priest, of a papal system, is built on the idea that some human beings are of greater spiritual value than others. But ignoring that, the entire class system of medieval Europe was built on the idea that one person's blood was better than another's. Royalty, anyone? Kings were literally said to be appointed by god, the bloodline blessed to carry on that divine rule. Why were nobles ransomed in wars but not peasants?

[@sjackson6741]

1. Just as not all athiests believe the same, also not all theists believe the same. 2. Slavery was and still is a pre-technological/cheap labor for low price products form of economic advancement. It's wrong when we do it to people, but when we do it to animals nobody cares. That's because it's easier to see your self in another person's place than an animals. That is what we call empathy, but it does not extend past your species identification. 3. The right and wrong duality is one that differs from person to person, group to group just as any other belief. Most people do share many similarities on these beliefs of right and wrong but there are exceptions. These exceptions are dependent on the life experiences you grew up with, or were indoctrinated to believe. 4. Describing something such as a cat or a bee is much more detailed than using synonyms. An accurate description would include accurate anatomical descriptions, habits, diet, habitats (native and non-native), diet, it's role in an ecosystem, strengths, weaknesses and etc. Giving a name to something is a quick way to identify all these attributes without having to recall every detail. 4. Religion made suffering synonymous with evil, and the well being synonymous with good. In reality it's all about perspective, what's evil for the fly is good for the spider. 5. You are correct a little suffering, such as exercise or surgery is beneficial for the greater good. 6. Regarding law and morality. Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told, religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right. 7. Legal systems are always being updated as a society's moral values evolve with that society, and when that society fights to uphold their new found values. 8. Morality has more meaning for an athiest than a thiest. An athiest does good for this one life we've been given and not because of a reward promised in a false afterlife. 9. In nature we get what we get, not what we want. As my mom used to say, "wish in one hand, and s**t in the other, see which one fills up first". Of course I now see that wishing, wanting and praying are all one in the same. 10. Going to call bs on your slavery being built on the secular era, first of all your bible and 10 commandments are a rip off of Egyptian theology. The Egyptians were widely known for using slaves. 11. Slavery still exists. The modern slave feeds, clothes and houses themselves. They then turn to religion to cope with it. The system was designed this way for production of the most effective slave. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe themselves to be free. 12. Of course we're all different, look around at the natural world. The world you claim your god created. The law of nature is survival of the fittest. Yes there are humans that have no compassion and will dominate others, but that doesn't stop people from saying, "I've had enough". People can dominate or subserviate if they choose to. That is the difference between slavery and consent. 13. There is no proof of a soul. Imagine if you will that we are all different. (We are) our brains are like circuits in a computer, a small change and it functions differently. No two brains are alike, so we think differently. The veins, neurons, tissue density, varying supplies of nutrients. Don't get me started on external factors such as conditioning and environment. We know energy can not be created or destroyed, only transferred. When we die the energy leaves out bodies as heat, very minute amounts of light, the remaining energy trapped in the physical form of our body gets released into nature to be recycled and used again. Fuel for the coming generations, over and over again, so long as there is life to use it.

[@maxdoubt5219]

Atheist morality: "The act of (X) is immoral." Period. No exceptions or conditions. No waivers, caveats, provisos or exemptions i.e. _absolutely_ immoral. Xian morality: "The act of (X) is immoral, unless that act is commanded or committed by God. Then that's a different situation." For (X) you can insert any act, no matter how much pain, suffering, misery and grief it causes. Welcome to Xian situational ethics.

[@kevinkelly2162]

Atheists: I wont do that because I can see how it would hurt other people. Christians: Who cares, my god said I could do it so I will.

[@newglof9558]

Both of you don't understand how Christianity works Why is "act X" immoral?

[@ungas024]

You have to define what's immoral first, you can't say words that don't hold any meaning. What's immoral according to you?

[@AL-lh2ht]

@@ungas024well according for most of history slavery is not just moral but preferred for those undesirables

[@ungas024]

​@@AL-lh2ht Correct, but it was the Christians who pushed to abolish slavery. So I don't know how the Atheists get the idea that slavery is bad.

[@varkeyvincent981]

Hi Brian, At 9:59 you made a statement "Slavery was disappearing from the Christendom but saw a resurgence after the advent of secularist movements" Could you provide evidence for that statement.

[@rogermills2467]

No, he can't.

[@ungas024]

Timeline of Abolition of Slavery: 590-604 AD "Pope Gregory I bans Jews from owning Christian slaves" 7th century "Queen Balthild, a former slave, and the Council of Chalon-sur-Saône (644-655) condemn the enslavement of Christians. Balthild purchases slaves, mostly Saxon, and manumits (frees) them." 741-752 AD "Pope Zachary bans the sale of Christian slaves to Muslims, purchases all slaves acquired in the city by Venetian traders, and sets them free." 840 AD "Pactum Lotharii: Venice pledges to neither buy Christian slaves in the Empire, nor sell them to Muslims. Venetian slavers switch to trading Slavs from the East." 873 AD "Pope John VIII declares the enslavement of fellow Christians a sin and commands their release." 900 AD "Emperor Leo VI the Wise prohibits voluntary self-enslavement and commands that such contracts shall be null and void and punishable by flagellation for both parties to the contract." 960 AD "Venice: Slave trade banned in the city under the rule of Doge Pietro IV Candiano." 1080 AD "England: William the Conqueror prohibits the sale of any person to "heathens" (non-Christians) as slaves." 1100 AD "Normandy: Serfdom no longer present." 1102 AD "England: The Council of London bans the slave trade: "Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals." From this point onward it was followed the banning of slavery and serfdom by the whole of Christendom such as Norway, Ireland, France, Korcula (Croatia), Aragon (Spain), Holy Roman Empire, Bologna (Italy), Sweden, Poland, Ragusa (Croatia), Castille (Spain), Galicia (Spain), New World (North America and South America) "Pope Paul III forbids slavery of the indigenous peoples of the Americas and any other population to be discovered, establishing their right to freedom and property (Sublimis Deus).", Portugal etc. Slavery was re-introduced to Western culture during the rise of the Enlightenment period from 1700 to 1802.

[@Charlotte_Martel]

The vast majority of slave owners in the American South were devout Christians and cited the Bible for the legitimacy for the institution of slavery, sooo

[@DA_Karas]

The atheistic Soviet Union is an obvious example to start with.

[@Charlotte_Martel]

@@DA_Karas Really? I have relatives in Eastern Europe, and none of them remember the slave markets of Moscow in which human beings were bought and sold like animals.

[@jacobw5460]

My problem is that there's no evidence for God in my daily life, nothing tells me God is real much less Jesus and Christianity being true outside of a book sitting on my bookshelf. I don't see evidence for supernatural things being real, prayers being answered. Jesus doesn't speak to me or anyone else, many of the miracles seen in the Bible never happen today. The world isn't how it was in the Bible and things don't line up. I want to believe in God but I don't know how.

[@werewolfking2249]

Read the chapter revelations. Look at how the bible says the government will come out with the mark of the beast.. at the Sametime the world economic form is trying to get rid of the dollar they are trying to make a one world order just like how it says in the bible. . They don't want you to find God it's up to you to look for him he will find you

[@phillippirrip4581]

Tbf, all the miracles in the bible never happened back then either. Just made up tales to control the masses.

[@sweetpeabrown261]

Any honest person will advise you to continue on your quest of discovery. I'm an atheist and a skeptic. You are right that the Bible "doesn't line up". I keep waiting for a theists to provide me with sufficient evidence, who know? It could b be somewhere. . . or not. Live a good and honorable life in the mean time, or you will not attract good and honorable people to surround you!

[@newglof9558]

@@sweetpeabrown261 sufficient evidence is out there. Aquinas' Five Ways, Aristotelian argument, Scotist argument, Platonic argument - they're all out there, you must not be looking very hard.

[@kevynlevi9894]

​@@newglof9558so is evolution who contradicts with a view of creation of the bible, so is dozens of atheist philosophers who disagrees with an idea of christian God, such as Bertrand Russel or Nietzsche.

[@Ammoder1]

"wrong" means undesirable outcome. If somebody was a slave, one would find it rather uncomfortable. Slaveowners could've achieve better economical results with motivated workers

[@xavier84623]

7:12 no. just, no. that literally is not what circular reasoning is. circular reasoning is when you reference the thing itself, referencing a couple other things to create a definition is not circular reasoning, its every definition ever.

[@xavier84623]

7:56 oh no, you said morality is a standard of truth that exist, thats referencing something else, so according to your definition of circular reasoning, your reasoning is circular, because you dont understand what circular reasoning is.

[@kristansmith1757]

I think empathy is a perfectly good explanation for morality, isnt it? "Do unto others" is a pretty self-evident golden rule that leads to people behaving decently towards each other by default. Wouldnt it have been obvious from very early on that antisocial behaviour got you cast out of the group?

[@MyContext]

There is "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" and there is "Do unto others as they would have done unto themselves". Neither are perfect, but the later is better than the first, since the first presumes that others are like one's self and that need no be the case.

[@NottherealLucifer]

​@@MyContextIncorrect. The latter requires not only that you deeply understand every other human on the planet, which is impossible, but it also implies everyone is the arbiter of how other's treat them. Should you be forced to whip someone for their Se ham gratification because they want people to? No, fucking obviously not. The former, however, isn't meant to be take absolutely literally, unlike the latter. "Treat other's the way you want to be treated." actually means "treat others the way a regular, non-psychotic, person would want to be treated." There are always outliers and exceptions to any statement, but the basic premise of the former is better than the basic premise of the latter. An asshole will always want to be treated like a king, and there's no reason to give them that treatment.

[@MyContext]

@@NottherealLucifer The moment one imposes whatever notion beyond a plain reading, there is no end to what could be claimed. So, my commentary is about a plain reading and the implications of that.

[@josefarrington]

4:10 Morality is what prevents suffering that decreases human well being.

[@perseo7954]

Why?

[@niemand7811]

@@perseo7954 We are a social species. The more contribute to the well being of an entire social body the easier we get things done. That you even had to ask "why" makes me worry about you.

[@perseo7954]

@@niemand7811 That's just pragmatism, and «wellbeing» is just too ambiguous. Besides, what if your goal is to seek for the well being of your family rather than that of your country and environment? You really can't justify transcendental ethics with your semantics, the closest thing we can possible get is the imperative principle

[@niemand7811]

@@perseo7954 Oh man, the hell do you really know and care after all? I talk about the wellbeing of "mankind". Your thinking is tied to a mere local area. Get out of your living room, physically and spiritually, when you talk to other people. "semantics", the ultimate deflection when you are a careless idiot. Your loss. If you don't care - shut up. For the mental wellbeing of others!

[@josefarrington]

Wellbeign is not ambiguous. There are common mental states that people experience when they are healthy and happy. How to produce those states depends on the situation. Sam Harris talks about these states in the book "The Moral Landscape" Also the term "human wellbeing" implies the social wellbeign. Now how to balance the wellbeing of society, enviroment and your family is a constant debate in politics.

[@alanbiker5838]

Viced Rhino answered everything you said in this video, and showed how wrong your definitions and views are.

[@dechha1981]

Instead of trying to “disprove Atheism” without out actually adressing Atheism, why not just prove Theism? Wouldn’t proving gods exist be easier? WAY fewer subfactions and nuance to worry about.

[@blackdogsheep5631]

7:12 - The LOGIC of Atheist Morality - I don't screw my neighbor over because I don't know whenever I am going to need help. I don't screw my customer over because then I won't have any. etc, etc, etc........

[@BrianHoldsworth]

That's not logic. It's just presuppositions. What's your logical evidence for those statements?

[@blackdogsheep5631]

@@BrianHoldsworth It is logic. If i am bad to my customers, I won't have customers. Not If I think i do wrong by my customers I won't have customers. See the difference.

[@BrianHoldsworth]

@blackdogsheep5631 Again, no that's not logic. It's just statements. And it's not empiracle evidence which is the kind demanded by atheistic materialism. It's ok if you don't understand the assignment, but don't mistake your misunderstanding for triumph.

[@blackdogsheep5631]

Is see. So, the only answer you accept is god did it.

[@thepavlovguy7379]

@@BrianHoldsworth I’ve read a few of your comments now, please stop trying to do philosophy. Here is the logical argument this person is making. First premise, I do bad to my customers, second premise customers don’t like those that do bad to them, conclusion doing bad to my customers leaves me with no customers. This is the logical argument if you want to disagree, attack it don’t say it’s not logical. Also learn the definition for presuppositions.

[@j.a.n.e.n]

Morality is not doing to others what you do not want them to do to you. I don't see how this isn't logical?

[@hanntonn2]

What if you are strong enough that nobody can do to you what you do to them? Why would you care what they can do to you? This definition is fine as a starting point, but it doesn't stand on its own. Once tyrants lose the fear of what others can do to them, they become evil because there is no more reason for them to follow that definition of morality. A good definition of morality is supposed to work regardless of your level of power.

[@BigIdeaSeeker]

@@hanntonn2Nobody is or can be that strong. But even weak people with a position of power can abandon morality under this definition. That makes them immoral, it does not make the definition here irrelevant or invalid.

[@j.a.n.e.n]

​​@@hanntonn2But this is exactly what happens in the real world. The most immoral people are always the ones with power.

[@sweetpeabrown261]

@@BigIdeaSeeker It is interesting that you find Jesus' riff on the golden rule to be lacking. "Do unto others. . . "

[@BigIdeaSeeker]

@@sweetpeabrown261 I believe you responded to the wrong person. Meant to tag the OP? Let me know if I’m mistaken and I’ll make efforts to clarify.

[@jimdietrick1681]

Theists talking about the "incoherence of atheism". Is laughably self unaware! To answer your question- not according to your "buybull" in fact Exodus specifically promotes it. Yes, slavery is wrong. This man is ridiculously inane and lost.

[@palladin1337]

Slavery is wrong, full stop. None of these games you're playing does anything but demonstrate that you have no actual way to defend the fact that your own faith condones the practice if we interpret it literally. And the fact that you're insisting on these stupid word games tells me you recognize the issue, but can't admit that your position may be flawed and are instead trying desperately to find some way out.

[@makescode]

I believe an action is immoral if it is likely to cause others to experience greater suffering. Not just suffering. Greater suffering. A dentist may cause a degree of suffering in a patient, but the patient is presumably likely to suffer less overall.

[@makescode]

And if it needs to be said, I'm quite convinced the practice of slavery inevitably leads to greater suffering for more people and is therefore wrong.

[@MrPeaceGuy54]

I agree. I would only add that the fact that an action causes less suffering also means it creates more positive experiences (such as being in a state wherein one has healthy teeth). This is why the action is morally good.

[@hanntonn2]

With this definition it would be justified to torture a single person if it results in a greater diminishing of suffering in the larger population. For example during a war, you would be allowed to torture a captured prisoner if it ends the war faster and less people die. Problem is also that a single action could be perceived as evil or good based on the outcome, which makes no sense. A moral action should be good regardless of outcome.

[@MrPeaceGuy54]

@@hanntonn2 Extreme thought experiments can be created everywhere. For example, saying that harming someone is always wrong, even if it benefits many people, could justify the view that it is permissible to allow millions of innocent people to be deprived of all happiness if it prevents the suffering of one person.

[@makescode]

@@hanntonn2 You would have to be convinced that the prisoner had information that would lead to ending the conflict sooner and/or with less bloodshed and that the prisoner would give it up under torture, but yes, with those caveats, I agree. The problem with most such torture is that there is often no reason to believe that it will achieve the higher goal, making it torture for its own sake, rendering it very immoral.

[@markallen8022]

Funny, how atheists don’t seem to have any problems, saying that slavery is wrong. Brian , on the other hand never states whether he believes it slavery is wrong.

[@moonytheloony6516]

So slavery became a thing again because of science and secularism, which somehow removed the belief or acknowledgement of a soul? He did not demonstrate how they influenced or caused slavery...at all. Slave owners were secular? Really? All of them? Most of them? And how would one demonstrate that? This presentation lacked explanation and evidence. If one cannot explain it in ten minutes then one shouldn't try to do it...which is exactly what took place here.

[@markpugner9716]

Why ten minutes? Why not 9? or eleven?

[@MathewSteeleAtheology]

When believers can establish that they actually have an objective moral authority that exists, I'll take this question seriously. In reality, all you need is belief in an objective moral authority to get the exact same results.

[@Angelmou]

Subjective morality is at least natural grounded, the imagined supersubjective morality outside of nature by some disconnected moods of a (or more) supersubjects (god/s) remain slogans and buzzwords without any grounding.

[@Слышьты-ф4ю]

Chinese legalists were right. No ideal can be reached, the only possible thing is conquering the world (also, they were _honest politicians_ and didn't care for your nationality if you had skills useful to conquer the world. And perfectly cynical/pragmatic about everything else.)

[@drinjj]

Quite the bait and switch there when you define morality. You just spent half the video attacking the standard of atheists and when came your turn instead of talking about what is your standard you switch to defining morality. As if we had any disagreement with that. We define morality the same way you do. It's also important to point out that nothing you said about our standard, true or not, is solved by your god. Even if I was to grant you that he exist, the only reason his standard would be "better" is because might make right. Finally, you might want to recheck that info about slavery and secularism. There is not even correlation between the two, much less causation. If anything it's the opposite.

[@hicks727]

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. So saith the lord.

[@sweetpeabrown261]

Yup.

[@AL-lh2ht]

Also don’t forgot the incest.

[@GranMaese]

Yep, very first attempts at human rights and to protect the lower classes in a society where slaves and violence were a given. God bless the Bible for shining light upon humanity. That it flies over your head, that's on you.

[@newglof9558]

"Haha I cherrypick Bible verses without context, I win"

[@hicks727]

@@newglof9558 and what would that context be?

[@AndrewIMartinez]

I'm sure you and I agree that slavery is wrong. But more than that, if your question is why I think that, then my answer is simple: for the exact same reason you do. Because here's the thing: you DON'T believe that slavery is wrong because of the Bible or because of Catholicism or because of god. Your belief that slavery is wrong COULDN'T have come from those places, because the Bible doesn't ever condemn slavery and, in fact, repeatedly supports and condones it. So if we agree that slavery is wrong, it's because we've both reached that conclusion on some grounds independent of religion.

[@paulburns6110]

Just because we can merely agree that slavery is objectively wrong (eg worthy of sanction or moral contempt), does not make it so. Moreover as neither agnostic, nor defiantly faithful atheist has come up with a non-religious basis to support their morally indignant objection to slavery- they have therefore been unable to satisfy their own burdens of proof. Hence I’m keen to please know what evidence or reasons that may possibly demonstrate the actual existence of a non-religious basis (eg one that denies a transcendent God) for saying that slavery is objectively wrong. If someone can finally demonstrate that then thanks in advance. God bless.

[@ashleyvanbeek7045]

Is slavery wrong? Not objectively, as there is no objective morality. A person's morality is that which they think is right or wrong. Some people try to justify their morality by saying that morality is whatever is the most beneficial to the most people, while others justify their morality by cherry-picking ancient "holy" books and claiming that whatever is said in them is by definition moral. But so long as you cannot provide any evidence that objective morality exists, there is no reason to assume that morality is anything but a person's feelings. That said, i am of the opinion that owning another person is always wrong in every situation and that anyone who feels otherwise is a piece of garbage who should be locked up

[@pajamasflannel]

Can Catholics answer why they should be believed when some of their most revered Church fathers advocated coercion, torture and murder of accused heretics?

[@MikePasqqsaPekiM]

Books can (and have) been written on this, but here's a simple response, since we're on KZbin..."...when SOME of their most revered..." ... even if conceding the assertion is true, that at least two or more Church Father advocated for things like torture and murder, the assertion admits that some Church Fathers DID NOT. The reality is that we believe that Truth, Love, morality, and many other things DO NOT originate with people, but are merely confessed by, and emulated by, people. We believe that the source of our faith is God Himself, not the source of mortal men. The Church Father did not say "look at us and what we know" but instead confessed "look at the Blessed Trinity and what God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit has revealed to mankind." it would be like if a farmer actually encountered a UFO and told people about it...we would listen to the farmer, then start our own journey to try and discover the whole truth. The Church Fathers point to something larger than themselves. They're not the Message, they're messengers, whose accounts have great qualities in them, even if some of their individual perspectives or beliefs are not dogma or doctrine for the universal Church. Okay, that's the best I can do in 5 minutes, hope you have a great day!

[@realDonaldMcElvy]

Bad Christians do not make a Bad Christianity.

[@bookishbrendan8875]

Dumb take. That there were and are bad Christians says nothing about the claims of the religion.

[@undolf4097]

Catholics don’t claim that bad people don’t exist 😅

[@pajamasflannel]

@@bookishbrendan8875 I am sorry. I wish it was not so that vicars of Christ and Saints advocated horribly painful, worldly punishments in between, say, their Eucharistic services. Hearing of that history and being terrified and concrete by it is a take but not a dumb one.

[@Drudenfusz]

Why should an atheists, even one by that very narrow definition not be capable to answer this question? I mean eve if someone would answer that it is not wrong, that would be an answer still. Slavery is wrong, just as much as racism is wrong, it is arbitrarily assigning less value to certain people without. In that sense it is especially appropriate for the kind of atheist you talk about to think it is wrong, since slavery and racism are not based upon any real properties of those people, but is just as imaginary as your deity. That is why racism and slavery are usually committed by religious people who think they are better than others. And well, that also means you have no leg to stand on regarding that question, since your deity failed to declare slavery wrong, so how do you know that it is wrong?

[@sweetpeabrown261]

Even if we all agree that slavery is wrong, if the God of the bible facilitates, in the OT, and makes no commandments against it anywhere, that can't be a good look. Those issues are hard for me to reconcile.

[@marklyons3125]

I am Catholic and I am disappointed when Christians claim morality comes from religion or the Bible. Chimps have ways of acting in their groups that keep order and foster the best chance each individual survives by what is best for the group of individuals. We could call this chimp morality. Wolves have cooperation in their pack. Honey bees don't have religion but work together. This cooperation among animals is more complex as you get to more complex or intelligent species. At some point cooperation becomes morality. It is not unique to humans. Now, I would argue it still comes from God, but though the laws of nature.

[@baskeptic1161]

Seems to me that empathy and cooperation are survival advantages for social species. Why do you think a god is behind it? Why not natural selection?

[@williamanderson7757]

Animals do these things because they benefit the survival chances of the species. It is an evolutionary thing

[@GranMaese]

Brother, I get what you are trying to say, but you should notice no true Christian claims the basis of morality comes from religion or the Bible [that's mainly a protestant thing], but that our religion and the Bible are what make sense out of it and allows us to properly experience it and rejoice in it. Ultimately it all comes from God. Also one needs consciousness in order to understand morality itself and to be called a moral being. Hence, animals are not moral, though they are subject to its effects, as everything in Creation, as you well said.

[@DemiImp]

​@@GranMaeseAnimals are conscious. Just because they likely don't have the capacity of higher level thought (metacognition) doesn't mean they can't reason right from wrong. Consciousness is not an on/off or yes/no, but rather a gradient.

[@whitevortex8323]

I don't hold morality comes from the Bible but rather it is embedded in the hearts of Man by God and found in observance of natural law to a degree, but then also has been given further clarity through Sacred Scripture. I would argue that there are limits to morality based on "what is best for a group of individuals" for example, Suicide, Euthanasia Prostitution, contraceptive Incest or bestiality, a meritocratic system which neglects the needs of the weak, poor and disabled. In addition, it is found even in animals certain behaviours such as rape so the idea that morality can be formed based on co-operation is first not true and could ultimately lead to a moral system where if a person is incapable of co-operating or has a lower capacity to co-operate it may be so called better to not exist, and even if somehow it is a framework for morality then it is just arbitrary and not an objective truth.

[@MyCheeseHurts]

One's views on morality has little to do with one's belief (or non belief) in religion. Just because subscribers to the Abrahamic faiths rely on divine revelation (which is incoherent by asking the simple question: are the moral rulings in scripture moral because God said so or because they are inherently moral, if the former then objective moral values don't exist, if the latter then morality supercedes god) It's like asking a frog what it's views on ice cream are. Your question (no matter how stupid) should be directed to moral objectivists not athiest.

[@xavier84623]

social expectations are not the same as laws written by states.

[@PT-fr7cq]

This dude spends 12 minutes explaining why he's not satisfied with the answers atheists give him about why slavery is wrong WHILE WORSHIPPING A GOD THAT ENDORESES IT IN THE BIBLE, and doesn't need to question why he kneels at the foot of a "moral" being who tells you you can pass down people as inheritance because they are property. That you can beat them as much as you want as long as they don't die in 3 days... I don't think you have the mental capacity to have this conversation if you can't see how ludicrous it is for you to even ask that question given the stance your God has in the matter.

[@bradleyadams9430]

This gentlemen sounds very intelligent when he speaks but I have listened to this about 6 times and I have no idea what his point is. He makes me think of a cross between William Lane Craig and Jordan Peterson. Is he claiming that humans only have morals because they have a soul? What about a soul would cause morality? Is the claim that only humans who believe that all humans have a soul are capable of having morals? I'm pretty sure the slave owners back in the colonel south were majority Christian and believed in the soul. Do nonhuman animals have a soul because some seem to have a basic understanding of right and wrong and seem to have empathy towards one another. I know my dogs know when they have done something wrong. No one has ever demonstrated a soul. Before you could make the claim that morals come from having a soul (or whatever his point is???) wouldn't he need to demonstrate that souls exist?

[@BrianHoldsworth]

The point is that morality cannot be accounted for empirically and if that's your standard of evidence, then you cannot say that slavery is wrong and expect anyone to care about what you're saying any more than if you said, chocolate ice cream is my favourite.

[@bradleyadams9430]

@@BrianHoldsworth I don't believe in a soul or the supernatural but when someone tells me that being owned is wrong I agree because I would not want to be owned. I admit I am not a trained philosopher so I'm not good at reasoning myself out of a position to seems obvious. Where do you believe morals come from and are you suggesting that a soul is required for morality to exist?

[@bradleyadams9430]

@@BrianHoldsworth thank you very much for engaging!!! I truly believe you are a very intelligent person and I hope we can chat a little. Bouncing my thoughts and opinions off a thoughtful person and getting fed back is good for my mental health these days when it seems everyone has lost their mind lol

[@AnthonySimeone]

Ask slaves if they want to be slaves. That's measuring morality in this case, my man. The fact you need that explained to you is about as scary as your zombie god.

[@enlightenmenttyrant6662]

There's a big historical error in this video. Renaissance humanists were virtually all devout Christians who believed in immortal souls. So were most, but not all, Enlightenment thinkers.

[@AL-lh2ht]

It’s more complicated then this. They believed in a different ideology where they didn’t believe in the magic aspects of the Bible and focused on rationalism. Also religion as identity was so important it was the equivalent of what ethnic group you were.

[@b.melakail]

What type of Christian were they predominantly?

[@BigIdeaSeeker]

Also, the subject of slavery in Medieval Europe is nuanced, but it existed. Serfdom was a form of slavery to begin with. But more to the point, Christian’s tended not to enslave coreligionists. Thus, Muslims were held by Christians as slaves and vice versa. This allegiance to fellow believers makes sense of the rise of slavery with the clash of cultures during the age of exploration. Further, the attitudes of the conquistadors and exploration in general throughout the globe was fueled by a Christian/Catholic convert or conquer mentality. Shoddy work by Brian here claiming medieval slavery was non-existent and rose with the scientific age. History is not so simple.

[@Charlotte_Martel]

Another HUGE historical error (or at least omission): Brian cites the ancient pagan civilisations of Greek and Rome as being "based on slavery," but apparently the ancient Hebrews had no problem enslaving other tribes or even their own fellows. Clearly, having an entire society based on God was not enough to convince them that slavery was immoral. It's almost as if our sense of morality reflects the times in which we live and is not actually based on divine mandates.

[@DA_Karas]

@@BigIdeaSeeker Brian is right that slavery was abolished in Medieval Europe by the Catholic Church. It was the first organization in the world to outlaw slavery. The slave trade was almost exclusively a Jewish institution. The very idea that people in the 16th century were actively debating whether slavery was wrong was revolutionary and proof positive that the Catholic Church forever changed the conversation. Before Christianity, Antiquity was a brutal, barbaric existence for most. Monarchs were basically warlords with mercenaries that villagers paid tributes to as protection money from neighboring tribes. If you were conquered, all the men were killed or enslaved, the women were raped and/or forced to marry the invading soldiers. This was the norm! You guys need to spend more time reading the history of ideas developed over time. Do you realize slavery is still an issue in Israel, Islamic countries, and even the Buddist state of India? Remember that next time you are doing the praying mantis on your yoga mat.

[@Sathrandur]

CS Lewis made some arguments that seem to me very relevant to this issue. 'Religion Without Dogma?' (1946) and 'Vivisection' (1947) are two essays worth reading. Both can be found in an excellent compilation of CS Lewis essays titled 'Compelling Reason'. EDIT: The essay on vivisection is not really relevant, but does, with its line of reasoning, pose questions that atheists would need to consider.

[@RustyWalker]

He answers the question himself but doesn't like it. He says we have to say pain is an evil or there can be no discussion but contradicts himself by talking about the relief of pain as a sentiment. I agree. Thus, we *don't* have to accept pain is an evil after all. We can just accept axiomatically that reducing human suffering is an end worth pursuing, within certain reason and scope. Relieving pain in humans is a sentiment that we agree on because we are human. There's no deepity here. We use animals to reduce _human_ suffering, but if we want to be ethical, we only cause that which is necessary and no more. We don't wish to cause gratuitous suffering, which is why animal testing for cosmetics fails the ethical test for many people, but animal testing for essential, lifesaving medical research for people does not. Is this a _logical_ reason not to cause animal suffering in order to prevent human suffering? Only after we accept the axiom. Lewis then tries to poison the well against naturalism by arguing from race and making out what the ends of naturalism and evolution would be, namely sacrificing inferior men (by which he means humans, not just men), to improve the lives of superior men. There is no inferior and superior in evolution, so Lewis is just wrong. His attempt to use Godwin's Law just makes him look like a fool. And let's just reflect the breath-taking double-standard where he says, and I summarise, "If God says I can vivisect animals to help people, it's ok, because God made us superior to the animals." But let's recall that Christians believed in the mark of Cain until just recently, so what if the vivsectionist thought God said it was okay to vivisect lesser humans that had been cursed? Have we forgotten the horrors of human experimentation carried out in _Christian_ countries founded on this false belief? The man was an utter hypocrite!

[@csurams84]

Christians only believed in the mark of Cain until just recently? Did they stop??? Lol Also, you are forgetting that God is sovereign. If a vivisectionist thought God said something it doesn't mean that God actually said it. Maybe the vivisectionist is a psychopath who hears voices. God is never in error, only people can be in error.

[@Mythraen]

lol, "atheist would need to consider." Do you even recognize how arrogant and condescending you are? It's a lot easier to form a consistent and reasonable worldview without having to account for all the nonsense that god-believers have to reconcile.

[@psilynt1]

I thought the "questions for atheists" meme was dead years ago. But sure, I'm in that category and I'll answer. "Yes, slavery is wrong by our modern society." If you were hoping I'd leave out the "by our modern society" bit, sorry. You can't have a right or a wrong without a standard. Sometimes when Christians are asking me "is good/bad (or right/wrong)" they already have an expected standard in their mind. If your question was meant to be "Is slavery wrong (by the standards of the God described in the bible)?" then I guess your answer is "Depends on circumstances." You really can't have a right or a wrong without a standard. If you think you can, that's nonsensical. Just like having a "bad shovel". Bad FOR WHAT? Presumably digging. When you ask "Is slavery wrong?" the assumption is you are talking about current standards. You said "morality is a standard", which is entirely nonsensical. Morality is something that NEEDS DEFINED BY A STANDARD. Morality is not a constant, absolute thing. That's why humans don't univresally agree upon what is right or wrong.

[@tomasrocha6139]

The bible condemns slavery? It's a slave-beating manual! Exodus 21:20-21 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

[@dogon1038]

Only looking through the comments to see how many people respond positively to the is slavery wrong question. he defended it, for an uncomfortable amount of time.

[@JB-yb4wn]

These people seem to be bending slavery into some esoteric, eighth plane of awareness philosophy "what are morals? is there good and evil?" without actually admitting that their holy screed got it so blessedly wrong.

[@kevinburke1325]

When you learn that everyone lives on earth for a super short amount of time and that only the afterlife matters.

[@JB-yb4wn]

@@kevinburke1325 Prove there is an afterlife, I dare you.

[@kevinburke1325]

@JB-yb4wn that's easy, heaven is for real movie and Akiane the painter proves that.

[@JB-yb4wn]

@@kevinburke1325 Well she does paint very well, I am shocked that we still have good portrait artists around. I would love to buy the original oil of the Tokyo Chef. But as heavenly as these paintings may be, it isn't proof of an afterlife.

[@tomperone9338]

So in summary, word games: therefore God. Gotta say, that's not exactly an original approach.

[@yxtqwf]

4:30 what if you instead defined morality by the net suffering caused? I think that would be a fairly accurate definition. Or atheists could say that there is no objective morality, which also does not lead to any logical contradictions.

[@AL-lh2ht]

Morality is idealogical based.

[@markmorris8532]

​@@AL-lh2ht And?

[@sweetpeabrown261]

If a "subject", a god, is responsible for dictating morality, then morality is subjective. If morality is "objective" it must exists independent of all entities, and it may be discovered by humans or gods. . . a god is not a necessary source. And besides, moral imperatives issued by an entity in power is simply issued by "fiat". . . completely subjective, as I said above. That is what Euthyphro defined as possible moral sources nearly 2500 years ago. Check him out.

[@oponentgull186others4]

@@AL-lh2htnot really. Looking at Christianity alone, which claims to have a moral system. Some hate gays and think they should die, some just want them to have less rights, some hate them but don’t say anything, some are ok with them. Some say the mother can’t abort a baby, some say the mother can. How can you claim an objective morality when there are 2 sides to every moral issue?

[@sol_stapleton]

yes this is what i tend to think about morality, my view is that if you have a subjective moral core (for example human well being) then you can make objective moral statements (slavery is wrong).

[@vladtheemailer3223]

Try being honest.

[@KrazyKaiser]

"I don't seem to be able to find one *that is satisfying.*" Ahh, so they exists, you just don't like them.

[@HuxtableK]

And the reason he doesn't like them is those other answers don't use his god as a moral backdrop.

[@Enzo_213]

Brian this was one of your best videos. A very good exposition of the "Moral Argument".

[@darrylelam256]

This is the same old bad question that atheists have answered over and over.

[@mathfrom0to96]

​@TheRealCatofwe don't, morality is objective through natural law, which God gave us. Same for you, then.

[@mathfrom0to96]

@TheRealCatof yeah, but free will exists which is why there's beliefs such as indifferentism and relativism.

[@mathfrom0to96]

@TheRealCatof whose morals? we can be dis-educated from it and we can deform it but it's still the correct logic we're born with, and it's the objective truth. We must do good and not do bad. Btw, for every law there's a legislator.

[@mathfrom0to96]

@TheRealCatof natural law is empathy? Oh, please read some St. Thomas Aquinas, no need to be christian to read.

[@bookishbrendan8875]

Five bucks says RR catches a whiff of this. . . 🙄

[@bobp5904]

This should be titled "A question Brian won't answer" god says slavery is fine! If you want the truth, don't just take some KZbinrs word for it. read the book.

[@lanetrain]

Slavery is a reality throughout human history. God never says slavery is a good thing. If you're interested I would recommend the book of Philemon as well as the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18.

[@eventhisidistaken]

In fairness, there is no evidence that any gods ever had anything to do with human communications. Ancient men thought slavery was fine, and even wrote regulations in religious books incorporated into the modern "Bible" to regulate it.

[@darrylelam256]

​@@lanetraingod lays out rules for owning slaves. Who can be taken as slaves, who are tempted slaves and who are permanent slaves, it even has rules to blackmail temp slaves into becoming permanent slaves. That is an undeniable endorsement of slavery. Please try again when you get some morals.

[@lanetrain]

@@darrylelam256 I think this is a rather ignorant thing to say. Slavery existed prior the institution of Mosaic Law, so since the Bible didn't institute it, all you're saying is that the Bible does not outright prohibit it. It in no way encourages slavery. If you read it that way, that's on you. Most of what's written is about treating slaves well (set free in 7th year, treat them as hired workers, release them well-supplied, do not treat them harshly, etc). That's not an endorsement, that's curbing the natural tendency of humans to be cruel to one another. It basically laid the groundwork for abolition, which is why most abolitionists were Christians. It's also important to keep in mind that much of the slavery spoken of from Biblical times was not chattel slavery but more akin to indentured servitude. 2000 years ago there weren't people fighting to end slavery. If you'd been alive way back then, I can promise you, you would have been just fine with slavery, just like everyone else. We have the benefit of hindsight. Have a little humility.

[@darrylelam256]

@lanetrain "I think this is a rather ignorant thing to say.' Nope its an accurate way to say it. "Slavery existed prior the institution of Mosaic Law," So what, Mosaic Law was used to justify it. "so since the Bible didn't institute it" Yes it did, the bible just didn't invent it. "all you're saying is that the Bible does not outright prohibit it." Go back an reread what I posted because that's not at all what I said. "It in no way encourages slavery." Yes it does as it literally tells you who you can take as slaves. "Most of what's written is about treating slaves well" And you think that's a new thing? Most types of slavery as rules about how to treat slaves well. "set free in 7th year, treat them as hired workers" And that was ONLY for the lsraelite men. it did not apple to the women or foreigners. Your sh!t book even describes how to blackmail lsraelite men into becoming slaves for life. So you are wrong in everyway possible. "do not treat them harshly," It says you an beat them so long as they don't die in a few days. That's treating them harshly. "That's not an endorsement" Yes it is. "the slavery spoken of from Biblical times was not chattel slavery" Yes it was. "but more akin to indentured servitude." That was ONLY for the lsraelite men. "2000 years ago there weren't people fighting to end slavery." So your god had to endorse instead of telling them to put a stop to it? Don't you claim that god can do literally anything? et somehow your god lacks the power to tell others that they shouldn't own other people. "you would have been just fine with slavery" Nope I would of been a foreigner and I would of been made a life long slave that ccould be beaten as long as I didn't die within a few days. "We have the benefit of hindsight." Yet you claim that god is all-knowing, meaning that everything would be hindsight to him yet there was nothing about how owning other people as property was and how we shouldn't do it. Please come back when you get a clue because refuting your nonsense is so easy that its really just a waste of time. luckily I'm needing to waste some time atm lol.

[@xavier84623]

4:10 this part is so bad. the whole minute following this. they defined morality, and then you pretend their definition is invalid by not understanding it, pretending like wellbeing and suffering are to complicated of words to wrap your head around. obviously getting healthy creates net good, you suffer a tiny bit, but get healthy, increasing you wellbeing. how can you not get that????

[@nathanstafford8412]

"If you're saying [slavery] ought NOT to exist, then you're appealing to some invisible standard that can't be measured imperically, that is used to judge potentials like slavery, or NOT slavery, and saying that one should be willed, and the other opposed." It's worth noting that Christianity does this too